comments in PDF - Lone Star Chapter, Sierra Club

180) Page 278, Historic Structures, Cumulative Effects and 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.
181) Page 278, Cultural Landscapes, what are the standards and guidelines” What
do they mean What protections do they give Should the 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.
182) Page 279, Cultural Landscapes, Cumulative Effects and 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.
183) Page 280, Access, the Sierra Club opposes adding 37 miles of additional trails in
the “park’s interior” as well as adding other primitive trails to the park’s inventory. There
is no overall analysis of the environmental impacts of doing this. Where is the
quantification needed under NEPA If NPS cannot quantify the impacts then it must
use Section 1502.22 of CEQ NEPA implementing regulations to discuss this. The
public and decision-makers need this information so they can review, comment on, and
understand this proposal.
184) Page 281, Activities and Destinations, what is the projected use for the
proposed “hike-in” campground How was this determined The public and decisionmakers
need this information so they can review, comment on, and understand this
proposal.
185) Page 281, Activities and Destinations, the Sierra Club does not support making
the Pratt Cabin a cultural landscape and operating it as “a visitor gateway” to “provide
an interesting, them-related, enjoyable setting”. We also do not support “Expansions of
the public corrals at Frijole Ranch and Dog Canyon and consideration of operating
these facilities for use by commercial packers or a horse concession … could
substantially increase the number of visitors who would experience the backcountry by
horse”. Such actions will cause more damage to soil, plant communities and
vegetation, wildlife, and other natural resources.
186) Page 282, Scenic Views, Cumulative Effects, the Sierra Club does not agree
that all the development that will occur with Alternative C “would have a negligible
effects on cumulative impacts” since they will together reduce natural scenic views and
undisturbed landscapes. We do agree with NPS on page 281, Activities and
Destinations, that activities proposed in Alternative C “would have minor, long-term,
adverse impacts on those visitors who desire more solitude”, although we believe the
impacts will be much greater than minor.
53