Lake Mead Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing DCP/EIS
Dear Friend of Lake Mead National Recreation Area,
Note: Public review period has been extended to April 27, 2013
I am pleased to share these Development Concept Plans/Environmental Impact Statement for the Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing areas of Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Once approved, this document will provide overall guidance for the future redevelopment of these areas located on Lake Mohave for the next 20 to 25 years. Needless to say, it is a very important document, and the National Park Service would benefit greatly from your careful analysis and thoughtful comments.
The planning team has developed two action alternatives that describe how each area would be redeveloped for visitor experience and safety, commercial services, resource protection and park operations. Alternative 3, the NPS preferred alternative, focuses on what the National Park Service believes would best fulfill its mission and responsibilities giving consideration to economic, environmental, technical, and other factors. This alternative would enhance visitor experience and park operations while continuing to provide marina services at the two locations along with additional flood protection.
It's a comprehensive document, so we fully expect you will have questions about it. We've scheduled a series of open houses to provide you with opportunities to meet with park staff to discuss the plan. Please click meeting notices on the left to see the dates and locations.
Please review this document and provide us your comments by April 27, 2013. You can submit your comments in two ways:
1) Submit written comments to:
Lake Mead National Recreation Area
601 Nevada Way
Boulder City, NV 89005
2) Submit comments electronically at the National Park Service planning web site: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/lake then select Lake Mead Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing DCP/EIS
Please do not feel constrained to accept the alternatives as they are currently drafted. If you have suggestions for improving any of the alternatives, or if you feel that a particular approach to an issue would fit better in a different alternative, do not hesitate to let us know. As always, thoughtful comments that explain the reasoning behind a suggestion are particularly helpful.
I welcome your continued participation in this important planning effort, and look forward to hearing from you.
William K. Dickinson