<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" http-equiv=Content-Type> <META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18904"></HEAD> <BODY style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=role_body bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 rightMargin=7 topMargin=7><FONT id=role_document color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial> <DIV>The Curmudgeon here. I certainly will submit comments to the "Old Faithful Area Comprehensive Plan" stuff. But here a few items for your thoughts, keyed to the pages of the 4-page "Public Scoping Newsletter May 2010". I provide these thoughts, in part, knowing that some NPS people see this listserv.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Page 1--</DIV> <DIV>-- In the "Dear Friends" column, was it really necessary to cite on five different occasions some form of "resources"? Talk about overkill.</DIV> <DIV>-- And really, have these "resources" ... "provided... human... inspiration for THOUSANDS of years." I mean, really, thousands?</DIV> <DIV>-- In the second column, can we please have a definition of just what comprises the "Old Faithful developed area" within the context of this document? That is, how far does it extend; does it include the boardwalk areas; does it extend as far as Biscuit Basin; or might it end just below the "lower store"?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Page 2--</DIV> <DIV>Under "Why is this Action Needed?"</DIV> <DIV>-- Item #1: I didn't know hydrothermal features could "effect" nearby buildings. But maybe the silica on the Lodge windows qualifies as an "effect" (?).</DIV> <DIV>-- Item #2: Good lord. How many times has this topic been addressed by the National Park Service? It should have been addressed in the 1960s, before the existing road alignments were put in. Now that they are in, and now that the entire area is constructed predicated on the existing alignments, what could happen? I mean, really!</DIV> <DIV>-- Item #3: They have to wait a whole 90 minutes? Oh, golly gee. Could they possibly go look at something else? Oh, yeah; there's a gift shop over there. And is it SO far from the parking lot. [Don't kowtow to the out-of-shape American public, NPS.]</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Under "Resources & Concerns"</DIV> <DIV>-- Public health and safety" -- This scares me. More railings in the geyser basins; boardwalk removal?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Page 3--</DIV> <DIV>Under "Visitor Use"</DIV> <DIV>-- "Provide the visitor with opportunities"....: As if these opportunities don't exist now?</DIV> <DIV>-- "Increase visitor understanding...": Gosh, was I wrong in thinking that a big, new (overpriced) multimillion dollar "Visitor Education Center" was to open to the public in this very calendar year? Did they not plan to use it to help visitors understand the area? Why not? Is there in this item an admission of NPS interpretive failure?</DIV> <DIV>-- "Improve vehicle and pedestrian circulation and parking": See page 2, item 2, above. Folks, unless you plan to do a LOT of MAJOR construction and reconstruction, you are many years past correcting this ridiculous situation... a correction that I'm certain would involve cutting [gasp] some trees.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Under "Public Health & Safety"</DIV> <DIV>-- "Address needs of visitors exposed to open and hot conditions and long distances": Well, as with page 2, item 3, above... Maybe this is when they install a shuttle system, complete with refreshment stands at <BR>Castle, Grotto, and Morning Glory...? Aw, c'mon dammit; this is a national park, and it should be a natural, outdoor area complete with all environmental consequences.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Under Resources</DIV> <DIV>-- "Protect... The fragile and dynamic hydrothermal Upper Geyser Basin": I'm scared, again.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Page 4</DIV> <DIV>"Do you have other ideas......": You bet, but I'll only mention one here: Whittlesey might comment on this, and I'm pretty sure M. A. Bellingham did so a year or two or three ago...The trees in the parking lot below the Old Faithful Inn, which almost completely impede the view from the Inn (even the from balcony) into the geyser basin do not belong there. These trees are not natural, right? What is the justification for allowing them to remain, especially if this whole process is designed (page 1) "to enhance the visitor experience at the Old Faithful area." Let them see the view that was afforded the visitors of a century ago. See attached photo dated 1912.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>OK, I'll shut up.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Scott Bryan</DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>