NPS attempting to close airstrip at Stovepipe Wells

Here's the process posted on the NPS website:

Plan Process
Death Valley National Park » Stovepipe Wells and Nearby Developed Areas Improvement Plan
Public participation is an important element of the planning process, and we welcome your ideas, concerns, suggestions, and potential topics for consideration.

* indicates the current step in the planning process
Step 1. Civic Engagement *
Step 2. Refine Actions
Step 3. Prepare Compliance Documents
Step 4. Public Review of Compliance Documents
Step 5. Publish Decision

Looks like we're coming up on Step 4. I wouldn't assume it's a do-over. RAF may have some more up-to-date information on the Park's preferred course of action.
 
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.

If you want to know a little more about this issue, I made a video about it last year:
 
Comment submitted!

And you can bet I'll attend the public meeting next Wednesday. Kind of sucks that they will only take public comment in the meeting via text/chat. Would like to give them a piece of my mind.

C.
 
What exactly is there to revitalize? The airnav page says "pavement heaving, extremely rough surface"...but it looks decent compared to what im used to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: txy
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? Other desert airstrips? The RV park? Highway 190? Bike facilities? There's no acknowledgement that maybe usage is down due to their neglect of the pavement. The report acknowledges that closing the airstrip would eliminate GA from Stovepipe, but there is not a single word about what that means for users. 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 Dunes, 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. Nothing about losing an airstrip to use for emergencies or precautionary landings.

The idea that Furnace Creek is a substitute for Stovepipe is as ridiculous as the need for someplace to view the night sky in DVNP. 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.

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

Needless to say, we need to continue 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 in DVNP. It appears I was wrong about that.
 
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.

txy
 
Last edited:
I'm attaching photos that I took on Sunday (2/6/22). The surface is 'wrinkled' which makes for a rough roll-out, but should be no issue for anything with 5-inch wheels or greater. There are no expansion cracks or gaps, pot holes or missing pavement that I can see. It could definitely use some work, but it is NOT hazardous or posing a danger to usage in it's current condition.

The NPS argument for closing boils down to this: CalTrans says the strip is in 'poor' condition and we have no money/can't justify spending to maintain it. CalTrans is 'making' us do something so without funds we have to close it.

My thoughts:
- Can CalTrans really force the NPS to close the strip? Can it operate under waiver, etc? There are certainly far worse strips out in the SoCal desert that haven't been closed.
- How much money has been spent on maintenance in the past (and how recently)? Is this a 10-year interval or 2-year? Makes a big difference. Looks to me like it hasn't been touched in a long time.
- The strip is currently still safe and usable. If funds aren't available, better to do nothing and kick the can down the road than close it and/or rip it out. Keep looking for funding.

C.

IMG_2053.JPG IMG_2070.JPG IMG_2067.JPG IMG_2051.JPG
 
camorton said:
I'm attaching photos that I took on Sunday (2/6/22). The surface is 'wrinkled' which makes for a rough roll-out, but should be no issue for anything with 5-inch wheels or greater. There are no expansion cracks or gaps, pot holes or missing pavement that I can see. It could definitely use some work, but it is NOT hazardous or posing a danger to usage in it's current condition.

The NPS argument for closing boils down to this: CalTrans says the strip is in 'poor' condition and we have no money/can't justify spending to maintain it. CalTrans is 'making' us do something so without funds we have to close it.

My thoughts:
- Can CalTrans really force the NPS to close the strip? Can it operate under waiver, etc? There are certainly far worse strips out in the SoCal desert that haven't been closed.
- How much money has been spent on maintenance in the past (and how recently)? Is this a 10-year interval or 2-year? Makes a big difference. Looks to me like it hasn't been touched in a long time.
- The strip is currently still safe and usable. If funds aren't available, better to do nothing and kick the can down the road than close it and/or rip it out. Keep looking for funding.

C.

View attachment 104494 View attachment 104495 View attachment 104496 View attachment 104497
Click to expand...
Maybe the aviation community should start a GoFundMe to raise money to deal with Caltrans' concerns.
 
I listened in on the NPS online meeting regarding (among other things) the proposed changes to Stovepipe Wells airstrip. It was very informative. My biggest takeaways were:

-3 million needed to repair Stovepipe and 5 million for Furnace Creek runways.
-not eligible for FAA funding b/c the airstrips are located inside the park. The NPS is solely responsible for their upkeep
-budgeting for repair is tricky b/c the park budget is allocated into separate "buckets" to address various aspects of park upkeep. The airstrips don't fit very well inside each "bucket" making it more difficult for funding, especially for a relatively low-use yet expensive asset.
-in 2004 when last airport repair was done, the airport used to fall into the same "bucket" as road repair but regulations have since changed and it can no longer use that money.
-one "bucket" of funding they DON'T have a shortage on is for removing park infrastructure. This is supposedly a popular tool used because that removed infrastructure then becomes less money the park needs to maintain moving forward.
-the NPS has been exploring alternative ways of funding, such as bringing in the military to repair it (I guess similar to Catalina). Military was supposedly enthusiastic about this idea but the problem is military would only supply labor cost, whereas that makes up only a small portion of expense needed for the repair.

Basically, it came across as if the NPS isn't necessarily "anti-airport" (at least the representatives on the call came across that way) it just comes down to funding the project would be problematic and the less infrastructure that the NPS is responsible for maintaining (ie..spending money on) the better. There was a question/answer period and I will say that about 95% of the questions were about the airstrip. Concerned aviators certainly showed up to make their concerns heard! Most of the questions were quite helpful to the conversation as opposed to just flat out being negative in tone, which I found refreshing. In the end, I think it would require some serious "out of the box" solutions to keep Stovepipe Well airport alive. (I can't help but think of when Red Bull repaved the Monument Valley runway to hold their air races there a few years back).

The public comment period is still open thru Feb 28 here: parkplanning.nps.gov/StovepipeWellsPlan.
 
I have a different take on last night's meeting, which I also attended.

The NPS likes the airport location for a night sky viewing facility because a) it's far from the highway, and b) it's already on "disturbed land" so they won't have to do a whole Environmental Impact Report to put up some walls and repurpose the airstrip as a night sky viewing area. None of this justifies closing the airstrip and excluding pilot access. The NPS also admitted that they have never had a park-sponsored stargazing event at Stovepipe.

Interestingly, the NPS acknowledged last night that there is ample budget to remove infrastructure, and that it would only cost around $100k to grind the pavement into a gravel airstrip. They claim, though, that only a few aircraft can use a gravel airstrip, so they want to just close it. That, of course, is false. All kinds of light aircraft can and do use gravel airstrips. Look at Alaska. I've seen a Mooney operate on dry lake beds in Nevada. It's just a matter of proper technique.

A gravel airstrip could be maintained by the RAF at no cost to the Park, and could provide aviation access forever.

So, all of the NPS claims about there not being enough funding, about the FAA (through Caltrans) requiring expanding the footprint of the airstrip in order to keep operating, about there being only a handful of aircraft that use the airstrip every year, are either false or a smoke screen to distract from the real goal, which is to close the airstrip and create a night sky viewing area, complete with walls to shield stargazers' eyes from distant headlights, without having to go through an environmental review process that would otherwise be required to create such a facility.

The comment period is still open through February 28. I would emphasize these points:

- Stovepipe airstrip is an historic facility used for access to the area long before the establishment of the Park. Closing it would change the historic features and use of the Park.

- Most aircraft can use gravel airstrips. There is ample evidence throughout the Western U.S. and Alaska proving this point. Converting Stovepipe to gravel will, according to the NPS, cost only around $100k. There is ample NPS funding available for such a project according to the NPS. The airstrip can then be maintained at no cost to the public through volunteer efforts such as the RAF at the Chicken Strip.

- If the NPS believes that a stargazing facility would enhance visitor experiences in the area, then the NPS should find a suitable location, which may or may not be near the Stovepipe airstrip, and go through any necessary review process in order to create it. The NPS should not destroy an historic facility (the airstrip) and cut off an entire group of visitors in order to favor another group (stargazers) for functions they have not even held in the area to date. The footprint for such a facility is tiny in comparison to the airstrip.

It is clear from the information that the NPS provided at the public hearing last night that there is a cost-effective solution (convert to gravel and maintain by volunteers) that preserves historic aviation access. This is also consistent with the General Plan adopted for Stovepipe back in 2004. The NPS's desire to avoid the process for creation of a new stargazing facility does not justify cutting off all aviation access to Stovepipe.
 
Last edited:
I was at the meeting last night also. I was the one who asked about previous work done on the strip. They admitted that they haven't spent a dime on either runway (Stovepipe Wells or Furnace Creek) in over 16 years! Even so, the condition of the strip is still usable as-is. I believe the best immediate course of action is to leave it alone and continue to seek funds for repair. Converting to gravel is better than closing, for sure, but let's be honest - it would probably cut usage to a small percentage of what it currently has (which isn't huge). The majority of the pilot community won't land on gravel even though their places are perfectly capable of it.

I'm not a paving expert, but I know asphalt surfaces are commonly repaired by 'planing' or 'milling' and would probably cost a lot less than tearing it out or a full replacement. Unfortunately the NPS is under the impression that the entire runway needs to be torn out and rebuilt, thus the $3M price tag. So this is the false narrative that they are pushing: the current runway is 'dangerous', and CalTrans is insisting we fix it right away but we have no money so we'll just rip it out.

C.
 
I agree that it would be much better to find fixes for the asphalt that don't require tearing it out right away. When it finally gets to the point where it can't be smoothed enough, then convert it to gravel. That is the master plan (2004) and is basically what Alternative A (no action) is in the current Environmental Assessment.

We already provided these comments back in 2020-21, yet the NPS is now presenting the public with a false choice based on the position that that airstrip cannot remain open unless it can be totally re-engineered, graded, and paved.

What's the rush? Well, they seem to be pretty hot to create a stargazing venue sooner rather than later. They say they have no money to maintain the surface, so I would expect them to reject even low cost interim maintenance like planing and milling. Converting it to gravel is a one-time expense and a permanent solution.

Right now, their recommended approach is not only to rip it out but to close it to all aircraft. I fear that we are past the point of getting them to consider the most reasonable and incremental solution. Even though going for gravel right now isn't the optimal path, it does present a stark, low cost alternative, and it highlights the real choice that's behind this plan: Go through the regulatory process to create a separate stargazing area vs. closing the airstrip and converting it to a stargazing area.

A stargazing area, with walls, could be built a few yards down the Cottonwood road from the entrance to the airstrip without interfering with anything. The trouble is that it might require an EIR. If there's no budget for that, then why should airport users be penalized so that our facility can be converted for use by another constituency of visitors.

It's unfortunate that converting it to gravel will cut down on the number of users. But which would you rather have: a gravel airstrip that pretty much anyone can use if they take off their wheel pants, or no airstrip at all? I think that's where we are at this point.

BTW, I posted several questions, but they did not seem to register. Other questions mostly covered my questions, but it was frustrating not knowing if my questions were received or noted. The meeting will not be in the public record, so everything needs to be submitted via the comment process.
 
I confess, I don't know Death Valley well, but isn't it only a slight exaggeration to claim that the 'dark sky' stargazing area is pretty much the whole damn park?
 
  • Like
Reactions: txy
That's no exaggeration at all. It's kind of paternalistic (and, frankly, pathetic) that the government thinks it needs to create a specific area for people to look up at the night sky. It sounds like they have events at Furnace Creek where rangers take groups out to a dark place and give star talks. That's fine if that's what you like to do, but the implication that it can best be done in Death Valley at a dedicated site is nonsense.

On another point, if you zoom in on this map https://www.nps.gov/deva/planyourvisit/maps.htm, you can see the boundaries of the wilderness area surrounding Stovepipe. It's a big square. There's a LOT of room in that square where the park could create a put a stargazing area far away from Highway 190.
 
txy said:
I have a different take on last night's meeting, which I also attended.

The NPS likes the airport location for a night sky viewing facility because a) it's far from the highway, and b) it's already on "disturbed land" so they won't have to do a whole Environmental Impact Report to put up some walls and repurpose the airstrip as a night sky viewing area. None of this justifies closing the airstrip and excluding pilot access. The NPS also admitted that they have never had a park-sponsored stargazing event at Stovepipe.

Interestingly, the NPS acknowledged last night that there is ample budget to remove infrastructure, and that it would only cost around $100k to grind the pavement into a gravel airstrip. They claim, though, that only a few aircraft can use a gravel airstrip, so they want to just close it. That, of course, is false. All kinds of light aircraft can and do use gravel airstrips. Look at Alaska. I've seen a Mooney operate on dry lake beds in Nevada. It's just a matter of proper technique.

A gravel airstrip could be maintained by the RAF at no cost to the Park, and could provide aviation access forever.

So, all of the NPS claims about there not being enough funding, about the FAA (through Caltrans) requiring expanding the footprint of the airstrip in order to keep operating, about there being only a handful of aircraft that use the airstrip every year, are either false or a smoke screen to distract from the real goal, which is to close the airstrip and create a night sky viewing area, complete with walls to shield stargazers' eyes from distant headlights, without having to go through an environmental review process that would otherwise be required to create such a facility.

The comment period is still open through February 28. I would emphasize these points:

- Stovepipe airstrip is an historic facility used for access to the area long before the establishment of the Park. Closing it would change the historic features and use of the Park.

- Most aircraft can use gravel airstrips. There is ample evidence throughout the Western U.S. and Alaska proving this point. Converting Stovepipe to gravel will, according to the NPS, cost only around $100k. There is ample NPS funding available for such a project according to the NPS. The airstrip can then be maintained at no cost to the public through volunteer efforts such as the RAF at the Chicken Strip.

- If the NPS believes that a stargazing facility would enhance visitor experiences in the area, then the NPS should find a suitable location, which may or may not be near the Stovepipe airstrip, and go through any necessary review process in order to create it. The NPS should not destroy an historic facility (the airstrip) and cut off an entire group of visitors in order to favor another group (stargazers) for functions they have not even held in the area to date. The footprint for such a facility is tiny in comparison to the airstrip.

It is clear from the information that the NPS provided at the public hearing last night that there is a cost-effective solution (convert to gravel and maintain by volunteers) that preserves historic aviation access. This is also consistent with the General Plan adopted for Stovepipe back in 2004. The NPS's desire to avoid the process for creation of a new stargazing facility does not justify cutting off all aviation access to Stovepipe.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with what you are saying. The night sky viewing thing is a joke.

But if I put myself in NPS' shoes, I (naively perhaps?) don't see anti-GA sentiment. It seems they just have a hard time finding $3M to allocate to a relatively seldom-used resource....particularly an unusual resource that doesn't easily fit into one of their standard mold of categories to fund. If they just got rid of it, it's no longer an asset they need to upkeep moving forward. More future money to allocate to (insert politician pet project here). Of course I personally disagree with that sentiment and think it's important that we show the NPS how important that runway truly is!

I wish they would just leave it as is until the money is available. However It seems as if that money won't come available unless some non-standard resource is found. Do you happen to know an ultra-wealthy aviation enthusiast that wants to have an airstrip named after him/her?
 
GaryM said:
I confess, I don't know Death Valley well, but isn't it only a slight exaggeration to claim that the 'dark sky' stargazing area is pretty much the whole damn park?
Click to expand...

Yes, I know well and love DV, and it is flippin’ huge - something like 3 million acres. Any bumbling tourist and crane their neck skyward and view the night sky unobstructed - get this - anywhere that is not under roof.
And the idea that it is important to use this location because it is well off the highway is laughable. It’s well off one highway, and right next to the other one lol.
 
mr_happyland said:
....... Do you happen to know an ultra-wealthy aviation enthusiast that wants to have an airstrip named after him/her?
Click to expand...

The only such enthusiast would be one that doesn't use GA, or own a plane.... Else they're no longer ultra wealthy.... Space fliers excluded...

I'd be happy with any surface... Even dirt adjacent to the existing runway.
 
Just landed at Stovepipe behind a Bonanza. As Craig's photos show, it's not that bad. It's a little rough, but hardly worth mentioning. It would be such a shame to tear it up. This surface will probably continue to be serviceable for another 10+ years before it actually becomes a problem for typical trikes.

The lid that used to cover the box for the pilot log is missing, and the log is trashed. I'm going to hunt for something to protect it.

Furnace Creek is in worse shape, but still serviceable. It's certainly not dangerous, one comment on Foreflight notwithstanding. There was a Bonanza, a 411, a 182 with wheel pants, and a Kodiak. This, on a Friday. These strips aren't lightly or seldom used.
 
mr_happyland said:
-3 million needed to repair Stovepipe and 5 million for Furnace Creek runways.
-not eligible for FAA funding b/c the airstrips are located inside the park. The NPS is solely responsible for their upkeep
-budgeting for repair is tricky b/c the park budget is allocated into separate "buckets" to address various aspects of park upkeep. The airstrips don't fit very well inside each "bucket" making it more difficult for funding, especially for a relatively low-use yet expensive asset.
-in 2004 when last airport repair was done, the airport used to fall into the same "bucket" as road repair but regulations have since changed and it can no longer use that money.
-one "bucket" of funding they DON'T have a shortage on is for removing park infrastructure. This is supposedly a popular tool used because that removed infrastructure then becomes less money the park needs to maintain moving forward.
Click to expand...

These problems sound like they could be solved by lobbying Congress, and/or petitioning for changes in regulations. Does anybody know if the runway has been torn up yet?
 
Airplanes account for somewhere between 5 to 20% of their overnight visitors depending on occupancy rates. They probably don't care that they're preventing a substantial number of visitors from coming.
 
txy said:
Furnace Creek is in worse shape
Click to expand...
We go every year with our flying group, 5-6 planes, I've never noticed the runway to be in unusually bad shape.. really would be a shame to tear it up. Government has plenty of money..

PS - there's a cool castle out there that's been closed for years
 
bflynn said:
Airplanes account for somewhere between 5 to 20% of their overnight visitors depending on occupancy rates. They probably don't care that they're preventing a substantial number of visitors from coming.
Click to expand...

It sounds to me more like a funding issue. In the post I replied to, it was stated that the park's airstrip maintenance used to be covered by the same budget as road maintenance, but that regulation changes have since prevented that. Hence my suggestion to petition for a rulemaking to put NPS airports back into the road budget. Alternatively, it seems to me that Congress could solve the problem of NPS airports not being eligible for FAA grants, or they could appropriate funds directly for hat purpose.
 
Tantalum said:
We go every year with our flying group, 5-6 planes, I've never noticed the runway to be in unusually bad shape.. really would be a shame to tear it up. Government has plenty of money..

PS - there's a cool castle out there that's been closed for years
Click to expand...

Apologies for reviving this thread, but does anyone have a recent runway condition report for either Stovepipe Wells or Furnace Creek? Anyone been there since the flood? It's been a few years since my wife and I have been to Death Valley, and we're thinking a mid-November to late December trip might be fun. Certainly a lot easier to fly than do the 8 or so hour drive from the Bay Area.
 
The NPS info I have is that Furnace Creek's runway was not impacted, though of course they still report that condition of that runway as no-so-great. I don't have info on Stovepipe Wells, but if you call the hotel at Stovepipe, they can probably tell you if it was impacted significantly.
 
jimhorner said:
Apologies for reviving this thread, but does anyone have a recent runway condition report for either Stovepipe Wells or Furnace Creek? Anyone been there since the flood? It's been a few years since my wife and I have been to Death Valley, and we're thinking a mid-November to late December trip might be fun. Certainly a lot easier to fly than do the 8 or so hour drive from the Bay Area.
Click to expand...
I have not been since last April at which time it was in medium shape.. certainly not a showstopper..

We'll probably go again sometime in April
 
Tantalum said:
I have not been since last April at which time it was in medium shape.. certainly not a showstopper..

We'll probably go again sometime in April
Click to expand...

Thanks. So not as bad as it's been made out to be in all the places I google searched? One site said it was practically unusable. I've been to Gravely Valley, which has 2-3" deep ruts from ATVs doing donuts on the runway when muddy. Furnace Creek better or worse than that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
jimhorner said:
Thanks. So not as bad as it's been made out to be in all the places I google searched? One site said it was practically unusable. I've been to Gravely Valley, which has 2-3" deep ruts from ATVs doing donuts on the runway when muddy. Furnace Creek better or worse than that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...
I didn't think it was too bad, here see for yourself below.. it was a little gusty and I floated in an effort to touch on smooth so not my best landing haha. Love that Aztec!

https://photos.app.goo.gl/u8j22hnabUJjt1B59
 
This may or may nor be relevant


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, abby_wines@nps.gov


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.
 
Thanks for the pirep footage tantalum!
Ditto for the update, Kelvin.

I flew into furnace creek 18 years ago or so. At the time there was fuel available. Really neat experience.

Hope we can keep both of these strips open! (3 if one counts the chicken strip!)
 
Kelvin said:
This may or may nor be relevant


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, abby_wines@nps.gov


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.
Click to expand...
It sounds like we need to be lobbying for funding for maintenance of the Death Valley airports.
 
Another update from my email....


It's kind of a non-decision. Meaning, we decided that we're not removing SPW airstrip as was proposed in the environmental assessment. But, we believe we need a more thorough assessment of both Furnace Creek and SPW airstrips, and that might result in the park proposing to close either airstrip, or convert to gravel. But we don't have that assessment on our plan for this year, due to more pressing issues, such as the park-wide flooding we had this monsoon season.

Abby Wines
Management Analyst, Death Valley National Park
760-786-3221 (office landline)
abby_wines@nps.gov
 
Kelvin said:
Another update from my email....


It's kind of a non-decision. Meaning, we decided that we're not removing SPW airstrip as was proposed in the environmental assessment. But, we believe we need a more thorough assessment of both Furnace Creek and SPW airstrips, and that might result in the park proposing to close either airstrip, or convert to gravel. But we don't have that assessment on our plan for this year, due to more pressing issues, such as the park-wide flooding we had this monsoon season.
Click to expand...

it's honestly the best outcome given the propositions that we could have realistically expected. Reading the FONSI document, alot of attention was spent on the airstrip debate and the public comments certainly seemed to have played at least a minor role. How long they kick the can down the road is anyone's guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top