Great news!

Thanks to the RAF and everyone who commented. Now, if they can only find some money for paving and camping facilities.

That's a good primer on getting there, too, Pierre. I'll have to try the Thai food in Bishop. I used to love flying Mammoth pass V230, but finally gave it up after a partial engine failure (not on that route). Now I fly down the central valley, through Tehachapi and up the Trona corridor. It takes an hour longer in my plane than the pass, but I can do it low (6,500') without supplemental O2, and there's never a nervous moment about where to put it down if I had to. But I do miss the scenery over the (actual) high Sierra.

CAVU

IMPORTANT UPDATE REGARDING STOVEPIPE WELLS

The NPS has just updated their environmental assessment and has reopened it for public comments. Regarding the airport, the new assessment proposes 2 approaches:

A) letting the current strip remain as-is until there is funding to convert it to a gravel strip. Pilots unable to land on gravel would be forced to land at Furnace Creek, whose runway is actually in much worse shape, with no future plan to upgrade.

B) (their preferred option) the runway would be completely removed and replaced with a night-sky viewing area on the present eastern side of the runway. Again...pilots would be forced to land at Furnace Creek (did I mention the crap runway with no upgrade plan?)

These proposals are part of a larger plan to revitalize the Stovepipe Wells area. Not much surprise, but both long term options are bad for us pavement-landers. If option A is chosen, delayed funding could stretch this out awhile. What irks me is that they want to recommend pilots to instead land at Furnace Creek, despite the fact that in 2020 the NPS advised pilots to land at Stovepipe Wells instead of Furnace Creek b/c of the poor runway conditions, LOL.

I encourage all pilots to leave a public comment. Comments can be made online thru February 28th here: parkplanning.nps.gov/StovepipeWellsPlan. Also, there is an online public meeting Wednesday, Feb 9 at 6pm pacific time here: https://go.nps.gov/SPW1

Supposedly, after this final public comment period, the NPS will move forward with one of these options.

Living in a gateway community for a National Park for the last 27 years, I can assure you that NPS will never stop until they get their way. They play the long game.

comment here
https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.c ... tID=118017

gbflyer wrote:Living in a gateway community for a National Park for the last 27 years, I can assure you that NPS will never stop until they get their way. They play the long game.

I concur.
Good example is the removal / genocide of the mountain goats in Olympic NP.

Well, my confidence in the NPS administration of DVNP and optimism that logic would prevail were clearly misplaced.

The NPS rationale for closing Stovepipe is bureaucratic Through the Looking Glass nonsense. The NPS is blaming it on the California CalTrans Division of Aeronautics because Caltrans recommended expanding the parking area and removing brush in order to meet FAA standards for runway clearances. That would cost money, both to do, and to conduct the Environmental Impact Study that would be needed. So, the NPS's preferred alternative is to get rid of the whole thing, except for a helipad. Never mind that there are countless other airstrips throughout California that don't meet the latest FAA standards, yet they somehow are allowed to keep operating. Did the NPS even talk to Caltrans? There's no mention of that in the report.

Throughout their report, the NPS claims that both Furnace Creek and Stovepipe are "lightly used." Compared to what? There's no acknowledgement that maybe usage is down due to their neglect of the pavement. The only negative impact they recognize from closing the strip is increased traffic at Furnace Creek, which would create more noise for the Timbisha Shoshone reservation to the south. Nothing about cutting off access to the public who uses the Stovepipe airstrip to go to the Mesquite Dune, Mosaic and other canyons, and other features nearby. Nothing about the value of fixed wing aircraft to provide support and emergency services when the highway is severed by storms, as happened not too long ago.

The "night sky" viewing area is patent B.S. Previously, I thought this was just about money. Unfortunately, given the complete lack of acknowledgement of the comments provided by the aviation community, it appears that someone has it in for General Aviation and wants to get rid of airplanes and access to the park.

The idea that Furnace Creek is a substitute for Stovepipe is as ridiculous as the need for someplace to view the night sky. There is no ground transportation (other than Farabee Jeeps for $325/day) at Furnace Creek that would enable visitors to go to the canyons of Tucki Mountain or the Mesquite Dune. Newsflash to the NPS: pilots aren't by definition rich folks. We make choices and sacrifices to pursue our passion. We don't all live in mansions, drive Teslas or $100k RVs to Death Valley, and have second homes on the lake. Many of us do have a love for wild places, and the flying that enables to get to them. All of us pay taxes on aviation fuel and facilities that are by law (at least) committed exclusively to maintain airports.

Needless to say, we all need to speak up and oppose the NPS's preferred alternative. Even if the NPS ignores our feedback, (which is now seems determined to do), one saving grace is their acknowledgement that they will have to go through a rule making procedure with the FAA in order to formally close the airstrip. Maybe, if that drags on long enough, common sense could prevail.

Based on the favorable, win-win outcome of the Chicken Strip, I thought we had a good partnership with the NPS. It appears I was wrong about that.

CAVU

CAVU wrote:Well, my confidence in the NPS administration of DVNP and optimism that logic would prevail were clearly misplaced.

The NPS rationale for closing Stovepipe is bureaucratic Through the Looking Glass nonsense. The NPS is blaming it on the California CalTrans Division of Aeronautics because Caltrans recommended expanding the parking area and removing brush in order to meet FAA standards for runway clearances. That would cost money, both to do, and to conduct the Environmental Impact Study that would be needed. So, the NPS's preferred alternative is to get rid of the whole thing, except for a helipad. Never mind that there are countless other airstrips throughout California that don't meet the latest FAA standards, yet they somehow are allowed to keep operating. Did the NPS even talk to Caltrans? There's no mention of that in the report.

Throughout their report, the NPS claims that both Furnace Creek and Stovepipe are "lightly used." Compared to what? There's no acknowledgement that maybe usage is down due to their neglect of the pavement. The only negative impact they recognize from closing the strip is increased traffic at Furnace Creek, which would create more noise for the Timbisha Shoshone reservation to the south. Nothing about cutting off access to the public who uses the Stovepipe airstrip to go to the Mesquite Dune, Mosaic and other canyons, and other features nearby. Nothing about the value of fixed wing aircraft to provide support and emergency services when the highway is severed by storms, as happened not too long ago.

The "night sky" viewing area is patent B.S. Previously, I thought this was just about money. Unfortunately, given the complete lack of acknowledgement of the comments provided by the aviation community, it appears that someone has it in for General Aviation and wants to get rid of airplanes and access to the park.

The idea that Furnace Creek is a substitute for Stovepipe is as ridiculous as the need for someplace to view the night sky. There is no ground transportation (other than Farabee Jeeps for $325/day) at Furnace Creek that would enable visitors to go to the canyons of Tucki Mountain or the Mesquite Dune. Newsflash to the NPS: pilots aren't by definition rich folks. We make choices and sacrifices to pursue our passion. We don't all live in mansions, drive Teslas or $100k RVs to Death Valley, and have second homes on the lake. Many of us do have a love for wild places, and the flying that enables to get to them. All of us pay taxes on aviation fuel and facilities that are by law (at least) committed exclusively to maintain airports.

Needless to say, we all need to speak up and oppose the NPS's preferred alternative. Even if the NPS ignores our feedback, (which is now seems determined to do), one saving grace is their acknowledgement that they will have to go through a rule making procedure with the FAA in order to formally close the airstrip. Maybe, if that drags on long enough, common sense could prevail.

Based on the favorable, win-win outcome of the Chicken Strip, I thought we had a good partnership with the NPS. It appears I was wrong about that.

CAVU

Small aircraft make their phone ring. “There’s someone out here flying crazy” or “there’s a plane disturbing my wilderness experience”, etc. Then the folks behind the desk have to take a break from those online training sessions being done from home (The Pandemic, you know) taken to bump up the GS ladder and go do their jobs. They don’t like that.

Don’t get me wrong there are some great people in the field and also in the maintenance department. But those folks in administration are absolutely miserable and don’t mind sharing in it.

Any opportunity to rid the service of these petty annoyances is jumped on.

Is there a current "flight count" so that I can accurately include that in my comments.

Bump. There's an online meeting with the NPS tonight Wednesday, February 9 at 6:00 PST. Here's the link https://parkplanning.nps.gov/MeetingNotices.cfm?projectID=72747

It's a Microsoft Teams meeting, so, if you don't have the app on your computer, you'll want to download it beforehand to make sure you can get in.

Please show up and submit your comments to keep this great little airstrip open.

CAVU

This just in! A win for now!

Thank you to everyone that commented during the civic engagement period (11/20/2020 to 12/23/2020) or the environmental assessment comment period (1/28/2022-2/28/2022)!

Death Valley National Park
News Release 

Release Date:                    November 3, 2022  

Contact:                             Abby Wines, 760-786-3221, [email protected] 

 

Decisions made on proposed Stovepipe Wells improvements 

 

DEATH VALLEY, Calif. – The National Park Service (NPS) has released its decision in the Environmental Assessment of proposed improvements in Stovepipe Wells and surrounding areas. The proposed actions include upgrades and changes to utilities, roads, parking areas, campgrounds, and buildings. The original proposal to remove Stovepipe Wells Airstrip was not included in the decision document. 

 

The proposed projects include: 

Replace parts of the water and wastewater systems at Stovepipe Wells and Emigrant.  Improve flood control. Rehabilitate and interpret the historic Emigrant Junction. Replace Stovepipe Wells Visitor Contact Station and add an adjacent day-use area with picnic tables and outdoor interpretive signs. Replace the emergency services building, which is too small for the Park’s ambulance.  Redesign Stovepipe Wells Campground, which is currently is a gravel parking area with only one restroom.  Improve Mosaic Canyon Road, parking lot, and trailhead. The NPS will consider a range of surfaces to reduce dust and stabilize the two-mile unpaved road. 

 

Some members of the public suggested that Furnace Creek Airstrip and Stovepipe Wells Airstrip should be evaluated and considered in relation to each other. Park staff agreed with this suggestion, and propose to do a more thorough evaluation of pavement conditions, funding availability for maintenance, Timbisha Shoshone Tribal concerns with overflights of their village, and pilot preference. This will review options for maintaining each of the airstrips’ paved runways, converting them to gravel runways, or removing either or both of them. The NPS has struggled to obtain funding to maintain the paved runways, which are deteriorating. 

 

The EA process allowed the NPS to evaluate the cumulative effect of multiple projects in the same area. NPS officials say they do not have funding for most of these projects yet. Once each project is funded, architects and engineers will prepare detailed designs. Additional historic and environmental reviews of these designs may be needed before construction begins.  

 

The Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and EA can be downloaded at parkplanning.nps.gov/StovepipeWellsPlan.