1/11/99

     Dear Friends of Yosemite,
    
     The tumultuous seven months since our last Planning Update have
     yielded a new and exciting framework for ushering Yosemite Valley into
     the 21st century. In May, the National Park Service will release for
     public review The Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/Supplemental
     Environmental Impact Statement reflecting thousands of public comments
     from the past six years with proposed alternatives from four draft
     planning documents. By late 1999, we will finalize this comprehensive
     vision for Yosemite Valley.
    
     It is impossible to overstate how valuable your participation has been
     to date, yet in the next year we will need you more than ever. We are
     constantly reminded that despite its awe-inspiring landscape, Yosemite
     Valley is just a 7 mile by 1 mile sliver of land, much of it resting
     in floodplain or rockfall zones. Any planning decisions we make to
     support and enhance the experience of park visitors and preserve and
     restore the Valley's natural and cultural resources must weigh the
     different, and sometimes competing, values within and begween these
     three issues  Interests will collide. In order for us to make wise
     decisions about the difficult trade-offs and best preserve the park
     for future generations, we must fully understand the concerns of those
     who know Yosemite best.
    
     During public discussions on the previous planning documents we heard
     and incorporated a wide range of concerns on all of the major planning
     issues.  Nevertheless, before we finish drafting this new
     comprehensive plan, we want to ensure we've heard about any issues
     that you think have not already been raised.   Hence there is a brief
     scoping process until January 15, 1999.  Then, with the release of the
     draft in May, you will have an additional opportunity to have your
     voice heard.  What's particularly encouraging is that Congress's
     support provides the means to take all the words and the work and
     transform vision into reality.   We urge you to note the key dates
     highlighted herein and to stay involved.
    
     As always, thank you for your for your time, your interest, and your
     efforts. Rest assured that you continue to make a difference.
    
     Sincerely,
    
     [signed]
    
     Stan Albright
     Superintendent
    
    
     WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THE PAST SIX MONTHS:  A SNAPSHOT
    
     In May, 1998 (the date of our last issue), we were working on a number
     of planning documents simultaneously. Since that time:
    
     * We have read and analyzed over 5000 public comments on the Draft
     Valley Implementation Plan.
    
     * A U.S District court judge issued a preliminary injunction halting
     our proposed work on Yosemite Lodge.
    
     * Based on the full array of public input, we re-thought and refined
     our criteria for making planning decisions in the Valley (see article
     pages on 5-6).
    
     * Based on public input and in discussions with Secretary of Interior
     Babbit we decided to integrate the  Draft Yosemite Valley Housing
     Plan, the Draft Yosemite Valley Implementation Plan, the Yosemite
     Lodge Development Concept Plan, and the Yosemite Falls Design Project
     into one comprehensive plan for Yosemite Valley. National Park Service
     staff at Yosemite will use all the existing public output and the
     revised criteria to prepare the plan.
    
     The rest of this Planning Update is designed to offer more insight
     into these four key developments.
    
    
     FOUR DOCUMENTS INTEGRATED INTO ONE:  THE "NEW" YOSEMITE VALLEY PLAN
     The four existing draft documents summarized below have advanced
     Valley planning considerably. The idea now is to use public comments
     combined with the new criteria to examine what was proposed in these
     plans,  resolve conflicts between them, and incorporate new ideas and
     concerns that have emerged from the process.
    
     All of these documents are rooted in the 1980 General Management Plan
     (GMP). The GMP was the NPS response to a growing set of concerns about
     conditions at Yosemite. With input from over 60,000 citizens, the GMP
     set forth five broad and intimately linked goals that have helped
     guide the planning and management decisions of the park to this day:
     reclaim priceless natural beauty, markedly reduce traffic congestion,
     allow natural processes to prevail, reduce crowding, and promote
     visitor understanding and enjoyment.
    
          The Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan/EIS
    
     The Housing Plan, first released in draft form in 1992, was designed
     to implement the GMP objective of removing nonessential employee
     housing from the Valley, and to improve housing for NPS, concession,
     and other employees who provide visitor services in the Valley. The
     latest revision of this plan (1996) focused on housing employees and
     administrative offices in El Portal. Destruction of employee housing
     in the 1997 flood lends a sense of urgency to employee housing
     considerations.
    
          The Yosemite Lodge Development Concept Plan/EA
    
     While both the 1980 GMP and the 1992 Concession Services Plan called
     for the removal of Yosemite Lodge buildings from the floodplain, the
     January 1997 flood insisted upon it by destroying approximately 50% of
     lodging facilities. Options for the Yosemite Lodge were originally
     part of the VIP, but because of the loss of so many lodging units and
     employee housing in the flood, the NPS decided to accelerate specific
     planning for the lodge so as to return it to full service as quickly
     as possible. The resultant plan did not originally revisit decisions
     about the numbers and types of visitor lodging units made in previous
     plans, but the public process led to the a number of revisions.
     
     The latest draft would have:
     * reduced the number of buildings at the lodge as called for in the
     1992 CSP, their footprint, and the total number of acres for
     development
     * consolidated lodging into quadriplexes, cottages, and motels as
     required by the 1992 CSP
     * moved cabins into a previously disturbed uplands site north of the
     current Northside Drive, allowing restoration of the Merced River
     floodplain and Yosemite Creek delta
     * eliminate the current bottleneck of traffic and pedestrians at the
     turn into the Lodge and Yosemite Falls by redesigning roads and
     parking areas
     * maintained Camp 4 (Sunnyside Walk-in Campground) in its current
     location
    
          The Draft Valley Implementation Plan/EIS
    
     In November of 1997, the NPS released the draft Valley Implementation
     Plan (VIP), which was intended to present a range of approaches to
     realizing the GMP's goals in Yosemite Valley. The VIP developed four
     alternatives with the help of substantial public input, a variety of
     studies, detailed mapping of critical park resources and an analysis
     of park operation functions.
          The Lower Yosemite Falls Restoration Project
    
     The NPS and the nonprofit Yosemite Fund, working under a cooperative
     agreement, are developing this project almost entirely with private
     funds. The project is designed to:
     * create a more "natural" area around Lower Yosemite Falls by removing
     cars, tour buses, and asphalt from viewing areas and departure points
     * create a more educational experience through a series of wayside
     exhibits designed to tell the stories of such things as the park's
     natural history, Yosemite Indians, and early pioneers
     * make the area accessible for wheelchairs and those with small
     children or elderly companions
     * create picnic areas that allow visitors to sit, listen, and take in
     both the Falls, and the adjacent forest and views; create adequate
     restroom facilities
    
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
     --------------------------------
     |   The Lodge Lawsuit
     |   Last October, in response to a lawsuit, the U.S. District Court
     granted a preliminary
     |   injunction that halted work proposed in the Yosemite Lodge
     Development Concept
     |   Plan (DCP).
     |
     |   We cannot pretend that our first reaction to the ruling was
     unbridled joy.  The judge's
     |   questions were based, in part, on his finding that the Lodge plan
     may not have
     |   considered the cumulative environmental impact of the proposed
     construction. As
     |   such, the ruling played a key role in our conducting a top to
     bottom re-evaluation of
     |   the opportunities and constraints presented in the VIP and the
     Lodge DCP.   That
     |   evaluation is what convinced us that one comprehensive planning
     document for
     |   Yosemite Valley ultimately makes the most sense.
     |
     |   Interestingly, the judge's ruling, the stream of public feedback
     and the decision to craft
     |   one comprehensive plan enabled a sharpening of our decision-making
     criteria and have
     |   have re-energized both the process and those of us who wrestle
     with park planning
     |   each and every day.
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
     -----------------------------------
    
    
     ISSUES RAISED FROM PUBLIC COMMENTS
     ____________________________________
     |              How Many Comments?
     |Draft Housing Plan (1996)          296
     |Yosemite Lodge DCP  (1997)         197
     |Draft VIP (1997)           about 3400
     |VIP Workshops              about 1900
     ------------------------------------------------------
    
    
     There were many substantive issues raised during the public review
     process for the previous plans.  These ideas are being used to
     formulate and evaluate the alternatives in the Draft Yosemite Valley
     Plan/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS).   You will
     have an opportunity, again, to review and comment on these new
     alternatives when the draft is released for formal public comment in
     May.  A Summary of public comments and NPS responses to substantive
     comments will be include din the SEIS.
    
     To help us right now, we need any new issues that you don't think have
     been raised as yet.  Please review the following list of issues that
     we have received comments on and let us know if you have any issues
     that were not brought up yet.
    
     Housing Plan Issues
    
     * General Planning - including 1980 GMP and 1992 CSP goals, scoping
     and public input, NPS responsibility for housing, Yosemite Institute
     needs, use of public funds for housing, sustainable building, planning
     assumptions, community issues, employee health and safety, and
     concerns about data presented.  Site specific references included
     Yosemite Valley, El Portal, and Wawona.
    
     * Resources - including great gray owl, long-horn elderberry beetle,
     mountain lions, areas of special biological concern, wildlife habitat
     and movement, oak woodland, exotic species, archeological and historic
     resources, hydrology and floodplain, Wild and Scenic River, scenic
     quality, geologic constraints, water, natural and cultural values of
     Riverside.
    
     * Facilities - including infrastructure needs, moving headquarters,
     tradeoffs of building in El Portal rather than Valley, and substandard
     housing.
    
     * Transportation and Circulation -  employee shuttle, light rail, and
     parking.
    
     * Economics - including project cost, lease/build options, affordable
     housing, public/private partnerships, environmental justice, and low
     wages and commuting.
    
     * Community and Regional issues - including access to services and
     amenities, schools, sociological impacts, community character,
     development density, trailer village, community center, museum, and
     social linkages between communities and Park, county economy and cost
     to county for additional services.
    
     Yosemite Lodge DCP Issues
    
     * General Planning - including fragmented planning, length of comment
     period, interactive contact with public, consistency with GMP and CSP
     goals, range of alternatives, interim and long-term solutions,
     carrying capacity, needs of disabled, funding and cost/benefit, and
     tradeoffs between development and resource protection.
    
     * Facilities - including building in undeveloped areas, visitor
     lodging-how much and the mix to remove, retain, and rebuild, types of
     buildings, cost, and consistency with GMP and CSP goals.
    
     * Employee Housing - including relationship to Housing Plan, how much
     to retain or rebuild and where, relationship with Camp 4, and housing
     quality.
    
     * Resources - including, floodplain, rock fall zone, air pollution,
     ration of land restored to new land developed, archeological and
     historic resources, noise, GIS data, Wild and Scenic River, root
     fungus, groundwater, and relative valuing of different natural and
     cultural resources.
    
     * Transportation -  including the Lodge gas station, Northside Drive,
     day-use reservations, parking, vehicle circulation around lodge,
     central pedestrian way, vehicles in the Valley, buses in the Valley,
     alternative transportation modes, bicycle and pedestrian path routes,
     and traffic at the Yosemite Falls parking lot intersection.
    
     * Camping -  including walk-in campsites, no-reservation camp sites,
     contacting campers about planning issues, campfires, and various
     campground amenities.
    
     * Climbing - including Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground), relocation of
     Camp 4, climbing and bouldering.
    
     Valley Implementation Plan Issues
     * General Planning - including fragmented planning, range of
     alternatives offered, and Valley and Park carrying capacities.
    
     * Transportation - including staging areas, parking areas, electric
     buses and alternative transportation options, hours of operation,
     overnight vehicles versus day use vehicles and the concern over
     appropriate alternatives for personal freedom.
    
     * Resources - including concerns about bears, ecosystem fragmentation,
     prescribed fire, air quality, hydrology, noise, cultural and historic
     issues such as bridges, orchards and Native American sites.
    
     * Recreation - including opportunities for walking, biking, hiking,
     horseback riding, photography, climbing, hang gliding, rafting,
     swimming and the associated issues of access to those activities both
     physically and economically as well as issues of personal freedom of
     choice.
    
     * Facilities - including location of amenities and services, gateway
     community issues, commercial services, visitor centers, campground
     locations, campsite numbers, density of campgrounds, auto services and
     entrance fees.
    
     Yosemite Falls Corridor Plan Issues
    
     This plan had not reached the public comment stage and will be
     evaluated as part of the new comprehensive plan for Yosemite Valley.
    
    
     DRAFT CONCEPTS FOR NEW ALTERNATIVES
     We are currently putting together the elements that will form
     altnerative sfor the Yosemite Valley Plan.  The following five concept
     statements have been developed to guide the formulation of the range
     of theose alternatives and assist you in providing scoping coments.
    
     Concept 1
     The No Action Concept: maintain current conditions and management
     policies; facilities and visitor use areas severely damaged or
     destroyed in the January 1997 flood would not be replaced; approved
     General Management Plan (GMP) and Concessions Services Plan (CSP)
     actions would be implemented on a piece-meal basis depending on
     funding; traffic impacts would be managed through use of the
     Restricted Access Plan (gate closures).
    
     Concept 2
     Fulfill the Park's purpose by attaining the optimal balance of GMP
     goals: wherever feasible, and to the extent possible, restore,
     perpetuate, and enhance the natural, cultural , visitor experience,
     and scenic values of Yosemite Valley by removing, modifying, reducing,
     or relocating facilities and services; regional transit facilities are
     placed in ease-valley (at Yosemite Village), day-visitor parking in
     west-valley, and a vehicle management system is developed.
    
     Concept 3
     Achieve GMP goals emphasizing visitor experience and cultural resource
     goals but with reduced natural resource benefits: east-valley resource
     and visitor experience benefits may be obtained by concentrating
     regional transit and minimal day-visitor parking in east-valley and
     using a vehicle management system: west-valley impacts are avoided.
    
     Concept 4
     Achieve GMP goals emphasizing natural resource restoration but with
     reduced emphasis on visitor experience benefits: east-valley resource
     and visitor experience benefits are obtained by concentrating regional
     transit, day-visitor parking, and visitor center and theaters in
     west-valley and developing a vehicle management system.
    
     Concept 5
     Achieve minimum GMP goals: rebuild facilities to approximate pre-flood
     conditions and GMP and CSP numbers to the extent allowed by minimum
     resource, visitor experience, and health and safety goals, and develop
     a vehicle management system and formalized parking in east-valley but
     without facilities for a regional transportation system.
    


1/11/99
     PROFOUND DECISIONS, COMPLEX TRADE-OFFS
    
     When we released the Draft Valley Implementation Plan in November
     1997, public and NPS discussions clarified how central the interaction
     between our natural and cultural resource protection goals and our
     visitor experience goals is to Valley planning. In most instances
     those goals are complementary. After all, at the most visceral level,
     it is the park's beauty and natural resources that draw people to it.
     Compromising those resources, by definition, compromises the visitor
     experience as well.
    
     Nevertheless, for much of this century, development and use patterns
     in the Valley-cars and their supporting infrastructure, in
     particular-have degraded the park's natural resources and set up
     conflicts between perceived visitor benefits and natural resource
     protection. Public input, months of discussion, and using the 1980 GMP
     and NPS mission have enabled us to refine the criteria designed to
     resolve these conflicts.
    
     First, we have established unequivocally that natural resource
     preservation will be the most important consideration in all our
     decisions. This does not imply that we expect to restore the Valley to
     its original condition - we are striving to protect a natural system. 
     It also  does not  mean that if there is a conflict it will always be
     decided in favor of natural resource protection. What it does mean is
     that  each decision will be looked at individually and no decision
     will be looked at individually and no decision will be made   that does
     not fully weigh its impact on the highly sensitive natural resources
     that comprise Yosemite Valley and the significant cultural resources
     that comprise our heritage.
    
     As part of that decision, we had to determine which of the Valley's
     natural resources deserved the highest levels of protection. Of
     particular importance are resources that are fragile, rare, or most
     capable of sustaining biological diversity. Recent studies have
     confirmed that the main component of the Yosemite Valley ecosystem is
     the Merced River and its tributaries, wetlands, meadows, and riparian
     habitat, and that the rich soils and vegetation associated with these
     areas are absolutely crucial for sustaining biological diversity in
     the Valley. Studies have also helped us determine that California
     black oak woodlands, whose acorns are a key source of food for Valley
     wildlife, are shrinking and endangered.
    
     Thus the highest value natural resources in Yosemite Valley include:
    
     * The Merced River
     * Biologically rich areas that support a range of species: wetlands,
     riparian, and wet meadow habitats, and California black oak woodlands
     * Rich soil areas that either support or have the potential to be
     restored to high value vegetative communities.
     
      In addition to Yosemite Valley's natural resources, the rich history
     of humans interacting with the Yosemite landscape demands that certain
     cultural resources in the Valley be protected as well.
     
      In consultation with historic preservation and Native American
     groups, we have identified three types of historic or cultural
     resources that are of particular concern:
     
     * Burial Sites: These sites are sacred to local Indian people, and
     will be preserved.
     * Archaeological Sites: Sites that have not been disturbed are
     considered most valuable.
     * National Historic Landmarks: These sites include the Ahwahnee Hotel,
     the Ranger Club, and LeConte Memorial Lodge
     
      In addition to establishing these high value resources we also
     identified  five essential elements of the visitor experience
     necessary to make a trip to Yosemite Valley a lifetime treasure that
     can inspire an individual sense of stewardship in park visitors:
      
     * That natural beauty-derived from the Valley's natural processes,
     dynamic ecosystems, and rich cultural landscapes-must be preserved.
     * Visitors must feel welcome in Yosemite Valley and must, to the
     greatest degree possible, have equal access to the Park's natural
     beauty.
     * We must provide high quality basic facilities and services for park
     visitors.
     * We must create a spectrum of opportunities for bringing individuals
     into contact with the Park's natural and cultural environments. One
     example of this spectrum: areas of solitude and quiet must co-exist
     with areas of intense visitor use, such as Visitor Centers.
     * We must make available high quality interpretive and educational
     facilities and services for all park visitors.
    
     Laced through all of these priorities, of course, is our commitment to
     protect the safety of park visitors and employees. The GMP recognized
     this and, to the greatest degree possible, called for removal of all
     structures from the floodplain and rockfall zones. The map below
     identifies these areas and demonstrates how they dominate a huge
     portion of Valley land.
    
          The Devil is in the Details
    
     Establishing criteria is relatively easy. Balancing the thorny
     complexities of real decisions and their real-life implications is an
     entirely different matter. We offer the following example to
     illustrate.
    
     The NPS knows that it is important for visitors to be able to spend
     the night in the Valley.  We know too that a range of accommodations
     are needed, including campsites which some visitors return to and
     cherish year after year.  But providing the number of campsites called
     for in the GMP raises some conflicting concerns.  Is it more important
     to allow camping along the river or to restore environmentally
     significant riparian zones and natural flooding patterns that such
     campsites disrupt?  Should we place or leave campsites in dangerous
     rockfall zones in order to meet the GMP's recommended numbers?   What
     is more important: to maximize the number of available campsites or to
     provide a range of density options so that those who want relative
     solitude can have it, and those who want a camping community can have
     that? 
    
     This is just one of many such decisions NPS planners must confront. 
     Because the land available for development in the Valley is severely
     limited there must also be tradeoffs between the numbers of campsites,
     lodging facilities, employee housing, other visitor services and NPS
     operations facilities we are able to build.,  Potentially, the process
     can be rancorous and polarizing.  But an informed, fully engaged
     public can help see to it that instead, decisions are made in an
     atmosphere of consensus and cooperation.
    
     [see hard copy for "Yosemite Valley Constraints Map" illustration]
    
    
     SCOPING FOR VALLEY PLAN UNTIL JANUARY 15, 1999
    
     Three ways to submit your scoping comments:
    
     1. Send a letter postmarked no later than January 15, 1999 to:   ATTN: 
     Valley Plan, Yosemite National Park, P.O. Box 577, Yosemite, CA 95389
     
     2. Drop us an email message no later than midnight January 15, 1999: 
     [email protected]
     
     3. On the World Wide Web at www.nps.gov/yose/planning
    
     Over the coming months we will do our best to keep you informed
     through these newsletters.  You can access additional information
     (fact sheets, etc.) on our planning website (address above).   We will
     be seeking more of your comments after the draft plan is prepared and
     released for review, scheduled for May.  During this review we will
     host a series of public meetings and will need your comments.