Description of document: National Park Service (NPS) Intermountain Region (IMR) Office weekly reports sent to the NPS National Office, January 1 - August 31, 2017 Requested date: 31-August-2017 Release date: 16-March-2018 Posted date: 17-June-2019 Source of document: FOIA Request Intermountain Region (IMR) National Park Service P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225 The governmentattic.org web site (“the site”) is a First Amendment free speech web site, and is noncommercial and free to the public. The site and materials made available on the site, such as this file, are for reference only. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals have made every effort to make this information as complete and as accurate as possible, however, there may be mistakes and omissions, both typographical and in content. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage caused, or alleged to have been caused, directly or indirectly, by the information provided on the governmentattic.org web site or in this file. The public records published on the site were obtained from government agencies using proper legal channels. Each document is identified as to the source. Any concerns about the contents of the site should be directed to the agency originating the document in question. GovernmentAttic.org is not responsible for the contents of documents published on the website. United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE INTERMOUNTAIN REGION 12795 West Alameda Parkway P.O. Box 25287 Denver, Colorado 80225-0287 March 16, 2018 Reference: National Park Service Intermountain Region, Reports Subject: Freedom oflnformation Act Request NPS-2017-01264 This letter is in response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request dated Aug. 31, 2017, in which you requested weekly reports sent by the Intermountain Region Office to the National Park Service (NPS), National Office, from Jan. 1 to Aug. 31, 2017. We are writing today to respond to your request on behalf of the NPS. We have enclosed one file consisting of 89 pages, which is being released to you in part. Some of the information was withheld under FOIA Exemption 5, Exemption 6 and Exemption 7, subparts E and F. Exemption 5 allows an agency to withhold "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party ... in litigation with the agency." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). Exemption 5 therefore incorporates the privileges that protect materials from discovery in litigation, including the deliberative process, attorney work-product, attorney-client, and commercial information privileges. We are withholding portions of 18 pages in part under Exemption 5 because information included in those pages qualifies under the deliberative process privilege. The deliberative process privilege protects the decision-making process of government agencies and encourages the frank exchange of ideas on legal or policy matters by ensuring agencies are not forced to operate in a fish bowl. A number of policy purposes have been attributed to the deliberative process privilege. Among the most important are to: (1) assure that subordinates will feel free to provide decision makers with their uninhibited opinions and recommendations; (2) protect against premature disclosure of proposed policies; and (3) protect against confusing the issues and misleading the public. The deliberative process privilege protects materials that are both pre-decisional and deliberative. The privilege covers records that reflect the give-and-take of the consultative process and may include recommendations, draft documents, proposals, suggestions, and other subjective documents, which reflect the personal opinions of the writer rather than the policy of the agency. The materials that have been withheld under the deliberative process privilege of Exemption 5 are both pre-decisional and deliberative. They do not contain or represent formal or informal agency policies or decisions. They are the result of frank and open discussions among employees of the Department of the Interior. Their contents have been held confidential by all parties and public dissemination of this information would expose the agency's decision-making process in such a way as to discourage candid discussion within the agency, and thereby undermine its ability to perform its mandated functions. The deliberative process privilege does not apply to records created 25 years or more before the date on which the records were requested. Exemption 6 allows an agency to withhold "personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). We are withholding portions of two pages in part under Exemption 6. The phrase "similar files" covers any agency records containing information about a particular individual that can be identified as applying to that individual. To determine whether releasing records containing information about a particular individual would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, we are required to balance the privacy interest that would be affected by disclosure against any public interest in the information. Under the FOIA, the only relevant public interest to consider under the exemption is the extent to which the information sought would shed light on an agency's performance of its statutory duties or otherwise let citizens 'know what their government is up to. The burden is on the requester to establish that disclosure would serve the public interest. When the privacy interest at stake and the public interest in disclosure have been determined, the two competing interests must be weighed against one another to determine which is the greater result of disclosure: the harm to personal privacy or the benefit to the public. The purposes for which the request for information is made do not impact this balancing test, as a release of information requested under the FOIA constitutes a release to the general public. The information that was withheld under Exemption 6 consists of personally identifiable information, and we have determined that the individual to whom this information pertains has a substantial privacy interest in withholding it. Additionally, you have not provided information that explains a relevant public interest under the FOIA in the disclosure of this personal information and we have determined that the disclosure of this information would shed little or no light on the performance of the agency's statutory duties. Because the harm to personal privacy is greater than whatever public interest may be served by disclosure, release of the information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of the privacy of this individual and we are withholding it under Exemption 6. Exemption 7 protects from disclosure "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes" if the records fall within one or more of six specific bases for withholding set forth in subparts (a) through (f). 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(a)-(f). The information on page three we are withholding under Exemption 7, is protected under subparts E and F. Exemption 7(E) protects law enforcement records if their release would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigation or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law. Exemption 7(F) protects law enforcement records if their release could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual. The information that was withheld under 7(E) and 7(F) include scope and outlines for security information, procedures and work orders, and would compromise the protection of our resources and endanger the life or physical safety of individuals. We reasonably foresee that disclosure would harm an interested party protected by one or more of the nine exemptions to the FOIA's general rule of disclosure. Vanessa Lacayo, NPS, Public Affairs Specialist is responsible for this partial denial. Dana Jacobsen, Michael Williams and Karen Dunnigan, Attorneys, in the Office of the Solicitor were consulted. We do not bill requesters for FOIA processing fees when their fees are less than $50.00, because the cost of collection would be greater than the fee collected. See 43 C.F.R. § 2.37(g). Therefore, there is no billable fee for the processing of this request. Because the NPS creates and maintains law enforcement records, we are required by the Department of Justice to provide the following information, even though it may or may not apply to your specific request. Congress excluded three discrete categories of law enforcement and national security records from the requirements of the FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. 552(c) (2006 & Supp. IV 2010). This response is limited to those records that are subject to the requirements of the FOIA. This is a standard notification that we are required to give all our requesters and should not be taken as an indication that excluded records do, or do not, exist. You may appeal this response to the Department's FOIA/Privacy Act Appeals Officer. If you choose to appeal, the FOIA/Privacy Act Appeals Officer must receive your FOIA appeal no later than 90 workdays from the date of this message. Appeals arriving or delivered after 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, will be deemed received on the next workday. Your appeal must be made in writing. You may submit your appeal and accompanying materials to the FOIA/Privacy Act Appeals Officer by mail, courier service, fax, or email. All communications concerning your appeal should be clearly marked with the words: "FREEDOM OF INFORMATION APPEAL." You must include an explanation of why you believe the NPS' response is in error. You must also include with your appeal copies of all correspondence between you and the NPS concerning your FOIA request, including your original FOIA request and NPS"s response.