Mr. BURTON. In other words, their suggestions were accepted and put into the second draft? Mr. DICKENSON. No, sir; not all of them were accepted by any means. They just were taken into consideration. Mr. BURTON. Well, I would just like to add one thing and then I will let counsel proceed. I am not sure that the reason you are here, or at least the reason that I am here, is for these 150 units at Curry. The reason I am here is that there is grave doubt in my mind-and in the minds of the people whom I represent, who are very concerned with Yosemite that it seems as though MCA was telling the Park Service what to do rather than the Park Service laying out a plan for the concessioner to follow. Just one question, and then I will be finished. 66*** F we are a In the last paragraph of your statement you say: dedicated career service of professional resource managers and park planners." Does that apply to Mr. Walker? Mr. DICKENSON. No, sir. Mr. BURTON. It does not? Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Finnegan. Mr. FINNEGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What has happened as far as the sewerage system at Yosemite is concerned? Has anything been done to upgrade it? Mr. DICKENSON. The existing system has been reviewed by the State of California and found deficient in several respects as far as the type of treatment and capacity, et cetera. One of the highest priorities we had was to correct this pollution that was occurring in the Merced River. It has been on the books now for some time, but the planning has now been completed, and so we have recently awarded a contract to go with a regional sewerage system, and a pipeline of adequate capacity to clear up and to make environmentally safe our sewerage system in Yosemite. Mr. FINNEGAN. Was an environmental impact statement prepared in connection with that sewerage system? Mr. DICKENSON. That was a negative impact. Mr. FINNEGAN. Would you provide that for the record also? [The negative impact statement subsequently submitted by Mr. Dickenson follows:] DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. NEGATIVE DECLARATION YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA WESTERN REGION In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the National Park Service has prepared an environmental appraisal on the following proposed project: Proposed Yosemite Regional Wastewater Collection Treatment and Disposal Facilities, Yosemite National Park The assessment process did not indicate a significant environmental impact from the proposed action. Consequently, an environmental statement will not be prepared. 47-059-75- -7 An environmental appraisal, which summarized the assessment is on file at the above office and will be available for public review upon request. Dated: August 14, 1973. LYNN H. THOMPSON, Superintendent. Dated: August 17, 1973. JAMES E. COOK, [The environmental assessment is in the subcommittees' files.] Mr. FINNEGAN. Was that negative impact statement made public? Mr. DICKENSON. I am sure it was, sir. Yes, sir. Mr. FINNEGAN. Subsequent to the March meeting with MCA, there was a hearing on May 7, 1974, in which the public objected to the 150 unit proposal. Despite that, as I understand it, on June 4 Mr. Chapman approved the 150 unit proposal, over the objections of the Solicitor's office in San Francisco, which felt that this action was improper in light of the environmental impact statement requirements of NEPA. Is that your understanding also? [The Solicitor's Office memorandum and related material are printed on pp. 397-398.] Mr. DICKENSON. No, sir. My understanding is that once we held those public hearings, those public meetings concerning the 150 unit replacement issue, which was the central feature that really kicked off the current master planning effort, the debate about whether or not the 150 units should or should not be replaced-it is my understanding that once we had felt the public pulse, and heard the comments and the objections of the public, then it was decided that we would, indeed, go into a full master planning effort, since that was the thrust of the public comments that we got, because we were being accused of piecemeal planning, dealing with only 150 units of replacement as opposed to what should be done throughout Yosemite Valley. So following that public meeting, meeting and testing the public comment, it was agreed that we would then go into a full master planning posture. That is my understanding. Mr. FINNEGAN. I have a copy of a memorandum dated June 5, 1974, from Associate Director John E. Cook who said: "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" and I am not sure who that counsel was-"we feel that the requirements of NEPA have been met. It is further felt that Mr. Chapman's decision is the right decision." [The full text of the memorandum is printed on p. 404.] Mr. FINNEGAN. As I understand it, that decision was made on June 4 when Mr. Chapman advised Washington that he had decided to authorize the concessioner to proceed with the 150 units. A June 5, 1974 memorandum to the files by Mr. Arnberger states: 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 [for 150 units] are in serious jeopardy because of lack of approved basic planning documents. I also understand that, on June 6, Assistant Director Mrs. Imogene LaCovey advised Director Walker that the regional office staff objected to Mr. Chapman's decision. She said: "A discussion of con siderable consequence developed, with the staff unanimously opposed to the decision." Is that your understanding of what happened? [The full text of the memorandums from which Mr. Finnegan quoted above are printed on pp. 404–405.] Mr. DICKENSON. You have certainly refreshed my memory, and I did not intend to skip over lightly the in-house debate about the merits of the pros and cons of that particular action. I simply jumped that to indicate to you what the final or bottom line decision was. Mr. FINNEGAN. But following that decision Mr. Chapman reversed himself again; is that correct? Mr. DICKENSON. Correct. Mr. FINNEGAN. All right. Then at the point at which he reversed himself on the 150 units he advised Mr. Jay Stein, by telephone, of his action. This was on June 11. Do you know what the nature of that conversation was? Mr. DICKENSON. No, sir. Mr. FINNEGAN. Or what Mr. Stein's reaction was? Mr. DICKENSON. I do not, sir. Sorry. Mr. FINNEGAN. At this point let me refresh your memory again. According to a June 24 memorandum Mr. Chapman wrote for the files, Mr. Stein replied that: ** the timetable for planning documents was totally unrealistic; that he opposed the decision that has been reached; and that he is willing to take on any legal question and would be willing to finance the cost of litigation if we were to proceed with the project and be stopped in court. *** He said that he will not accept our decision; it is totally unrealistic and we are sacrificing quality in the decision that has been made. He states that he will come back to Washington in the coming week, and that he will stand on principle, and that if he did not believe that he was right he would be the first one to acknowledge it. Mr. Chapman then stated that: Mr. Stein is not sure what the NPS is trying to hide behind, but, nonetheless, he aims to get an audience with the Secretary of the Interior in order to reverse our decision. *** He feels the decision is a cowardly one; he asked that Director Walker return a call to him; and he finally stated that he was shocked at our decisionmaking process; and he further admonished us that MCA was going to act toward us in the future as they feel we have now acted toward them. Let me ask you: Do you know whether he did get to see the Secretary about this matter? [The full text of the memorandum is printed on pp. 414-416.] Mr. DICKENSON. No, sir. He subsequently met with Director Walker and members of the Director's staff. Mr. FINNEGAN. When was that? Mr. DICKENSON. Probably it was early July. Mr. FINNEGAN. Could you ascertain when that meeting took place; who attended, and if there was any memorandum for the files concerning that meeting? Mr. DICKENSON. I sure will. [Mr. Dickenson subsequently submitted the following data:] This meeting was held in Washington, D.C. on June 19, 1974. Attending: Director Walker; R. Dickenson, Deputy Director; J. Cook, Associate Director; R. Freeman, Assistant Director; D. Watts, Solicitor's Office; J. Stein, MCA; B. Fisher, MCA; and Jerry Negin, Attorney representing MCA. Subject of Meeting: Proposed 150 new units at Camp Curry. Mr. FINNEGAN. Did Mr. Walker return his telephone call? Mr. FINNEGAN. Now following all of this, Mr. Walker wrote a letter to Mr. Stein-which I understand is dated July 25-in which he apologized for the reversal, and then said he would make a commitment that the planning process would be completed, and that a decision on the units would be made by January 20 of 1975. Is that your understanding also? Mr. DICKENSON. Yes, sir. The letter and a related draft thereof are printed on pp. 423-425.] Mr. FINNEGAN. We have another memorandum for the file dated July 29 with Mr. Arnberger's statement which indicates that despite this, the decision had already been made. Is it your understanding that despite what Mr. Walker was saying-to Mr. Stein, and I understand to the public-that, in fact, they were going to go ahead with the 150-unit decision, and the master planning was deceptive? Mr. DICKENSON. No, sir; it is not my understanding at all. [The above memorandum is printed on pp. 425-426.] Mr. FINNEGAN. On the question of the new planning, we wanted to obtain, and you were going to make available to the public, all of the versions of the draft master plan, the draft environmental-impact statement, and the development concept plan prepared to date. Mr. DICKENSON. We will make all those documents available. Mr. FINNEGAN. And you will also make available all letters, memorandums and related materials concerning these various controversies-105 units, 104 units and the master planning-available, including the ones I have referred to as file memorandums? Mr. DICKENSON. Yes, sir. Mr. FINNEGAN. Would you provide to us lists of all of the documents. that you do make available to the public? Mr. DICKENSON. Yes, sir. [The following list of planning documents made public by the NPS was subsequently provided by Mr. Dickenson:] Yosemite planning documents made public include: 1. Preliminary working draft, Yosemite Master Plan, July 1971. 3. Working draft, Yosemite Master Plan, July 1974. 4. Working draft, Yosemite Master Plan, July 19, 1974. 5. Working draft, Yosemite Master Plan, July 31, 1974. 6. Preliminary draft, Yosemite Master Plan, August 12, 1974. 7. Revised draft environmental statement, Proposed Yosemite Master Plan (accompanies August 12, 1974 draft). 8. Environmental Assessment, Development Planning Options, September 4, 1974, Yosemite Valley. 9. MCA Recreation Services' July 29, 1974, review of the July 19, 1974, master plan. 10. R. G. Ele's July 30, 1974, review of the July 19, 1974, master plan. 11. Dr. Roger V. Hendrickson's July 31, 1974, review of the July 19, 1974, master plan. 12. Bill Turnage's August 4, 1974, review of the July 19, 1974, master plan. 13. MCA Recreation Services' August 7, 1974, review of the July 23, 1974, outline of the Environmental Assessment, Development Planning Options listed in item 8. 14. MCA Recreation Services' August 9, 1974, review of an earlier undated version of the revised outline. 15. Bill Turnage's August 11, 1974, review of the July 23, 1974, outline of the Environmental Assessment, Development Planning Options. Mr. FINNEGAN. In your December 13 press release you state that the Park Service will hold public workshops on alternatives and public meetings on the draft plans and the draft environmental-impact statement; is that correct? Mr. DICKENSON. Yes, sir. Mr. FINNEGAN. Can you tell us what you consider to be the differences between a public workshop and a public meeting? Mr. DICKENSON. Public workshop in our view is a preliminary meeting in which the public is invited to review a set of options or alternatives, without the Mr. BURTON. I am sorry, I didn't hear that. Could you say that again? Mr. DICKENSON. Yes, I will repeat it. A workshop, in our view, is a preliminary public meeting at which a set of options and alternatives-major alternatives are reviewed without the agency adopting any particular position. In other words, you go into that workshop with the idea of having a full give-and-take discussion of the relative merits and demerits of the alternatives and options. And, somewhat later, after we have refined those, and reduced the options or alternatives, or have actually come forth with a master plan, for example, which does produce an agency position, at that time we go into our public meeting. Mr. FINNEGAN. I see. Mr. DICKENSON. That is the essential difference. It may be minor, but nevertheless it is somewhat different. Mr. FINNEGAN. Do you keep a verbatim transcript of these workshops? Mr. DICKENSON. Since we have not yet held one exactly, I cannot give you that. I doubt that we would on the workshop. We have had informal meetings and gatherings before, but we have never formalized it in our planning procedures to the extent of identifying them as a workshop. Mr. FINNEGAN. Then what you have described to us as a workshop is what you plan to do, but does not include anything that you have actually done up to now; is that correct? Mr. DICKENSON. That is right. Mr. FINNEGAN. But you do not keep any verbatim transcript? Mr. FINNEGAN. All right. On September 11, 1974, your Acting Associate Director, Mr. Richard W. Marks, commented about these workshops, and he expressed a view similar to yours-that they should be informal and free wheeling. However, he went on to say that public meetings are superfluous. He said: Meetings at this stage are often more political exercises that provide a sounding board for those who, for one reason or another, remain dissatisfied with the plan. If the plan's impacts are significant or highly controversial, the plan will have an associated draft environmental statement on which public interests may provide written comments. The National Park Service must respond to these comments in writing and should amend the plan and draft environmental statement if the comments provide a persuasive case for doing so. In sum, we would anticipate that the number of public meetings on completed draft plans will de |