Saline Preservation Association

The voice of Saline Valley

 
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 5      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next
speakeasy

Registered:
Posts: 55
 #31 
ETA for SPA's official position please? I am aching to comment.
P3Tacco

Registered:
Posts: 35
 #32 
Oregon John, I don't think that is exactly correct. The preferred alternative (#5), says that the "dispersed" camping areas will remain, but doesn't say that there are to be "designated" campsites. The map seems to show that the dispersed areas look about like they do today, although to me it looks a bit narrower along the road above the upper (Palm) springs. I read that the "walk-in" camping is only for extremely crowded times, and that will have designated parking.  I also read that they anticipate maintaining current visitation numbers, in general.
Sam D.

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 786
 #33 
Interesting read about the struggle between the tribe trying to take control over the springs and folks trying to keep the springs in the hands of the people:

https://www.kcet.org/shows/tending-the-wild/when-green-groups-fought-native-rights-the-timbisha-shoshone-in-death-valley

https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=Q-Y3AQAAMAAJ&rdid=book-Q-Y3AQAAMAAJ&rdot=1
Geothermal Shane

Registered:
Posts: 6
 #34 
Well, why keep Scotty's Castle then? Why keep a golf course in Furnace Creek? Furnace Creek resort is composed of countless non-native grasses and plantations of unnatural palm trees, in addition to extensive commericalized resort development that far exceeds the comparatively scant commodities of the warm springs. I find it hard to accept that any purported degradation at the springs could surpass that due to construction at the main center of the park, which has met no such apparent contentions. If any plan is chosen to address the springs in an ecological sense, it should be addressed uniformly across the park. I agree that perhaps some camp regulations could be useful, but the interest in specifically affecting the springs seems biased. If you carefully read the EIS there is evidence of insufficient and poorly correlated research.
Smiffy1892

Registered:
Posts: 20
 #35 
Thanks for that break down John - I'm for sure not happy about a lot of these proposals and will attending one of the meetings for sure.

oregonjohn

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 113
 #36 
I will try and clarify some of the issues some users are having:
With the NPS preferred plan(alt. #5) there will be a fence surrounding the entire springs area (184 acres) and will be 5' high 4 strand smooth wire to blend into the desert patina. 
There will be a mandatory camping permit (no cost) with designated campsites with a sign in log. A designated overflow walk-in camping areas with defined parking.
The camp host area will basically be torn out and the auto repair will be gone.
The lawn at lower spring would be torn out.
The bat pole and the big peace sign would stay but most of the rock art and smaller peace sign would be gone.
The dishwashing stations will stay, but signage and a filtration system will be implemented.
The soaking tubs would be altered to accommodate those with a disabilities. To what extent isn't explained.
Bleach and cleaning supply storage would have to meet OSHA standards. I believe spill proof cabinets of some design would be installed for this.
No campsites within 200' of source springs. As of now it is 100'.
Chicken Strip stays.
Palms will be removed from Upper Warm Spring (NOT Palm or Lower).
All the user created fire rings will be gone and NPS will provide some sort of ash pan or grates for campers. The community fire ring/area would stay at the lower spring.
Remove the piping from the Burro Spring. No more water for the mesquite trees and the burro trough.

I hope this answers some of the confusion about what the NPS is proposing. Nothing is written in stone, as of yet. so get your comments ready and attend the upcoming meetings. 
SPA board will have a position paper coming out soon on these issues.

OJ



peneumbra

Registered:
Posts: 69
 #37 
A note to Kevin:

There is no need to "purchase" the Springs: they already belong to The People - not the Park Service, not the Timbasha, not the County of Inyo.

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS
peneumbra

Registered:
Posts: 69
 #38 
NO.

No one is going to tear anything down, native or non-native. This includes any person who is in any capacity representing the Park Service. The time of government pushing people around has come and gone. The Park Service can SAY anything it wants about Saline Valley, but there is a limit to how far we will allow them to go.


Again, NO.

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS
LittlePossum

Registered:
Posts: 20
 #39 
Here is what I'm talking about. The plans as written as so confusing that the writer for the Las Vegas Review Journal gets it all wrong: "Under the National Park Service‚Äôs preferred [italics added] alternative, fences would be installed to keep the burros at bay, while nonnative palm trees and concrete soaking pools would be torn out at several of the upper springs to return them to their natural state." Totally wrong. A portion of that claim is the "Restoration Alternative" (no chance?), right?  Or Alternative #4 on the Federal Register, referring to tub removal. The NPS has no preferred alternative to tear out concrete soaking tubs. These alternatives are not being reported correctly, and I can see why. The documents are in confusing conflict. I don't know which one is most valid.

Revision Note on 05/13/18: I see that the above quote has been corrected in the first article link below:
Revision Note on 05/15/18: There is less confusion (for me) when I stick to one single document: the complete EIS (382 PDF pages; 166 text pages plus appendices, another 150+ pages).  It took so long to load, minutes, I assume it was dead. But you need to Click the Document List at the Project Home page (second link below), and then Click the last (4th) document (the actual EIS). Then Click the link under Document Content. And wait. (That single, most important document is not easy to find.)

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/officials-end-hands-off-policy-for-offbeat-death-valley-hot-springs/


https://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectID=39438


LittlePossum

Registered:
Posts: 20
 #40 
Not sure. But am sure that the description of the various alternative plans is confusing. Consider this:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/05/04/2018-09440/notice-of-availability-of-the-saline-valley-warm-springs-draft-environmental-impact-statement-at

Dated 05/04/2018 and 01/30/2018, I'm thinking this is current and important. It clearly reveals a "preferred" (done deal) Alternative #5, the "cooperative management" choice which appears as the "Recreation Management Alternative" and in position #4 in other tables. Why not use common labels, numbers, and sequencing for consistency? It is interesting to note that the Federal Register version of the preferred Alternative describes the fencing around the entire springs area---the whole shebang. I envisioned a fence around the source pools only. Now we have potentially a mile or more of fencing?  It's a hodgepodge of confusing alternatives. That makes our job harder. Please be clear when you advocate for one alternative or a mixture so that your choice is not misinterpreted.
Kevin Mokracek

Registered:
Posts: 7
 #41 
What would the feasibility be pf purchasing the springs be?  Cherry stem the road and the springs and take it off the NPS plate.  
I belong to The Climbers Access fund and they have bought several private and govt. owned pieces of land over the years to allow continued climbing access.  I know this could open a whole other can of worms but it might be something to look at?  Maybe SPA can start a Gofundme to purchase the springs or some other similar type deal.  The fact that it is supposedly a Timbehsa resource might throw a wrench into the works.
P3Tacco

Registered:
Posts: 35
 #42 
I have heard on more than one occasion that the Timbesha are essentially all Jehovah's Witnesses, thus the revulsion at the nudity.  Has anyone else heard this? If true, it gives some perspective, although anyone has the right to believe whatever they want to.
peneumbra

Registered:
Posts: 69
 #43 
Not HISTORIC.

HYSTERIC.
Jukebox Mark

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 61
 #44 
Lorlie

See p106 and 107 of the EIS where they discuss exactly that.


__________________
Perhaps what we hold most in awe about nature is its majestic indifference to humanity.
Lorlie

Registered:
Posts: 11
 #45 
Good point on the old pics. I would almost think Saline is a candidate for the National Register of Historic places. 
 https://www.nps.gov/nr/national_register_fundamentals.htm
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.