I wanted to share the feedback I provided to Betsy as I confirmed my receipt of the document.

“In your report you make numerous references to the comments as “data”. It is important to note that the comments received are not “data” and any statistical analysis, interpretation, or presentation of these comments as such is without scientific basis. In addition, for us [the Valles Caldera Trust] to use public comment as statistically valid data or to present comments garnered through informal discussions as statistical data would be in violation of federal laws guiding the collection of information from the public by the government and the presentation of information to the public by the government.

The purpose of the 2007 workshop series was to inform and involve the public in our planning and decision-making; not to conduct a scientific survey. A poster presented at the workshop series details the purposes of the workshops and includes that the workshop series was only the first step in the planning process. This poster is available on our website: http://www.vallescaldera.gov/get_involved/public/PUA/Posters/3%20Workshop%20Purpose.pdf

The outcome of the workshop series has been used throughout the planning process. The series was instrumental in developing the purpose and need for the plan included in the NOI [Notice of Intent] posted in the Federal Register (http://www.vallescaldera.gov/get_involved/stars/docs/20090828PAU_NOI.pdf ) “to expand public access and use on the Preserve while continuing to provide unique, high quality recreation, education, and interpretive experiences that impact the hearts and minds of our visitors. It is needed to facilitate broad access to the Preserve while protecting and preserving the natural, cultural, scientific, scenic, and recreational values of the Preserve.” It also provided the basis for the scenario conceptually described under Alternative B on the website and at the scoping meetings. The outcomes from the workshop series also provided the basis for the “Values” section of the online collaboration as is evidenced in the introductory statement (http://www.vallescaldera.gov/nepa/pages/content.aspx?id=096afd15-f2e5-4df0-84df-46151a07be62&altID=1&saID=10 ) as well as the narrative (http://www.vallescaldera.gov/nepa/images/PAUPScop/valuesNarrative.pdf.)

The comments from the workshops, website, emails, letters, public board meetings, as well the current scoping process will continue to be used to inform planning and decision-making. The analysis will be presented in an Environmental Impact Statement.”

We are still receiving valuable comments and suggestions through our online forum. A link is available on our home page, http://www.vallescaldera.gov; the online forum will remain active through October 15th. So far over 100 individuals have provided us with over 170 comments. Although this is not a scientific survey, it is safe to say that most of those submitting comments in support of one scenario or another support the access, capacity, activities, development, and financial scenario as described under “Alterantive B”. Only a few have stated support for the larger scale campground development as described under “Alterantive C”. Little to no support has been expressed for the development of commercial lodging as described under Alterantives D and E. We have also received comments via public meetings and direct letters and emails. These comments have mirrored the comments received through the website.

The comments will be used along with other information to determine actions and alterantives to be eliminated from our analysis, the actions and alternatives to be considered in detail, as well as identifying key issues on which to focus the analysis. If you want to share your comments please visit our online forum or send your comments directly to comments@vallescaldera.gov.

Thanks to everyone for your continued participation in the management of the Valles Caldera National Preserve.

Sincerely, Marie Rodriguez, Natural Resource Coordinator

I worry that NPS staffing and initial processes (e.g. NEPA) will actually restrict access more, at least initially. So the focused intent here should be on public access under the NPS umbrella of resource protection. I have never liked the way this area is managed now and, as a result, have stayed away with the exception of the trails near the outer boundaries where I can just show up and hike on my schedule. I know many other people that also very much dislike the current management model.

Visit my website and email me sometime so we can get together and chat. I commute to Los Alamos 2-3 times a week…

Sam