[NorthBen]

EA document here: http://www.parkplanning.nps.gov/EVCEA

[Magellan]

Comment submitted.

[Jeff's House]

Have met with park staff twice in the last two months on how to move the chalet with the least impact. The moving method in the EA is a collaboration of factors that we have had to work through to be safe and efficient in use of time on site. Due to the countless number of people who want to participate in saving EVC, I have volunteered my services to relocate the chalet for FREE using a volunteer crew of five people plus myself. This will take three days when on site and then we pack up camp and go home with the chalet out of danger.

[Chico]

[vibramhead]

If you're thinking about submitting a comment, keep in mind that the purpose of the proposed action is to "protect the East Fork Quinault River and its associated natural resources from imminent environmental harm." The purpose is not to preserve the historic structure, although that might be the fortunate consequence of this action, at least temporarily. Protecting the river is consistent with protection of wilderness values. So, if you favor this action, it would be best to focus your comments on how important it is to protect the river, and how your wilderness experience would be impaired by having a disintegrating building coming down the river.

[RodF]

Vibramhead is correct. He is drawing the distinction between a "substantive" and "nonsubstantive" comment. "The National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) requires that the National Park Service solicit public comment on draft plans for major proposed actions. Further, the National Park Service must “assess and consider [the resulting public] comments both individually and collectively.” Public comments are viewed by the National Park Service as critical in helping park managers to shape responsible plans for our national parks that best meet the Service’s mission the goals of NEPA, and the interests of the American public. NEPA and NPS policy require that NPS provide a written response to all “substantive” comments. As defined in the National Park Service’s NEPA guidance (Director’s Order # 12) and based on Council of Environmental Quality Regulations, a substantive comment is one that: • Questions, with reasonable basis, the accuracy of the information in the environmental impact statement • Questions, with reasonable basis, the adequacy of the environmental analysis • Presents reasonable alternatives other than those presented in the environmental impact statement • Causes changes or revisions in the proposal Nonsubstantive comments include those that simply state a position in favor of or against the proposed alternative, merely agree or disagree with National Park Service policy, or otherwise express an unsupported personal preference or opinion." The public is free to make both "substantive" and "nonsubstantive" comments. A "nonsubstantive" comment like "Save the Chalet" or "Burn it down" would be one outside the scope of this EA, and might be more appropriate as scoping comments for the second EA on the long-term fate of the Chalet. But The Deciding Officer of an EA is the NPS Regional Director, and if you wish to say something to her about what you believe NPS' responsbilities are here, you're free to do so.

[Jeff's House]

June 5th last day to comment.

[Jeff's House]

Waiting. . .

[Jeff's House]

Still waiting. . . Day four. And the clock is ticking.

[ryleymyers]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=822681581089208&set=a.335199349837436.85787.100000421220285&type=1&theater 5/31

[The Lead Dog]

By the time they figure it all out the Chalet will be in the River. Government Red Tape at it's finest.

[Ski]

the Quinault is dropping like a rock right now (and currently lower than the median flow), so if they can make a move before the big rains come they'll be able to pull it off. catch is they have to wait for marbled murrelet window or some such nonsense. but hey, either way: they can't lose, because simply the act of pretending to make some effort is enough to allow them to save face with those concerned about historic preservation and compliance with the Historic Sites Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. of course, if they'd followed the advice given them ten years ago, we wouldn't be having this conversation, but I suppose it's a bit late for that.

[Jeff's House]

Hope your wrong Ski but we are running out of time. Haven't heard a word from park staff since EA was out for comment. In six days it will be six months since the January 17th photos showing the eminent danger to the chalet.

[bobbi]

Save the Enchanted Valley Chalet button

[Ski]