comments in PDF - Lone Star Chapter, Sierra Club

187) Page 282, Interpretation, NPS states “Average length of stay in the facilities
would likely increase” but does not say what it would increase to and what it is now.
The public and decision-makers need this information so they can review, comment on,
and understand this proposal.
188) Page 283, The Socioeconomic Environment, NPS states “The effects of
changes in staffing levels would be negligible”. NPS proposes a staffing level of 44 for
Alternative C to take care of the additional facilities and increased visitor use. However,
in Alternative C and the other alternatives NPS never states how it derives the staffing
levels and what its current backlog is for maintenance and other activities. The public
and decision-makers need this information so they can review, comment on, and
understand this proposal.
189) Page 283, Park Operations, Facilities, and Equipment, NPS states that the
impacts of Alternative C “on park operations, facilities, and equipment would be the
same as those described for the preferred alternative”. This makes no sense because
there would be 500 acres of additional facilities in Alternative C instead of 200 acres in
the preferred alternative. NPS must give an accurate analysis of the costs. The public
and decision-makers need this information so they can review, comment on, and
understand this proposal.
190) Pages 283-284, 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 C, 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.
191) Page 284, Any Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources, 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 1,000 acres of natural ecologically
functioning ecosystems from the past and the loss of 500 new acres The public and
54