comments in PDF - Lone Star Chapter, Sierra Club

“achieving a balance between population and resource use” mean The public and
decision-makers need this information so they can review, comment on, and understand
the proposal.
57) Page 128, Alternatives or Actions Considered But Dismissed From Detailed
Evaluation, NPS states “Protect air quality – Although the park is classified as a Class
1 air quality management area, the park staff has limited ability to address air pollution
that drifts to the park from regional sources, particularly pollution sources in Mexico”.
NPS does have a lot of authority to review permits, to urge EPA and TCEQ to do their
jobs, to work with Mexico to reduce air pollution. NPS should not play helpless since it
is the public’s park and air resources that suffer. The public deserves better. Air quality
should be an issue topic in the draft GMP/EIS and not cast aside because NPS says it
is helpless to do anything.
58) Page 129, Alternatives or Actions Considered But Dismissed From Detailed
Evaluation, the Sierra Club agrees that motor vehicle access to the high country;
mountain bike use on trails; selling or leasing portions of park lands; the tram to
Guadalupe Mountain; and road from Williams Ranch to the west; are inappropriate in
GMNP.
59) Pages 131-138, Table 6, Features of the Alternatives, NPS must define
“aggressive management” for exotic species”; “Eradicate target invasive species” (what
species); “more strict prevention measures”; “More aggressively protect water quality
and quantity”; “Stabilize and preserve”; “site restoration”; and other similar phrases.
The public and decision-makers need this information so they can review, comment on,
and understand the proposal.
60) Pages 139-143, Table 7, Summary of Impacts, Alternative B, NPS states “The
elimination of the hammering action of horseshoes on fossil deposits in trails would
have a long-term, beneficial impact”. Why is NPS proposing in the Preferred Alternative
to continue to allow this “hammering action of horseshoes” at the present levels The
public and decision-makers need this information so they can review, comment on, and
understand the proposal.
On page 144, Alternative B, removal of cultural structures so they can be protected is
a positive and not adverse effect. On page 145, allowing Manzanita Spring to fill
naturally is not an adverse impact on the cultural landscape because it is what the
settlers found when they first arrived. On page 147, closing the road to the Salt Basin
Dunes parking area has a positive impact environmentally and would require people to
enter Wilderness on its own terms and not theirs. On page 148, Alternative B, NPS
has shown no documentation that there would be “increased demand for commercial
camping and other overnight lodging”. Park maintenance should be lower and
beneficially affected by Alternative B because there will be fewer facilities and horse and
frontcountry camping use would be eliminated. So how does NPS come up with a
“Moderate, long-term, adverse impacts” on maintenance This makes no sense. The
25