Death Valley Off-Road Adventures

If you care about SVHS please note the following information:

Saline Valley Warm Springs Management Plan EIS
Death Valley National Park » Saline Valley Warm Springs Management Plan EIS » Document List
The National Park Service (NPS) invites you to review and comment on the Saline Valley Warm Springs Draft Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (draft plan/EIS). Because your feedback is essential to the development of the EIS, we are asking for your thoughtful review and comments during the 60-day comment period, concluding July 2, 2018.
The plan's purpose is to develop a management strategy for the Saline Valley Warm Springs area that will complement the Death Valley National Park General Management Plan (GMP). The draft plan/EIS is intended to provide a framework for: natural and cultural resources management; administration and operations; and managing visitor use at the warm springs area.

You are encouraged to comment on the draft plan/EIS through this website. Comments can be made by clicking on the "Open for Comment" link at the left side of this page and selecting the document and then clicking "Comment Now" button. You may also mail or hand-deliver your written comments to Superintendent Mike Reynolds, Death Valley National Park, P.O. Box 579, Death Valley, CA 92328.

A limited number of hard copy documents are available at park headquarters in addition to public libraries in Bishop, CA, Lone Pine, CA, Pahrump, NV, Ridgecrest, VA, and the Inyo County Free Library in Independence, CA.

The NPS will hold public meetings during the comment period near the park at the following locations:

•Sunday, May 27, 2018 from 1:00-2:00pm PT at the Saline Valley Warm Springs
•Tuesday, May 29, 2018 from 5:30-7:30pm PT at the Ridgecrest Historical Society, 230 West Ridgecrest Blvd, Ridgecrest, CA 93555
•Wednesday, May 30, 2018 from 5:30-7:30pm PT at the Inyo Council for the Arts, 137 South Main St, Bishop, CA 93514

In addition to the public meetings, the NPS will host a webinar on Thursday May 31 at 5:30pm PT. For more information and to register click on 'Meeting Notices.'

As vital contributors to the planning process, we hope you take the opportunity to provide feedback, and if possible, join us at the public meetings. Thank you.

Superintendent Mike Reynolds
Death Valley National Park
P.O. Box 579,
Death Valley, CA 92328

 

I've not even cracked it yet. From what I understand there are five proposed plans.

 

The only new thing is the fifth plan which is the “preferred” plan and the EIS. Haven’t had time to review it myself but if you’ve looked at any of previous stuff from years past then you’ve already seen the other four plans. And if you are just a user/visitor you probably don’t care about the EIS.

 

So on a quick read through as far as visitor experience goes they are mostly drawing from the "Community Engagement Alternative" in previous drafts with the addition of allowing camping at the Chicken Strip for those that fly in. See page 127 for a description of most of the changes that would effect visitors.

What this primarily means is restricted areas for camping. So if you like camping away from the hub-bub and walking to the tubs you will be out of luck and will be restricted to camping next to people who think the whole world should be blessed with their "taste" in music or whatever.

There will be walk-in overflow camping spots as well, meaning you need to park in one place and then walk to setup camp.

What I haven't found details on yet is the mandatory no fee permit system. If they can use this to restrict visitation to a more sane number of people that's probably a positive.

Camp host must reapply every year and permanent housing will be removed. Not good news for Lee.

There is a large table near the start of the document that summarizes all the changes for all the alternatives that is the best way to get a quick overview.

 

Oh and I should add other big noticeable change will be some alterations to the vegetation and other public areas. Nothing super major but they do plan to eliminate the lawn and add fencing in various places. The palms get to stay more or less.

EDIT: For clarification the palms get to stay for now. They won't remove them but they also will not allow new palms to grow. So eventually all the palms at the springs with die and so longer there won't be palms there anymore.

 

Yeah, since my last visit I've pretty much written off the place as a place to camp anyway. At least until mother nature takes out all the roads for a bit, then I might stop by and in that case the new camping regulations might be fine since visitation would be so low for that period. Who knows when that will happen, usually about once or twice a decade there are bad enough washouts to deter people.

There is plenty of dispersed camping in the rest of Saline Valley of course and that's likely what I'll do in the future when I want to explore the area. Can still stop by the springs for a nice warm shower though! That's what I've done in the past during more peak seasons. These days the change is it is essentially always peak season!

 

Nope, the whole thing is just about the relatively small area right around and between the springs. Maybe a square mile or so at most when you include the airstrip. No impact on the rest of the huge valley - other than perhaps reducing the number of people driving through it to get to the springs!

Reading a bit more so far I see that they are vague on the camping restrictions around the springs. They do talk about "dispersed" camping but only in certain "designated areas". This is roughly how things are now. Usually "dispersed" means no numbered or designated sites. But then they talk about "walk-in overflow" camping and I have trouble reconciling that concept with "dispersed". Since "dispersed" is just camp in an area presumably people will just turn the "dispersed" area into a parking lot since we all know there are plenty of folks who think it is fine and dandy to park six inches from you in the middle of the desert and set up camp.

In impact to visitors they do mention those who like camping away from everyone will be disappointed which seems to mean smaller areas for "dispersed" camping. I'm guessing what this means is they will allow "dispersed" camping (meaning no campsite numbers or such) in the areas surrounding lower and palm springs just like it is now but they will close the areas along the road between lower and palm springs to any camping.

As to the permits it sounds like there is no plan to restrict the number of permits issued, certainly not in the first three years. It sounds like they hope requiring the permits will improve user education (i.e. teach ass-hats common sense and proper manners). That might actually improve things a lot.

 

In addition to all the historical, naturalist (and naturist) and cultural info, there a picture of what looks like an AccessCab Taco with a FlipPac, on Page 135. Another Tacoma’s bed can be seen in the foreground of that photo, attracting feral burros. However, while there is detail on the types of planes used at the Chicken Strip (primarily Cesssna, but also some Piper and Beechcraft), there’s no similar analysis of Jeep vs Tacoma vs Subaru as access vehicles.

On a more serious note, it seems that the “preferred” alternative involves considerable perimeter fencing to keep the burros out. Not clear how vehicles would then access the Springs, unless there are metal grates at the access points. Did anyone see any detail on that?

Finally, although large parts of this document are dry and bureaucratic (not to mention repetitive, what would they do without copy/paste?), I think some appreciation for the place does come through from the authors.

 

That AC FlipPac in the photo is the very one that made me decide to do my build! That was the first FlipPac I'd ever seen and met the owner just a couple of weeks after the photo in the report was taken (NPS visited with a study group and took most all those photos in the fall of 2014). Owner is an ex-Skunk Works employee who also worked on the Red Bull Stratos jump after he was retired.

Apparently the study group that came out in fall of 2014 was very taken with the place. The group was composed of NPS folks from all across the country and spent a number of days there. According to someone who was there at the time they thought it was a unique place with no real analogy anywhere in the entire park system and would require a unique approach and management plan.

To their credit the proposed plan is well thought out and balanced. I just worry it is OBE thanks to a few years of IG and FB combined with newly well maintained access.

 

Heavily used parks already have higher fees with more coming.

California is unique in that places close to large populations are easier to get to making them even more popular. Look at the development near DV and Yosemite over the past 10 or so years. Hotels, fuel, and other supplies just make access even easier.

 

Fewer rampaging tow trucks too as I understand it.

The interesting thing with DV as a whole is that its overall visitation hasn't been that crazily different over the past 25 years since graduation from a NM to a NP:


Source

You can see the impact of NP designation in 1994 which then trails off before building again as the entire National Park System was "rediscovered" in the past few years.

Some of the largest increases after NP designation actually occurred in the summer when no sane person would visit. Europeans being other than sane did start coming though with the new designation and given its location between the eastern exit from Yosemite and both Las Vegas and the southern Utah parks it makes sense they would suddenly arrive to the "new" NP. Their impact was extremely low as most just drove through and took a picture by the thermometer. A few died when they used German or French guide books originally meant for winter visits and embarked on "easy" hikes that were deadly in summer temps. And of course the famous lost German family is of that era.

Spring has always been popular with the super bloom years obvious in the data.

A recent change is December is seeing much more visitation than in the past. That was a reliably "empty" time of year. No longer, though I suspect much of the increased December visitation is centered around Xmas-New Year week.

But as to the springs themselves they have just been overwhelmed in the past few years with what seems a big increase in visitation well beyond the increases in the larger park. They are definitely at risk of being loved to death.

In general I don't mind increases in overall visitation to DV. The park is huge and most visitors are concentrated in a smaller area. The deserts are under a number of growing threats and so more public outreach is probably a good thing. The cattle-battle is slowly being won but the water table is still taking it in the shorts and the new in thing is to corrupt every viewshed possible with a giant solar array (which, oh by the way, also takes out the water table but that impact usually overlooked).

Anywho, I hope they hurry up and make a decision on the springs and implement something soon. Anything is better than where it is headed right now. Also do a little rain dance and hope mother nature solves the access problem for us this summer some time!

 

It’s easy to speculate, but I wonder if some of the areas added to the park are remote enough that visitors don’t get access passes and hence are untracked, so little change in numbers. I would also have expected more backcountry visitors since the boom in SUVs, Subaru’s and even CUVs. My first visit to DV, not the Springs, was in December 1981 and it seemed busier than I expected.

 

“OBE”? Only the Beginning of the End?

It’s not a TLA that I’ve seen other than for the Order of the British Empire.

 

Price only makes a place exclusive. Or increases its exclusivity.

The lottery sucks as well. But what do you do? The master plan has been discussed and discussed some more. Nothing concrete seems to come of those.

 

I believe that the reason for the busses in Denaili is there is only one road and NPS doesn't want more roads or traffic; with the bus system they know how many and where they are. There are some critters there that could play hell with the tourists. Having a watchful eye keeps the critters safer. Don' know if I'll ever get there but have no problem with the bus system.

 

Visitation at Denali is much lower than Yosemite. If you are staying in the park, you get on the green hiker bus. The others are tours. Pretty efficient and it preserves wilderness too. There is a lottery for cars toward the beginning of the season.

If you are staying in Yosemite, there’s no reason not to take the shuttle. That’s pretty awesome service tho crowded in the summer.
At one time, they were considering parking structures outside the park (El Portal) and busses for access. I liked that plan.

National Parks are surprisingly popular now. Preserving the experience has become a huge priority. I get that not everyone appreciates the effort required to do that and not everyone will be happy with end result.

I am concerned with the park service’s continued reliance on environmental groups for planning purposes (to the exclusion of other input).

 

So here’s the irony, if I may be a bit of a devil’s advocate. Yes, most of us here on this thread seem to want a peaceful environment at the Springs, free of loud music, trash, etc. Plus a reasonable respect for the natural environment. And some who have had a bad experience, or remember it when it was less crowded, would like fewer visitors. And, the Park Service would like to see some changes to bring it into conformance with regulations or accepted practice, for a variety of reasons. But ...
- Even if there were 500 people camping there, it would be less of an environmental impact than a typical day at Furnace Creek or Texas Springs, or even Stovepipe Wells. Or Yosemite Valley or Old Faithful.
- The lawn degrades the environment? What about acres of golf course at Furnace Creek?
- Half a dozen invasive palm trees? Again, how many palms at Furnace Creek?
- Noise? Have you ever hung out at the pools at Furnace Creek or Stovepipe Wells?
- Unsafe water quality for “bathing”? How about other lakes or rivers, or oceans, in the National Park system, where water recreation is encouraged?

I think stronger education and MAYBE more defined campsites would be good. Clarity about usage and vehicle corridors north of the Springs where there is Wilderness Area, yes. Not so sure any other changes are needed, other than less road grading from North and South Passes.

 

I'm may be in the minority but I went to Alaska a couple years ago for a couple weeks and was disappointed by the whole experience. The red tape and bus BS at Denali was a small part of the whole big let down.

 

I like to go in the winter. Cold weather, snow, and even rain make the park seem like it's breathing again. The crowds are thinner. You can hike in the silence of the snow. I love to go out to Dewey Point in the snow. You can even ski out to Glacier point and stay the night. Or even camp anywhere along the road (permit required).

Your experience depends a lot on how you see the place. I rode a bicycle with a tour group and had a great time. We went from ANC to FAI to VDZ. Most everything was arranged-which was good. We stayed in a bunch of places that were not the nicest but clean. Anyway, part of the deal was to go to Denali. I would have preferred my own car/vehicle but the bus was fine and we had a guy who was a teacher during the winter and guide in the summer. Highly recommended. Our bus caught fire and several of us put the fire out then repaired the bus and we moved on. Saw lots of wild animals. I knew it would be limiting and the whole experience has only increased my desire to go back. So much to see. The rest of the trip was filled with self exploration of many different sites-which just added to the desire to return.

I used to want to ride the motorcycle to AK but have no desire now. Just wanna see the place for myself.

In general, large crowds create a whole set of problems the Park Service usually screws up when they try to solve them by creating a set of new problems. DV is a great example. People have been going places in the park for a long time-the springs are a great example. Nothing wrong with going there, just too many people. The Park Service should focus on reducing the crowds but otherwise leave the place alone unless there are specific problems that must also be solved.

 

Presumably this will have to be an ongoing project since that ludicrous legislation from the 70’s requires other agencies to actually maintain a burro population! So remove them from NPS land and the population on the neighboring BLM land will just continue to grow back into the NPS land...

Regardless happy to hear there is something happening rather than nothing at all and they got the burro huggers to pay for it themselves.