Update on Johnson Valley Special Use Airspace Proposal

As previously discussed, Johnson Valley, home of King of the Hammers race, Bronco Knoll, Chocolate Thunder, and a huge community of off-roaders is once again at the center of a fight: the U.S. Marine Corps, working with the FAA, has proposed permanent Special Use Airspace (SUA) over Johnson Valley (R-2509) that could effectively make parts of the sky “military first” and require Marine clearance for civilian helicopters, drones, and other aircraft, critical to not only race support but search and rescue efforts. The proposal was laid out in a Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) released this summer and has prompted thousands of public comments and pushback from recreation and aviation groups. 

We first covered this story back in September but wanted to update you on what the BlueRibbon Coalition (BRC),  a national non-profit organization that advocates for responsible recreation and the preservation of public land access, highlighted in its recent reply to Marine paperwork, and what you need to know and watch for this month.

What the Marines proposed 

The Draft EA describes creating a new restricted area (R-2509) and related Military Operations Area/ATC Assigned airspace over and adjacent to the Marine Air-Ground Combat Center (Twentynine Palms) that would cover the Johnson Valley Shared Use Area. The Preferred Alternative in this Environmental Assessment (Alternative 2) would establish permanent SUA (Special Use Airspace) infrastructure while describing activation limits for some portions of the system.  

The Marines present the airspace as a way to improve training safety and predictability and say the R-2509 RA over Johnson Valley would be activated “up to 60 days per year” and otherwise remain available to the public when not activated.  

BlueRibbon Coalition’s formal reply 

The BlueRibbon Coalition published a detailed response (Nov. 15, 2025) pointing out what it calls “claims vs. reality” inconsistencies between the Marine Corps’ fact sheet and the Draft EA. The key issues BRC raises:

Permanent infrastructure vs. limited use promises.
The Environmental Assessment’s language supports permanent SUA infrastructure that would enable training year-round, while the “up to 60 days” activation limit is only found buried in an appendix, not as an enforceable, binding limit in the Preferred Alternative narrative. BRC argues that makes the 60-day figure advisory, not legally binding, and leaves the door open for expansion.  

No enforceable floor altitude defined.
The Marines say the floor would be “compatible with recreation,” but the EA does not define what altitude is “compatible” nor set a fixed floor. Instead, it relies on “dynamic procedures,” which BRC warns gives the Marines broad discretion, possibly to set the floor down to surface level, and creates uncertainty for helicopters, drones, media, and medevac operations.  

Recreation and economic impacts under-analyzed.
BRC says the EA fails to quantify recreation impacts (including economic impacts tied to events like KOH), medevac response effects, or the practical consequences to event logistics and emergency operations and calls for a more robust analysis (potentially an EIS).  

“Dynamic” policies are not legally enforceable.

BRC stresses that operational policies and promises of coordination (e.g., for medevac or event access) aren’t the same as binding commitments, and without enforceable conditions, public protections are weak.  

What happens next, and when will a decision be made?

The usual NEPA (National Environmental Protection Act) sequence applies here:

The agencies (USMC + FAA, with Navy/lead NEPA support) will compile public comments and agency input and prepare a Final EA that includes a response-to-comments appendix and any edits to the draft. The Final EA will state whether the agency issues a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or whether the scope and expected impacts require preparing a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).  

If the Final EA results in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), the FAA/USMC could proceed with an SUA designation. If an EIS is required, that would add months to the timeline and require a new, extended public scoping/comment process. BRC and other groups have specifically called for an Environmental Impact Statement.  

Is there a firm date for the final decision?

Not publicly. The project’s planning pages listed an estimated completion of November 2025 (basically now) for EA work, but agencies have not published a firm decision date for a Final EA/FONSI or FAA action. Given the volume of comments, the high profile of this site (KOH, medevac concerns), and requests for further analysis, many stakeholders expect this to stretch beyond the initial estimate unless the agencies accelerate processing or narrow the proposed action. In short, no guaranteed decision date has been published yet. 

What the community (and Bronco Nation) should watch for

Final EA & Response to Comments: This is the next key document. It should answer the criticisms (activation days, altitude floor, medevac protocols, economic analysis). If it doesn’t, expect renewed calls for an EIS. (Watch the Marine Corps/29Palms PSUA site and the FAA NEPA pages.)  

Local stakeholders’ filings and press coverage. Groups like BlueRibbon Coalition, Cal4Wheel, KOH organizers, local government, and pilots’ associations are active, their comments and legal requests (e.g., asking for an EIS or longer comment period) will shape the administrative record.  

Bottom line for off roaders 

The Draft EA and Marine fact sheet propose permanent airspace that could be activated for training; the Marines say activation over Johnson Valley would be limited in practice, but advocacy groups (led by BRC) warn the EA contains contradictions and lacks enforceable protections for recreation, medevac, and events like King of the Hammers.  Why is this important? Because this can be the first step in enacting more permanent closures without submission and public comment. We’ve seen this kind of action in other areas, and this is something we want to watch and prevent.

No final decision date has been announced; the next public milestone is the release of the Final EA, which should be any time. (and either a FONSI or decision that an EIS is required).  

Follow BlueRibbon Coalition and local OHV groups, they’re tracking filings, making technical comments, and coordinating with legal counsel and elected officials and watch Bronco Nation for further updates.