comments in PDF - Lone Star Chapter, Sierra Club

132) Page 257, Management and Administration, NPS states “Enlarging the water
storage system and providing a fire building at Dog Canyon would enhance the NPS’s
ability to protect resources in the northern part of the park, a long-term, beneficial
impact.” How will this protect resources What resources The public and decisionmakers
need this information so they can review, comment on, and understand this
proposal.
133) Page 257, Employee Housing, NPS states “would improve the ability of the park
to recruit seasonal employees and attract volunteers, a long-term, beneficial impact”.
What does that mean How much would this improve the ability to recruit employees
The Sierra Club supports the employment of more full-time employees (40 instead of
34) so they can do the good work all year around. The public and decision-makers
need this information so they can review, comment on, and understand this proposal.
134) Page 257, Maintenance, Cumulative Impacts and Conclusion, what does
“would be slight” mean The public and decision-makers need this information so they
can review, comment on, and understand this proposal.
135) Pages 257-258, The Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the
Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity,
what does “sustainable action” mean Why is the Preferred Alternative, a “sustainable
action” NPS does not explain. What criteria is NPS using to judge an alternative’s
sustainability What are the local short-term uses that this draft GMP/EIS proposes
What is the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity that NPS
compares to short-term uses and that this draft GMP/EIS provides The public and
decision-makers need this information so they can review, comment on, and understand
this proposal.
136) Page 258, Any Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Which
Would be Involved Should the Alternative Be Implemented, NPS ignores what
NEPA says has to be in this section of the EIS. NPS states “The preferred alternative
would not involve the irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources”. This is an
untrue statement. On pages x and xii, Visitor Use, of this draft GMP/EIS, NPS states
that the loss of 200 or 500 acres due to construction of built environments “would be
permanently converted to developed park facilities”. These are 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 200 acres of natural ecologically
functioning ecosystems with this alternative and 1,000 acres in the past The public
and decision-makers need this information so they can review, comment on, and
understand this proposal.
45