comments in PDF - Lone Star Chapter, Sierra Club

More documents

Recommendations

Info

153) Page 265, Cultural Landscapes, NPS states that if the human-made pond at Manzanita Spring is allowed to become a natural wetland it “would have an adverse impact on the Frijole Ranch cultural landscape”. Which is more important in GMNP, protection and restoration of the natural landscape or the human one NPS needs to compare and contrast these two landscapes and tell the public how it determines what is best. The public and decision-makers need this information so they can review, comment on, and understand this proposal. 154) Page 265, Cultural Landscapes, what are the standards and guidelines” What do they mean What protections do they give Should these standards and guidelines be in the appendix if they are that important so the public can easily review and comment on their protective nature The public and decision-makers need this information so they can review, comment on, and understand this proposal. 155) Page 265, Cultural Landscapes, Conclusion, what does “very small increment” mean The public and decision-makers need this information so they can review, comment on, and understand this proposal. 156) Page 266, Ethnographic Resources, Conclusion, NPS states “The alternative would result in a minor to moderate, long-term, adverse contribution to the cumulative impacts”. It is not clear what and how much each cumulative action with environmental impacts that is listed on pages 21-52, will effect ethnographic resources or any other natural resource mentioned in the draft GMP/EIS. Specifically, what quantified cumulative impacts does each cumulative action have or have had or will have If this information is not known then CEQ’s NEPA implementing regulations, Section 1502.22, need to be used to clearly state why. The public and decision-makers need this information so they can review, comment on, and understand this proposal. 157) Page 267, Access, why would a more Wilderness oriented alternative be prepared that accepts the impacts that will come on providing “automobile access” to Williams Ranch and the Salt Basin Dunes. It seems contradictory since the vision and feel of this alternative is less development in GMNP and more focus on natural ecosystem functioning and understanding and enjoyment. The public and decision-makers need this information so they can review, comment on, and understand this proposal. 158) Page 267, Activities and Destinations, NPS states “Many riders would perceive the loss of horse use as a major, long-term, adverse impact … Many riders elect GMNP as their destination because riding is allowed … Many non-riders would vie w the loss of horse use as a negligible or even beneficial, long-term impact”. NPS does not do real analysis. How many riders use GMNP each year How many hikers use GMNP Why is riding not allowed in other parks Do those reasons apply in GMNP This is a user conflict problem but NPS does nothing and suggests nothing about how to resolve it. What does NPS think about eliminating horse use NPS gives us what it perceives as horse rider and hiker perceptions. What is NPS’s perception and idea about horse use impacts (are they major) We are not told. The public and decision-makers need this information so they can review, comment on, and understand this proposal. 48
159) Page 268, Scenic Views, Conclusion, how many primitive trails will be added to the park’s inventory How many are there What are the environmental impacts if these trails are open The public and decision-makers need this information so they can review, comment on, and understand this proposal. 160) Page 268, Interpretation, Education, and Orientation and Conclusion, NPS states “improvements would be less extensive than in the preferred alternative, the intensity of the benefit would not be a great … would be less than in the preferred alternative” How much less and great would it be The public and decision-makers need this information so they can review, comment on, and understand this proposal. 161) Page 268, The Socioeconomic Environment, NPS states “the elimination of developed camping and horseback riding would reduce the use of the park for these purposes”. What is the proportion each of these two uses currently is of all recreation or visitation in GMNP Are these uses declining or increasing Where is the actual analysis of data The public and decision-makers need this information so they can review, comment on, and understand this proposal. 162) Page 269, The Socioeconomic Environment, what does “would be small” mean The public and decision-makers need this information so they can review, comment on, and understand this proposal. 163) Page 269, The Socioeconomic Environment, Cumulative Effects and Conclusion, what does “would be beneficial but very small” mean The public and decision-makers need this information so they can review, comment on, and understand this proposal. 164) Page 269, Maintenance, the NPS insists that the elimination of camping and horseback riding “would result in few if any reductions in maintenance”. This makes no sense. The camping facilities will be eliminated and 200 acres of destroyed habitat will be restored. How can the maintenance not be less with less facility use Where is your analysis to support such a conclusion The public and decision-makers need this information so they can review, comment on, and understand this proposal. 165) Page 269, Maintenance, Cumulative Impacts and Conclusions, what does “would be slight” mean The public and decision-makers need this information so they can review, comment on, and understand this proposal. 166) Page 270, 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 Alternative B, 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 49
Page 1 and 2: Lone Star Chapter June 13, 2008 Mr.
Page 3 and 4: used with a non-motorized and mecha
Page 5 and 6: GMP/EIS as an issue topic. The NPS
Page 7 and 8: 10) Page 19, Ensure Organizational
Page 9 and 10: GMP/EIS so that public and decision
Page 11 and 12: 27) Page 57, Management Zones for t
Page 13 and 14: people since this is a loss and dow
Page 15 and 16: 42) Pages 79-93, Preferred Alternat
Page 17 and 18: area be The public and decision-mak
Page 19 and 20: On page 93, Costs, the Sierra Club
Page 21 and 22: On pages 99-100, Management of Rese
Page 23 and 24: On page 113, Visitor Experience, NP
Page 25 and 26: “achieving a balance between popu
Page 27 and 28: 67) Page 213, Introduction, pages 2
Page 29 and 30: Section 1502.22, requires that when
Page 31 and 32: Therefore, the following words or p
Page 33 and 34: 1. What do these phrases mean in th
Page 35 and 36: 1. What do these phrases mean in th
Page 37 and 38: 70) Page 214, Mining and Drilling,
Page 39 and 40: 88) Page 235, Paleontological Resou
Page 41 and 42: would hire more seasonal and term p
Page 43 and 44: 115) Page 248, Wildlife, NPS states
Page 45 and 46: 132) Page 257, Management and Admin
Page 47: 143) Page 261, Wildlife, Cumulative
Page 51 and 52: 4. Employment of at least 40 people
Page 53 and 54: 180) Page 278, Historic Structures,
Page 55: decision-makers need this informati

comments in PDF - Lone Star Chapter, Sierra Club

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?