comments in PDF - Lone Star Chapter, Sierra Club

110) Page 245, Any Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Which
Would be Involved Should the Alternative Be Implemented, NPS ignores that what
NEPA says has to be in this section of the EIS. NPS states “Alternative A would not
involve the irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources”. This is an untrue
statement. Alternative A, with the actions currently underway at the Frijole Ranch and
the existing 1,000 acres of Wilderness-like area that has been developed has
irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources.
Where is the acknowledgment that energy will be used, air pollution generated, soil
eroded, sediment will go into streams, loss of solitude, loss of quiet, loss of hearing
natural sounds, trampling of vegetation will occur, materials will be used, existing acres
of what once were Wilderness quality natural area will remain developed areas, actions
currently underway at the Frijole Ranch complex will cause a loss of Wilderness quality
lands Where is the discussion about the loss of 1,000 acres of natural ecologically
functioning ecosystems in the past The public and decision-makers need this
information so they can review, comment on, and understand this proposal.
111) Page 245, Any Adverse Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided Should the Action
Be Implemented, NPS remains totally quiet about what these “adverse impacts” are in
this part of the draft GMP/EIS. A few adverse impacts the Sierra Club can think of
include destruction or degradation of fossils by horses, soil erosion and sedimentation
by horses and hikers, vegetation trampling by horses and hikers, existing acres of what
once were Wilderness quality natural area will remain developed areas, continuing
reductions or obscuring of scenic vistas by air pollution, etc. Why has NPS ignored
these impacts and not stated them here in the EIS The public and decision-makers
need this information so they can review, comment on, and understand this proposal.
112) Page 246, Preferred Alternative, Natural Resources, Soils, NPS states “Actions
of the preferred alternative would disturb about 200 acres of soil through the park”. This
statement is incomplete. The 200 acres of disturbed soil, or plant communities and
vegetation, etc., must be added to the 1,000 acres already disturbed to give a true
picture of the total impacts that have and will be done due to this proposed alternative.
The loss of an additional 200 acres is a 20% increase in the loss of soils. The public
and decision-makers need this information so they can review, comment on, and
understand this proposal.
113) Page 246, Preferred Alternative, Natural Resources, Soils, Conclusion, what
does “would contribute a very small increment” mean The public and decision-makers
need this information so they can review, comment on, and understand this proposal.
114) Page 247, Plant Communities and Vegetation, Cumulative Effects and page
248, Conclusion, what does “would contribute a very small increment” mean The
public and decision-makers need this information so they can review, comment on, and
understand this proposal.
42