Done.

And email sent to friends.

done

done

I can't get any of the nps links to load. And I will not comment because I am an NPS employee, albeit from another region, but it gets murky when those of us that deal with writing these things for the agency start commenting on them. Makes for some frowns and chinscratching.

However, I would offer a couple thoughts and suggestions. First, NPS has to respond to substantive comments. They don't have to respond to or show any real consideration for comments that are not substantive. That means if you have real evidence that should be considered, not just your support, then your comment will carry much more weight and will have to be addressed even if they elect not to make changes to accomodate your suggestion.

I would look at the other alternatives at least enough to see whether there are any elements of those alternatives that would have merit.

If so, I would suggest changes to the best one rather than the no-action, which is just throwing out the entire process. The agency did not start a multi-hundred-thousand dollar planning process because the no-action alternative is adequate to meet what they have defined as their purpose and need. There is something they have defined as their goal with this plan, you should see what that is and work to identify improvements to an alternative that can accomplish their goals and yours. If the no-action alternative is truly best, then fine, but understand that there would need to be a major issue, not just one user group complaining, for that to get any traction. So identify the best alternative, then help them make it better. Or state that your comment is specifically with regard to how the airstrip and aircraft activity are compatible with their purpose and need. This is very important.

I would identify the frequency of use of the air strip and explain how that frequency fits in with the intent of the NPS for managing the visitor experience and resource protection of the valley.

I would explain the emergency services and search and rescue response benefits of having an airstrip.

I would explain that the total affected area of an airstrip is miniscule compared to a road.

I would suggest that if there is a concern over excessive flight operations, it could be handled by limiting the number of aircraft that could be parked on the strip at any time without closing it, thereby maintaining the quality of the experience and the utility of the strip in emergencies.

My three cents.

Those are great suggestions as to how to make the NPS acknowledge and respond to substantive comments. Though not a federal employee (state F&G), I have at times responded to EIS plans.

One question that has always bothered me: Each EIS lists a selection of alternatives, and ostensibly the agency in charge will weigh the science, public input, governmental input, and whatever else before making a selection from the alternatives. That being the case, has the "No action" alternative ever been selected in any EIS process, or is it just a throw-away option? If selected, at what frequency?

Sean

It is a legally required option. I wouldn't call it a throw-away, but in my limited experience, the only time the agency would be likely to end up selecting that alternative is if there was an existing practice that was not approved through a planning process, and they needed to evaluate it and have a rational basis for allowing it. In the case of the airstrip in question, that could be the situation, though I am assuming, not having read any of the documents, that the plan is much larger than just whether there is airstrip access. The agencies are given pretty hefty deference on some of these issues. But if you speak their language, they will engage seriously. Their language is the purpose and need for the project or plan. Every piece of information, evidence, and improvement you offer that addresses their purpose and need, minimizes effects on their visitors and resources, and provides for the efficient function of the agency, will be very, and I mean VERY, thoroughly considered. One letter like that is roughly equal to a couple hundred one line statements of support for an alternative. Ten letters like that is roughly equal to a couple thousand. I'm serious about that.

Managed tonight to get the site to load. After some digging, I found the stated purpose of this plan.

Copied from the planning site:
The purpose of the Saline Valley Warm Springs Management Plan/EIS is to:
• Provide a framework for natural and cultural resources management at the Warm Springs area;
• Provide a framework for administration and operations at the Warm Springs area;
• Provide a framework for managing visitor use at the Warm Springs area;
• Provide guidance for Death Valley National Park managers as they work with various stakeholders of the Warm Springs area; and
• Balance management of natural resources, ethnographic resources, and visitor use.

I also read the summary of preliminary alternatives. The very good news is that there is public access to the Chicken Strip in four of the five, and camping at the strip in 3 of the 5. Only the restoration alternative closes the strip. I see now what the OP referred to was the promulgation of special regulation. This is not a bad thing, this is a very good thing. Right now the Chicken Strip is in legal limbo. A planning process that chooses an alternative in which it would remain open would provide a very strong basis for making the current status solid. However, there is no law to that effect. The strongest thing you can have, short of an act of congress, that establishes the Chicken Strip as a legal place of operation is a regulation. I would recommend that somebody attend one of the meetings. The passage of regulation should strengthen the foothold, not weaken it. Most of those proposals involve authorization for the facilities at the Chicken Strip to be expanded or improved. They are trying to help, I can almost guarantee it.

I do think it would be fair to request clarification on whether there is any possibility that selection of an alternative that includes promulgation of regulation would result in closure during the interim between the final decision on the EIS and the successful promulgation of regulation. But I would look at those alternatives again. They are genuinely providing alternatives that try to accomplish their goals, and they have come up with a number that include putting the Chicken Strip on a forever standing, which would be really great.

Whatever you do, keep engaged, keep letting them know your preferences. I read through the scoping comments. Many pilots commented, and the value of those comments is shown in the fact that the Chicken Strip is figuring to continue in most of the alternatives.

Finally, understand that this is alternative development. They are looking to make sure that they have a full range of alternatives and that the breadth of the alternatives is adequate to encompass all reasonable options. This is a really good opportunity to look at whether the range of alternatives is satisfactory and whether it could be improved. One improvement could be to alter the recreation management alternative, which is the one in which the NPS would manage the strip and there would be no camping at the airstrip. Is this meaning there would be no overnight parking? Or does it mean that campers would have to camp elsewhere closer to the springs? Perhaps it would be an improvement to the alternative to authorize camping with no more than XX aircraft overnight (I have no idea what that number would be). This would make the camping experience more of an airplane camping option, but give them an alternative that would prevent unrestricted increases in the number of people doing this.

I think I'm over 4 cents worth now.

Done.

I support the 'No Action Alternative' with regard to management of Warm Springs in Saline Valley. Based on discussion with users and written comments made previously with regard to the scoping document, it is clear that most users think the present policies are working well. The volunteer camp host is doing a good job. The Chicken Strip is an effective access option and has the support of most users as it is presently operated. There is no demonstrated need for 'Promulgation of special regulation', whatever that entails. In short, if it's not broken there is no sense in spend resources trying to fix it.

Troy

Thanks for the digging and the explanations. These processes can be very frustrating and intimidating to people, and if one is not engaged in this work often, its hard to grasp.

Any change is scary.

Sean

Done. Just went with the simple

"I support the NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE to managing the Saline Valley."

Done

Done. I expressed support for the "No Action Alternative", the "Minimum Action Alternative" and, "Community Engagement Alternative". All three options preserve use of the Chicken Strip, and all three would continue the MOU with RAF for maintenance of the strip. The other options either shift maintenance to the NPS, or remove use of the strip altogether. The Community Engagement Alternative goes so far as to add some infrastructure at the strip (e.g. tiedowns), and would explicitly allow camping at the strip. The "Minimum Action Alternative" and the "Community Engagement Alternative" would both pursue promulgation of special regulation to allow airstrip to remain open indefinitely. That sounds good on a superficial level, but the formal comment period on an NPS rule-making could generate public input that might ultimately thwart the goal of keeping the airstrip alive.

Flyhound wrote:That sounds good on a superficial level, but the formal comment period on an NPS rule-making could generate public input that might ultimately thwart the goal of keeping the airstrip alive.

It is true that the regs packages are published in the Federal Register and have open comment periods. But for something like this, the overall plan is going to generate a lot of comments, which is what is going on now, and is the time when the path is set. If anybody else has a chance to comment on the regs, they also can comment now, so we the flying community will have opportunity as well. If the park puts forth a regs package after completion of this plan, it would be very unlikely that the weight of opinion would be different than what we're getting now, and you guys have done a pretty good job of chiming in, as is evidenced in all the materials in the scoping and alternative development packets.

Still, it is a fair question whether the strip would remain open up to the point the regs are promulgated. Call and ask. The answer will be important for our community in evaluating these alternatives.