Yosemite Campers News Releases

"Mission-related programs of the National Park Service"

17 Apr 2008 17:35:42 GMT

What is meant by "mission-related programs of the National Park Service"?

I read it on a website of retired NPS employees and I was wondering about it. I guess it’s a script that they all adhere to that isn’t made public.

My curiosity comes from a position I hold, which is that the local park management get their marching orders from above. I have spoken to people at the park who work in and around the top brass, and have been told that they do not get their marching order scripts from above in their organization, i.e. the NPS in Washington. But, I question that as you might guess. It seems that the park follows a well worn path, because they talk of goals that are in direct lockstep with things that other parks have done, which show a pattern. The term "cookie cutter parks" has been tossed around in the past, and I just assumed that this term "mission-related programs of the National Park Service" holds a key to this view of why this new park superintendent seems to be following in the path of his predecessor with such synchronicity. If it's not so, I would think that this park manager would be less hesitant to the concept of a complete public process review of the Yosemite Valley Plan if they ever get beyond the Merced River Plan, though that will take years, as we know.

Each manager seems to want to get things done quickly, so this litigation apparently drives them crazy. They forget that there are many local Californians that still refer to Steven Mather’s Tioga Pass road as the “new road”. Perhaps it’s a problem with these managers wanting to pin accomplishments to their badge before they are either replaced, transferred or retired. With so much riding on this recent court decision, I would think that they would not want to invest in another legal battle that could drag them into another several year struggle if the litigants bring up the fact that the YVP is intricately connected to the MRP, and that, it has no legs without a MRP to authorize every decision in it. It is the legal blueprint for the MRP, and at this point it is suspect, to say the least. The MPR has to come before a YVP, but, the previous park superintendent refused to open it for further review when ask to by congress.

Maybe congress doesn't pull enough rank on them, but we have learned that the judicial system can. It just costs a lot of money and takes a lot of time. That's all. In other words, I wonder if the new park superintendent might stray from the so called "mission-related programs of the National Park Service" if it would be the right thing to do, when it comes to Yosemite, and it could avoid dragging this out for yet even more years before a legal decision might force their hand.

Yosemite's Scott Gediman's Denigrating Comments

3 Apr 2008 18:27:28 GMT

There is a blind faith sentiment from many of the public and media to believe the National Park Service when they make eloquent and lofty environmental statements. When such statements come from Yosemite's Park Spokesman, Scott Gediman, the public wants to trust that they mean well that that there is no hidden agenda. Without the Ninth District Court of Appeals to rule in favor of the plaintiffs, of whom the park’s designated Spokesman, Scott Gediman has maligned in the media as "a few people with narrow views", it would be much harder for people to sort out fact from fiction. Scott Gediman’s so-called "few people with narrow views" represent 52 amici signers nationwide, who signing on to the original litigation, which included the respected Counties of Tuolumne and Madera. In addition there is more than 1,100 signatories on the Yosemite Valley Campers Coalition’s e-petition and more than 500 on their written petition in support of the return of campsites removed after the 1997 flood without public input, after congress gave the park service millions of dollars for campsite flood recover. The court's decision may now encourage the public to delve deeper into Yosemite planning issues story to sort through deceptive statements from the Yosemite National Park Service's spokespeople. Isn't it great that there is a justice system where the a grassroots group of concerned citizens can seek justice and hold accountable the National Park Service who panders to large corporations and private interests in their ongoing effort to raise money for the privatization and commercialization of Yosemite and our other National Parks. Mark Sutherlin Truckee, CA

Quote of the day

29 Mar 2008 03:41:30 GMT

The following was a poster's response to a newspaper article today, where YNPS's Scott Gediman got some press on what the park's views are, as follows:

How many lies can Gediman spout in one article and the press just blindly lets him have the floor... The man has no shame!! The article below takes the cake. The Plan wasn't rejected by "environmentalists"; it was rejected by the Courts for being illegal. He moans about the utility project as though it was being blocked and how the Park is under a cleanup and abatement order; he fails to mention Judge Ishii allowed the Park to move forward with Phase 1 of the Utility project in 2004 and allowed Phases 2 and 3 to move forward in March of 2007--all utility work has been cleared for completion and had nothing to do with this ruling. He talks about the need to pave the Valley Loop Road; the judge cleared that project in March of 2007--it's currently being done. He talks about campgrounds being rebuilt after the flood; fails to mention that building 30 new RV sites and 59 walk-in sites on undeveloped land in Upper Pines will enable the NPS to eliminate 86 family-friendly auto-based sites at North Pines that have been used for decades--it's not about replacing sites after the flood, it's about eliminating North Pines, reducing Lower Pines, expanding Upper Pines and consolidating traffic circulation to accommodate busing. And this is just a "few people"--try 52 amici nationwide signing on to the original litigation including the Counties of Tuolumne and Madera; how about the more than 1,100 signatories on the campers e-petition and the more than 500 on a written petition. No one wants to report on the very simple fact that the Park Service waived its objections to the injunction by not presenting it to the Court--this ruling has nothing to do with projects; it's about an invalid River Plan which will ultimately establish the zoning blueprint for projects...

Yosemite projects' delay upheld

Appellate court ruling gives environmentalists a key victory in the battle over park plan.

By Pablo Lopez and Paula Lloyd / The Fresno Bee 03/27/08 23:38:58

In a blow to the National Park Service, a federal appellate court Thursday upheld a Fresno judge's order that stopped 14 construction projects in Yosemite Valley. U.S. District Judge Anthony W. Ishii ordered the park service in November 2006 to halt more than $100 million in projects -- including the $35 million effort to rebuild Yosemite Lodge -- until the agency rewrote its controversial plan to protect the Merced River. The park service appealed the judge's ruling, but a three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Ishii on Thursday, saying the agency must hold off on those projects until September 2009 -- the deadline for a new river plan that must address environmentalists' fears that development would hurt Yosemite's fragile ecosystems. The appellate court said the park service failed to sufficiently address a key issue -- what number of visitors would harm the federally protected river. Without that number, Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw wrote, the framework of the park service's plan "is reactionary and requires a response only after degradation has already occurred." Yosemite park spokesman Scott Gediman said the level of visitors that could cause degradation is an elusive number because the park is so vast. He said the park has no plans to limit visitors. "It's frustrating because the public clearly wants these projects to be completed," he said. He also said the ruling could jeopardize about $200 million that Congress set aside for Yosemite after the floods of 1997. The 14 projects are part of a $441 million planned overhaul. Now, the park service must devise a new plan because of "a few people with narrow views," Gediman said, referring to the Friends of Yosemite Valley and Mariposans for Environmentally Responsible Government. The two groups have led the legal battle against the park service. "Part of the park service's propaganda is that we're fringe groups," but the court decisions have proved that's not true, said Bart Brown, chairman of Mariposans. He also doesn't believe the federal funding will be lost. Brown said the Merced River should be free of waste or air pollution caused by traffic and shouldn't be endangered by construction too near its banks. The lawsuit dates back to 2000, three years after a large Merced River flood caused extensive damage in Yosemite Valley. The river swamped Yosemite Valley campgrounds and sewage facilities, and damaged many buildings. As the park service planned the lodge reconstruction and other projects, environmentalists argued that a legally acceptable plan needed to be in place before work could begin along the river. The park service wrote its initial plan in 2000, but it was rejected by environmentalists. When the agency came out with a revised plan in 2005, Gediman said, several environmental groups, including The Wilderness Society and the National Resource Defense Council, supported it. In addition to remodeling Yosemite Lodge, the projects include improvements on the sewage system, replacement of the Happy Isles footbridge and removal of an old sewage treatment plant in El Portal. In all, the 14 projects were estimated to cost nearly $105 million, park records show. The utility project would fix the valley's sewage system, which is under a state cleanup order for sewage spills into the river, Gediman said. "Some of those pipes are 60 to 70 years old," he said. Another project, repaving the Valley Loop road, would make the park safer for motorists. There are also plans to rebuild campgrounds destroyed by the 1997 flood, he said. The Friends of Yosemite and Mariposans, however, have used the courts to halt those plans. Ishii rejected the park service's 2005 plan -- a document that guides management of the Merced under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act -- saying it did not specify limits on the number of visitors around the river, which has sensitive areas that might be trampled by crowds. Gediman said the park service will continue working on its new river plan, work that began after Ishii made his 2006 ruling. By the end of this year, or early next year, the public will have ample time to comment on it, he said. "It's sad that a few people can stop the public from seeing improvements that will make Yosemite Valley a better place for everyone," Gediman said. End quote

Merced River ORV Scoping Meeting Feb. 23, 2008

Mark Sutherlin — 18 Feb 2008 21:37:46 GMT

Last weekend, Mr. Tollefson told me that they're putting new campsites up in Upper Pines. I knew this, and thought we could talk about it, but it was apparently a passing comment, as he then walked away. It struck me that he clearly wanted to have his say, but wanted no dialogue on the topic. I think he doesn't understand how the Yosemite Valley Plan was supposed to have followed the guidelines of the 1980 GMP (General Management Plan) when it came to the campgrounds, or so they said they would do. Or, perhaps he believes that Dave Mihalic's decision to do whatever the heck he wanted, by removing entire campgrounds without so much as calling for any public input was totally justified; because to a park superintendent, perhaps the park is their fiefdom. I’m sure he would say otherwise, but by not addressing the fact that no public scoping was involved in the removal of the campgrounds, he is in fact endorsing Mihalic’s decisions in regards to the campground removals. That was Mihalic’s Yosemite Valley Plan, not the public’s. Mihalic set himself up to be king of all he surveyed, while the public simply waited for him to leave, as is always inevitable, just as they’ve watched many park managers who think they are king, come and go. They come, make some changes, and leave the names stamped on a plaque somewhere, commemorating their deeds. The NPS says that they know that Yosemite is the "crown jewel of the park system", but they don’t seem to get it when they have so many of the public that want to be involved in the process. Before the record of decision on the Yosemite Valley Plan there was vast public involvement, so much so that the park complained about it. Now they wonder why there is such little involvement from the public when they call for scoping input. This sounds so rhetorical, but gee, I wonder why that is. If the Yosemite Valley Plan does not get reopened for further scoping, with all the campsites put back on the table for discussion once all this litigation is over with, regardless of how the litigation goes, it will be seen as yet another slap in the face to the locals who have seen so many park managers come and go over the past thirty years, and to the many Yosemite campers who feel slighted, and of course to the general public who once believed in the park’s public input process, had faith in them, and have since lost faith. It’s all about trust, which is a two way street. On Brian Ouzounian’s http://www.yosemitevalleycampers.org/ website there is a "References" page or section. On it, there is a link to a camping survey done several years ago. In the survey, it shows that the love of camping and nature had its biggest impact on people when they were very young. I can't recall the age specifically, but it’s important to reach them when they are young of course. That impression about camping, in Yosemite Valley of all places, would be all about the quality of that experience. And, when the park originally talked about improving the park with the Yosemite Valley Plan, a good camping experience was at the heart of the dialogue that the public was involved in, back when there was balance in the tone coming from the park service many years ago, BEFORE Mihalic. By refusing to replace three and a half entire campgrounds in Yosemite Valley with the money given to the park to repair the campgrounds, leaving only what is left of Upper Pines, North Pines and part of Lower Pines, the park service has made it impossible to implement any of the ideals or guidelines set forth in the 1980 GMP regarding campsite separation, leaving them as cramped as ever. Mihalic’s move made it clear that campers, and more specifically families of average means, are not the focus of the park's attention. The Yosemite experience of average people, especially if they are campers, should be foremost in the park's eyes, but instead it is not. It's interesting that when I talk to park service people at every level below management, I get an almost unanimous concurrence to this concept; with the possible exception being some who've never given it any thought. These views are received warmly by some in the park service, while others seemingly have never heard of any of this controversy. It's not surprising, because there are so many new park service people right now. Remember a few years ago when we had heard that so many park rangers and park service employees that had worked in Yosemite for many years, were on their way out, via requested transfers or early retirement? We had heard that it was due to Mihalic's presence that hung over the park like a dark cloud which created that atmosphere. Mr. Tollefson has a chance to listen but this is not what we’re seeing from him. The park service did not listen then, when Mihalic was there. Will Mr. Tollefson listen if the court agrees with the plaintiffs? Will he realize that maybe Mihalic was wrong about removing campgrounds without public input? Will he admit that the Yosemite Valley Plan and former Merced River Plans were rushed to completion? Mr. Tollefson wasn't here then. But, someone needs to get the message to him that the time leading up to Bruce Babbitt's departure from office, there was far more work done on the draft Yosemite Valley Plan than the Merced River Plan. The draft Yosemite Valley Plan was comprised of things that needed a Merced River Plan to justify and authorize. So, they conjured up a rushed Merced River Plan that would endorse their more complicated draft Yosemite Valley Plan that they had spent more time working on. They then approved both of these plans just in time, before Babbitt left office. If the Merced River Plan's carrying capacity has to be revised, as per the court's decision now, presuming the appeal does not win, (which it shouldn't), then someone in the current park management should be willing to admit that the Yosemite Valley Plan is no longer viable. No Yosemite Valley Plan should be respected that does not take into consideration all aspects of the Merced River Plan. And, because right now there is no Merced River Plan, the Yosemite Valley Plan is obviously broken and should be thrown out. But, with or without the Merced River Plan, the park should have involved their vast database of former Yosemite Campers, all of whom reside somewhere on a database. The park should finally, if they really want to do the right thing, ask for their involvement with regards to campground related changes. To simply close the campgrounds, because they were in the way of the flooded river, would be justification to remove campsites along all rivers that flood at times. Camping is and has been a recreational and lifestyle choice for millenniums in Yosemite Valley, along the river. It is possible to do this AND protect the river, which was addressed in the 1980 GMP. Camping must be listed in the ORVs (Outstanding Remarkable Values) in the upcoming Merced River (Wild and Scenic River) Planning, and we need those campgrounds back before we can move forward, with serious public involvement. Camping is an acceptable use in a "Wild and Scenic River" description, and camping in a periodic flood zone is commonly accepted. The upcoming Merced River Wild and Scenic River Scoping plan, this Saturday, February 23, 2008 should be interesting, with the Yosemite Valley Plan Elephant sitting in the room.

Yosemite's User Carrying Capacity Symposium, or Spin Machine?

25 Jan 2008 23:22:05 GMT

By Mark Sutherlin Date: January 25, 2008 A YosemiteCampers.com response to Yosemite National Park's Upcoming Carrying Capacity Symposium. Regarding the upcoming Yosemite National Park User Carrying Capacity Symposium for February 6-9, coming up, Yosemite National Park has not released an actual news release article to the media on this upcoming event because they would like to control what information about this subject gets to the media. One or two local papers have printed something about it, but this “event” is something that the news media would pick up on, had the park service’s marketing and propaganda department issued a news release. Instead, they sent out and email if you’re on their mailing list, or perhaps the Yosemite Association’s mailing list, and they put something up on their website, but a formal news release so that the public at large could act and respond? No. Of course, after the event I am inclined to expect that the park service will generate a spin article to the media news people of the event after the fact, which will put a spin on the event from their perspective, so that it will put them in a good light, as you might expect of course. They will relate to the changes in the park they are making, that will “accommodate all who want to come”, and how a carrying capacity with specific limits would inhibit that. The park service does not want a carrying capacity, and is in the throws of finding a way around it, and I am convinced that this “symposium” is just a way to find who their partners are out in the world who will facilitate an end run on the mandated requirement of a carrying capacity in Yosemite that would restrict the park from incrementally ramping up visitation over time, as demand dictates. The changes they have made to Yosemite Valley and are making will be to the intended exclusion of average Americans who want to camp in Yosemite Valley, and the increase of the foreign day trip visitors that arrive on tour buses from San Francisco each day by the droves, swarming the park with people wandering all over the park by the tens of thousands each day. That is where the park service is headed with their new development plans for Yosemite Valley, with the removal of campgrounds and campsite is the Valley over recent years. If you'll notice, the park has managed to eliminate three and a half entire campgrounds from the Valley recently, while they have invested in the development of spectacular tour bus friendly infrastructures that enables the Valley to accommodate ten times the amounts of daily visitors that it ever did on the busiest of days at any time in the past. Specifically, I am referring to the strengthening and widening of various roads into and out of the valley, that they say will accommodate the large tour buses better, the expansion of paved trails at the Lower Yosemite Falls area, that they say will accommodate more people, which they feel is a positive statement. Clearly their new Yosemite Lodge plans will accommodate more people and is going forward as planned, along with their new city like sewer expansion project, which has been underway now for ten years. However, the U.S. court of appeals is now reviewing the issue of a Carrying Capacity for our beloved Valley, for all the right reasons. The park service had wanted to eliminate the requirement of a “carrying capacity” in their latest Merced River Plan, but the public created a law suit to hold their feet to the fire. The public won the law suit in regards to the issue of a “carrying capacity”, because we the public understand what they meant by their statement that the park service wanted to "accommodate all who want to come", something of a mantra they have used over time. This is a term they use which actually means that they intend to update the park to accommodate as many people as possible, on any given day, to accommodate a burgeoning foreign tour bus industry, while the park service paves their way by eliminating campgrounds for Americans who like to recreate there by way of the most popular method of visiting the park; which is camping. Campers bring their food with them, they often have kids and campfires, and they don't meet the modern "green" compliance requirements the park wants to aspire to. This is where the public needs to jump in. Many of us either like to camp or we want to protect the rights of future Americans who will want to camp in Yosemite Valley, like many of us have done. We can be "green". More often than not, we are environmentally concerned. We are okay with limiting the number of footprints on the ground, to preserve and protect our park. If the park would replace the campgrounds they removed, they should establish a use carrying capacity for the park around the inclusion of those park visitors first, before they decide to establish a carrying capacity that might include five-million international tour bus visitors in the park per year. The park service's manipulation of the demographics of the visitors, targeting visitors who spend money over Americans who just want to camp, is wrong. Please consider attending this symposium, if you want to contribute your views to their so called efforts to establish a plan for moving forward with a Carrying Capacity for our park. Join the efforts, if you agree, with the Yosemite Valley Campers Coalition, or www.yosemitevalleycampers.org, in their effort to protect camper’s interests in Yosemite, by setting a limit on how many people can swarm into Yosemite Valley each day or year, but only after the campsites that they removed in 1997 without public comment are replaced.

Save Yosemite Valley Campgrounds

25 Jan 2008 04:16:41 GMT

Help Save Yosemite Valley's North Pines Campground from closure, and restore the other Yosemite Valley campgrounds closed by the 2000 Yosemite Valley Plan Before the 1997 flood, there were more than 800 family friendly auto-based campsites in Yosemite Valley.

The Park's 2000 Yosemite Valley Plan permanently eliminated Upper River Campground, Lower River Campground, the Yosemite Valley Group Campground and a large portion of Lower Pines Campground. The Plan also targets North Pines Campground for removal, which we feel must not go forward.

Final count: 500 campsites will remain resulting in a loss of more than 40% of camping opportunities in Yosemite Valley. Of the 500 sites, only 330 will be auto-based sites creating even fewer opportunities for young families, the disabled, and the elderly. As part of the emergency flood appropriation, Congress gave the National Park Service funding to repair these campgrounds in Yosemite Valley--not to eliminate them. We oppose this arbitrary action by the National Park Service. We believe the NPS breached any public process in condemning the river damaged campsites and that none took place in their condemnation. We are in favor of the Lower River, Upper River, and a portion of Lower Pines Campgrounds be reinstated with family friendly auto-based sites, as was the case pre-flood of 1997. We further believe that North Pines Campground needs to remain as currently used, and not closed as is planned for in the Yosemite Valley Plan. This request complies with the vision of the Park's original General Management Plan, which the Yosemite National Park Service promised to comply with when they began the planning process for the Yosemite Valley Plan.

Please read about the petition to save camping in Yosemite Valley by going to the website below, where if you are interested you can sign up to get the newsletter at the link that says "Mailing List".

Here's the link: http://www.yosemitevalleycampers.org/

You are invited to attend a User Capacity Symposium at Yosemite National Park

25 Jan 2008 03:38:04 GMT

You are invited to attend a User Capacity Symposium at Yosemite National Park Yosemite National Park is hosting a User Capacity Symposium on February 6-8, 2008 in Yosemite Valley. The symposium will be facilitated by a neutral party, Mary Orton from The Mary Orton Company, LLC (www.maryorton.com), an environmental and public policy mediation and facilitation firm. Approximately 150 people from across the country are expected to attend. The public is welcome and invited to attend. RSVP is required by February 1, 2008 to Jim Bacon by email to jim_bacon@nps.gov or by phone at 209/379-1067. The purpose of the symposium is to further the understanding of and explore approaches to addressing user capacity in national parks and other public lands including Yosemite National Park, by engaging public land managers, researchers, elected officials, tribes, and the general public in an open dialogue. The objectives of the symposium are to: Understand why planning and managing user capacity is important. Build a common understanding and language for the range of user capacity approaches. Explore current perspectives on and approaches to addressing user capacity. Identify and understand the effectiveness and consequences of different management strategies addressing user capacity. Explore the application and implications of different user capacity strategies in Yosemite. An expert panel will present on: History and context of user capacity Approaches to user capacity Case studies from the Colorado River through Grand Canyon, Inyo National Forest, and Wild and Scenic Rivers across the country Confirmed Presenters: Dr. David Cole, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute Dr. Glenn Haas, Aukerman, Haas and Associates Linda Jalbert, Grand Canyon National Park Bob Lamb, ORCA Consulting Dr. Bob Manning, University of Vermont Gary Oye, Inyo National Forest Dr. Tony Prato, University of Missouri Columbia Al Shacklett, ORCA Consulting Dr. Bo Shelby, Oregon State University Dr. Doug Whittaker, Confluence Research and Consulting In addition to presentations, roundtable conversations will allow for input, ideas, and questions from and with all symposium participants. This will be a unique opportunity to expand your knowledge about user capacity through presentations by experts, and dialogue with researchers, local stakeholders, and land managers from around the country. Dates: February 6 - 8, 2008 Location: Yosemite Lodge, Cliff Room Yosemite National Park, CA Please note that lunch is not included Agenda: DAY1: Wednesday, February 6 9 am 5 pm Facilitated session DAY 2: Thursday, February 7 9 am 5 pm Facilitated session DAY 3: Friday, February 8 9 am 12 pm Field trip in Yosemite Valley Contact: RSVP by February 1, 2008 to Jim Bacon, Planner, Yosemite National Park Phone: 209/379-1067 Email: jim_bacon@nps.gov If you require lodging information for the symposium, please contact Jim Bacon at the above address. www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/symposium.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SAVE THE DATE! Merced River Plan Public Planning Workshop: Saturday, February 23, 2008 Please join Yosemite National Park for the second Public Planning Workshop devoted to creating a new Merced River Plan. This public workshop will present the DRAFT Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORV) of the river corridor, and participants will be asked to join in an exercise focusing on Desired Conditions (the future conditions to be achieved) for the ORVs. The Draft ORV Report will be available online beginning Tuesday, February 5, 2008 on the park's website at www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/newmrp.htm. Additional workshop materials will be available online prior to the workshop. Please RSVP to Elexis Mayer by phone at 209/379-1377 or by email: elexis_mayer@nps.gov, no later than Wednesday, February 20, 2008. Tuolumne River Plan Public Planning Workshop: On February 9, 2008 from 9:30 am to 2:30 pm in the Valley Visitor Center Auditorium, the NPS will host the next in its ongoing series of public planning workshops. The workshop will focus on developing indicators of river health and quality visitor experiences for the Tuolumne River Plan. Workshop details will be posted to the park's website at www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/trp.htm. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Remember to submit comments for Vogelsang Backcountry Utilities Improvement Project Public scoping for this project opened on Tuesday, January 15, 2008, and will be open until February 13, 2008. A link to project information will be posted on the park's website at www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/vogelsang.htm. A public meeting will take place on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 from 1 pm to 5 pm during the monthly Open House in the Yosemite Valley Visitor Center Auditorium. Comments can be submitted at public meetings, by mail, fax, email, and through the Planning, Environment, and Public Comment (PEPC) commenting system. A draft document will be available for public review in summer 2008. To request a hard copy or CD ROM version of the Environmental Assessment and to submit written comments: Mail: Superintendent, Yosemite National Park Attn: Vogelsang Backcountry Utilities Improvement Project PO Box 577 Yosemite, CA 95389 Fax: 209/379-1294 Email: YOSE_planning@nps.gov PEPC: http://parkplanning.nps.gov For more information on park planning efforts, visit the website at www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt