comments in PDF - Lone Star Chapter, Sierra Club

137) Page 258, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts, NPS remains totally quiet about what
these “adverse impacts’; are in this part of the draft GMP/EIS. A few adverse impacts
that the Sierra Club can think of include destruction or degradation of fossils by horses,
soil erosion and sedimentation by horses, vegetation trampling by horses, 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 as required by NEPA and
CEQ NEPA implementing regulations The public and decision-makers need this
information so they can review, comment on, and understand this proposal.
138) Page 259, Soils, NPS states “The area to be restored would total about 200 acres,
or about 0.2 percent of the park”. The Sierra Club believes this is a significant, positive,
environmental benefit. It is not often that a national park reduces its footprint. All too
often the urge is to put more facilities and degrade more natural land than to restore and
or protect natural land in parks.
139) Page 259, 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.
140) Page 260, Plant Communities and Vegetation, why does the NPS not separate
out the erosion caused by horses and hikers and compare them. If in fact more erosion
is caused by horseback riding, as the Sierra Club suspects, when talking about soils,
plant and vegetation communities, and other natural resources, affected by horses more
than hiking, then this difference in environmental degradation should be spelled out.
How much less would the erosion and other environmental impacts be without horses
Which trails in particular would benefit being hiking only Which tails can better
withstand the additional impacts of horses The public and decision-makers need this
information so they can review, comment on, and understand this proposal.
141) Page 261, Plant Communities and Vegetation, 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.
142) Page 261, Wildlife, NPS must document its assertion that “The locations of the
restored areas adjacent to developed, intensely used areas would lessen their
desirability for species that do not typically habituate to human use”. While NPS
mentions only two habituated species, deer and coyote, it mentions no other species
that would be helped or harmed by restoring 200 acres to natural habitat. The creation
of 200 acres of habitat is so overwhelmingly positive the Sierra Club does not
understand NPS’s emphasis on the potentially small negative impacts of this particular
action in opposition to the huge positive impacts which are essentially ignored. In the
Sierra Club’s view this may demonstrate bias by NPS against this alternative. The
public and decision-makers need this information so they can review, comment on, and
understand this proposal.
46