| |
At this point, I'm wondering what's the point; I'm wondering why we don't have a Preferred Alternative.
Despite overwhelming opposition to the road from local officials, scientists, and other citizens, the Park Service has refused to name the no-road scheme its preferred alternative, even requiring a waiver from (now former) Interior Secretary Gale Norton.
I can't say I understand why, or trust the motives behind, the delay in naming a Preferred Alternative. It would seem to me that the Environmentally Preferred Alternative (also the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative) would be the automatic selection given the responsibility national parks bear for protection and preservation of the lands and life forms within their areas of administration. I can see no conflict between the Environmentally Preferred Alternative and “providing for the enjoyment” of the park.
I was sorely disappointed that the Park Service backed off of providing a Preferred Alternative in the DEIS. It appears that the Park Service is bowing to political pressure from Washington to “not rock the boat” until after the mid-term elections. Therefore, if the Park Service chooses to make an 11th hour decision to declare the road as the Preferred Alternative in the FEIS (which would be consistent with Rep. Taylor's cowardly strategy thus far) it will be clear that politics, not the best interest of the People of the United States has prevailed.
|
|
