Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

baths," and to eliminate an additional 25 "cabin-tents without baths" at Curry Village and reallocate them to the Ahwahnee "together with 104 bank units, in developing a winterized 129-unit wing at the Ahwahnee"-favors the affluent and not "middle and low income groups."

Indeed, the DPOEA seems to bear out this analysis. It states (p. 116): "The lodging changes contemplated in this option [A.3 which is the one 'preferred' by the NPS] would have the most pronounced effect on the present visitor population. At each of the three lodging centers, the quality and price of accommodations would be raised. The Yosemite Lodge cabins without baths would be replaced by new cabins with baths. The diversity of accommodation type would be preserved at the lodge under this option, but the economic range would be compressed. At Curry Village, more than one-third of the low-priced cabins without baths would be replaced with units that would have rates in the upper end of the moderate price range. At the Ahwahnee, 129 luxury units would be added. This elevation in the quality and price of lodging accommodations appears to be in keeping with demonstrated visitor demand, according to occupancy statistics compiled by the concessioner."

(a) If the NPS does not agree with this analysis, please explain (i) what is meant by the NPS policy on "range of accommodations available to middle and low income groups"; and (ii) how that policy will be applied to the abovementioned "winterizing" program.

(b) Please provide to us copies of the "occupancy statistics compiled by the concessioner."

(c) Please state what procedures the NPS used to verify these "statistics" and to independently ascertain whether or not there was such a "demand." (d) Even if the concessioner's statistics truly reflect "visitor demand", is it good national park policy to replace "low-priced" cabins with higher priced units and install 129 "luxury units" at a national park?

(e) What does the NPS mean by the term "middle and low income groups?" 4.A "Negative Declaration," dated April 12, 1974, prepared by the Yosemite Superintendent, indicates that Yosemite's sewer, water, and electrical power systems need reconstruction and upgrading. These are not discussed in the Master Plan, although there is some discussion of them in the Development Planning Options document.

The "Negative Declaration" states (p. 4) that NPS has "programmed" reconstruction and upgrading of these utilities and that this "could be completed by FY 1976 if construction funds can be obtained at the start of FY 1975.” (a) Please describe the present conditions of each of these utilities and state their capacity,

(b) Are these utilities currently operating at or near capacity?

(c) Please describe the reconstruction and upgrading planned for each of these utilities and indicate what their capacity will be when completed.

(d) What will be the estimated cost of the reconstruction and upgrading of the (i) sewer, (ii) water, and (iii) electric power utilities?

(e) Have funds been included in the FY 1975 appropriations or the 1976 budget requests for the NPS? If not, why not.

(f) Shouldn't this reconstruction and upgrading precede the addition, reallocation, or replacement of new overnight lodging units? If not, why not. (g) Why isn't the plan for utilities discussed in the Master Plan? (h) The "Negative Declaration" states (p. 5):

"It has been determined that the proposed development will utilize waterconserving plumbing equipment in lavatories, showers, and sinks which will result in a lower per capita water usage than previously experienced with tent and WOB occupancies. Specifically, persons living in WOB's or tents use about 35 gallons per day in the common bath facilities; a person living in a sleeping unit with a standard bathroom uses about 50 gallons per day; the proposed units water-saving devices will result in a per capita use of only 30 gallons per day, thus cutting present usage by 14 percent, and having a positive effect on the limitations of the sewermain."

Has the NPS discussed the sewer problem at Yosemite with the Environmental Protection Agency, and does EPA agree with the above statistics and conclusions? If not, why not? (i) The EIS states (p. 69) that the wastewater and collection facilities "are inadequate" and a secondary treatment plant is "planned," at Wawona. Why are these facilities inadequte, and when will the new plant be built?

5. The EIS indicates (p. 108) that an expansion of winter use at Yosemite will result in additional costs. What are these estimated costs and will the Federal Government pay them?

6. The DPOEA states that the options therein "are pending final master plan decisions regarding overall visitor use and resource management with Yosemite." It also mentions a fourth document-the draft development concept planwhich will follow the DPOEA.

(a) Please provide to us copies of all versions of the development concept document and explain its purpose to us.

(b) When will it be completed and made available for public review? (c) What specific "decisions" are contemplated upon approval of (i) the master plan and EIS, (ii) the DPOEA, and (iii) the development concept plan?

(d) Why has NPS prepared the master plan and DPOEA as separate documents, instead of combining them into a more easily understood single document? 7. We also note that the first (1971) and the second (February 8, 1974) versions state (pp. 48 and 52, respectively):

"The Act of September 2, 1958 (72 Stat. 1772), authorized the acquisition of lands at El Portal which were to be used for development of utilities and housing to 'preserve the extraordinary natural qualities of the park.' Since this objective has not been achieved, its validity will be studied." (Emphasis supplied.) The "current proposal," however, states (p. 5):

"Employee residence for the National Park Service and the concessioner which are not required for job responsibility in the Valley will be relocated at El Portal when replacement is required and mutually agreed to." (Emphasis supplied.) (a) Has the NPS utilized fully the authority contained in the Act of September 2, 1958 (72 Stat. 1772)?

(b) What will be the cost of relocating employee residences at El Portal as suggested in the "current proposal"?

8. The 1971 version of the Master Plan states (p. 41):

"The policy at Yosemite, as in other national parks, has been to eventually phase out all private property rights within the authorized boundary.”

The second version (February 8, 1974) states (p. 52):

"It will be the goal of management to acquire the privately owned lands within the park, except at Wawona. Here the costs are so high as to suggest that acquisition of inholdings should be reevaluated, and study made for solutions which are in harmony with park objectives."

The third version (July 1974) states (p. 4) :

"For administrative consistency and efficiency, all privately-owned lands within the Park will be acquired."

The fourth, fifth, and sixth versions state:

"To prevent non-conforming uses and development and to insure proper management of park resources and visitor uses, all privately-owned lands within the Park will be acquired."

(a) Please locate all inholdings on a map of Yosemite National Park and indicate the total acreage for each inholdings. On the same map, please show all NPS administrative and other buildings within and outside the park, and the location of all public use facilities.

(b) What type of residential, commercial, etc., development now exists within each inholding?

(c) Does the NPS intend to acquire the privately owned lands at Wawona in light of the February 8, 1974 statement that the "costs are so high"?

(d) What would be the estimated cost of acquiring the Wawona inholdings? (e) What would the NPS do with the improvements at Wawona, including the rental cabins and houses which "can handle about 400 park visitors"? (f) What is the condition of the facilities at Wawona and the estimated cost of rehabilitating them?

We request your response to the above matters by November 21, 1974.
Please provide a copy of your reply to the General Accounting Office.

Sincerely,

HENRY S. REUSS,

Chairman, Conservation and Natural Resources Subcommittee.
JOHN D. DINGELL.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Activities of Regulatory Agencies of the
Permanent Select Committee on Small Business.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D.C., December 20, 1974.

Hon. JOHN D. DINGELI,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Activities of Regulatory Agencies of the Permanent Select Committee on Small Business, Committee on Small Business, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. DINGELL: Thank you for the letter of October 21, cosigned by the Honorable Henry S. Reuss, House of Representatives, regarding the questions that surfaced during your review of draft planning documents for Yosemite National Park.

We are pleased to provide you with the enclosed response. We have included a copy of your October 21 letter of request which we have numbered to correspond with our numbered response.

We have decided to incorporate the results of more detailed studies into the draft planning documents and, therefore, will not formally circulate the documents for public review until these studies have been completed.

As enclosures 3 through 8 are very bulky, we are only enclosing them to Representative Reuss.

We hope this additional information will be helpful to you. As requested, we are sending a copy of this reply to the General Accounting Office.

Sincerely yours,

Enclosures.

RESPONSE

ROGERS C. B. MORTON,
Secretary of the Interior.

This is a response to questions raised by the Subcommittee on Conservation and Natural Resources during a review of planning documents for Yosemite National Park. Numbers correspond to those affixed to the October 21, 1974, letter of request.

1. The purpose of the commitment to come to a decision on the master plan and its related documents by January 20, 1975, was to facilitate the proposed upgrading of part of Curry Village's overnight facilities. The intent was to allow for the possibility that construction could begin during the summer of 1975, assuming that the project would receive fairly wide acceptance by the public and approval by the National Park Service. It was the intent, also, to follow National Park Service planning policies and National Environmental Policy Act requirements by proceeding with the master plan and its impact statement, followed by the more detailed planning document, the development concept plan for Yosemite Valley.

It is now recognized that this schedule will not be met. We are presently in the process of revising timing for release and review of Yosemite planning documents. When a draft Yosemite master plan and draft EIS are ready for release, the National Park Service plans to allow a total of about 60 days for public review and comment in accordance with departmental guidelines.

2. Camping in Yosemite National Park and particularly in Yosemite Valley has undergone considerable change since 1969. Before that time, overflow camping occurred throughout the valley and most campgrounds did not have specific units designated. Since 1969, camping in the valley has been controlled and overflow camping prohibited. This has been an evolutionary process accompanied by continuing work on the master plan. Further, since there are group and small informal campgrounds in the lower valley in addition to the conventional sites, it is difficult to identify exactly the precise number of total existing sites. Some individual sites were removed where they were subject to frequent flooding or encouraged overuse of fragile river bank areas. And only recently three sites were removed when the existing bridle trail was relocated.

The changes in total campsites noted in various master plan drafts indicate an attempt to more accurately record the number of sites actually in use. The most recent information on total campsites in Yosemite Valley is as follows: 889 individual auto-associated sites (this was used as a basis for the computerized reservation system), 42 walk-in campsites at Sunnyside, and 14 group campsites. Due to the fluctuation of approximately 20 sites each year, the master plan established a maximum total of 965 campsites. A maximum of 6 and an average of 4 persons use each individual auto and walk-in site. Up to 50 persons are allowed at each group site, with the average being about 20. There is also an informal

campground at Yellow Pine; it has a maximum capacity of 200 persons. If all campgrounds and individual sites were filled to capacity, they would provide for a total of 6,486 persons. It would be most unlikely, however, that all sites would have the maximum number of occupants. Thus, a more realistic capacity figure would be 4,200 persons based on 4 persons per site which has historically been the average occupancy. Finally, it should be recognized that it may be necessary to occasionally change some sections of the campgrounds for the reasons mentioned. This, however, should be viewed as a continuing process of refinement and not a plan to increase or decrease camping use.

3. The change in wording between the July 19 master plan draft and the July 31 draft concerning camping capacities is the result of recommendation by the Yosemite Park and Curry Company in their letter to the National Park Service on the July 19 draft master plan.

4. From the fourth version (p. 18) to the fifth version (p. 24), the figures describing overnight lodging in Yosemite were changed at the recommendation of the Yosemite Park and Curry Company. Although the 1708-unit count, mentioned in the fourth version, is the current amount of lodging, the level of accommodations has previously been 1864 units. Because the master plan proposed the reconstruction of the higher level of lodging, it was felt that 1864 units should be used for a planning basis. The difference in these two counts-156 units-were called "authorized" units. These units do not now exist, but were as follows: Yosemite Valley:

Stoneman Housekeeping (tent cabins) –

Curry Village (tent cabins and cabins without baths) Glacier Point: Glacier Point Hotel (hotel rooms) Mariposa Grove: Big Trees Lodge (hotel rooms) –

Total

Unita

70

34

40

12

156

5. The statement in the fifth version that "overnight lodging remained constant" up through late 1973 refers to the fact that during the past 10-15 years, there has been no significant change in the level of park overnight accommodations. There has been some removal and reconstruction of unusable units and accidental destruction of others; however, the overall change in the number of units is the aforementioned 156 units. On the other hand, between the years of 1962 and 1973, visitation to the park significantly increased from approximately 11⁄2 million people to 23 million people (see EIS, p. 53). Therefore, the proportionately large increase in visitation has had a much greater effect on day use than on overnight use, which is limited by the number of concession-operated units and National Park Service campsites. The occupancy of the units has not undergone as dramatic a change.

6. We have included a copy of page 23 of the sixth version of the master plan. It is identical to that which you already have in the fifth version.

The listing in the sixth version of 226 units outside the valley should be the same as in the fifth version, 266. This was simply a typographical error.

7. Using the term "authorized" for units described in comment number 4 was inadvertently incorrect. The 156 units are not legally authorized or contractually bound. The final decision on the number of Yosemite Park and Curry Company units will occur after the master plan and EIS public meetings. In addition, a decision has been made to remove the term "authorized" from both the master plan and EIS before printing for public distribution.

8. The statement in the master plan indicating that consideration should be given to winterizing lodge units when they are scheduled for improvement is intended to give more detailed planning efforts, specifically the Yosemite Valley development concept plan, the option of winterizing units. The decision on what units should be winterized is not usually made in the more conceptual master plan document. It is important to note, however, that the concept plan must evaluate such improvements in the context of utility requirements and other environmental considerations. Moreover, the DCP must undergo the same review and approval as the master plan, including public comment, before a final declsion is made and any construction begun. Although the National Park Service has encouraged off-season use at Yosemite, the need for additional winterized units has not been statistically demonstrated.

9. Refer to comment number 2 for a discussion of the existing number of Yosemite Valley campsites.

The use of 1550 units in the February 8th version of the master plan was an estimate of the number of Yosemite Valley units. This number was refined to the

1598 count during reviews with the park, regional office, and Denver Service Center staffs and the Yosemite Park and Curry Company. The 1598 units includes 1494 existing and 104 previously existing units. This was proposed as the maximum level of overnight accommodations, because it had not apparently resulted in unacceptable damage to the resources or the social environment when it had been previously reached. No expansion would be allowed until carrying capacities are established. Determination of overnight capacities for as complex an area as Yosemite Valley requires considerable study and the results may suggest retaining the current level, increasing the number of overnight facilities or reducing them.

10. Both the master plan and the Development Planning Options Environmental Assessment (DPOEA) document recommend the construction of 104 units in Yosemite Valley. Although these units were removed from Curry Village and the Stoneman housekeeping section, the master plan does not propose that the units definitely be built in the same location and at the same level of accommodation. The DPOEA document is a set of options for implementation of the master plan as it relates to Yosemite Valley. The preliminary recommendation of the DPOEA document is that the Ahwahnee would be the best place to construct the 104 new units. Visitor demand, as demonstrated by reservations and occupancy statistics, indicates the desire for more moderate- and high-priced accommodations. See comment number 21 for further information on why it was proposed that these units be added to the Ahwahnee Hotel.

11. The various master plan drafts referred to in your letter constitute an evolving document rather than separate and distinct plans. Essentially, the same persons were involved in the preparation of the February 8, 1974, the July 1974, and the July 19, 1974, drafts. Changes and corrections took place as discussions were held among the park staff, planning personnel, and the Yosemite concessioners. Persons involved were as follows:

Howard H. Chapman-Regional Director, Western Regional Office

Ronald N. Mortimore-Park Planner, Western Regional Office

Nancy Peterson-Environmental Planner, Denver Service Center, assigned to Western Regional Office

Leslie Arnberger-Superintendent, Yosemite National Park

John Good-Assistant Superintendent, Yosemite National Park

Jan van Wagtendonk-Research Biologist, Yosemite National Park
Astrid Schenk-Environmental Specialist, Western Regional Office
Bob Finkelstein-MCA Recreation Services

Ed Hardy-Yosemite Park and Curry Company

Verbal comments were received from other members of the Regional Office, park staff, and Denver Service Center staff.

The master plan drafts after July 19 were mainly the result of changes recommended during reviews of the aforementioned drafts by park and regional office administrators, park concessioners, and members of the NPS Washington Office staff. The letter from the Yosemite Park and Curry Company was the major source of the changes made in the drafts following the July 19 draft. Specific persons involved were as follows:

Leslie Arnberger-Superintendent, Yosemite National Park
Howard H. Chapman-Regional Director, Western Regional Office

John Cook-Associate Director, Park System Management, WASO
Russell Dickenson-Deputy Director, Washington

Ronald Walker-Director

Jay Stein-MCA Recreation Services

Bernie Fisher-MCA Recreation Services

Roger V. Hendrickson, M.D.-Lewis Memorial Hospital

R. G. Ele-Wells Fargo Bank

Charles A. Woessner, D.D.S.-Lewis Memorial Hospital

Bill Turnage-Ansel Adams Galley

The DPOEA document was also reviewed by the preceding group of people. It was prepared in the Denver Service Center by the planning team whose names are listed on page 179 of the DPOEA.

The concessioners' written comments on both the DPOEA and the master plan are enclosed with this letter.

[NOTE. The enclosures are in the subcommittees' files.]

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »