The replacement of tents with modern units is justified in my view from a visual intrusion standpoint, and I do not mean from the guy standing on top of Glacier Point critically looking for fault below, but to the normal Park visitor travelling in a bus, bicycle, automobile, or hiking. This condition can be corrected by permanent units. I repeat, the tents are not temporary. They'll be with us or something equal as long as we permit it. I firmly believe they should be replaced not in total but a helluva lot of them and at the same time maintaining the same unit count. JUNE 5, 1974. Memorandum To: The file. From: Associate Director, Park System Management. On June 4, Regional Director Chapman advised us of his decision relative to the environmental assessment recently discussed in a public meeting in Yosemite which would replace 150 of the Curry Village units. After considering all factors. Mr. Chapman has decided to authorize Yosemite Park and Curry Company to proceed with the aforementioned project. It may be anticipated we will receive criticism from conservation organizations and possibly face a NEPA lawsuit. In our best judgment and upon advice of counsel, we feel that the requirements of NEPA have been met. It is further felt that Mr. Chapman's decision is the right decision. The master plan and development concept plan for the Valley are targeted for completion not later than September 15 in order that public hearings can be held simultaneously on the two documents and the accompanying environmental assessment by October 15, 1974. Mr. Chapman pointed out that in order for him to meet this requirement and the planning requirements for Lassen Volcanic National Park, other planning activities within the Western Region would have to be deferred for 3 to 6 months. JOHN E. COOK. JUNE 5, 1974. To: Files. From: Superintendent. Subject: Special planning effort. During my visit to the Regional Office Monday and Tuesday it became painfully evident that many of our projects including, of course, the Curry Village proposal are in serious jeopardy because of lack of approved basic planning documents. Mr. Chapman requested DSC to put together a special planning team who could be assigned full-time to Yosemite to see if Master Planning and DCPS could be completed as soon as possible. DSC has put together a team consisting of the following: John Ochsner, Chairman; Ralph Root; Frank Ziegenfus; Felton Brunson; and Terry Carlstrom. This group will concentrate their attention on preparation of Environmental Assessments with alternatives for the Development Concept Plans for the Valley and El Portal. We are targeted to present these alternatives at a public meeting about mid-October, which means that the drafts for the plans will need to be completed by August 1. The revised procedure in which we take alternatives to the public first as described in Mr. Dickenson's recent memorandum will be followed. After the meeting, the Development Concept Plans for the Valley and El Portal would then be prepared. Ron Mortimore of Western Region has also been assigned to the Yosemite Master Plan project. Ron will be at the park probably the third week in June to get park input on revising the March 1974 Master Plan draft. Ron will also work on boiling down and revising the Master Plan EIS. The hope is that through this special effort we will have completed and approved DCPs and a Master Plan by sometime this fall. LESLIE P. ARNBERGER. JUNE 6, 1974. Note to Director Walker. From Imogene LaCovey. Subject: Curry Village Development, Yosemite. As a bit of background, a brief search of our files disclosed that in December '71 the proposal was first made to replace the Curry Village tents with lodge units. That proposal involved approximately 50 units, and an average rate of approximately $18 was proposed. The 1973 Curry Village average rate was $11. There is no indication in our files to indicate that the project was ever disapproved; however, there were various obstacles, including a lack of funding for Service support facilities, which held it up. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS In connection with the recent developments, I have been able to obtain the following information: Public meetings were held some three to four weeks ago in Fresno to obtain public reaction to the proposal to replace 150 Camp Curry units. NPS received approximately 100 written comments, all but two of which were negative to the Company proposal. It was recognized that these were not necessarily a true reading that those in opposition were more vigorous in making their views known. Despite the negative public reaction, on June 4 RD Chapman made the determination to proceed immediately with the project. On June 5, he called his staff together to brief them on the rationale behind the decision. A discussion of considerable consequence developed, with the staff unanimously opposed to the decision. The following summarizes their reasons: 1. The NPS had gone through the exercise of a public meeting, and had in fact a negative reaction. We could not ignore it. While only one town was represented, it was certainly logical to assume that there were many other people outside the area of the meeting who would react negatively. 2. NPS has problems enough with NEPA, conservation organizations, and our public image; that to ignore public reaction and NEPA requirements in this instance would generate considerably more public reaction to the detriment of the Service than good that would be gained by proceeding with the proposal, 3. For years we have been working on a master plan for Yosemite. We would be short changing ourselves by ignoring it and proceeding with this proposal. The master plan is scheduled to be revised and completed by September. It will address itself to the Curry Village proposal and may approve such a project. We would have a "heck of a time" defending ourselves, with the master plan and its EIS incomplete at this time. NOTE: From a Service Center source, I obtained the opinion that while the master plan is scheduled for completion in September, it is very unlikely that this deadline can be met. Ken Raithel is captain of the Planning Team, and was, I understand, very much in support of the staff position. This reaction of the staff resulted in Regional Director Chapman's reversal of his decision to go ahead immediately. It did not kill the project necessarysimply delayed it until the master plan and EIS are complete. A point of information which is, I believe, vital to the concessioner's interest is the fact that there were 40 units destroyed when the Glacier Point Hotel burned in 1969. Tax consideration will require the company to use its insurance receipts from that loss for the immediate Curry Village replacement program. In other words, there are tax benefits which will be lost if these insurance receipts are not used in the very near future. I am sure this is one of the reasons the concessioner is pressing vigorously to proceed without further delay. YOSEMITE, June 12, 1974. Mr. LESLIE P. ARNBERGER, Superintendent, National Park Service, Yosemite National Park, Calif. DEAR LES: Attached are our comments on the February 1974 drafts of the Master Plan and the Environmental Impact Statement. 47-059-7527 After your review, we should get together at the planned meeting in Denver on June 12, to discuss any questions you may have concerning these commentaries and how they will be utilized in the next phase of planning document preparation. Sincerely, EDWARD C. HARDY, Chief Operating Officer. DRAFT-MAY 24, 1974 Re: Yosemite Master Planning. As per our meeting in your office of May 8th, we are pleased to submit the following long and short range projects we feel are in the best interest of fulfilling our responsibilities to offer service within Yosemite National Park. It is our request that these objectives be incorporated in The Master Plan, where appropriate. In the. interest of brevity, we have only listed the concepts with a brief description. 1. Campgrounds.--Concessioner to operate Class A campgrounds. NPS & YPC to work closely together in 1974 to establish standards of operation for 1975. Timing, early 1975. 2. Badger Pass.-The day lodge seating capacity is inadequate, requiring expansion of indoor space and outdoor decking. Restrooms require expansion and shelter is required for maintenance vehicles. Additional ski runs and parking to be considered after a review of the area's development concept plan. Timing, 1974-5. 3. Glacier Point.-Visitor needs dictate the development of a covered viewing area including a food service and sundry sales facility which will allow for a leisurely meal and relaxation out of the weather. Location should be adequate for viewing but placed so that it is unobtrusively located when viewed from below. Interpretive facilities and landscaped overlooks need to be a part of this redevelopment and will require some NPS capital support. Consider alternate parking area near base of Sentinel Dome with short funicular to Glacier Point, which is operable all year. Consider opening road all year to funicular site. Timing, 1975. 4. Garage Replacement.-Facility is beyond the point of meaningful repair and maintenance, is inefficiently laid-out and is inadequate to handle existing and future vehicle requirements. The garage is an eye-sore in the present location and leads to congestion in the area. We request the impacted site behind the warehouse, not presently in use. Timing 1975. 5. Employee Housing.-Upgrade whenever possible from tents to WOB's; WOB's to dorms. Replace old garage with new dormitory structure. Move available WOB's to Camp 6. Timing Continuing. 6. Shuttle Service.-Run a survey during the summer of 1974 to evaluate new loops, headways and utilization. Determine need for additional vehicles, additional loops from survey results and Short Range proposal. Evaluate Single Stage proposal. Plan for 1975 operation now! Timing Continuing. 7. Tuolumne Meadows.-Choose a single architect and design new visitor facilities per planning documents, considering area's capability for winter recreation within carrying capacity limits. Evaluate opening Tioga Road to Tuolumne or all-year, in terms of operating cost, for cross-country skiing and other activities. Timing 1974–75. 8. High Sierra Camps.-Locate sites and add three camps on north side of Yosemite Valley per Wilderness Proposal. Timing 1975. 9. Wawona Restoration.-Prepare plan for restoration with input from NPS, YPC and YNHA, including cost estimates and schedule for funding purposes. The construction of additional overnight accommodations should be planned for in the Wawona area. This will serve two purposes; to relieve pressure from the valley, and to make Wawona a distinction area. Of course, this area will not be seen from the road. Timing 1974–75. 10. Curry Village.-Add small speciality dining room in existing facility if warranted. Plan for future upgrading based upon visitor requirements. Timing 1975-76. 11. Ahwahnee Hotel.-Evaluate visitor needs for additional rooms and/or cabins at higher price levels, using "banked" units. Determine alternate sites in coordination with NPS, preferably in previously impacted areas. Timing 1975-76. 12. Aerial Tramway.-Update plans and data, utilizing current technology, including similar plans in other parks. Evaluate utilization and reduction in auto traffic. Choose site within Master Plan parameters and complete economic study. Present plan to NPS for approval. Timing 1975-76. YOSEMITE MASTER PLAN-SPECIFIC COMMENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1. Page 2. The reference to 24 million people in 1970 if used at all, should be qualified with the following language: "This figure is based on a statistical 3.5 people per car, whereas 1973 transportation studies indicated that cars contained 2.76-2.93 people, this would indicate present visitation just under 1.9 million per year." II. THE PARK AND ITS SETTING 2. Page 4.-Yosemite is about 4 hours driving time from San Francisco and 6 hours from Los Angeles-this should be clarified. 3. Page 5.-The Energy Crisis coupled with inflation and consumer pessimism will definitely reduce the number of visitors to the Park. Day users of the park will be effected most severely. 4. Page 6.-The reference to Badger Pass and skiing and the demand for expanded facilities is unclear. Does the Master Plan envision an expansion of the facilities at Badger Pass in order to achieve parity with increased demand for skiing? 5. Page 7.-We agree with the concept of planning for the region as a unit; however, the recreational distinctions between park and non-park activities should not be drawn too narrowly. For example, appreciation of natural values can take the form of hiking, climbing, skiing, ski touring, High Sierra camping, bike riding, horseback riding, etc. The Master Plan should recognize recreational use as a potential function of appreciation of natural values. It should also consider alternative impacts on park and non-park land. For instance, to meet the demand for facilities for additional 1,000 skiers/day in the region, a new facility outside the Park would require 100 or more acres for initial development, whereas only 33 additional acres would be required at Badger Pass. The impact is less in the Park. Legal III. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 6. Page 11.-There should be a discussion of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Land Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, applicability to inholding purchases or changes of land uses within Yosemite. Visitor Use 7. Page 13.-Again the figure 2,300,000 visitors in 1973 is misleading and should account for the VTN study findings (see comment #1 above). The statement, explaining a declining rate of increase, "The main reason is assumed to be the traffic congestion in Yosemite Valley, particularly up to 1970 when a valley shuttle service decreased driving within the valley," is totally confusing. In the first place, it is doubtful whether traffic in the valley or the shuttle bus service has any real effect on people's decision whether to come to Yosemite or not. In the second place, the statement infers that the shuttle caused decreased driving within the valley and hence decreased the rate of attendance. As stated previously, the Energy Crisis will have a reducing effect on day use; however, there will be more bus traffic. 8. Page 14.-Can it be substantiated that all entrance roads to the Park are nearing their capacity? And if they are, their capacity could be substantially increased by restripping and adding both lanes to the egress, along with adding personnel for more efficient traffic control. 9. Page 15.-Our records indicate about 2,319 developed campsites which will accommodate about 9,200 campers a night, of which about 950 accommodating up to 3,800 are located in the Yosemite Valley. 10. Page 16.-While the effect of the Energy Crisis on recreational vehicles is unknown-the trend for planning purposes is clearly a decline in usage and purchase of these vehicles. Of the dozens of recreational vehicle manufacturers two years ago, approximately 40% are no longer in the business at all. Those that still remain in the business do so on a reduced basis. 11. Page 17.-It is noted with pride that the Park's waters were first stocked in 1877 and that fishing has been a traditional activity in Yosemite. It should be noted that the Park's waters are no longer stocked. This is clearly not in the public's interest. IV. THE PLAN 12. Page 18.-The total validity of The Master Plan is diluted by the statement concerning access and support facilities along the west side of the Park. The report of VTN Corp., concerning El Portal and the Three-Stage Transportation System was absolutely conclusive with respect to the lack of economic and logistic feasibility of those concepts. At the Denver presentation of those reports, it was agreed that such funding, from both the private and public sectors, could not be expected and that other solutions would need to be explored. This has not been accomplished. It would therefore, be illogical to cast The Master Plan around a core of planning which is unsupportable in terms of the realities of the next decade or two. The Master Plan must balance preservation, use, environmental, and economic considerations. 13. Page 19.-The statement that management facilities, will be restricted to those directly to visitor use of a specific attraction is unclear and apparently too restricted. There needs to be a feasibility study before any facilities are classified non-related. As a general rule, centralization of management is essential for efficient operations. V. VISITOR USE CONCEPTS 14. Page 25.-In the earlier pages you stated visitor increase has been controlled by congestion, the maintained level of low overnight accommodations, and the reduction of overflow camping facilities-now you state that if some attempt is not made to set carrying capacities, the resources of Yosemite will be abandoned to "uncontrolled increase in visitation and thus to almost certain destruction." (Propaganda in order to sell a particular project should be stricken from The Master Plan document). Planners must recognize traditional market place regulators, such as inflation, energy resources, lodging accommodations, etc. 15. Page 26.-Only 10% of the people have complained about the noise and congestion of too many automobiles. VI. CARRYING CAPACITY 16. Page 26. The definition of Carrying Capacity is too broad. The quality of an individual's park experience is totally subjective-what may diminish one person's experience, may add to another's. For a particular individual, the addition of simply one more person in the park may diminish his individual experience. Clearly the most important criterion in establishing carrying capacities for a particular area is the preservation of the resource. 17. Page 29.-The statement that Yosemite Valley, Glacier Point and Mariposa Grove have exceeded their carrying capacities for automobile access is not true. Possibly on an isolated busy weekend, Glacier Point may have approached capacity-but as a general statement the above is specious. The remedy for this ailment is not major surgery, but the setting of limitations for certain weekends along with the addition of some traffic control people. VII. ALTERNATIVE A AND B 18. Page 32.--Instead of further studies spending more money, we feel The Master Plan should recognize the economic and practical unfeasibility of the premise that all private automobile traffic must be curtailed or at least stringently limited on the present access road passing through the lower valley. It is essential that The Master Plan acknowledge the costs and therefore, the lack of feasibility, etc., of the VTN report. 19. Interim Measures Page 33.-Yosemite Village does not have to be redesigned to accommodate pedestrians and shuttle buses. Even if it were to be redesigned for other purposes, i.e., aesthetic, it would not be necessary to remove parking and roads in this area. The limited parking that exists is a necessary complement to an expanded shuttle service and car storage facility in the Park. 20. Page 34.-There are only 950 campsites, not 1,000. |