¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

  1. JMT
  2. Topics

Tuolumne Master Plan Info, as promised

 
Edited

Here are some interesting details from the 2014 Tuolumne River Plan, of which the Tuolumne Meadows Campground closure and reconstruction is an important part. This does not tell the whole detailed story, but it does illustrate a couple of interesting features such as what "near the JMT trailhead" might mean with respect to the new Backpackers camp location. Item No.10 includes "Formalizing" the trail connection between the campground and the JMT to the south. For the full story, find all of the operative documents at
.
The most effective way to the heart of the matter is in two documents, the "Record of Decision" which determines that "Alternative No 4" from the Plan and EIS is the plan as adopted, and then Volumes I and II of the "Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement". You can download the the whole shebang, but to avoid confusion you may read only the "Actions common to all 4 Alternatives" and "Alternative 4" materials from Chapter 8 to see what what has actually been adopted.
Some text interpreting the clip of the site plan:
10. Tuolumne Meadows campground
* Rehabilitate the campground at its current capacity; realign the A-loop road and relocate 21 campsites currently within 100 feet of the river to a location just west of the existing A-loop, more than 150 feet from the river.
*Retain campground office and day parking.
* Relocate entrance road and kiosk out of floodplain.
* Formalize John Muir Trail connection.
* Retain Elizabeth Lakes trailhead and day parking.
* Remove riprap from riverbank.
11. Existing commercial services core
* Retain store, grill, and post office; expand day parking.
*Add picnic area.
* Demolish and remove the mountaineering shop and
public fuel station, add parking.
* Upgrade restroom.
* Add trail connector to campground.
* Move concessioner employee housing to location #18.
?
 

Pretty pathetic that a document prepared just a few years ago had to be scanned to put it online, and no one was able to OCR it.

Sigh. Not surprising, though. I've had to educate several firms about that.
 

Richard, do you really think the NPS has the resources to provide up to date technology and professional development training? Good lord, look at their funding. As someone who works in the public sector, I can tell you that most of our agencies and institutions have been slashed to ribbons. Don't expect modern business practices when you pay 1996 wages and when agency funding continually fluctuates like a political football. The criticism is fair, the word "pathetic" is not.
 

¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

I do wonder what happened.? The only documents that are not in searchable PDF form are the Record of Decision (ROD) and the Biological Opinion.? (The link to the Biological Opinion fails on the page Peter Hirst¡¯s supplied, , but that document can be found via .) ??The draft and final EIS/management plans are fine. ?All the auxiliary documents I checked were fine.?

There¡¯s sort of a reason why the ROD might be a scan.? The ROD is the legal enabling document for the whole plan, and the signatures are a legal part of the document.? At some point in the process, those need to be scanned.? It would appear that on the Tuolumne Plan, for whatever reason, they chose to just put up a scan of the whole document with the signatures rather than do some sort of composite.? I¡¯m sure all that text is in electronic form somewhere. ??Still, the Park Service managed to produce a searchable PDF for the Merced River Plan ROD () with one unsearchable scanned page tucked in that includes the signatures. ?(It¡¯s the 33rd page in the document.)? That one was 2014 as well. ?So it¡¯s not an Park Service problem as a whole.? ?Something happened with the production of the Tuolumne ROD.

?

I recall reading the Tuolumne and Merced EISs back in 2014.? My memory is that it was both were interesting and accessible.? The Tuolumne Plan was way less controversial than the Merced Plan.

?

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Richard
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 7:30 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [JMT-groups.io] Tuolumne Master Plan Info, as promised

?

Pretty pathetic that a document prepared just a few years ago had to be scanned to put it online, and no one was able to OCR it.

Sigh. Not surprising, though. I've had to educate several firms about that.
 

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 12:16 PM, Jim Ringland wrote:
There¡¯s sort of a reason why the ROD might be a scan.? The ROD is the legal enabling document for the whole plan, and the signatures are a legal part of the document.? At some point in the process, those need to be scanned.?
I am guessing that you are on to something there. The only PDFs I ever receive that are scans rather than searchable text are those coming from lawyers and occasionally corporate reports where the company does not want to make the document readily searchable (which is a red flag!).?
 

I appreciate the sympathy, but any teen or twenty-something kid will suggest just ¡±Print to PDF". Scan and OCR shouldn't even be necessary. That's been true for twenty years or more, now.
 

There¡¯s sort of a reason why the ROD might be a scan.? The ROD is the legal enabling document for the whole plan, and the signatures are a legal part of the document.
Good point, but I'm not sure the legally version needs to be the one posted. An addendum could always say something like "The officially signed copy is on file at the National Archive".

1 - 7 of 7