NPS Requests Comments on Visitor Services

A

ashtonc77

Active Member
The National Park Service (NPS) has opened a public comment period asking for input on how to improve visitor services across national parks - and Lake Powell / Glen Canyon NRA is included. This is an important chance for people who use and care about the lake to make their voices heard.

Official notice: see the NPS docket (NPS-2025-0037)
Comment deadline: October 9, 2025 (11:59 PM EDT).

BlueRibbon Coalition (BRC) action: The BlueRibbon Coalition has also put together background, talking points, and a ready-made form/letter you can submit through their site - you may submit BRC’s template exactly as-is, or quickly edit it to reflect your own experiences before sending. Submitting through BRC also creates an independent record of community response in addition to your official comment. Here's the link for that- BlueRibbon Coalition

We want Lake Powell to be the most dominant voice in this comment period. This is our best chance to push for real (and voluntary) changes, as the NPS is specifically requesting feedback that applies directly to Lake Powell. With both a new NPS Director and a Superintendent for Glen Canyon still to be appointed, a strong showing from the Lake Powell community could be very influential in shaping future decisions. If you care about marina services, fuel availability, launch ramps, campsite access, concessions, pump-out stations, navigation buoys, restroom maintenance, fees, or general visitor services at Lake Powell, please take a few minutes to submit a comment.
 
Thanks for bringing this to everybody's attention. I think it's important that everybody's voice should be heard, and the louder and more diverse those voices are, the stronger and more effective the message. That said, while I think that the canned BRC message includes a lot of important elements to address, I think its better when feedback is submitted independently, and not necessarily as a repeat of a form letter, or under the cover of one interest group or another. My two cents? I would suggest taking the pieces of the BRC message that you like, modify them to suit your own position, paste them into an email you generate, and send them using your own name and not necessarily as part of the BRC submittal. That's especially the case if you don't necessarily agree with everything that BRC advocates. For example, I'm guessing that while most people on this site are supportive of continued lake access, improved maintenance, and better overall services, not everyone on this site agrees with certain positions taken by BRC, especially with respect to expanded backcountry OHV access within the GCNRA. Read carefully before you hit send.

Use your own voice, and say what you want to say.
 
Last edited:
I really appreciate your perspective, and I completely agree that the "best" approach is always to write a personally tailored message. That’s exactly why I included the direct link to the government site - hoping some folks would take that route.

At the same time, I’ve found that many people won’t comment at all if it feels like too much work. That’s where I see the BRC platform being helpful. It gives people an easy “good” option that only takes 30 seconds, while also offering a “better” option where you can edit their draft or add your own points - which is what I did. I’ll probably also submit another comment directly on Regulations.gov.

As I discussed all of this with BRC, we all know there will likely be thousands of comments across all national parks submitted to NPS per this comment period. It’s impossible to spotlight every issue everywhere. The main goal is to make sure Lake Powell stands out, so the current administration has to pay attention. The BRC draft provides some basic talking points to start the conversation, but they’ve been very open to input from me and many others on Lake Powell specific concerns which I expect will carry into the future.

@JFRCalifornia I did not notice anything in the letter regarding OHV access within GCNRA. Am I missing something?
 
ashtonc77 said:
I did not notice anything in the letter regarding OHV access within GCNRA. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
The first paragraph of the BRC letter mentions "OHV exploration"...

I agree it takes time to write a letter, and I also agree that the BRC letter has a lot of good canned useful stuff. A good template for sure. I am just suggesting that it's sort of a civic responsibility to actually read and think about what you're writing to make sure you actually believe all of it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top