🚀 go-pugleaf

To: Yosen-dte Activists From: Marc Francis, Chair, Yosemite Task
Force Date: January 1, 1992

     RE:    VOLUNTEERS NEEDED FOR WRITTEN AND IN-PERSON COMMENTS
ON DRAFT CONCESSION SERVICES PLAN FOR YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK

     On December 18, 1991, the National Park Service issued its
     draft Concession Services Plan (CSP) for Yosemite National
Park. This important document will determine the extent to which
the next concessioner and the Park Service  will  implement  the
visionary 1980 General Management Plan (GMP). 'Me GMP calls for
a reduction in the excessive commercialization now damaging Park
resources and interfering with the visitors' natural Yosen-dte
experience.

     A coalition of environmental groups including Sierra Club
     has reviewed the draft CSP. Unfortunately, the CSP fails to
fully implement any of the key action items in ihe 1980 GMP.
Rather, it hastens the conversion of Yosemite National Park into
an all-year, upscale tourist resort designed to produce a huge
stream of revenue for  the concessioner. For example, the CSP
calls for building 155 new luxury motel units and 55 new cabins
with private baths in Yosemite Valley, while eliminating economy
lodging well beyond GMP guidelines and converting restaurants
into  fast  food  outlets  in  order  to  accommodate
ever-growing  numbers   of visitors. Other critical issues, such
as transportation, employee housing, and resource management,
are deferred. No means are  specified  to  implement  the  few
planned  refom-is, and no timetables or schedules for
implementation are provided. In short, the plan has no teeth.

	  Sierra Club has obtained a copy of  a  confidential
	  memo  by  the  president  of  the
Curry  Company  detailing   a   White   House   meeting   with
President   Bush   in   which he and other industrial tourism
executives made a direct appeal to Bush to intercede on  their
behalf in concessions matters in National Parks to protect their
special financial interests. Is this a good way to make National
Park policy?

     The profiteers may have the administration on their side,
     but Yosemite has you! If you have previously written a
letter on Yosemite issues, you succeeded in helping convince NPS
to hold public meetings. Now you can follow this up by writing
again and  appearing  in  person  to  comment  on  the  draft
plan.  If  you  have not yet had an opportunity to become
involved in Yo@te issues,  now  is  the  time  to  start.

     Yosemite needs you to do two specific things now:

     1)     Send a letter today (public comment period ends
     February 28, 1992) to the National Park Service making the
main points set forth in the attached sample letter. Copy the
letter on your letterhead or stationary, adding your own
personal  touch  by mentioning how the Sierra Club's recommended
plan amendments would protect Park resources and improve the
visitors' Yosemite experience.


     2)     Appear in person with your friends and fellow
     Yosemite activists at the NPS public meetings on the draft
CSP and sign up to make a three-minute personal appeal to the
Park Service bureaucrats to amend their plan. Even if you don't
want to speak, your personal presence will have a significant
impact and wiu lend support to others. The meetings are
scheduled as follows:

     Los Angeles--January 29,1992, 7:00 pm, University of
     Southem Califomia, Davidson Conference Center, Figueroa and
Jefferson Streets

     Fresno--Janu= 30, 1992, 7@00 pm, Convention Center, Sanger
     Room, Ventura Avenue and 0 Stmet

     San Francisco--Janu= 31, 1992, 7:00 pm, Fort Mason (upper),
     Building 201

     Yosemite Nafional Park--Febru= 1. 1992, 1:00 pm, Yoseniite
     Valley Visitors Center, East Auditorium

     We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, thanks to the
     1993 expiration of the Curry Company contract and the MCA
buyout, to change concessions policy at Yose@te National Park
and implement significant portions of the 1980 General
Management Plan. Please do your part to "make the mountains
glad."

     For more infon-nation on making written conunents or
     appearing in person at the public meetings, contact:

	       Marc Francis, Chair, Yoseffiite Task Force
	       Northem Califomia/Nevada Field Office 4171
	       Piedmont Avenue #204 Oakland, CA 94611
	       415/654-7847

	       David Converse, Vice Chair, Yosemite Task Force
	       Southem Califomia/Nevada Field Office 3550 West
	       Sixth Street, Suite 323 Los Angeles, CA 90020
	       213/387-6528

Superintendent Michael V. Finley Yosemite National Park P.O. Box
577 Yosemite, California 95389

 Re: Yosemite Draft Concession Services Plan

Dear Superintendent Finley:

The draft Concession Services Plan (CSP) contains some good
ideas but it should be redrafted so as to follow the 1980
General Management Plan  (GMP)  and to ensure implementation of
GMP action items. The GMP is itself a compromise between
resource protection and commercial development and as such
represents the minimum acceptable standard for activities in
Yosemite National Park.

1.      Specific timetables and funding mechanisms  should be
provided for accomplishment of GMP action items required of the
concessioner and specific means should be listed, otherwise
these things will probably never be done. These issues should
not be deferred and considered only in the Statement of
Requirements to be published at a later date.

2.      Transportation,  employee housing,  and resource
management  issues are central to concessions planning and
should be discussed in the CSP and not deferred to future plans.
The CSP fails to require the concessioner to contribute to the
removal of private automobiles from the Valley. Funding for
transportation should be sought now.  Employee housing should be
provided in El Portal, not Foresta. The impact of these issues
on natural r6sources should also be considered in the CSP.

3.     An overall lodging reduction slightly greater than
required by the GMP does not justify building 155 new motel
units and 50 new cabin rooms at Yosemite Lodge.  Equally
objectionable is that the reduction is accomplished in the CSP
by eliminating more low cost lodging than mandated in the GMP,
thereby changing the mix of lodging available.  The Park should
not be converted into a year-round, upscale tourist city. The
GMP should be followed.

4.     Food Service policy should not be based on accommodating
uncontrolled overcrowding caused in part by commercial day-use
tours. If overcrowding is the problem as the CSP states, then
NPS should address that problem, rather than merely treating the
syptoms. Other means of feeding visitors consistent with the GMP
should be more fully explored. Why not have more public picnic
areas convenient to a grocery store? Commercial tour buses could
be required to provide box lunches for their customers and these
could be


obtained in local communities outside the  park.  Refuse
collection and recycling costs would be paid by the tour
companies. overcrowding should not be used as an  excuse  to
retain the Degnan's building in violation of the  GMP.  Food
service facilities should not be converted to expensive
restaurants.

S.      Buildings  and  structures  within  the   scope   of
concessions  operations  should be utilized or removed as per
the GMP. For example,  the  Mountain  Room  Bar's present
location should be returned to public use. Degnan,s building
should be removed, as should the  YP&CC  warehouse, and these
areas restored. other buildings or structures added since the
GMP and not authorized in the GMP should be removed.

6.      Concessioner   activities,   programs,   or   profit
centers added since the GMP and not  specifically authorized
in  the  GMP  should  be  terminated  at   once.

7.      More data on existing and planned concessions operations
should be provided to the public now so as to avoid favoring
existing concessions management in the bidding process.

B.      Environmental  impact  analysis   for   Alternative   B,
the NPS preferred alternative,  is inadequate. As the section
OImpacts on Natural Environmentm recites numerous times, there
is insufficient  information  available  to determine how the
natural environment will be affected if the NPS preferred
alternative is adopted. For example, no information is available
as to the proposed new roads and parking lots mentioned in the
section as necessa;-y for  the new lodging and other
developments..

 Thank you for consideration of my comments.


 Sincerely,








 cc: Senator

     Congressmember


--
Bill Michel			
bm@eng.sun.com		These views are my own, not Sun's.