Chapter 4 ~ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (cont.)

---

Section 4.8 ~ Scenic Resources

Several people commenting on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS are concerned with management of scenic resources within the Park. The historic bridges in Yosemite National Park, several respondents assert, should be retained as scenic resources for future park visitors to experience and appreciate. One individual argues that removal of these bridges constitutes "significant and unmitigated" impacts to the "public’s ability to view these masterpieces in a natural setting." Another refers to digitally simulated images in the 1997 Draft Yosemite Valley Implementation Plan as supporting evidence for retention of specific bridges as significant scenic resources. Expressing appreciation for Yosemite’s scenic sky views, several respondents applaud park planners for proposing nighttime lighting restrictions in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Others advocate a ban on airline flights over the park to reduce visual pollution.

752. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should address the potential impacts of bridge removal on scenic resources.

"The Scenic Resources Sections of the SEIS do not at all discuss the removal of the historic bridges or otherwise address the loss of the public’s ability to view these masterpieces in a natural setting. Further, it does not discuss or analyze the critical views and vantage points which would be lost by the destruction of the bridges, the paved roadways, and the pedestrian and bicycle paths. The views to and from these existing bridges and access ways are magnificent and provide for breathtaking views of North Dome, Half Dome, Glacier Point and Yosemite Falls. As the existing vegetation in the Valley continues to grow larger, the views of these natural features will continue to be more impaired. Therefore, these historic bridges as well as paced and improved pathways should have been identified and analyzed as ‘scenic resources’ and ‘vantage points’ in the SEIS. The loss of such viewing opportunities will result in significant and unmitigated, direct and cumulative adverse impacts to the scenic resources and the ability of the public to see and enjoy such resources." (Business, San Diego, CA - #7884)

"From the perspective of the quality of visitor experience, the bridges and other resources have clear scenic value. Digitally simulated images in the September, 1997 Draft Yosemite Valley Plan SEIS (pgs. 31-33, Fig’s 1-6) make it clear that the surroundings of the historic Stoneman, Ahwahnee, and Sugar Pine Bridges look more attractive, more diverse, and ‘richer’ with the bridges present than they would with the bridges removed. The same is true of the Ahwahnee Meadow Road, Lower Pines Campground, and Upper Pines Campground (pgs. 34-36, Fig’s 7-12)." (Individual, Berkeley, CA - #4784)

Response: There is agreement by many that the historic bridges in Yosemite Valley are aesthetically pleasing and contribute to the scenic value of the Valley. However, the 1980 General Management Plan specifically describes and emphasizes the protection of the exquisite natural beauty as a major goal; the beauty of human-made structures is not mentioned as a criterion for evaluation. Protection of the Valley’s natural beauty is one of the major criteria of the Draft and Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Although up to two of the historic stone-veneer bridges would be removed, adjacent historic bridges would preserve this legacy and multi-use paved trails would continue to provide visitor access to various areas affected by bridge removal.

751. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require reduced nighttime lighting.

"The proposed changes in nighttime lighting to make the pedestrian intersections safer while increasing the sky’s visibility will be appreciated." (Individual, San Francisco, CA - #671)

"I was very pleased to see that the ‘night sky’ is being considered and hopefully protected. I strongly support the limitation of lighting to preserve that increasing rare treat of a truly dark sky." (Individual, Berkeley, CA - #9238)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes to implement a lighting guideline that would eventually reduce impacts to the night sky by reducing light pollution at all new and existing developed facilities in Yosemite Valley (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Mitigation Measures Common to all Action Alternatives–Night Sky).

642. Public Concern: The National Park Service should consider a ban on airline flights over Yosemite National Park.

"The number of jets that fly over the Park make a plaid sky - not natural, nor scenic. Could the park airspace become a no fly zone, rather than a pilot’s scenic tour on the way to San Francisco." (Individual, No Address - #4788)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. This concern is being addressed on a national level by the National Park Service.

---

Section 4.9 ~ Cultural Resources

Public comments referring to the management of cultural resources within Yosemite Valley reflect a wide range of interests. Several respondents address what they perceive as deficiencies in the descriptions, analyses, and conclusions presented in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Others propose alternative management directions for either specific or general Yosemite cultural resources. A few respondents encourage the National Park Service to more consistently recognize the legal rights of all neighboring American Indian tribes and engage these government partners in planning efforts. To address these concerns, analysis in this section is divided into three subsections: General Management Direction, Historic Features, and American Indian Cultural Resources.

4.9.1 ~ General Management Direction

Many people submitting comments on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS address the general direction they believe the National Park Service should pursue in managing cultural resources. Numerous respondents argue for the retention of remarkable structures within the Valley because of their cultural value in understanding the history of the park and human efforts to enhance the Yosemite experience. In advocating historic preservation, some individuals acknowledge the need for compromises. "Unless we plan to remove all cultural impacts from the park," an Oakhurst resident proclaims, "we need to honestly acknowledge that we value stone bridges, chapels, and historic hotels more than we care about their environmental impacts." The State of California’s Office of Historic Preservation contends that the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS should provide justification for negative impacts on some Yosemite Valley historic properties and identify alternative management practices that will maintain the integrity of the Valley’s cultural assets.

Some organizations and individuals single out what they believe to be defects in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS regarding the management of cultural resources. Claiming resource maps in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS are insufficient for public participants and park leadership to make informed assessments of the proposed alternative actions, a non-governmental organization requests that all maps be redrawn to accurately and consistently identify historic features. The California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research admonishes the National Park Service to ensure impact significance assessments are in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act. Removal of archeological data from El Portal impact zones, insists one Yosemite area resident, is not justifiable mitigation to meet cultural resource mandates. This individual postulates, "Using data recovery to reduce the intensity of adverse impacts is misleading. The resource is permanently destroyed." Reflecting on the Yosemite Valley Plan’s cultural resource objectives, a few individuals question the efficacy of removing existing buildings from identified burial sites. One person argues that such an action will establish a legal precedent to question the retention of all developments within Yosemite Valley.

101. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should acknowledge the value of human cultural sites in Yosemite Valley.

"If we’re trying to restore Yosemite to a natural state, where the river could flow freely, and trees and meadows could exist without buildings and roads, we would apply that principle evenly and remove all human vestiges from the valley. In reality, we are agreeing on a park that includes human impacts to an extent that pleases us, for our own aesthetic and cultural values. Unless we plan to remove all cultural impacts from the Park, we need to honestly acknowledge that we value stone bridges, chapels, and historic hotels, more than we care about their environmental impacts." (Individual, Oakhurst, CA - #328)

Response: Given the broad goals of the 1980 General Management Plan and the guidance in the Merced River Plan, the National Park Service has considered actions that preserve, protect, and restore both natural processes and cultural resources. The National Park Service has relied on the best available scientific information to identify the nature and extent of environmental degradation, including impacts that are caused by some of the historic structures. The National Park Service has also evaluated the historical significance of structures in terms of National Register criteria to adequately consider their importance. To achieve higher priority objectives (such as restoring natural processes or reconfiguring developed areas to meet operational needs), the National Park Service has proposed to remove some of these important historic resources. In general, however, the National Park Service will continue to preserve and protect other high priority cultural resources to the degree feasible because of their historic and cultural value.

481. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should discuss why adverse effects on historic properties cannot be avoided.

"Does the document include a full and fair discussion of the conditions under which, and the reasons why, avoidance of adverse effects on historic properties could not be achieved? . . . Does the document clearly identify and adequately assess alternatives that will avoid adverse effects to historic properties? Does the document present all practicable means that will avoid adverse effects to historic properties? . . . Using the foregoing benchmarks, I find the document to be deficient because it does not adequately identify, discuss, and assess alternatives and specific actions that would avoid adverse effects to historic properties." (State of California, Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, CA - #30232)

Response: The Yosemite Valley Plan includes a number of planning criteria that are based on the five broad goals of the General Management Plan, and that were used to guide the development of alternatives. These criteria seek to minimize impacts to park resources. Cultural resource-related criteria focus on protection, preservation and adaptive reuse of cultural resources. The Yosemite Valley Plan also identifies highly valued cultural resources and seeks to preserve and protect those values to the greatest extent possible. In addition to cultural resources, the Yosemite Valley Plan identifies criteria for natural resources, visitor experience and park operations. The National Park Service selected alternatives for inclusion in the Yosemite Valley Plan based on the extent to which each alternative would meet the planning criteria, and thus the goals of the General Management Plan. The integration of the goals of the General Management Plan within each alternative required the careful assessment of the relative importance and relationship of all park values. In some cases, compromises among resources were necessary because there are inherent conflicts among the goals. These compromises are reflected in the alternatives.

In response to public concerns regarding adverse effects to historic properties, a number of actions that would result in adverse effects to historic properties have been revisited in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. The historic Sugarpine Bridge would be removed as proposed. Stoneman Bridge would be removed unless continued hydrologic monitoring demonstrates appreciable improvement in the natural hydrologic flow of Merced River after removal of Sugarpine Bridge. The Superintendent’s Residence and associated garage would be relocated to Yosemite Village and adaptively reused. The intensity of impacts to Camp Curry Historic District would be reduced by retention of additional tent cabins, retention of additional contributing structures and final site design that would retain the general configuration and historic design. The National Park Service Operations Building (Fort Yosemite) and associated buildings would be further evaluated to determine the possibility of adaptive reuse. In general historic properties would be preserved unless it is determined that preservation is infeasible or impractical. In implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan, the National Park Service would follow stipulations of the Yosemite Programmatic Agreement and seek to avoid adverse effects to historic properties wherever possible.

563. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should identify and include cultural resources on maps for each alternative.

"We continue to be frustrated by the organization and graphic layout of Yosemite National Park planning documents. As was the case with the VIP and the Wild and Scenic River Plan, cultural resources affected under one or more of the various alternatives have not been adequately identified and mapped. For example, the Cultural Resources section of Table A in the Executive Summary makes mention of only a fraction of the historic resources which would be lost under the various alternatives. Likewise, while plates for Alternative 1 clearly illustrate the existing conditions, including what appear to be all existing buildings, no attempt is made to identify historic structures. The plates for the action alternatives illustrate areas for redevelopment and natural resource restoration, but do not indicate what cultural resources would be lost." (Non-Governmental Organization, San Francisco, CA - #7885)

Response: The revised plates in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS (Vol. Ic) distinguish historic structures from modern facilities. By comparing plates for each action alternative with the plates for Alternative 1, one can see which historic structures would be lost. While there are no graphics dedicated to displaying cultural resources information, the highly valued resources plate depicts both natural and cultural resources.

453. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should clarify the term "minor adverse effect" with consideration for the National Historic Preservation Act.

"Please explain ‘minor adverse effect’ as used in Volume Ib, 4.2-62 through 4.2-74 and tables 4-40 through 4-42. An explanation of the term is appropriate since Section 106 [Section 110] of the National Historic Act uses the terms ‘no adverse effect’ and ‘adverse effect’ and does not include ‘minor adverse effect.’" (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento, CA - #6584)

Response: The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) employ different approaches to assessing impacts (see Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Methodology, in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS). Section 106 of the NHPA states that an undertaking would have an adverse effect, no adverse effect, or no effect. The Council on Environmental Quality’s implementing regulations for NEPA require that impacts must also be described in terms of their intensity as either major, moderate, minor, or negligible. Impacts on cultural resources are described in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. Effects (under NHPA) that would result from implementing each alternative are described in the Section 106 Summary, found at the end of each cultural resources environmental consequences section. For clarity, the term "effect" is used when discussing consequences under NHPA; the term "impact" is used in discussions of environmental consequences under NEPA.

685. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should evaluate the cumulative impacts of increased human population in El Portal on cultural resources.

"Irreparable major adverse impacts to cultural resources from trampling, looting, and direct loss from development will occur in El Portal due to construction, human population increase and activities such as recreation. Mitigation using data recovery means a net loss of non-renewable resources. Using data recovery to reduce the intensity of adverse impacts is misleading. The resource is permanently destroyed." (Individual, El Portal, CA - #7026)

Response: The adverse impacts to archeological resources are acknowledged in Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. As explained in the methodology for impact analysis, the reduction in intensity of impact in terms of the National Environmental Policy Act is based on an estimation of the effectiveness of the mitigation. Data recovery is an accepted mitigation for archeological resources for which the most important value is the information they contain. By conducting such excavations, the information contained within the resource is retrieved; and the material cultural remains are maintained as part of Yosemite’s permanent museum collection. However, the National Park Service acknowledges that even data recovery ultimately results in the partial loss of the resources. It is for this reason that under the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 summary, the National Park Service considers actions associated with implementing an alternative to have an adverse effect on historic properties in spite of the mitigating measures.

754. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain existing developments on burial sites in Yosemite Village.

"The proposal to ‘remove development from known burials in Yosemite Village’ is a Trojan Horse of monumental proportions. This suggestion may haunt the Park Service forever in terms of incessant law suits by those who claim that every development within the Valley is built upon a burial site. Obviously new facilities should not be constructed on known burial plots, whether they are Indian, Spanish-Californian, or United States pioneer settlers. However, what has been done, has been done and is a part of history." (Individual, Long Beach, CA - #5644)

"Do not allow the dead to control current land use. Burial sites should not impact development. If relatives are sensitive about the issue, reinter the dead elsewhere — preferably out of the Valley." (Individual, No Address - #7305)

Response: The National Park Service is committed to sensitive treatment and protection of areas highly valued by the park-associated American Indian tribes. The presence of ancestral remains in Yosemite Valley is an important cultural link for present-day generations of Indian people. In keeping with federal laws, regulations, and National Park Service policy, the National Park Service continues to consult with these tribes regarding treatment of resources such as burial areas. Retaining existing development at known burial areas requires routine maintenance and other actions that would have the potential to disturb buried remains. Disinterring and relocating human remains is an action not considered by the National Park Service unless there are no practicable alternatives. Removing development from two known burial areas in Yosemite Valley and El Portal is an important action for restoration of these special places.

4.9.2 ~ Historic Features

Proposed actions in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS to remove some historic features from the Valley while retaining others elicit vehement responses from a good number of individuals and organizations. Many respondents declare that the National Park Service must fully assess the cultural value of all historic structures before deciding to remove notable features from Yosemite Valley. Synthesizing concerns expressed by several respondents, a nongovernmental organization professes, "No action that is likely to negatively affect historic resources should be undertaken unless the short- and long-term impacts are fully understood." Some emphasize the contribution of historic features to the visitor’s experience of Yosemite National Park as justification to retain certain properties and landscapes. Several respondents suggest relocating historic structures or redefining uses of notable features in order to achieve multiple resource goals (please see the following paragraph for further analysis of related proposals). One organization highlights legal obligations that dictate the Yosemite Valley Plan must minimize impacts to properties on the National Register of Historic Places. However, the same organization accuses Park leadership of focusing too much attention on protection of National Historic Landmark properties while ignoring impacts to landscapes proposed for the National Register. Further, the group suggests that the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, as an aide in educating the general public, should include a graphic representation of the contributing elements to the Yosemite Valley Cultural Landscape District. Respondents propose that a variety of historic structures be retained: stone bridges (see Section 4.10.2.a for more detailed analysis of historic bridges), the Superintendent’s House (Residence 1), Curry Orchard, the Cascade Residences, Curry Village, Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground), buildings in the current maintenance area, and all historic corridors.

Numerous people responding to the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS present suggestions on how the National Park Service can meet cultural resource protection requirements while also achieving ecological restoration or public access mandates. An alternative to removing historic features from the Valley, several respondents assert, is to retain them for other park management objectives. "Adaptive reuse alternatives," one non-governmental organization protests, "are not adequately presented and evaluated as an alternative to destroying historic structures." Conversely, some individuals espouse natural resource goals and public safety concerns must take precedence over historic preservation. Yosemite Valley’s orchards, according to one person, should be eliminated because they increase the potential for encounters between humans and bears. Another respondent notes rockfall hazards as justification to remove the Le Conte Memorial Lodge.

528. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should recognize all historic structures within the Yosemite Valley as highly valued resources.

"We are concerned that many actions proposed are based on incomplete data and insufficient data and an incomplete understanding of the complex system that Yosemite Valley represents. In the twenty years since the GMP was adopted, there have been significant advances in the fields of natural and cultural resource management. For example, at the time of the original GMP, cultural landscapes were not even a recognized resource type. However, there is much still to be learned. The National Trust believes that no action that is likely to negatively affect historic resources should be undertaken unless the short and long-term impacts are fully understood." (Non-Governmental Organization, San Francisco, CA - #8925)

"We remain frustrated with the exaggerated emphasis placed on National Historic Landmark properties to the detriment of other historic properties. We believe that the as yet unlisted Yosemite Valley Cultural Landscape District is of national significance, and that all contributing elements to this district should be treated as ‘Highly Valued Resources.’" (Non-Governmental Organization, San Francisco, CA - #7885)

"We do not believe that any of the alternatives contained in the Valley Plan establish a compelling reason to remove any historic structures from the Valley. The stone bridges, the superintendent’s house, and the apple orchard are examples of structures with a long important cultural history in the Valley. We believe that maintaining these structures will enhance the visitor experience and the cultural historic values of the Park and strongly oppose removal of any of the historic structures in the Valley." (Mariposa County Board of Supervisors, Mariposa, CA - #6060)

CASCADE RESIDENCES

"We are opposed to the planned removal of any of the Cascade Residences that retain their historic integrity. We believe that play a key role in illustrating the historic extent of development in Yosemite Valley, and that their removal would not achieve any significant natural resource goals. Given the significant shortage of employee housing in Yosemite, we believe that park should preserve historic housing wherever possible." (Non-Governmental Organization, San Francisco, CA - #7885)

CURRY VILLAGE

"We are taken aback by the sheer scope of demolition planned for Curry Village. We are concerned that the removal of two thirds of the guest cabins and the introduction on significant new construction will result in a loss of integrity of the historic district and its removal from the National Register. We recognize the need to remove a portion of the cabins, but we believe the numbers being considered are excessive. We also are disappointed by the lack of commitment to preserve individual structures at Curry Village, including the Tresider House, Mother Curry’s Bungalow, and the Huff House. We can see no reason why these structures should not be used as guest accommodations or some other appropriate function." (Non-Governmental Organization, San Francisco, CA - #7885)

Response: The National Park Service is committed to the preservation of cultural resources eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Certainly the National Historic Landmarks properties merit recognition, as do the various other historic structures and cultural sites within the Valley. The cultural landscape resources of Yosemite Valley are considered a highly valued resource and tend to overlap with other highly valued resources, especially natural resources. The National Park Service would treat all historic properties with the same level of protection whenever possible, as indicated in the revised text of the Preferred Alternative. In addition, the National Park Service Preferred Alternative addresses preservation treatment for all historic structures in the context of the plan, emphasizing adaptive use rather than removal whenever possible.

In a place as complex as Yosemite Valley, there are situations where complete protection and preservation of every single resource type is impossible. It is the policy of the National Park Service to ensure that management processes for making decisions and setting priorities integrate information about cultural resources, and provide for consultation and collaboration with outside entities. The National Park Service continues to do this through such studies as the Yosemite Valley Cultural Landscape Determination of Eligibility and hydrologic studies related to all bridges (including the historic bridges) spanning the Merced River. The National Park Service is engaged in ongoing consultation with park-associated American Indian tribes, and other federal agencies, the public, and special interest groups.

In response to public comment and consultations with other state and federal agencies, the National Park Service has revised the Preferred Alternative for the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. For example, Superintendent’s House (Residence 1) would be relocated to the Yosemite Village Historic District housing area and would be adapted to another use. The historic structures at the National Park Service maintenance area would be considered for rehabilitation and adaptive reuse, based on final decisions regarding in-Valley shuttle technology and other needs. The Cascades residences, which are no longer needed for park housing in that location, would be considered for relocation to El Portal and adaptive reuse. Curry Village would be rehabilitated, with the objective of maintaining the integrity of the National Register historic district while continuing to provide a rustic tent cabin visitor experience. Individual historic structures, such as Mother Curry Bungalow, Tressider House, Stoneman House, and the administrative buildings would be rehabilitated.

529. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should clarify what components shape the Yosemite Valley Cultural Landscape District.

"The lack of adequate graphic representation of cultural resources is of particular importance with regard to the cultural landscape. Cultural landscapes are a relatively new concept to park planning and one with which the general public is largely unfamiliar. Some effort needs to be made to graphically represent to the public the scale and contributing elements of the Yosemite Valley Cultural Landscape District. This is especially critical because the Determination of Eligibility for the district is still in draft form and has not been made available to the public, so we have no documentation regarding the Park’s assumptions as to which resources are contributing and which are non-contributing." (Non-Governmental Organization, San Francisco, CA - #7885)

Response: As with other resource topics, there is no specific graphic presentation of the proposed Yosemite Valley Cultural Landscape Historic District. These resources have been combined with other highly valued park resources to form the composite highly valued resources plate. However, the plates (see Vol. Ic) depicting the alternatives distinguish between the landscape contributing structures and the noncontributing resources. Information regarding the proposed historic district, including the Draft Determination of Eligibility, is available for review in the park’s Research Library. In addition, there is a detailed discussion of these resources in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, Vol. IA, Chapter 3, Affected Environment.

266. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain Curry Orchard.

"Historic Curry Orchard: The orchards are a distinct hands-on historical experience for visitors. When I lived in Yosemite it was a yearly volunteer event for scout and other groups to harvest the apples and press them for juice. This can become a renewed social and historical event with visitors invited to participate. I do not suggest that the orchards be maintained for better yield. (This applies to all three orchards.)" (Individual, Seattle, WA - #1354)

Response: The National Park Service considers the remaining fruit orchards historically important as evidence of the early homesteading period in Yosemite Valley. All three remaining orchards date from the late 19th century and may also have horticultural significance. Because fruit trees are not especially long-lived, and have not been maintained, most of the individual trees are in poor condition. Therefore, the National Park Service is proposing propagation to preserve genetic material. Still, the remaining orchards in the Valley present challenging issues for park management. Paramount is the fact that the orchards attract bears, which in turn pose threats to visitors and tend to create unfavorable behavior in bear populations.

Considering all of these factors, the National Park Service has decided to preserve genetic material from the Curry Village orchard but remove the trees and restore the area to open meadow. The park would retain the Lamon and Hutchings orchards for educational and interpretative purposes. The decision to remove Curry Orchard was based on three factors: (1) the number of reported bear incidents, (2) the poor condition of remaining trees (after 50 years of serving as a parking lot for Curry Village), and (3) the benefit to cultural and natural resources in restoring the area to meadow.

260. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain the Superintendent’s residence in Yosemite Valley.

"I think it’s ridiculous that the superintendent’s home is going to be razed; I don’t think there’s any excuse for that." (Individual, Alameda, CA - #20019)

"As the plan rightly points out, removal of the Superintendent’s House and garage would have a major adverse impact to the individual property and to the Valley-wide cultural landscape. The Superintendent’s House is a key part of the history of Yosemite Valley and a critical component of the cultural landscape. The National Trust strongly believes that this key structure must be preserved. We recognize that the building stands in important oak woodland habitat. However, the footprint of the structures is very small, as is the total loss of habitat due to the presence of the house. Certainly the gain of a few thousand square feet of habitat would not compensate for the loss of such a key historic structure." (Non-Governmental Organization, San Francisco, CA - #7885)

MOVE AND CONVERT INTO A GROUP GATHERING AREA

"Move this historic building [Superintendent’s House] to the end of the historic row houses in Yosemite Village to serve as residence or perhaps a small group gathering area. Re-landscape the footprint to service as a picnic and small group gathering area, including weddings of 50 people or less." (Individual, Lafayette, CA - #4499)

Response: The Superintendent’s House (Residence 1) is indeed an important historic structure and a contributing element in both the Yosemite Village National Register Historic District and the Yosemite Valley cultural landscape. However, it is situated within the 2.33-year floodplain. Because of the broad General Management Plan goal of allowing natural processes to prevail and the objective of removing facilities from the active floodplain, the Superintendent’s House (Residence1) would be removed. Since it is an important historic structure, it would be relocated to the Yosemite Village Historic District residential area in lieu of demolition. It would then be rehabilitated and adaptively reused for a function that is compatible with the Historic District.

755. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should recognize Camp 4 as a highly valued cultural resource.

"This plan clearly acknowledges the historical importance of climbing in Yosemite, and the validity of climbing as an ongoing recreational activity in the Park. It also acknowledges the historical importance of Camp 4 to the world climbing community, and the need to preserve and protect it from encroachment. We laud the continued efforts by the National Park Service (NPS) to ensure that Camp 4 is nominated for placement in the National Register of Historic Places. We are especially pleased that Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, in announcing this plan, recognized that ‘Yosemite is the birthplace, the sacred shrine of the American school of rock climbing and mountaineering.’ Camp 4 really is an important piece of the Valley." (Recreational Organization, No Address - #7025)

"We are pleased that the Park Planners have recognized the great historic importance of Camp 4. We believe that the Park’s preferred alternative can be achieved without major adverse impacts on the historic site as long as changes are minimized and new development is compatibly designed. It is important that the site be well-interpreted, that its historic name be re-instituted." (Non-Governmental Organization, San Francisco, CA - #8925)

Response: The National Park Service recognizes the historical significance of Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground), considered a historic property by the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. The National Park Service is currently in the process of preparing a nomination for the National Register of Historic Places. Additional campsites proposed at Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) would be designed to be compatible with the historic "core" of the camp, thereby retaining the historic integrity of the site.

595. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain historic corridors for nonmotorized use.

"We believe that, to the extent possible, historic corridors should be maintained as bicycle, pedestrian, and bridal paths. These paths should attempt to maintain the historic character of the road where appropriate. We are not opposed, however, to the removal of elevated berms where such berms interfere with the natural flow of high water." (Non-Governmental Organization, San Francisco, CA - #8925)

Response: The majority of the historic circulation routes in Yosemite Valley would be retained for continued visitor use. However, in some places contributing circulation elements of the Yosemite Valley Cultural Landscape would be either removed or rehabilitated to allow for natural surface water flows. In these cases, the National Park Service would document the historic resource prior to modification or removal.

449. Public Concern: The National Park Service should consider reuse of historic structures slated for removal.

"CPF (California Preservation Foundation) is extremely concerned that adaptive reuse alternatives are not adequately presented and evaluated as an alternative to destroying historic structures. There are many such adaptive reuse alternatives and they should be presented and considered thoroughly in the Draft Plan and DSEIS, in particular relative to places for proposed new uses or as new sites for uses that are proposed to be removed from other areas of the Valley." (Non-Governmental Organization, Oakland, CA - #7530)

"We are disappointed that very little effort is made to mitigate adverse effects contemplated in the various alternative[s] beyond the minimum standard mitigation measures called for in the Programmatic Agreement. Recordation of destroyed resources does not lessen the intensity of impact on the resource and can by no stretch of the imagination be conceived of as a preservation treatment. While a few scholars will benefit from this sort of documentation, the typical visitor will never realize what resources have been lost. We find the assertion that salvage of materials and interpretation of the former site of a structure such as the Superintendent’s House lessens the impact from major to moderate to be absurd. Rather than relying on recordation, we would instead like to see more effort made to explore options such as rehabilitation adaptive use, or even relocation where no prudent alternative exists." (Non-Governmental Organization, San Francisco, CA - #7885)

HISTORIC BUILDINGS IN THE MAINTENANCE AREA

"The NPS Maintenance Area is an area of major concern for the National Trust, and we are opposed to plans to demolish up to thirteen historic buildings. While most of these buildings are utilitarian in nature and design, they illustrate an important part of the Yosemite story. Many of them, especially the NPS Operations Building (Fort Yosemite) are architecturally distinguished structures. We are frustrated by the fact, as elsewhere in the Valley, historic structures here have been targeted for removal, while nearby modern structures that intrude on the landscape are staying. . . Even if it is ultimately determined that emergency services could not be located in the maintenance area, we are convinced that appropriate reuses can be found for many if not all buildings. This may require moving a few structures, or even selective demolition, but there is no doubt that creative planners can find ways to adaptively use these buildings. We believe that a fresh look should be given to possible reuses for the site, including use by the Valley transportation, system. Countless historic buildings around the world have been successfully adapted for new uses. Certainly the Park Service has the skill to adapt these relatively flexible historic structures." (Non-Governmental Organization, San Francisco, CA - #7885)

Response: In response to public comment, additional consideration has been given to the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of historic structures in the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. The National Park Service would relocate Superintendent’s House (Residence 1) to the Yosemite Village Historic District housing area and rehabilitate the structure for adaptive reuse. The final assessment of facility needs and design for the current National Park Service maintenance area has not yet been completed. Part of these needs would depend on the technology used for the in-Valley shuttles. However, in the Preferred Alternative, the National Park Service commits to examining the feasibility of rehabilitating and adaptively reusing the historic structures in this complex, including the NPS Operations building (Fort Yosemite). Other historic structures, such as those at the concessioner stable, would be considered for relocation to other park areas as an alternative to their demolition.

The National Park Service methodology for quantifying impacts in terms of both the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act is presented in Vol. IB, Chapter 4. The implementing regulations for the National Environmental Policy Act require agencies to estimate the intensities of impacts to the human environment, as well as the resultant intensity based on the implementation of mitigation measures.

46. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the removal of orchards in Yosemite Valley.

"I recommend removal of fruit trees soon from the orchards. They are only a bit more compatible with Yosemite than the sheep and cattle that once grazed there. Under Alt. 2 the trees will eventually die and require removal anyway." (Individual, Pioneer, CA - #94)

"The Curry Orchard, as well as the Lamon Orchard, should be removed immediately they attract bears who then move on to the campgrounds. There are tens of thousand of decaying old orchards in this country." (Individual, Oberlin, OH - #580)

Response: The orchards in Yosemite Valley have been identified as significant to the cultural landscape of the Valley. The National Park Service is striving to balance protection and preservation of these historic resources with the goal of restoring natural processes. The Programmatic Agreement between the National Park Service and the California Office of Historic Preservation (among others) requires careful evaluation of these features prior to any changes in current management efforts. The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes removal of Curry Orchard, neither removal nor cultivation of Hutchings Orchard, and retention and management of the trees in Lamon Orchard until they die. Lamon Orchard has the greatest level of historic integrity as well as the most unique fruit varietals in the park. The National Park Service is in the process of identifying the significance of all historic orchards within its jurisdiction. In anticipation of the report’s findings, Yosemite National Park has evaluated the significance of the Valley orchards and of individual trees within these orchards and is attempting to retain the more rare varietals through a genetic conservation program outside the park. Lamon and Hutchings Orchards would be interpreted through wayside exhibits, would be allowed to decline over time, and the areas would eventually be restored to a mixture of meadow and riparian vegetation (Lamon) or California black oak woodland (Hutchings) habitats.

316. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the removal of Le Conte Memorial Lodge from Yosemite Valley.

"I wouldn’t mind seeing the National Historic Landmark, the Le Conte Memorial Lodge, removed from the Valley. It is not located on its original historic site and is in the potential rock fall area." (Individual, Torrance, CA - #4227)

Response: The LeConte Memorial Lodge is a designated National Historic Landmark and a highly valued resource of the Yosemite Valley. The structure, built in 1903 at the base of the cliffs below Glacier Point by architect John White, is exemplary of a specific design style unique in Yosemite Valley. The building was moved in 1919 to a similar setting further west. This new site has acquired significance in its own right and is within the National Historic Landmark boundary for the structure. It is National Park Service policy to protect and preserve the cultural resources that contribute to the history and legacy of the built environment in Yosemite Valley. The National Park Service is also required, under the National Historic Preservation Act, to protect National Historic Landmarks to the maximum extent possible. While the National Park Service would actively remove essential (emergency) and hazardous uses from the rockfall zone, existing facilities that are nonessential may remain (see Vol. II, Appendix C, Yosemite Valley Geologic Hazards Guidelines).

4.9.2.a ~ Historic Bridges

Balancing the cultural value of the Valley’s historic bridges with the ecological health of the Merced River drainage was a contentious aspect of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS for innumerable respondents. (See Section 4.13.4 ~ Bridges, for transportation-related concerns regarding Yosemite Valley bridges.) While some people assert that structures impeding the Merced River must be removed, most individuals and organizations urge the National Park Service to retain bridges within the Valley or move them to other meaningful locations. Pronouncing that the Merced River is a rare natural resource but bridges are expendable, one individual advises park leadership to pursue alternative preservation techniques for these structures. "A few photos in the visitor center are all we need to memorialize them," this person suggests. Presenting a contrary opinion, numerous respondents stress the utilitarian, scenic, and cultural value of Yosemite Valley’s bridges as justification for retention. The specific bridges proposed for removal vary among alternatives and this inconsistency proves that elimination is an arbitrary rather than necessary decision, one individual concludes. Other people advocating retention demand that the National Park System publish evidence to support adverse riparian impact claims. Seeking to introduce compromise proposals, several individuals and organizations proffer possible actions to mitigate bridge impacts on the Merced River or relocate these notable resources to a suitable environment. "After all arguments from engineers opposed to the removal of the bridges have been considered and abandoned," one person remarks, "I would urge the park service to dismantle the bridges then remove and reuse them." A Yosemite-area business suggests Mariposa may be an appropriate site for bridge relocation.

686. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should remove historic bridges that impede the flow of the Merced River.

"Similarly the so-called historic bridges are nothing to write home about; a few photos in the visitor center are all we need to memorialize them; if they are impeding the river flow then demolish them and put up new ones in different spots that won’t impede the river. The river is the rare and worthwhile item, the bridges are expendable!" (Individual, Palo Alto, CA - #4397)

Response: Many of the bridges in Yosemite Valley exemplify the National Park Service Rustic Architectural Style and are an important component of the park’s physical history. They provide access across the river and are constructed to visually harmonize with the spectacular scenery of Yosemite Valley. They are listed in the National Register of Historic Places and are considered to be Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Merced Wild and Scenic River. Therefore, the decision to remove any of these historic resources is a difficult one. The bridges were evaluated using two primary factors: the extent to which they degrade the hydrology of the river, and their continued use as important components of the traffic circulation system. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS Preferred Alternative proposes removal of Sugar Pine Bridge and associated riverbank revetments, restoration of the riparian corridor, and evaluation of the continuing hydrologic impacts at Stoneman Bridge. If Stoneman Bridge continues to cause unacceptable damage to the river system, this bridge would then be removed.

Note: One response is provided for concerns #12 and #753, and is placed following concern #753.

12. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain historic bridges in Yosemite Valley.

"I join many of my constituents in objection to the removal of the Sugar Pine, Stoneman and Housekeeping bridges from Yosemite Valley. As I mentioned to you in our meeting, I believe very strongly that these bridges are an important and valued historical attribute of Yosemite National Park and that all efforts should be made to preserve them as part of any future management of Yosemite Valley." (U.S. Representative, Washington, DC - #4292)

"I am opposed to the removal of historic bridges, particularly Stoneman and Sugar Pine Bridges. These stone bridges are truly a work of art. I believe these stone bridges are in keeping with the natural setting and do not detract from the visitor’s experience. These bridges also can serve a continuing useful purpose if used for pedestrian and bicycle paths." (Individual, CA - #234)

"While Yosemite Valley and Yosemite National Park are first and foremost monuments of natural beauty, emphasis of this point should not exclude, nor even override, the degree to which the Valley and Park have also developed historical importance, particularly as regards historic structures. To that end, I object to those elements of each of the action alternatives which indicate the removal of historic bridges. The fact that the particular bridges to be removed vary from alternative to alternative appears to underscore the arbitrary and non-necessary nature of such removals." (Individual, Mill Valley, CA - #223)

"I suggest that you leave the bridges, all of them. They are historical. Those bridges were built in an era of despair and hunger. They also were built as a work of art and one that has lasted regardless of the elements that have tested their every strength. They represent the era of this nation when people were hungry with much desire to work. . . It would be a disgrace for the government now to destroy those bridges." (Individual, Lodi, CA - #2318)

PROVIDE PROOF OF DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS TO THE MERCED RIVER

"It is very bewildering that if a bridge has been determined to adversely affect the flow of the Merced River, then all Alternatives should address that problem; remove, rebuild or relocate. We, therefore, object to the removal of any bridge unless absolutely proven that it is detrimental to the river, and that issue has never been publicly shown to be true. They have historical value and beauty." (Individual, Granada Hills, CA - #124)

MITIGATE BRIDGE IMPACTS ON THE MERCED RIVER

"The bridges afford important access benefits to disabled visitors, to hikers of limited ability who wish to make short ‘loops,’ and to bicyclists who are furthering the SEIS goals by helping to reduce automobile congestion in the Valley. If saving these historic resources can be reconciled with a stronger riparian management strategy, I would endorse a blended alternative that accomplished this while repairing flood-damaged facilities. For example, can levees and channeling be altered to allow the river to meander around the bridges, thereby reducing upstream erosion and helping to restore certain surrounding meadows outside the campgrounds?" (Individual, Berkeley, CA - #4784)

Response: See response following concern #753 below.

753. Public Concern: The National Park Service should consider moving historic bridges and rebuilding with the same materials.

"I find the removal of these bridges to be incompatible with being stewards of the Park. Since I have no hydrology background I cannot argue the engineering methods utilized for this alternative. I can, however, argue the historic implications. Theses bridges are on the National Register of Historic Places. This designation is not one that comes lightly, as the Park Service well knows. If, after all arguments from engineers opposed to the removal of the bridges have been considered and abandoned, I would urge the Park Service to dismantle the bridges then remove and reuse them." (Individual, San Luis Obispo, CA - #5328)

"Any new bridges in the Valley should recycle the original stones of the bridges removed to accommodate the flow of the Merced. Please keep in mind that it enhances (and encourages) the pedestrian experience when people (including children) are able to stand on the bridge and see over the parapet. Everyone visiting the valley should have the experience of watching the water ouzels!" (Individual, Beverly Hills, CA - #3556)

Response: The historic bridges are regarded by the National Park Service as important components of the cultural landscape. Eight of the bridges (those that embody a rustic, stone veneered appearance) are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service policy and federal preservation law require agencies to carefully consider the value of historic properties when undertaking planning that might adversely affect these resources. Hydrologic studies, available in the Yosemite Research Library, indicate that several bridges are having an adverse impact on the natural flow of the Merced River. While it may be feasible to retrofit some bridges to minimize the negative impacts on the river hydrology, in many cases these retrofits would likely destroy the historic and architectural integrity of the bridge, without fully accomplishing the goal of restoring natural processes. In order to meet goals of natural restoration and yet preserve a significant representation of this cultural resource, the Preferred Alternative proposes to remove bridges and adjacent human-made bank reinforcements (such as riprap) in a phased approach. The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes to initially remove one of the historic bridges, Sugar Pine Bridge, which is causing the most significant ecological degradation. Stoneman Bridge would be removed next, but only if monitoring indicates it continues to cause unacceptable impacts to the river’s natural hydrologic flow. Other historic bridges, such as the Ahwahnee Bridge, will remain under the Preferred Alternative. When the difficult choice is made to remove a bridge, mitigating measures, as outlined in the 1999 Yosemite Programmatic Agreement, would be implemented. These measures include Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record documentation as a historical record of the resources, salvaging historic materials, and interpretation.

This response also applies to concern #12.

399. Public Concern: The National Park Service should relocate historic Yosemite Valley bridges to Mariposa.

"We understand the NPS need to remove several historic bridges in order to restore the Merced River to a more natural flow, but why destroy them? Mariposa has a plan to landscape the creek running through town and the bridges (at least one of them) would provide a beautiful centerpiece to that effort. Ashland, Oregon, has a lovely creek through its downtown that famed landscape architect Frederick Law Olmstead designed. Could Stoneman Bridge or another of Yosemite’s scenic and historic bridges be relocated to Mariposa for a downtown park and river walk? Would the Federal government be willing to assist in saving one of its historic bridges while also helping to renew an historic town once home to Charles Fremont, western explorer, military hero and U.S. Senator? The preservation of one of these bridges could help revitalize downtown Mariposa and attract visitors, families and photographers." (Business, Yosemite National Park, CA - #3962)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. When a historic bridge is removed, all reasonable options concerning the final disposition of the materials should be explored. Reconstruction of the bridge at a site outside of the park could be one option and an analysis would need to be performed, including logistical and economic feasibility of such an action. The National Park Service is not considering moving or relocating any of the historic bridges within the park. This would seriously degrade their integrity as historic structures and would eliminate their significance as historic properties. Also, if a historic bridge is relocated outside of Yosemite National Park, it must be recognized that there would be a diminishing of the historic integrity of the bridge due to the change of setting.

4.9.3 ~ American Indian Cultural Resources

How the Yosemite Valley Plan should address the American Indian legacy of, and continued presence within, Yosemite National Park concerns several respondents. Potential construction of an American Indian Cultural Center is particularly divisive. Some individuals contend that an American Indian center would constitute unequal treatment for all of the cultural groups who have contributed to the uniqueness of the park. Others encourage the National Park Service to not only build such a cultural center but also guarantee the involvement of American Indian tribes from the east and west slopes of the Sierra Nevada Range. Also concerned with management for American Indian cultural resources, a conservation organization calls upon the National Park Service to justify the El Portal housing project’s impact upon American Indian occupation sites. The same organization recommends that the National Park Service grant free entrance to all tribal members participating in ceremonial activities or gathering spiritual resources within Yosemite National Park boundaries.

Note: One response is provided for concerns #437, #398, and #470, and is placed following concern #470.

437. Public Concern: The National Park Service should remove the Indian Cultural Center from Yosemite Valley.

"The Indian Cultural Center should be removed from the Valley. There is nothing fundamental about Indian development of prior centuries that should give it special protection over more recent development. Everything becomes historical eventually. It should be treated equally." (Individual, Arroyo Grande, CA - #3555)

"The construction of a new Indian Cultural Center also seems strange, in view of the vast number of older facilities you would like to remove from the park or a mountain man park. This is not basically an Indian park, any more than it is a pioneer park or a mountain man park. If you wish to build such a center, it could easily be constructed away from the valley floor. It seems ludicrous to clear land and build a new facility on the one hand, while destroying a plethora of cultural sites and landmarks on the other." (Individual, Long Beach, CA - #5644)

Response: See response following concern #470 below.

398. Public Concern: The National Park Service should establish an Indian Cultural Center.

"Establish an Indian Cultural Center." (Conservation Organization, Camarillo, CA - #2627)

Response: See response following concern #470 below.

470. Public Concern: The National Park Service should coordinate establishment of an Indian Cultural Center with all tribes adjoining Yosemite National Park.

"In establishing the Indian Cultural Center, please work with tribes form the east side of the Sierra. The tribes from both the west and east sides used the Park, engaged in trade with each other, and intermarried. The proposed cultural center will be most Park visitors’ only exposure to the Park’s pre-history and it should represent all of the prehistoric users." (Town of Mammoth Lakes, Mammoth Lakes, CA - #7014)

Response: Yosemite Valley is culturally important to several American Indian groups. The establishment of an Indian Cultural Center at the site of the last Native American village in Yosemite Valley was originally proposed in the 1980 General Management Plan and is an important element of the current Cooperative Agreement that has been negotiated between the National Park Service and the American Indian Council of Mariposa County (Southern Sierra Miwok). This agreement states the responsibilities for both the National Park Service and the Southern Sierra Miwok for the development of the center and for the tribe’s management of the center. This agreement will be fulfilled regardless of completion of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Recognizing these facts, construction of the Indian Cultural Center, after completion of further environmental compliance, is now only a part of Alternative 1, and not any of the Action Alternatives (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, and Vol. II, Appendix H, Cumulative Impact Scenario). These facilities would not replace either exhibits in the Yosemite Museum or the demonstration village behind the museum. The National Park Service recognizes that it has a special relationship with all Yosemite-associated Indian groups and will continue to consult and enter into agreements on a government to government basis with these groups. The National Park Service, through applicable federal laws, regulations, specific management policies, and Director's Orders recognize the special legal rights these groups have as sovereign governments.

This response also applies to concerns #437 and #398.

445. Public Concern: The National Park Service should address the impacts of the Yosemite Valley Plan on American Indian Culture in Yosemite Valley.

"In describing the proposed housing facility project in El Portal, Valley Planners indicated the construction, ‘would destroy a large portion of historic village area. The portions of this historic village site that are known to contain human burials would be protected from development.’ Meanwhile, planners propose to follow the necessary steps involved in working with local Indian tribes, regulators and preservation organizations. However, the end result will be construction of this housing, and ‘the intensity of adverse impacts would be reduced from major to minor.’" (Conservation Organization, Malibu, CA - #7880)

Response: The reduction in intensity of impact is an estimate of the effectiveness of mitigation that would be negotiated between the park and tribes. Mitigation would likely consist of delineation and protection of the known burial areas; protection of sensitive and significant archeological features; archeological data recovery and site interpretation; and designation of alternative gathering areas. The National Park Service will continue to consult with the park-associated American Indian tribes regarding mitigation appropriate for undertakings such as housing construction in El Portal.

446. Public Concern: The National Park Service should offer American Indians free entry to Yosemite National Park to conduct traditional activities.

"In October 1997, an agreement was formed between the National Park Service for Yosemite National Park and the American Indian Council of Mariposa County, Inc. for Conducting Traditional Activities. This agreement permits members of the Miwok Indian tribe to gather spiritually significant traditional plants. For this opportunity, the Indians are required to pay the $20.00 entrance fee at the gates each time they come into the Park. While a small number have passes to gain entry for spiritual purposes, most do not. Others who work for the Park have window stickers that they can use to gain entry. However, many of these Indians live on extremely low incomes, and cannot afford to visit the area of their ancestral heritage. This practice of gate fees for the Indians should cease immediately, and all persons with Indian heritage should be allowed free entry to the Park." (Conservation Organization, Malibu, CA - #7880)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. American Indians culturally associated with park lands and resources are not required to pay entrance fees for park access for traditional and ceremonial purposes. The National Park Service will continue to work with park-associated tribes to devise a culturally appropriate mechanism for park access.

Section 4.10 ~ Special Land Designations

This section includes comments on special land designations, in particular the management of the Merced Wild and Scenic River is covered here.

The Merced River has shaped the natural and cultural history of the Yosemite Valley for thousands of years and occupies a prominent place in the minds of many Yosemite National Park visitors. Concerns about the Merced River’s management have influenced Park Service policy and prompted the preparation of the Merced River Plan/FEIS. The National Park Service’s dual mandate to simultaneously protect the resource and provide for visitor experience is difficult to implement in the case of the Merced where the park service must abide by federal law, their own dictates, and answer to a large body of oftentimes conflicting public sentiment.

Comments submitted on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS include a number of points that are more directly applicable to the Merced River Plan/FEIS. This is likely the result of individuals’ inability or unwillingness to distinguish between the two planning efforts. While some people clearly did not realize that Yosemite Valley planning and Merced River planning are occurring under the auspices of two different, but interrelated efforts, a large number of respondents feel that the Merced River Plan/FEIS must be the cornerstone upon which all other efforts rest. In the words of one person, "The Merced River was, is and always will be the heart and soul of the Valley. . . To move ahead with Valley planning without fully studying and understanding the Merced River is to move ahead with seriously flawed and incomplete information on the key foundational element of the Valley." (Concerns related to Merced River planning are included within this chapter if they were raised during the comment period for the Yosemite Valley Plan. Chapter 5 of this volume presents public concerns about Yosemite Valley planning that were identified during the analysis of public comments on the Draft Merced River Wild and Scenic River Plan/EIS. These concerns were considered along with public comment on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. For a complete account of the analysis of public comment on the Draft Merced River Plan/EIS see summary of Public Comment, Yosemite National Park, Merced River Plan (USFS 2000). For a complete discussion of public involvement for the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS see the Final Merced River Plan/FEIS, especially Appendix I, Summary of Public Comments and Responses).

Constituents generally agree that the natural qualities of the Merced Wild and Scenic River should be conserved, but they differ on precisely what actions should be taken to protect the river. A variety of park users believe that measures should be taken to restore the hydrology, stream banks, and ecology of this unique river system. "I strongly support," one person states, "the plans to restore habitats and natural systems [of the Merced River]."

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act specifies that Outstandingly Remarkable Values should be identified for qualifying rivers and steps taken to ensure that these values are protected. A number of respondents offer suggestions on how these values should be stewarded and what qualities are identified as outstandingly remarkable. The Yosemite Valley Plan, one individual argues, must not adversely affect any of the identified Outstandingly Remarkable Values for the Merced River. Furthermore, this person argues that the final plan should describe what limits will be placed on activities to ensure that the river’s Outstandingly Remarkable Values are not compromised. Another person warns that the Park Service should not prioritize recreational values of areas to the detriment of other outstanding values. Respondents cite the potential loss of water quality and wetlands near El Portal and request the identification of additional Outstandingly Remarkable Values to protect these resources.

Within the Merced River Plan/FEIS, the National Park Service proposes to implement a 150 foot River Protection Overlay that would restrict development directly adjacent to the river. Public reaction regarding this management designation is mixed; with individuals calling for both more and less stringent river buffers. Since Outstandingly Remarkable Values exist well beyond the hundred and fifty foot buffer, one person would like to see the river overlay extended. In agreement with this belief, another respondent cites research done in the Sierras on buffer widths. "A 150 foot wide corridor is inadequate. . . 600 feet is generally considered adequate," this person contends. In contrast to those arguing for an extended River Protection Overlay, other respondents feel that an overlay is not necessary or should not be applied to sites where impacts to the river are minimal and the river is a primary part of visitor’s experience.

A few people comment negatively on the National Park Service’s plan to divide the park into various management zones; they feel that zoning will ultimately be ineffective in determining where use occurs.

723. The Yosemite Valley Plan should ensure that the Merced River and its banks are restored.

"The plans for the Merced River sound great. The riparian area of the river through the Valley has suffered mightily from human impact over the years. Removing facilities and doing serious restoration work, including re-vegetation, is certainly appropriate and needed." (Individual, Camp Sherman, OR - #1801)

"It is important to reduce the ‘human footprint’ in the Valley by removing unneeded structures and facilities. We need to restore habitat and natural areas throughout the Valley, especially in the Merced River corridor, to increase visitors appreciation and to enhance the natural qualities of the Park." (Conservation Organization, Bakersfield, CA - #737)

"I strongly support the plans to restore habitats and natural systems. It is particularly important to restore the critical meadow and river habitat along the Merced. Bridges and other structures that hinder the flow of the Merced or damage hydrologic features should be relocated or removed." (Individual, El Paso, TX - #617)

Response: The two primary purposes for Yosemite National Park in the 1864 act, as described in Vol. IA, Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, are to preserve the resources that contribute to Yosemite’s splendor and uniqueness, and make the varied resources of Yosemite available to people for their enjoyment, education, and recreation, now and in the future. All alternatives presented in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS seek to accommodate visitor use and enjoyment and protection and preservation of the cultural and natural resources that make up Yosemite National Park. The National Park Service is focused on protecting and restoring an ecological system that is sustainable over time within the framework of visitor use. An emphasis has been placed on removing facilities from critical habitats, thus reconnecting and reducing fragmentation of these areas and providing for river protection and restoration and function of natural processes. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes removing many facilities from and restoring the bank of the Merced River, such as Sugar Pine and other bridges, the former Upper and Lower River campgrounds, several sections of roadway, and a large portion of Housekeeping Camp.

The Merced River Plan/FEIS established management zoning for all areas within the river corridor, a River Protection Overlay for areas 100-150 feet from ordinary high water on each side of the river, and an adaptive management approach that includes monitoring for visitor experience and resource protection over time. These tools will enable the National Park Service to manage the river corridor to prevent degradation of resources, and in many instances, to enhance and facilitate restoration of resources.

The Yosemite Valley Plan has been prepared in accordance with the 1980 General Management Plan, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and other applicable legislation and planning or policy documents. These National Park Service plans, legislation, and policies promote an emphasis on the "natural" character of the Yosemite landscape, even in more developed areas such as Yosemite Valley, so that accommodating visitors will enhance their experience while not spoiling the landscape. What the National Park Service strives to achieve in terms of visitor experience is always within the context of leaving the land "unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."

724. The Yosemite Valley Plan should ensure that projects resulting from the plan do not unduly affect the river’s Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

"The DVP should specify the activities that are proposed to protect and enhance the Outstandingly Remarkable Values for which the river was designated. The DVP should also describe the limits, which are placed on activities that may be proposed in projects stemming from the DVP, necessary to protect and enhance these values, consistent with a valid River plan." (Conservation Organization, Yosemite, CA - #7883)

Response: The action alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS are consistent with the guidance provided by the management elements of the Merced River Plan/FEIS. The Merced Wild and Scenic River section in Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, analyzes the consistency of the alternatives with the Merced River Plan/FEIS, including impacts to Outstandingly Remarkable Values, compatibility with segment classifications, and consistency with the management zoning and the River Protection Overlay. Individual actions can have beneficial impacts on certain Outstandingly Remarkable Values and adverse impacts on other Outstandingly Remarkable Values. As stated in the Impact Methodologies and Assumptions section of Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences:

"It is not atypical for Outstandingly Remarkable Values to be in conflict with each other, where an action (or the existing condition) has beneficial impacts with regard to one Outstandingly Remarkable Value and adverse impacts with regard to a different Outstandingly Remarkable Value. The Merced River Plan/FEIS recognizes this situation, and in the section on Criteria and Considerations (Chapter II, page 3) states: ‘Actions must protect the Outstandingly Remarkable Values, regardless of where the Outstandingly Remarkable Value is located. When Outstandingly Remarkable Values lie within the boundary of the Wild and Scenic River, the Outstandingly Remarkable Value must be protected and enhanced. When Outstandingly Remarkable Values are in conflict with each other, the net effect to Outstandingly Remarkable Values must be beneficial.’ "

In addition, the National Park Service’s compliance processes have been modified to ensure that projects comply with the management elements of the Merced River Plan/FEIS (see Appendix b of the Merced River Plan/FEIS).

535. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should not give preferential treatment to recreational Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

"The DVP gives preferential treatment to recreational ORVs and concludes that development including lodging, parking lots and roads will enhance and/or protect the recreational ORVs. . . An adverse impact to the biologic, hydrologic or scenic ORVs cannot be traded for improved recreational ORVs as a justification for roadways and lodging." (Conservation Organization, Yosemite, CA - #7883)

Response: Actions proposed in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS carefully follow the guidance of the Merced River Plan/FEIS and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The Yosemite Valley Plan goal, to "promote visitor understanding and enjoyment," is very similar to the Merced River Plan goal to "provide diverse river-related recreational and educational experiences." Both plans call for preserving a diversity of visitor opportunities in the river corridor and the design and placement of access and recreational facilities appropriate to the preservation of other values. Neither plan calls for the improvement of recreational values at the expense of other park values or resources. The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS protects this access and diversity of visitor experience by proposing opportunities for solitude and quiet in much of the Valley and proposing opportunities for overnight accommodations and social activities in other areas. However, as reflected in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does not give preferential treatment to the recreational Ooutstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) to the detriment of other ORVs. The preferred alternative in the final plan (Alternative 2) would allow the National Park Service to protect and enhance each of the ORVs in those segments of the river affected by actions in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

540. Public Concern: The National Park Service should recognize water quality as a Merced River Outstandingly Remarkable Value.

"Water quality was not included as an ORV and should be because increased runoff, soil erosion and non-point source pollution from increased development, human activity and traffic may significantly impact the current water quality." (Conservation Organization, Yosemite, CA - #7883)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The Merced River Plan/FEIS has already established the Outstandingly Remarkable Values for the Merced Wild and Scenic River. Water quality is part of the hydrologic Outstandingly Remarkable Value in the wilderness segments of the Merced River. Water quality is not an Outstandingly Remarkable Value in Yosemite Valley, El Portal, or Wawona because the existing water quality in these river segments is not outstanding in a national or regional context. Runoff from developed areas and human contact with water are two factors that impact water quality. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does not propose to reconsider the Outstandingly Remarkable Values established by the Merced River Plan/FEIS.

Impacts to water quality, both beneficial and adverse, resulting from actions included in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS are evaluated in Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, Water Resources.

541. Public Concern: The National Park Service should identify wetland Outstandingly Remarkable Values along the El Portal section of Merced River.

"Wetland ORVs were not identified along the El Portal section of the Merced WSR; given the dire warnings of SNEP regarding wetlands in this elevation, the exclusion of wetlands as an ORV in this reach is wrong. The Sand Pit area functions ecologically as a wetland (and should be designated for restoration not redevelopment). Wetland also exists behind the Hotel, the El Portal Market, the Keiwitt Construction Company Trailer/office, and around the Odgers gas station/headquarters. These areas are already highly impacted with point-source pollution. . . habitat fragmentation from development and trampling, and non-native plant populations. Instead of being proposed for redevelopment, they should be proposed for restoration." (Conservation Organization, Yosemite, CA - #7883)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Outstandingly Remarkable Values for the Merced Wild and Scenic River were established in the Merced River Plan/FEIS. River-related wetlands are considered part of the biological resource Outstandingly Remarkable Values throughout the Merced River corridor, including El Portal. Examples of river-related wetlands in El Portal include the aquatic environment and riparian zones of the Merced River and El Portal oxbow. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does not propose to reconsider the Outstandingly Remarkable Values established by the Merced River Plan/FEIS.

The Merced River Plan/FEIS zones the Sand Pit in El Portal as Day Use, and allows for its existing use as a construction staging area to continue indefinitely. However, it cannot be converted to another use.

726. The Yosemite Valley Plan should dictate that the river’s Outstandingly Remarkable Values are protected well beyond the area of the 150-foot River Protection Overlay Zone.

"Many of the Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) are found beyond the proposed 150 foot River Protection Overlay zone. This is especially true when the ORV is related to habitat for flora or fauna. The suggestion that ORVs will be protected and enhanced only within the proposed 150 foot buffer is completely unacceptable and is not consistent with the provisions of WSA and its guidelines." (Conservation Organization, Mariposa, CA - # 9224)

Response: The Merced River Plan is a guiding document for the Yosemite Valley Plan. As stated in the Merced River Plan/FEIS in the section on Criteria and Considerations (Chapter II, page 3), and as reprinted in Chapter 1 of the Yosemite Valley Plan:

"Actions must protect the Outstandingly Remarkable Values, regardless of where the Outstandingly Remarkable Values is located. When Outstandingly Remarkable Values lie within the boundary of the Wild and Scenic River, the Outstandingly Remarkable Values must be protected and enhanced. When Outstandingly Remarkable Values are in conflict with each other, the net effect to Outstandingly Remarkable Values must be beneficial."

Thus it is incorrect to state that the Yosemite Valley Plan only seeks to protect Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the River Protection Overlay. In keeping with the goals of the Merced River Plan, the Yosemite Valley Plan protects Outstandingly Remarkable Values wherever they are located. Refer to Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, for a complete analysis of impacts on Outstandingly Remarkable Values and the Merced Wild and Scenic River.

534. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should provide riparian buffers based on the best available science.

"The report to Congress by the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) describes three areas associated with riparian systems. These are: the community area, the energy area, and the riparian buffer area. These areas are not distinct, but are nested, with the riparian buffer area including the energy and the community areas. According to the best available science related to the Sierra Nevada Range. . . The 150 foot ‘River Protection Overlay’ will not provide the necessary protection to assure the health of the riparian ecosystem. A 150 foot wide corridor is inadequate as a connector between wildlife populations. The appropriate width is dependent on the species of concern, but 600 feet is generally considered adequate. This is particularly serious given the propensity of the Park management to circumvent review of proposals through the subterfuge of ‘Categorical Exemptions.’" (Conservation Organization, Mariposa, CA - #9224)

Response: All action alternatives of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS include implementation of the River Protection Overlay. The River Protection Overlay protects the river by providing a buffer area for natural flood flows, channel formation, riparian vegetation, and wildlife habitat. These areas allow for the main channel to link with backwater areas, tributaries, and groundwater systems; provide for increased channel diversity; and contribute sources of needed nutrients and woody debris to the river. The River Protection Overlay also protects riverbanks from human-caused impacts and associated erosion and is the area of highest priority for restoration of riparian communities and hydrologic processes. The River Protection Overlay will accomplish these objectives through its limits on facilities. The management framework for the River Protection Overlay provides specific guidance for the replacement, repair, or relocation of existing facilities, the placement of new facilities, and treatment of emergency situations.

The River Protection Overlay above 3,800 feet elevation includes the river channel, the area flooded by normal high water (i.e., the 2.33-year floodplain), and 150 feet as measured from normal high water (below 3,800 feet this distance is 100 feet). The determination of the width of the River Protection Overlay was based on the area necessary to maintain natural processes such as flooding, channel formation (i.e., meandering), the contribution of woody debris and nutrients to the river, and the linkage of the main channel with backwater areas, tributaries, and groundwater systems.

In Yosemite Valley, the Merced River is an alluvial river with shorelines that naturally erode and accrete, resulting in gradual meandering of the river. However, facilities in the river and on the riverbank are causing unnatural erosion and accretion and preventing the river from meandering in places. A primary objective of the River Protection Overlay in Yosemite Valley is to allow the river to meander.

National Park Service staff developed the technical framework for the River Protection Overlay in a series of internal workshops beginning in 1993 and continuing into 1999. Staff reviewed technical studies by various agencies, including the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Many of these studies confirmed the importance of ensuring the contribution of inputs to the river from upland vegetation as a guide for setting the width of riparian protection areas.

278. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not adopt a 150 foot-wide protective zone along the Merced River.

"The Merced River does not need to be protected with a 150-foot wide protected zone." (Individual, No Address - #1551)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. (See Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Actions Common to All Action Alternatives.) The River Protection Overlay was established in the Merced River Plan/FEIS. The River Protection Overlay serves as a buffer, protecting areas immediately adjacent to the river, which are particularly important to the health and proper functioning of the river ecosystem. The River Protection Overlay is intended to be the location of highest priority for restoration of hydrologic processes and biotic habitats within the river corridor, and nonessential facilities should not be located in the River Protection Overlay.

The River Protection Overlay ensures compliance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to protect the free-flowing condition of the river and the Outstandingly Remarkable Values (see the Wild and Scenic River sections in Chapters III and IV, and Vol. II, Appendix B of this document). Implementation of the River Protection Overlay is an action called for as part of the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

725. The Yosemite Valley Plan should not apply the River Protection Overlay to river campsites and housekeeping camp units.

"We do not believe that the River Plan Protection Overlay should be applied to any of the river camp sites. Our experience is that most of the visitors congregate at the sandbar areas anyway. Since there are a very limited number of river sites for campers anyway, this fact in itself limits the number of people entering the water at their campsites. . . We believe that Housekeeping Camp Units should not be removed from the River Protection Overlay. People come to enjoy the river, please do not remove it from access." (Individual, San Diego, CA - #7309)

Response: The River Protection Overlay was established in the Merced River Plan/FEIS to protect areas immediately adjacent to the river. These areas are particularly important to the health and proper functioning of the river ecosystem because they allow the main channel to link with backwater areas, tributaries, and groundwater systems; provide for increased channel diversity; contribute sources of needed nutrients and woody debris to the river; and filter runoff water draining into the river. The River Protection Overlay is intended to protect the Merced River, but it cannot do so if facilities such as campsites and Housekeeping units are immediately adjacent to the river. Accordingly, the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS complies with the guidance of the Merced River Plan/FEIS by removing campsites and units at Housekeeping Camp from the River Protection Overlay.

417. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should not require land management zoning.

"Land Management Zoning: You are intentionally vague on this item, but it sounds to me like fencing or no trespassing to me. You would have to be vague to sell this to the public. I strongly question the need. First, most visitors do not have the time or inclination to go off exploring some of the more sensitive off-site areas of the Valley. Second, if you provide paths to most non-sensitive areas, this is where the visitors will go. A few will always want to go where no one else goes, but will this really harm anything? It has been my experience that as soon as you tell the public they can’t do something they will want to do it. Leave well enough alone." (Individual, San Marcos, CA - #4584)

Response: The central purpose of land management zoning as proposed in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS is to ensure that visitor facility, or employee-related impacts, do not degrade important resources in Yosemite Valley. It is not the intent of the National Park Service in proposing land management zoning to exclude visitors from portions of the Valley. Given the level of visitation to Yosemite Valley, it is necessary and important to manage visitor use in such a way as to protect resources and provide a quality visitor experience. This management philosophy is consistent with the mission of the National Park Service as articulated in the Organic Act of 1916.

Section 4.11 ~ Visitor Experience

This section reflects the public’s concerns regarding the overall visitor experience in Yosemite National Park. Analysis of public comment is grouped into three subsections: general management direction, access, and recreational activities.

4.11.1 ~ General Management Direction

Several people comment on the overall visitor experience in Yosemite Valley. Numerous people who comment on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS suggest that the Park Service clearly define criteria for proposed changes that may affect the overall visitor experience in Yosemite National Park. For instance, the Mariposa County Board of Supervisors advises that the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS "define the visitor experience and its intrinsic relationship to the aesthetic scenic, historic, archaeological, and scientific features or ‘core values’ of Yosemite National Park." This group also advocates limiting visitor facilities to the "base level of services" by eliminating all unnecessary amenities such as pizza parlors, swimming pools, and bars.

A number of respondents offer recommendations on research methods to measure visitor use of Yosemite National Park. The Mariposa County Board of Supervisors suggests that the National Park Service clearly define the carrying capacity for Yosemite National Park. Studies documenting the maximum visitor use that given areas can sustain, the board proposes, should be conducted prior to planning. The board further asserts that the use of mechanical counters at entrance stations should be reexamined because this method of collecting data does not delineate between visitors and park employees or vendors.

In addition to concerns regarding the park’s carrying capacity, several people offer comments on how the National Park Service can control park visitation. A U.S. Representative asserts that the proposed ten-lane traffic check station is inconsistent with the National Park Service goal of limiting west valley development. Additionally, this person believes that a checkpoint may be perceived as a means of monitoring visitation at the expense of visitor experience. One respondent proposes limiting visitation to Yosemite Valley by promoting use of other parks in the Sierras such as Kings Canyon and Sequoia National Park.

383. Public Concern: The National Park Service should define the visitor experience and its intrinsic relationship to the core values of Yosemite National Park.

"Define the visitor experience and its intrinsic relationship to the aesthetic scenic, historic, archaeological, and scientific features or ‘core values’ of Yosemite National Park. Resource-focused opportunities unique to a national park setting, based on resource preservation as opposed to resource exploitation, provide the framework for such a definition (e.g., camping as a resource-based activity that requires minimal permanent infrastructure vs. lodging replete with buildings, paved parking, and a host of guest services requiring additional employees/ housing). Do swimming pools, pizza parlors, bars, equipment sales/rental, etc. contribute to the uniqueness of Yosemite Valley or are they an intrusive ‘fragment of suburbia’? What is the base level of services to be provided in the Valley and what is the base level of employees required?" (Madera County Board of Supervisors, Madera, CA - #4284)

Response: The definition of visitor experience, including its relationship to other park values, is found in the goals and criteria sections of Vol. IA, Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. The visitor experience goals and criteria also need to be read in context of the resource management goals and criteria. A fully described "desired visitor experience" cannot be formulated for Yosemite’s visitors, because the experience is highly individualized for the several million visitors to the park each year. But the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does include an appropriate balance of preservation, development, and use that would keep Nature’s wonders from being overshadowed by the intrusions of the human environment. The Preferred Alternative also would include educational programs that seek to instill a sense of resource stewardship and understanding.

358. Public Concern: The National Park Service should initiate carrying capacity studies for Yosemite National Park.

"Initiate carrying capacity studies that will scientifically document amount of visitor use an area can sustain before negatively impacting resources. Studies should also present a well-defined variety of options that will enable land-use to continue but perhaps under altered circumstances. Such research (though continually monitored) should be conducted first, in preparation for planning–not within five years after a Record of Decision." (Madera County Board of Supervisors, Madera, CA - #4284)

Response: In Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Actions Common to All Action Alternatives–Visitor-Use, the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS discusses the concept of visitor-use levels. The Yosemite Valley Plan and the Merced River Plan/FEIS have both called for more rigorous implementation of the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection process, which addresses the issue of visitor-use levels by identifying indicators of critical conditions, the standards for those indicators, and a constant monitoring process. If the results of the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection study indicate the need for establishment of a maximum visitation level for Yosemite Valley, supplemental environmental compliance and public involvement would be conducted prior to establishing the use levels.

357. Public Concern: The National Park Service should refine processes for monitoring the number of Yosemite National Park visitors.

"Refine process for collecting statistics at the entry gates. Since a major part of the planning effort appears to be based on annual visitation, it is critical that those numbers be clearly defined. The current method of relying on underground mechanical ‘counters’ that (when operable) are unable to delineate between visitors, employees, and vendors other than by formula needs to be reexamined for validity." (Madera County Board of Supervisors, Madera, CA - #4284)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS has not been prepared in direct response to annual visitation counts. The goals of this document were formulated based on the 1980 General Management Plan, when visitation was approximately half of what it is today. The counting system in place is evaluated periodically and adjusted when necessary. The action alternatives of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS do, however, offer another future opportunity for reexamining this system during the development of the traveler information and traffic management system.

355. Public Concern: The National Park Service should reassess the development of a traffic check station at the entrance to Yosemite Valley.

"The proposed ten lane traffic check station at the entrance to the valley has been dubbed ‘Checkpoint Charlie’ and compounds the perception that the intention of this plan is to control visitors, rather than enhance the visitor experience. While the purpose of this valley-entrance station is not described in any detail, it implies significant development at the west end of the valley. One of the goals of this plan ought to be to limit west-valley development, and the proposed Checkpoint Charlie violates that goal. The Checkpoint would also contribute to the identified need to add 127 Park Service employees at an annual cost of $5.45 million. I cannot support such an increase in the Interior Appropriations bill here in Congress for the purposes outlined in this plan, and firmly believe that increased costs for fewer but more regulated public services are not in the national interest." (U.S. Representative, Fresno, CA - #2951)

Response: The check station that was proposed in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS at the El Capitan crossover was to be part of a travel information and traffic management system that would be implemented as part of the Yosemite Valley Plan. (See Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Actions Common to All Alternatives.)

If potential incentives and visitor information elements of the traveler information and traffic management system are not successful in keeping the number of vehicles that travel east of El Capitan crossover from exceeding the available parking, and if visitor traffic in the east end of the Valley results in congestion on the roads, a check station would be constructed at the El Capitan crossover, as proposed in the Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

The function of the check station proposed at El Capitan crossover would be to manage vehicles entering the eastern portion of the Valley. Vehicles driven by visitors with overnight accommodation reservations as well as vehicles used by day visitors using dedicated parking spaces in the east Valley would be allowed to pass through the station. The station would also manage shuttle and tour bus vehicles as well as administrative traffic entering the Valley. The function of the check station is to improve the ability of park staff to safely manage traffic and inform visitors of the choices they have for travel to the Valley when day-visitor parking is at capacity.

Currently, when the restricted access plan has been implemented, El Capitan crossover has been used as a checkpoint. The existing roadway layout and lack of facilities make the job of traffic control difficult and hazardous for park staff and visitors alike. Because there are not multiple lanes and a convenient means for visitors to turn around, traffic management frequently has been hazardous and inefficient.

The check station would be designed to provide the appropriate means to check vehicles, provide by-pass lanes for shuttles, and to harmonize with the surrounding environment.

378. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should promote visitation of other Sierra parks.

"We focus so much effort on Yosemite Valley we forget there are many other beautiful locations in Yosemite Park and in the Sierras. Some exploitation of these other areas could well provide the relief sought for Yosemite Valley’s heavy visitation. A marketing and development plan designed to promote other park lands in the Sierras (e.g. Kings Canyon, Sequoia) should be developed. This would include expansion of camping spaces, hotels/cabins, available sewage and electrical utilities, hiking trail development, naturalist write-ups, parking for day usage, Sierra Club write-ups and promotional advertising in magazines such as Sunset (this magazine publishes one or two articles a year on Yosemite as a destination/vacation spots). We have been to other Sierra locations yet we have been forced to do our own research about these locations because we have not seen environmental and wildlife reviews, vacation promotions, camping opportunities, or other materials that provide encouragement to visit these beautiful park lands." (Individual, Irvine, CA - #4288)

Response: It is beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan to promote visitation of other Sierra parks; however, the plan does call for the design and implementation of a Traveler Information and Traffic Management System (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Actions Common to All Action Alternatives–Traveler Information and Traffic Management). This system would provide better information to travelers regarding the current conditions in Yosemite and what their options may be regarding alternatives to staying in Yosemite Valley. The system would include all of Yosemite National Park, so people could be directed to park locations outside of Yosemite Valley. An element of the system already proposed in the plan is the location of visitor centers near each park entrance, which could introduce visitors to the variety of resources and stories throughout the entire park. Many people do not realize that Yosemite is much greater than the narrow Yosemite Valley. The system could also offer suggestions for accommodations and camping facilities in the vicinity of the park when all park facilities are full. The design of this system would include extensive public involvement.

4.11.2 ~ Access

The degree to which Yosemite Valley should be accessible to the public is central to many respondents’ concerns regarding the Yosemite Valley Plan. Section 4.12.2 includes a discussion of general comments concerning equality of access for various user groups. Respondents’ myriad concerns relating to access restrictions, access for special user groups, and entrance fees are also detailed in this section.

4.11.2.a ~ General Management Direction

Fervent calls for equal access to Yosemite Valley characterize many respondents’ comments on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Several people believe the draft plan allows access for certain user groups at the expense of other groups. Whether they cite high-cost accommodations or restricted personal vehicle access, some people generally agree that the proposed plan limits opportunities for particular groups to enjoy one of America’s "most beautiful national treasures." The young, physically mobile, and affluent visitors are favored over senior citizens, disabled persons, and low-income visitors, these people assert. The National Park Service, several people insist, must maintain Yosemite Valley as an accessible site for all visitors, not a "privileged zone" for the elite.

55. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should ensure access to Yosemite Valley for all people.

"I believe we should not ruin our parks. However, I don’t think they should belong to those who can hike, ride bikes, run and climb. . . Please don’t forget those that are handicapped, in their golden years or have physical impairments. We all need to be able to have access to this park–that is what has made it so great!" (Individual, No Address - #192)

"People need access to one of our most beautiful national treasures. Yosemite is a magical place for a child to be when the sun rises on a misty morning. The new plan quite effectively limits the opportunity for young families, seniors and the handicapped to enjoy Yosemite, while bikers and hikers will have full access. Why? What will this do to the public’s desire to develop and expand our National Park System? Why should people pay taxes for facilities that they would probably never have an opportunity to enjoy?" (Individual, Moraga, CA - #310)

"This last point deserves emphasis: the preferred alternative, and to a lesser degree all alternatives, appear to favor certain types of uses over others. But the Park must be able to be used by all people. In reading the Draft YVP SEIS I can’t help but think of my elderly relatives–and, let’s face it, our more out of shape relatives–who may be unwilling or even unable to appreciate the Valley by any more onerous means. While every effort should be made to reduce vehicular traffic in the Valley overall, this should not come at the cost of causing marginalized people to be unable to enter and appreciate all that the Valley has to offer." (Individual, Mill Valley, CA - #223)

"We are concerned that the preferred alternative will impose unnecessary economic sanctions and hardship on ‘day-use visitors.’ We believe the NPS is discriminating between the poor and the rich. Those who can afford the luxury of the resort style facilities are allowed to drive their cars into the Valley unrestricted. They are given elite status. National Parks were not formed for the elite. They were formed for all Americans with equal right of access." (Individual, Mountain View, CA - #6140)

CONSIDER THE NEEDS OF SENIOR CITIZENS

"It is important that you not overlook the needs of older Americans in your plan. We cannot hike, and prefer riding in the comfort of our own cars to riding and switching busses. We are in favor of more, not less options to view the park from, such as helicopters, rafts, motorized rubber tired trail trains, or horse drawn vehicles etc. We want to appreciate the beauty of the park as much as the younger generation who, it seems, feel they are the only ‘owners’ of the park system." (Individual, Brentwood, TN - #88)

Response: Visitor accommodations are provided within the larger context of the National Park Service mission and within the particular limiting characteristics of Yosemite Valley (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Developing a Range of Alternatives–Development Considerations, and Resource Stewardship–Highly Valued Resources). It is clear that Yosemite Valley cannot accommodate a limitless number of people. But the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would accommodate in the Valley’s overnight facilities and day-visitor parking facilities the maximum daily visitation level specified in the 1980 General Management Plan (18,241). Additional visitors would be able to enter the park via public transit. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would enhance Valley access in other ways: improved information available in advance of a visit; better visitor orientation and information when in the park; and improved access to larger areas of Yosemite Valley by bicycle, walking trails, and shuttle bus.

The National Park Service will comply with the Architectural Barriers Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act in facilities and programs. To this end, the Yosemite Valley Plan would require that shuttle buses and other facilities be accessible for visitors with disabilities. Overnight lodging in the Valley would continue to be accessible by personal vehicles or transit buses. Analysis of and planning for accessibility would be conducted throughout the implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The phasing schedule for the Yosemite Valley Plan would also stipulate that until transit vehicles and facilities are accessible, access for visitors with disabilities would continue essentially the same as now, by the use of personal vehicle placards for access to parking spaces at principal Valley destinations.
(Also see response to concern #13.)

234. Public Concern: The National Park Service should create a plan that equitably distributes access to opportunities in Yosemite Valley.

"These plans often are some of the best examples of environmental injustice and environmental racism in the entire American policy process. Please make certain that the Valley Plan equitably creates incentives to redistribute visitors within the Park without creating a privileged zone in this Valley which belongs to us all." (Individual, Alma, MI - #3110)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS has been amended in response to concerns that new lodgings would not provide quality, resource-related experiences and that mostly low-priced accommodations were being affected. The National Park Service is concerned about equitable access to Yosemite Valley and its facilities, programs, and attractions. The accommodations reservation systems do not discriminate on the basis of economic status, race, gender, religion, profession, culture, or sexual orientation, so each person has the same opportunity to secure lodging or camping facilities. The actions proposed in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS that reduce facilities in Yosemite Valley did call for the bulk of the reductions to come in the categories of camping and rustic level accommodations. The facilities most affected were those in the rockfall zones and the highly valued resource areas (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Developing a Range of Alternatives). The challenge has been to locate an appropriate mix of facilities in those few areas that are suited to development. In the Preferred Alternative, and compared with the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, campsites have been increased by about 8%, rustic accommodations by 35%, and economy level accommodations by 12%. In the Preferred Alternative, 81% of all overnight accommodations (camping and lodging) in the Valley would be priced at the economy level or below (compared to 78% of existing accommodations); 53% would be priced at the rustic level or below. The mix of accommodations proposed maintains a range of overnight opportunities, from camping to rustic Housekeeping units to economy, mid-range, and deluxe lodging facilities. The Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would establish several new campgrounds and the lodging facilities developed would emphasize connection to park resources, economy level cost, and year-round function. Overall, and outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan, the National Park Service is developing strategies for reaching and serving a more diverse constituency, particularly through the efforts of interpretive outreach services already underway (including a partnership with the University of California, Merced campus).
(Also see response to Concern #55.)

4.11.2.b ~ Access Restrictions

In contrast to advocates of unrestricted access to Yosemite Valley, some people believe that crowded conditions resulting from unrestricted access degrade, rather than enhance, visitors’ enjoyment of the Valley. To remedy this perceived overcrowding problem, many respondents offer various suggestions to limit the number of visitors in Yosemite National Park. Specifically, they recommend daily limits on the number of visitors in the park and limits on the number of times people can visit each year. Others, however, argue that crowding in the Valley only occurs during the summer months. Access restrictions should only apply to the peak use period from Memorial Day weekend to Labor Day weekend, they contend.

Several respondents declare that restricting the type of visitors entering the park, rather than the number of visitors, is an appropriate congestion-reducing measure. The National Park Service should only permit access to the park for day users, suggests one citizen. Proposing a different access restriction, several people believe international visitors’ access should be limited. If an access quota must be implemented, it should restrict access for those who do not pay United States taxes, according to these respondents.

4. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should limit the number of people allowed to visit Yosemite National Park.

"I do not see how the ‘National Park Experience’ can be provided to citizens without limiting the number of persons in a park at any given time. Overcrowding strains the facilities and personnel and degrades the enjoyment of the park. I would suggest a reservation system for lodging, camping, and even entrance that could guarantee that travelers would be able to get in when they arrived. Perhaps something like 75% of the rooms, campsites, and available day use cap would be on reservation with the remainder on a first-come first-serve basis." (Individual, No Address - #30020)

"The best idea is to limit the number of people that access the park! Have every visitor make reservations, and provide a deposit, which will make them serious and confirmed visitors. We already have to make reservations for accommodations in the Park. There’s already a limit there. It will not be any additional inconvenience to make reservations to visit the Park." (Individual, No Address - #30208)

"Limit the number of visitors to 1000 per day. Reservation system. All else will sort itself out. Not all who want to go to Yosemite will have access on the date they might wish. So it is with popular rivers, camp sites, museums, etc." (Individual, No Address - #398)

"I think that there should be a capacity of 2,000 people a day that can enter the park. That way there will still be places for animals to roam and live." (Individual, Palo Alto, CA - #843)

LIMIT THE NUMBER OF TIMES PEOPLE CAN VISIT PER YEAR

"For more people to enjoy the park, would it be feasible to set a limit on how many times in a given year that any person/family could visit the park, thereby making space available for others to see it for the first time? We treasure our opportunity to visit Yosemite and will probably not be able to return, but we do hope our children and their families will find space when they are able." (Individual, Hanover, PA - #5556)

LIMIT ACCESS DURING PEAK USE PERIODS

"First of all, I feel that we are making a much larger problem out of the so called crowding in the Valley than really exists. We are trying to make year round solutions to a problem that exists for only a few months of the year. The Valley is crowded from Memorial Day Weekend to Labor Day Weekend. If you go there any other time of the year, there is no crowding, traffic jams, excess people, etc. I think perhaps that there should be some kind of restrictions on use during the period of Memorial Day to Labor Day. Maybe we need to have a lottery system and tell people if they wish to enjoy the Valley during these times they must plan ahead." (Individual, Ceres, CA - #1220)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does not propose specific limits on visitation. While the General Management Plan prescribed a maximum daily use (i.e., day and overnight use) level for Yosemite Valley, its analysis was facility- and vehicle-based with no criteria for protection of resources or visitor experience. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes to complete a Visitor Experience and Resource Protection study within five years of the Record of Decision for the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. For further information, see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Visitor Use in Yosemite and Land Management Zoning.

579. Public Concern: The National Park Service should allow only day-use visitor access to Yosemite National Park.

"The stay at the park should be limited to day use only." (Individual, Albuquerque, NM - #3676)

Response: With increasingly available rapid transportation and the development of recreation, lodging, and camping facilities in gateway communities, visitors are no longer dependent on overnight accommodations (camping and lodging) within Yosemite Valley during a visit to Yosemite National Park. Nonetheless, the National Park Service recognizes that there is great value in being able to experience the Valley in the evening, night, and early morning, and overnight accommodations facilitate this special experience for park visitors.

Target numbers of campsites and lodging units were established through a public process in the 1980 General Management Plan. The number of lodging units were further refined in the 1992 Concession Services Plan. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS also proposes to revise the number of campsites and lodging units in an effort to improve the quality of visitor experiences while protecting and preserving resources for future generations. Decisions on the number and type of visitor accommodations must be based on resource and site condition. These conditions include floodplains and geological hazard areas (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Developing a Range of Alternatives–Development Considerations), as well as the quality of the overnight experience and how closely it relates to the park and the immediate environment.

190. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should limit international visitors’ access to Yosemite National Park.

"The park is paid for by . . . the taxpayers. Why go to such pains to preserve it if admittance will be so limited to the taxpayers. If you want to limit admittance, then limit the foreigners from admittance. Large numbers of foreign visitors are here at all times. . . Charge the foreigners a hefty fee to enter–they don’t pay our taxes." (Individual, Graham, NC - #113)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The intent of the Yosemite Valley Plan is to ensure that access to Yosemite Valley would be equitable for all potential visitors.

4.11.2.c ~ Special User Groups

Many people who comment on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS call attention to the access needs of specific user groups. Most frequently mentioned are the needs of visitors with disabilities and mobility limitations. In order for these needs to be addressed in the plan, several people believe the National Park Service should proactively engage representatives from these user groups in accessibility planning. Furthermore, one person asserts that an Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility plan should be completed before implementation of the plan to ensure compliance with Titles 2 and 3 of the Act.

In addition to suggestions for Yosemite Valley accessibility planning, several respondents ask that the National Park Service clarify how the plan will specifically affect disabled visitors’ access to the Valley. In particular, these people want to know if disabled persons will be granted personal vehicle access and if shuttle buses will be wheelchair accessible. Claiming that bus travel is too difficult for many people with disabilities, some respondents recommend that these visitors be permitted to use their personal vehicles in Yosemite Valley. One person believes electric carts would serve disabled visitors well in accessing various scenic areas in the Valley.

Several respondents are concerned with local community members’ access to Yosemite National Park. The Mariposa County Unified School District asserts that the final plan must account for the vehicle access needs of official and sanctioned visitors to Yosemite National Park schools. One respondent questions whether Wawona homeowners will continue to have vehicle access to Yosemite Valley.

123. Public Concern: The National Park Service should involve people with disabilities and mobility limitations in accessibility planning for Yosemite Valley.

"Any future analysis and development of Yosemite accessibility plans must have participation of at least two people with disability and mobility limitations. For example, such people might be found among agencies such as the National Center on Accessibility (NCA), the National Organization of Disability (NOD), or similar independent body with expertise in design for accessibility." (Individual, Mariposa, CA - #348)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would call for architectural and programmatic accessibility in the design of new facilities and in retrofitting old facilities, including shuttle buses, visitor centers, comfort stations, and lodging facilities. Specific site designs are beyond the scope of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. The Preferred Alternative proposes a full accessibility study and plan during the implementation phases of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The National Park Service, through its Accessibility Management Program, works cooperatively with the National Center on Accessibility, and produces guidelines and training on accessibility issues. Ongoing accessibility planning includes the involvement of this organization, accessibility consultants, and appropriate spokespersons for communities of individuals with disabilities.

486. Public Concern: The National Park Service should complete an Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility plan within the Yosemite Valley Plan.

"We do not believe that it is appropriate to leave an ADA accessibility plan stated on page 1-10 of the SEIS to a ‘future study.’ We assert that if the Park Service proceeds with the preferred alternative (or any of the other alternatives that propose demolition of these historic structures and existing paved and non-paved pedestrian and bicycle paths), this action will preclude any effective development of a functional accessibility plan compliant with Titles 2 and 3 of the ADA." (Individual, San Diego, CA - #7884)

Response: Because specific area and facility design is left to subsequent planning efforts, this concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Because implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan would be phased in over a period of years, it is appropriate that specific accessibility needs and plans be developed concurrent with subsequent planning. This is particularly appropriate because natural area recreation accessibility standards have not yet been fully developed. Although it is not possible within the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS to develop those specific elements of an accessibility plan, the document does include a commitment to meeting accessibility guidelines and to providing the most feasible access for visitors with disabilities to structures, features, and programs. The Preferred Alternative also proposes that, until buses are fully accessible, access for people with mobility impairments would temporarily remain similar to present conditions (see Chapter 2, Alternatives, Visitor Experience–Access for Visitors with Disabilities).
(Also see response to concern #55.)

138. Public Concern: The National Park Service should clarify how the Yosemite Valley Plan will affect visitors with disabilities.

"How will those using wheelchairs have access to the Valley with the new plan? In my case I bring my hand cycle/bicycle to ride on the trails in the Valley which I carry on a bike rack on the back of my handicap van. Will I still have access to the Valley in my van? I presume that if we stay in a room at Yosemite Lodge we can drive to the lodge and park there." (Individual, No Address - #397)

"Just wondering what will happen to the persons that have to use an electric wheelchair or electric scooter to get around on when the plan to restrict the autos in the park arrives. Will the shuttle buses accommodate these people or will we be eliminated from the park? We need our autos to carry the wheelchairs and medical supplies that we use." (Individual, Sacramento, CA - #30009)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS calls for facilities, including shuttle buses, new restroom facilities, visitor centers, and accommodations to be accessible to people with disabilities. Accessibility needs would be further analyzed as implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan goes forward and a specific accessibility plan would be developed. Director's Order No. 42, "Accessibility for Visitors with Disabilities in National Park Service Programs, Facilities and Services," states under §D, Park Facilities:

"Accessibility will be provided consistent with preserving park resources, visitor safety, and providing a high quality visitor experience. In conformance with the regulations and standards, in most instances, the degree of accessibility provided will be proportionately related to the degree of human-made modifications in the area surrounding the facility and to the importance of the facility to people visiting or working in the park. Accordingly, most administrative offices, some visitor overnight accommodations, some employee housing, and most interpretive and visitor service facilities will be accessible to ensure programmatic accessibility. Undeveloped areas, such as those outside the immediate influence of buildings and roads, will not normally be modified, nor will special facilities be provided for the sole purpose of providing access to all segments of the population. Accessibility to facilities in threshold areas will be determined on the basis of the nature of the topography, the significance of the attraction, the amount of physical modifications being made to the environment and the modifications necessary to ensure programmatic accessibility."

Until the accessible features are in place and as the National Park Service begins phasing in the actions called for in the plan, individuals with disabilities would be able to access the Valley similarly to the present, using reserved parking spaces and placards to allow access to many destinations. Those visitors with lodging in Yosemite Valley would continue to be able to drive and park at their lodging. If Northside Drive is closed to traffic from Yosemite Lodge to Pohono Bridge, that section would not be immediately accessible by automobile or shuttle bus for people with certain disabilities, but the principal destinations at either end (Yosemite Falls, Yosemite Lodge, El Capitan) of this section would continue to be accessible. This section of Yosemite Valley would be specifically addressed in the accessibility study proposed in the plan.

375. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should allow disabled visitors to use their personal vehicles in Yosemite Valley.

"Disabled people would have difficulty embarking and disembarking the various shuttles while having to carry all their belongings, etc. . . I am disabled, and I cannot travel by bus due to my suppressed immune system and the fact that my legs have to be up and straight while I’m traveling!" (Individual, No Address - #3130)

Response: The action alternatives of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS do not propose a ban on private vehicles in the Valley. Most overnight visitors and many day visitors would be able to drive their private vehicles to designated parking areas in Yosemite Valley. Once parked, visitors would be able to travel to destinations in the Valley by shuttle bus. Shuttle buses would be accessible to people with disabilities and would operate frequently throughout the Valley.

Accessibility issues would be studied to determine the safest and most convenient way to improve access to major Valley destinations for visitors with disabilities. Special provisions may be made for those who are unable to use the accessible shuttle bus system. Special provisions could include allowing people with disabilities to travel in private vehicles to some destinations (similar to current management of Happy Isles Loop Road and Mirror Lake Road) or making available electric carts or other special vehicles.
(Also see responses to Concerns #486 and #138.)

505. Public Concern: The National Park Service should provide electric carts for the physically challenged in Yosemite Valley.

"In speaking to some of your people up there at the open house, one idea was to . . . have electric carts, like golf carts, where you could drive out to certain places. A concern I have is I like to see and take pictures of various places. I had the opportunity to meet Ansel Adams at one time, and it was a wonderful experience. But he didn’t go to the canned photo stops that we would be limited to if we had a shuttle bus. So, please let’s address the needs of those who are physically challenged." (Public Hearing, San Jose, CA - #20519)

Response: It is beyond the scope of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS to prescribe specific means of providing access to those with mobility impairments to facilities, features, and programs. As implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan occurs, accessibility needs would be fully analyzed and an accessibility plan developed to provide the most feasible access for visitors with disabilities. The use of electric carts and similar equipment would be evaluated as part of the development of the accessibility plan.
(Also see response to concern #486.)

433. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should ensure access to Yosemite National Park schools for official and sanctioned visitors.

"Official visitors to our schools must have vehicular access to, from and around the Park. Sanctioned visitors to our schools must have vehicular access to, from and around the Park." (Mariposa County Unified School District, Mariposa, CA - #4226)

Response: Specifically how the park is accessed will be determined by the traveler information and traffic management system that would be developed with extensive public involvement following completion of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The intent of the Yosemite Valley Plan is that access to Yosemite Valley would be equitable for all visitors.

556. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should clarify whether Wawona homeowners may access Yosemite Valley.

"If you own a home in Wawona, will you be able to drive down into the Valley?" (Individual, No Address - #30008)

Response: Wawona homeowners would be able to access the Valley as would the rest of the public. Specifically how traffic would be managed would be determined by the traveler information and traffic management system which will be developed with public input following the Record of Decision of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

4.11.2.d ~ Park Entrance Fees

Public viewpoints regarding the appropriateness of existing entrance fees to Yosemite National Park vary widely. While some people believe the National Park Service should either maintain or decrease entrance fees to make the Yosemite experience affordable to families of varying economic means, others argue that increased fees are necessary to cover the cost of facility maintenance and other services. Specific management suggestions for entrance fees include a differential fee schedule based on visitation levels, a separate fee for Yosemite Valley access, and different multi-day entrance passes.

Several respondents recommend various fee incentives to reduce automobile traffic in Yosemite Valley: free admission for bicyclists and lower entrance fees for visitors who park their vehicles at out-of-Valley lots.

Note: One response is provided for Concerns #189, #730, #247, and #511, and is placed following #511.

189. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not increase entrance fees to Yosemite National Park.

"Do not raise fees to manage the number of cars coming in. That makes only the lower income people shut out." (Individual, Folsom, CA - #197)

"I suggest leaving the park fee at $20. It was a big jump from $5 not that long ago and again, I’m concerned about keeping it available to everyone. I don’t think money or raising prices is the best way to control congestion. That just continues our nations’ habit of making everything available to those with money and leaving out those who have substantially less." (Individual, San Jose, CA - #3176)

730. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require a decrease in user fees for Yosemite National Park.

"We really appreciate Yosemite as it is and ask that it be maintained as close to possible as it has been. Please keep it available to as many families as possible by lowering the admission fee and camping fees so that all families can afford to come." (Individual, Eureka, CA - #2352)

"Please lower the entrance fee back to normal prices!" (Individual, Eureka, CA - #2353)

247. Public Concern: The National Park Service should eliminate entrance fees for bicyclists in Yosemite Valley.

"Free bike trails could serve as an incentive to leave cars at remote parking lots or even in the gateway communities. Repeal entrance fees as an economic incentive to reduce automobile traffic in the Park. This will make Yosemite National Park more socially/economically accessible." (Individual, Mammoth Lakes, CA - #1443)

511. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require an increase in entrance fees for Yosemite National Park.

"Impose higher entrance fees to provide the funding necessary to enable the facilities to be improved and properly maintained." (Individual, Arroyo Grande, CA - #1470)

"Raising the vehicle entry fee to $20.00 per car was a good idea. I think the fee should be even higher to $30.00 a vehicle." (Public Hearing, San Jose, CA - #20537)

"I have no problem with higher user fees to cover a significant portion of the actual cost of services. Low-income people could be waived." (Individual, Elk Grove, CA - #132)

ESTABLISH HIGHER ENTRANCE FEES FOR PEAK USE PERIODS

"Higher entry prices for peak periods and lower ones for non-peak periods to encourage more evenly distributed attendance figures. $20 is unbelievably cheap for something as incredible as Yosemite. On crowded days, that price probably does not cover the added costs (need for more law enforcement, emergency personnel, clean up, etc.) that overcrowding brings. Thus, a higher price is easily justified." (Individual, Torrance, CA - #6421)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Fee policy (amount of fees, through-park fees, etc.) for Yosemite National Park is set by National Park Service headquarters in Washington, D.C., in consultation with the Secretary of Interior, and in accordance with laws and direction from Congress. Yosemite National Park recognizes that fee policy could be considered and evaluated as an incentive for managing traffic and parking. Incentives would be explored in planning of the traveler information and traffic management system, proposed in each of the action alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.
(This response also applies to the previous three Concerns, #189, #730, and #247.)

389. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require an additional fee to access Yosemite Valley.

"An additional fee should be charged for access to Yosemite Valley. Such a fee would help limit the crush of day users." (Individual, Irvine, CA - #4288)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The development of the traveler information and traffic management system would evaluate incentives to provide an enhanced visitor experience.

601. Public Concern: The National Park Service should offer a wide variety of entrance passes to Yosemite National Park.

"Especially if the NPS is going to force more visitors into accommodations outside of various national parks (not only Yosemite, but also at other popular parks such as Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Crater Lake, etc.), it should create a wider variety of visitor tickets or passes than it now has. Currently, the NPS basically offers a one-day (day-use) ticket (for about $20 per vehicle, at least at Yellowstone) and a seasonal ‘Golden Eagle Passport.’ In addition to these two types of tickets or passes, the NPS should also offer 3-day passes and 5-day passes at appropriate and affordable rates. That way, visitors who cannot obtain their desired accommodations within the most popular National Parks (Yosemite, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Glacier, etc.), and must stay outside of these parks, will still be able to experience these facilities in an affordable manner, over a period of several days." (Individual, Carmichael, CA - #5558)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Present park entrance fees include a $20 vehicle pass valid for seven days. The need for financial incentives to encourage visitors to park in out-of-Valley locations has not yet been determined and would be considered during the planning process for the traveler information and traffic management system.

523. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should provide financial incentives for visitors to park at out-of-valley lots.

"The Park service must also create strong financial incentives for visitors to park at satellite lots. The proposed NPS fares have been estimated by Park Service staff in conversation at $10 per person from Badger Pass, perhaps as low as $7 per person from El Portal, and $15 or $20 from Crane Flat. Since a family of four currently pays $20 for vehicle entry, any fares above $5 per person obviously represent a price hike. Our organizations believe that the Park Service should commit to subsidizing the early stages of the program to keep prices as low as possible and certainly no higher than $10 per person." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #4594)

"I recommend that users of out-of-valley parking areas be given a lower entrance fee as an incentive in an attempt to reduce individual vehicles taking day trips to the Valley." (Individual, Sacramento, CA - #5586)

Response: Each of the action alternatives, 2 through 5, prescribes a traveler information and traffic management system that would manage the number of vehicles in Yosemite Valley and, potentially, the park so as not to exceed the capacity of parking areas and roads. From November through March, parking for day visitors to Yosemite Valley is expected to be adequate to meet the demand and no restrictions would be placed on private vehicle access. During the months of higher visitation (April through October), vehicle restrictions, a potential reservation system, or other management measures would be implemented as needed to maintain a balance between parking and roadway capacity and the number of vehicles in the Valley. The need for financial incentives to encourage visitors to park in out-of-Valley locations has not yet been determined and would be considered during the planning process for the traveler information and traffic management system.

4.11.3 ~ Recreational Activities

This section summarizes general concerns regarding recreational activities in Yosemite Valley along with specific concerns relative to rock climbing, rafting, trail use, stock use, other recreational activities, and recreational facilities. People express conflicting opinions on the appropriateness and management of these activities and facilities.

4.11.3.a ~ General Management Direction

Many people visit Yosemite Valley each year to enjoy a variety of recreational activities. However, respondents convey opposing opinions as to what activities are appropriate in the Yosemite Valley environment. One person suggests that the National Park Service establish criteria for determining what activities are suitable within the Valley and limit activities to those that meet these criteria. Another respondent asserts that longstanding recreational facilities such as swimming pools and tennis courts should not be arbitrarily removed from the Valley. Removing these facilities will detract from traditional family experiences in the Valley, this person argues. In contrast, some believe that all recreational facilities and activities that are discordant with the Yosemite Valley environment should be eliminated.

692. Public Concern: The National Park Service should establish guidelines for determining appropriate recreational activities in Yosemite Valley.

"I formulated some criteria to guide us in thinking about what recreational activities are appropriate for one of the ‘nth’ wonders of the world. First, we must ask if the activity is a vital form of transportation in the Valley. Second, we must ask if there is anything unique to doing the activity in the Valley other than being able to have a spectacular background for the activity. Third, we must ask if there is any benefit to the natural environment in doing or providing the activity. Lastly, to prove our point, we can ask if the activity could just as well be performed somewhere else rather than in our very special Valley. When the answers come in no, no, no, and yes in the above order, we can say the recreational activity is not appropriate for Yosemite Valley." (Individual, Columbia, CA - #7149)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS has been developed with the intent of maintaining opportunities for a diversity of resource-based visitor experiences and recreational activities in Yosemite Valley. Although actions are proposed that would affect recreational activities, the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does not propose to eliminate any, except where actions proposed for other reasons substantially alter the availability of a particular recreational activity (e.g., the proposal to remove the concessioner stable would eliminate commercial trail rides in Yosemite Valley). However, in the future, management zoning and the results of the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection study proposed in the Preferred Alternative may lead to additional management of some recreational activities when necessary to protect resources or the quality of other visitor experiences. This zoning and the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection study are described in Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Actions Common to All Action Alternatives of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.
(Also see response to concern #1061.)

224. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain longstanding recreational facilities in Yosemite Valley.

"Previously, areas needing relief from over-use have been roped off and restricted to allow their ‘return to nature.’ Such remedial action can continue and should be effective where obviously necessary without a more general demolition of existing development. I am sure it’s understood that for years many families have spent their vacations all on the Valley floor. Peremptorily removing various long-existing facilities will detract in myriad ways from this experience. Personally, I have never used the swimming pool, tennis courts, etc., but many have, and who is now arbitrarily to forbid such recreation to energetic families so as to invite instead a meadow or clump of trees?" (Individual, Sanger, CA - #2293)

Response: The mission of Yosemite National Park is to preserve for today’s and future generations the outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational values inherent in the park resources. The 1980 General Management Plan, developed with substantial public involvement, calls for maintaining a diversity of traditional uses to preserve the vitality of the park, particularly those that take advantage of the park’s natural features rather than requiring human-made facilities. As described in Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Developing a Range of Alternatives, the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes to restore highly valued resources, which are those resources making particular contributions to the Valley’s special character. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS also proposes to remove or relocate facilities from the immediate vicinity of the river in order to restore the natural system related to the river and its hydrology. A third consideration is the removal of visitor and employee facilities from the floodplain and rockfall zones posing the highest hazard to human safety and facility sustainability.
(Also see response to concerns #13, #21, #203, #1005, #1101, and #1102.)

585. Public Concern: The National Park Service should eliminate recreational activities that are incompatible with the Yosemite Valley natural environment.

"Get rid of recreational facilities and discourage activities not in consonance with the geological uniqueness of the Valley such as tennis courts, art activity centers, rafting, fishing, etc. All of these activities can be engaged in elsewhere." (Individual, Los Altos, CA - #3165)

Response: Yosemite Valley is conducive to and provides a natural and cultural setting appropriate for diverse educational and recreational pursuits, from sightseeing to climbing, and from nature study to artistic pursuits. Desired Yosemite Valley experiences are unique to each individual, and while the narrow Valley cannot accommodate all desires, those activities that do not unduly affect the natural and cultural environment and the recreational pursuit of others can be allowed. Under the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the effects of all activities on resources and other visitors would be monitored through the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection program described in Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Actions Common to All Action Alternatives–Visitor Use in Yosemite Valley, of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

(Also see response to concern #1080.)

4.11.3.b ~ Rock Climbing

The appropriateness of rock climbing in Yosemite Valley is a controversial subject for many respondents. Many climbing enthusiasts exhort the National Park Service to recognize rock climbing as an important traditional activity and address climbers’ needs. One way to do this, some say, is to include specific criteria for meeting climbers’ needs in the Record of Decision for the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

Conversely, other respondents assert that rock climbing is detrimental to the Yosemite Valley environment and should be restricted in areas visible from the Valley floor. According to these people, the presence of rock climbers contributes to the deterioration of vulnerable areas and detracts from the natural view of the Valley landscape. They offer suggestions to remedy these problems such as designating areas outside of the Valley specifically for rock climbing and prohibiting this activity in sensitive natural areas.

688. Public Concern: The National Park Service should emphasize rock climbing as a recreational activity and cultural resource in Yosemite Valley.

"I encourage you [to] continue to recognize the validity of climbing as an ongoing recreational activity and cultural resource in the Park and to sufficiently address the needs of climbers for transportation, parking, and camping in order to maintain the current experience of rock climbing in the Valley. The Park Service should give more focus to rock climbing and the climbing community as a distinct group and a cultural resource of the Valley." (Individual, Alelphia, MD - #6959)

Response: Both rock climbing and horse use in Yosemite Valley are recognized as historic uses. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS analyzes their impacts when relevant to planning issues. In the case of stock use and stables, the impacts on a highly valued resource area, other natural resources, and on trail conditions have been analyzed and determined to be greater than the benefits would warrant. Thus the stables are proposed for removal in the Preferred Alternative. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes no changes to rock climbing in Yosemite, and rock climbers would have the same access to recreation sites as other visitors (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Visitor Experience–Recreation).

(Also see responses to concerns #248 and #707.)

707. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should reflect the needs of rock climbers.

"The Plan should provide some assurance that subsequent plans and systems yet to be developed will fully consider the needs of the climbing community and recognize rock climbing as a distinct activity. The Plan should ensure that designs of surveys and systems will consider rock climbers as a discrete group with unique needs (which have been partially recognized with respect to Camp 4). The Plan allows the Park Service a significant amount of discretion to develop these plans. The final Record of Decision should include criteria and goals to ensure that rock climbing issues will be included in the development of any such subsequent plans and that climbers’ needs will be addressed." (Individual, Adelphi, MD - #6959)

Response: Rock climbers are recognized as a user group in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, and potential impacts on this group are evaluated. Future park studies, where appropriate, would include climbers among other visitors to Yosemite Valley. Other parkwide and operational plans, such as a climbing plan, are outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

248. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should restrict rock climbing in areas visible from the Valley floor.

"One of my extreme peeves is rock climbers! I just don’t understand why they are allowed to be on the walls of the ‘Most Beautiful Place on Earth.’ I know there are arguments about how they do not use the hammered pegs, but I am sure that their tension holds do damage to the structure of the granite walls. Every little pebble that is dislodged, every powdered hand that touches the surface, etc. no matter how seemingly small, all contribute to the deterioration of something that should remain untouched. It is also disturbing to look up and expect to see a gorgeous natural view and see little specks of people on the faces of the rock walls. It is like going on a hike and coming across garbage that has been left in the wild. Rock climbers are like a disease that is infecting the landscape. There must be a place in the back country that could be designated as a rock climbing area so the well-visited Valley scenes could be left to just love and enjoy from the floor." (Individual, No Address - #1450)

"Rock climbers are in the process of ruining the El Capitan meadow. The numerous spectators that watch the rock climbers are doing the same thing to the El Capitan meadow that the spectators did to the Stoneman Meadow during the days of the fire fall. There certainly should be something in the Valley Plan to limit the rock climbing activity in Yosemite Valley and the damage it is doing to the beauty of El Capitan and the El Capitan meadow." (Individual, Coulterville, CA - #3724)

Response: Specific actions to manage rock climbing are outside the scope of this planning effort. Rock climbing and other forms of mountaineering are historical uses in Yosemite and other national parks. When properly managed, the National Park Service believes these are important and valued forms of recreation that allow people to enjoy unique park environments. Impacts to El Capitan Meadow, resulting primarily from those engaged in observing climbers on El Capitan, would be greatly reduced with the implementation of any of the action alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. In the Preferred Alternative the road through Bridalveil Meadow would be evaluated for impacts on the meadow and would be relocated if necessary. At a minimum, parking lanes along the meadow would be removed, and climbing observation would be redirected to the new North American Wall Picnic Area along the old roadbed to the north, which is better able to withstand heavy use.

4.11.3.c ~ Rafting

Rafting is one of the more popular and controversial recreational activities in Yosemite Valley. Many respondents consider rafting an environmentally sensitive and enjoyable way to experience the Valley. Moreover, one person recommends opening more of the Merced River to rafting including the slow stretch below Sentinel Bridge or upstream beyond Ahwahnee Bridge. Others offer specific suggestions for launch and removal sites to limit riverbank deterioration and create a safe rafting experience, for example, establish a take-out area near Sentinel Bridge and relocate the commercial rafting facility from the Curry Ice Rink to the south end of the Lower River Campground.

In contrast, others believe that rafting is detrimental to the river and should be prohibited in Yosemite Valley. For instance, several people argue that raft transport to and from the river leads to riverbank erosion. Furthermore, others point out that raft users pollute the river with manmade objects and waste, require the National Park Service to provide smelly and potentially leaky portable restrooms, obstruct access to the beach for nonrafters, and impair the scenic views of the river and Valley. To remedy these deleterious effects, people suggest relocating rafting operations outside the park.

570. Public Concern: The National Park Service should increase access to the Merced River for rafting.

"As it entails little or no trampling, I consider rafting to be the most effective and eco-sensitive way to experience the beautiful river. It will become increasingly so as riverbank vegetation is restored and trailside vistas across the river become obscure. I strongly recommend opening more of the River to rafting, the slow stretch below Sentinel Beach in particular, but also upstream to or beyond the Ahwahnee Bridge. There should be a non-commercial take-out near El Capitan Bridge, even if this requires some stone steps to control bank erosion at the take-out." (Individual, Oakland, CA - #3835)

Response: The Merced River Plan/FEIS provides guidance in its management zoning for where rafting and rafting facilities might occur. The location of specific rafting areas and facilities would be determined in subsequent operational planning efforts and would consider data from the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection study described in the Merced River Plan/FEIS and in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Actions Common to All Action Alternatives—Visitor Use in Yosemite Valley).

317. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should designate Merced River put-ins and take-outs.

"I think it would be a great idea if there was a place to launch your rafts and a take-out so that people could do this without messing up the whole River, or River edges . . . There’s really nothing like laying in a raft for two hours looking up the granite walls of the Valley; there’s nothing like it in the world. And I’m really sorry that the last few years that that has not been a possibility." (Public Hearing, Costa Mesa, CA - #20324)

SENTINEL BRIDGE

"Create a safe place for rafters to get off the river near Sentinel Bridge." (Individual, Reseda, CA - #4421)

Response: The design and precise location of launch and removal points for nonmotorized watercraft along the Merced River is beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Future trail and road design, including shuttle bus turnouts, would be developed as the Yosemite Valley Plan is implemented. River access points would have to comply with zoning already provided by the Merced River Plan/FEIS, and would need to meet the criteria prescribed by the River Protection Overlay (described in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS in Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Actions Common to All Action Alternatives).

154. Public Concern: The National Park Service should relocate the commercial river rafting facility to the Lower River Campground area.

"River raft ride: This activity . . . should move from its current location by the Curry Ice Rink, and be relocated to the south end of the Lower River Campground area adjacent to the river, just below the northwest corner of Stoneman Bridge. The problem with the current location is threefold: (1) It is too far from the river, requiring its participants to carry a heavy bulky load too far, (2) participants have to carry the load across a busy traffic intersection, which makes it potentially dangerous and (3) participants have to traverse a dusty, gravelly and therefore slippery downhill slope from the Stoneman Bridge cement walkway to the river bank. People do slide and fall going down this embankment. This proposed new location is immediately adjacent to the river launch area, and has no steep downhill slopes to negotiate. It is, therefore, closer to the river with a safer access. It also will help spread the visitors out and away from the busy Curry area, which is a goal of the GMP." (Individual, American Canyon, CA - #907)

Response: The Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes relocating the raft rental facility into a consolidated facility for rental of recreational gear at Curry Village. The Lower River Campground area would be returned to natural conditions and be unsuitable for a raft rental facility. Operational improvements, such as transporting rafts to a launch location by the concessioner, are out of the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Designating locations of raft launch and removal points along the Merced River is also outside the scope of this planning effort. Such site-specific details would be addressed during future plan implementation activities.

(Also see response to concern #317.)

740. Public Concern: The National Park Service should eliminate rafting from the Merced River corridor.

"Do away with the rafting on the river. This is one activity that leads to the erosion of the banks as they get off and into the River at any desired spot, pulling the raft up behind them. There is plenty of river for rafting outside the Park, west of El Portal." (Individual, Lodi, CA - #2318)

"I must explain some of my reasons for wanting to eliminate the rafting concession. I recently observed the following negative effects of the rafting concession; trampling of the river bank at the input point, pollution of the river with manmade objects and waste, crowding of people and trucks to remove rafts at the takeout area, necessity of having smelly, possibly leaky portable restrooms close to the river, and blockage of access to the beach area for non-rafters. In addition, I also object to the presence of so many rafts on the Merced River in that central part of the Valley where the most beautiful views of the river and valley together may be seen. I enjoy the park less because of all the rafting. Perhaps the rafting concession could be moved to El Portal as a solution to any public outcry over ending the concession in the Valley." (Individual, Columbia, CA - #7149)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS recognizes the value in a diversity of recreational activities in Yosemite Valley, including the unique opportunity to experience the Valley’s grand scenery from the perspective of the river. This experience would be enhanced after the River Protection Overlay is implemented and other riverbank restoration processes occur. Visitor Experience and Resource Protection studies and other considerations would also influence future decisions regarding continued management of private and concessioner raft operations.

(Also see response to concern #1080.)

4.11.3.d ~ Trail Use

This section focuses on comment regarding the improvement, development, and retention of hiking trails in Yosemite Valley. Several respondents maintain that Yosemite Valley should offer an accessible, safe, and well marked trail system to improve visitor experience. These people offer various suggestions for improving Valley trails: develop a hiking trail system in the West Valley, install safety barriers along specific trail segments such as the Mist Trail to Vernal Falls, and improve signage on trails outside of the immediate Valley.

In addition to trail improvements, several people comment on new trail development in Yosemite Valley. The National Park Service should not build trails for the exclusive use of one user group, a citizen contends. The impacts of pedestrian use near the Merced River are also a concern to some people. To limit these detrimental impacts, one person recommends that permanent walking paths and viewing areas be built along the river.

Addressing the management of existing trails, one person asks that all existing historic trails in the Valley be retained.

142. Public Concern: The National Park Service should improve the hiking trail system in Yosemite Valley.

"To encourage walking rather than auto touring, a hiking trail should be built in the West Valley connecting the Valley Loop Trail and the Pohono Trail. This would be a vital link connecting the Valley floor with the Valley rim. I believe the best location would leave the Valley Loop Trail about 0.2 miles west of Bridalveil Meadow and cross the Wawona Road about 0.3 miles west of the Bridalveil Fall pullout. It would then merge with the old Wawona Road and follow it about 1.3 miles to a point on the Pohono Trail about half way between Tunnel View and Inspiration Point. Another possibility would be to leave the Bridalveil Falls area and link up to the old Wawona Road while remaining always south of the current Wawona Road." (Individual, Oberlin, OH - #580)

Response: In the Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, dual trails would be provided throughout the east and mid-Valley. One unpaved trail would be available to pedestrians and stock users, and a second multi-use paved trail would be used by pedestrians and bicyclists. In the Preferred Alternative, trails west of the El Capitan crossover would be limited to the unpaved Valley perimeter trail, because establishing a second multi-use trail would require substantial modification of the natural environment in the narrowest sections of the Valley.

In addition to adding more trails, the Preferred Alternative would improve existing Valley trails and their directional signs along with the realignment of some existing trails. The suggestion for a trail link between the Valley Loop Trail near Bridalveil Fall and the Pohono Trail would be considered in future trail planning.

67. Public Concern: The National Park Service should ensure safe access to public areas in Yosemite Valley.

"We are worried about the environmental impact at Yosemite and I ask questions and hear a bunch of rhetoric such as ‘there are not ropes or cables there because that distracts from the natural beauty of Yosemite.’ Why is there an iron fence at the top of the falls? Why are there cables to the top of half dome? I am sure these all naturally appeared. Seems more like they were installed for public safety and public access. So, why the rhetoric when inquiring about safety cables on the mist trail to Vernal Falls? Wet granite can be very slippery, one slip is all it takes." (Individual, No Address - #239)

"I have asked several different rangers and park personnel in Yosemite about logical safety barriers ‘missing’ or wooden ‘fencing’ if you will, along the mist trail from the cut-off of the John Muir Trail along the wet, slippery granite steps heading up to Vernal Falls, Every time I ask that question I’ve been told ‘we realize it’s slippery and risky yet [barriers] would detract from the natural beauty.’ Give me a break. I guess the walk bridge is ‘natural’ as are the iron pipe railings up at the top of Vernal Falls. With a per-car cost increase the last few years from $5 to $20, one could expect some kind of safety enhancements such as the one I’ve suggested, or I guess the cables to the top of Half Dome are natural too." (Individual, Modesto, CA - #4372)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The National Park Service is always conscious of public safety. However, public safety is an operational issue and beyond the scope of this planning effort. The National Park Service would continue to weigh safety "apparatus" against the concepts of aesthetics and resource damage, with an effort to create safe public access without adversely affecting other values (such as visitor experience or scenic beauty).

587. Public Concern: The National Park Service should improve trail signage in Yosemite National Park.

"Find better ways to mark the hiking trails. It’s easy to get lost. . . Blazes need to be put up on trails that are not in the immediate Valley. The establishment of a hiking club could aid in this process." (Individual, Staunton, VA - #3159)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes improvements in trail signage for Yosemite Valley. Trails outside the Valley are outside the scope of this plan but can be considered in future operational and area planning processes. It is a goal of the National Park Service to provide appropriate, useful signs throughout the park.

285. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should not designate specific trails for the exclusive use by one user group.

"We do not support the construction of any trail for the exclusive use of one user group." (Recreational Organization, No address - #3701)

Response: Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Visitor Experience–Recreation, describes the trail system proposed in the Preferred Alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Under the Preferred Alternative, dual trails would be provided throughout the east and middle Valley. One unpaved trail would generally be available to pedestrians and stock users, and the second multi-use paved trail would be used by pedestrians and bicyclists. The one instance where a trail would be used by only one user group–pedestrians–would be a segment at, and east of, the very congested Yosemite Falls area.

54. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should provide visitor access trails and viewing areas for heavily used sites in Yosemite Valley.

"Given the number of people that visit the Valley I doubt that there is any way that it can be maintained in a pristine manner. I think that perhaps it would be more realistic to address the issue of overuse by providing a walkway along the river that allows people access yet limits the impact. Permanent walking paths and viewing areas with grass or benches could allow the restoration of much of the river and yet provide access to park visitors. Properly designed, these pathways could provide access and are for people to walk, and with proper use of native plants damage to adjacent areas could be minimized." (Individual, No Address - #30080)

Response: Trails for public access to the river would be included in restoration efforts–in many cases, "hardened" to minimize impacts from trampling. The actions of the Yosemite Valley Plan would comply with the zoning provided by the Merced River Plan/FEIS when determining where trails and hardened visitor access points would be provided. The Merced River Plan/FEIS zoning, however, would limit or, in some cases, preclude trails that would direct people into very sensitive or pristine areas.

286. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain trails used historically in Yosemite Valley.

"All present trails should remain open wherever such use is historic and/or designated, and the use has been significant for an extended time." (Recreational Organization, No Address - #3704)

Response: As presented in the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, most of Yosemite Valley’s trails would remain in their present locations, with some adjustments in areas that will be redeveloped or restored to natural conditions. In addition, new trails would be added. Some trails crossing the river would be relocated or altered when bridges are removed. Bridge removal would be accomplished to restore the free-flowing condition and natural hydrological processes of the river where possible (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Natural Resources–Merced River Ecosystem Restoration and Vol. IA, Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, Direction for This Planning Effort–Goals).
(See response to concern #57 for a discussion of the Yosemite Valley trail system.)

4.11.3.e ~ Stock Use

The presence of private and commercial stock users and facilities in Yosemite National Park–including stables, staging areas, and horse camps–is a source of contention for many respondents. These people present strong opposing views regarding this activity in the Park.

Supporters of stock use in Yosemite Valley generally believe that with proper planning, stock use will not detrimentally affect fragile areas of the Park. These people maintain that stock use and stock facilities benefit special user populations such as the elderly and physically challenged, maintain history and tradition, and help facilitate key National Park Service operations such as trail maintenance, search and rescue, and law enforcement. In order for people to fully enjoy these benefits, adequate facilities must be available, they argue. Many respondents ask that commercial trail ride operations and the stables be retained for visitor and National Park Service employee use. Simply maintaining the status quo is not enough for other people; they want the National Park Service to provide new amenities such as staging areas and camping facilities.

Other stock use advocates express additional concerns. One recreational organization believes the National Park Service should reconsider developing the proposed loop trail and horse corral. In order to use the loop trail, a stock user must trailer horses or pack animals up to eight hours in each direction, this group asserts. In addition, the proposed unattended corral, this organization indicates, leaves stock vulnerable to predators. One person insists the National Park Service provide documentation including biological test results to support the claims that facilities impact riparian areas and water quality.

The National Park Service should also recognize the revenue opportunities available from stock users in Yosemite National Park, according to some respondents. The monetary value of the equine industry is grossly underestimated, one individual writes, and the National Park Service can benefit from fees generated for care and recreational use of horses and pack animals in the park.

Several people offer specific suggestions for improving the operational aspects of stock activities in Yosemite National Park: establish a reservation system for horse campsites and staging areas, provide maps to horse camps in the park, create fully operated dude ranch operations, and add overnight mule trips.

In vivid contrast, many oppose stock use in the Valley and recommend establishing stock use restrictions. These people cite various problems associated with stock users: conflicts with other trail users, damage to the environment, and noncompliance of park regulations. To remedy these perceived problems, some respondents offer suggestions for stock use restrictions: restrict equestrian use to off-season periods; disallow construction of the proposed corral and parking area; limit the size of stock user groups; expand the length of the Valley loop trail closed to stock animals; prohibit development of a loop trail at Swinging Bridge; and restrict commercial trail ride operations to areas outside the Valley. One recreational group advocates developing a land ethics program for stock users as another means to reduce environmental degradation in Yosemite Valley.

Rather than only restricting stock use in the park, other respondents urge the National Park Service to completely eliminate this activity. One person claims that stock users and facilities are detrimental to the trail system and offensive to the olfactory senses. Another respondent questions the impact of horse camps on waterways, specifically the Spring Camp at Wawona. This person is concerned that the camp is too close to the riverbank and may affect water quality.

Other people critique the proposed locations for stock use facilities in Yosemite National Park. Curry Village is an undesirable location for stock facilities, some argue, because the large polluting trucks that transport horses would have to enter the Valley. If this site is chosen, one person asks that mandatory site restrictions be established for stock users’ vehicles. In addition, the former Curry dumpsite, another respondent asserts, still attracts bears to the area near the proposed stable and may pose a threat to horses stabled there. Relocation of the stable to Foresta is a point of contention for many respondents. Some believe the stable will be detrimental to the environment, safety, and cultural history of the Foresta area given the major road construction and increased daily stock transport that would occur there. At the very least, the National Park Service should better describe the impacts of relocating the stable to Foresta, several suggest.

87. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should allow stock use in Yosemite National Park.

"I am concerned that horseback riding may be excluded from the Park and that is not right! Yes, there may be some areas that horseback riding should be restricted due to some fragile landscaping, but for the most part horseback riding should not be excluded in the Park! There is room for everyone with responsible planning. Everyone should be able to enjoy horseback riding!" (Individual, Pine Bluff, AR - #105)

"Please consider the aging of America as you make choices about how we will be allowed to enter our public lands. Not all of us can hike anymore. More and more hikers are now hiring packhorses to pack their gear into a base campsite. I know that equestrians seem a small group for you to pay attention to, but the need for at least pack animals is now growing. Don’t shut out or hopelessly restrict people like me just because our bodies have aged. We still love the park and still want to visit as long as we are able. And with a horse, we are still able." (Individual, Coulterville, CA - #66)

ALLOW STOCK USE FOR DISABLED EQUESTRIANS

ﾒA disability as defined by ADA is a ‘physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of an individual. To watch the roar of the falls in Yosemite, see the snow-capped peaks of the high Sierras, listen to the wind rustling in the aspens, these are truly a major life activity. To deny disabled horsemen the right to use their horse to access the public trails is clearly a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. It is apparent in the Plan that horse access to Yosemite Valley will be nearly eliminated. It is essential that disabled equestrians have a place to park their trailer to unload their horse, a place for their horse to spend the night, and the permission to ride on the trails around the Valley, up to the waterfalls, and out of the Valley. We do not want to see our funds and public funds spent on a lawsuit to enforce our rights. We would rather work with the public agencies to improve the trails, raise funds for outdoor programs, expand horse camps, and raise public awareness. But if we are denied our rights, a lawsuit will be our only recourse." (Non-Governmental Organization, Woodside, CA - #2358)

ALLOW STOCK USE FOR THE TRADITIONAL AND HISTORICAL VALUE

"John Muir and Theodore Roosevelt visited Yosemite on horseback, as did Pershing. From 1890 onward for several score years, the U.S. Cavalry rode from the Presidio in San Francisco to Yosemite to patrol the Valley, every summer. Horses are part of the tradition of the Valley in ways that bicycles, rock climbing, skateboards, etc., even automobiles, will never achieve. It is unthinkable to destroy this historical tradition by not allowing horse camping in the Valley. To eliminate horses from the Valley floor would be to negate one of the stated goals of the NPS: ‘. . . to conserve the scenery and natural and historic objects . . . and to provide for the enjoyment of the same . . . ’ The article in park handouts, ‘Loving Yosemite Valley--Planning Its Future’ states that the NPS is charged with ‘ . . . helping people experience and understand the landscape and histories with which we are inextricably linked.’ Horses and humans have a mutual history extending back 7,000 years!" (Individual, Jackson, NJ - #7237)

Response: The National Park Service and concessioner stable operations in Yosemite Valley impact fragile sites and other highly valued resources. Also, commercial trail rides conflict with the heavy pedestrian use on Valley trails. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes to move stable operations out of Yosemite Valley and to eliminate commercial trail rides. Guided trail rides would still be available from Wawona and Tuolumne Meadows, and stock is used regularly in the wilderness and other sections of the park. The great majority of Yosemite Valley would continue to be accessible by private stock users, and the use of stock would continue to be allowed on Valley stock trails. Stock use on paved trails would continue to be prohibited because of safety concerns.

Regarding stock use as access for visitors with disabilities, much of Yosemite Valley would be accessible by other means (e.g., via paved trails at varying levels of accessibility to meet varied desires for access, shuttle buses equipped to accommodate needs of visitors with disabilities, and parking spaces at principal Valley destinations). Stock use does provide access to wilderness trails for some visitors with disabilities, and the use of private stock for this purpose would continue to be available to day visitors and overnight stock users (who camp or board their stock elsewhere in or outside the park). Day visitor facilities and trailer parking would be available under the Preferred Alternative. Access to trailer parking spaces would be managed through the travelers information and traffic management system.
(Also see response to concerns #38, #289, and #86; and concerns #55 and #138 on accessibility.)

217. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain commercial trail ride operations in Yosemite Valley.

"Vol. 1A, Chapter 2, Alternative 2, Summary of Major changes In Relation To Existing Conditions, Remove: ‘. . . Concessioner stable . . . and ‘Commercial trail rides in Yosemite Valley’; and Vol. 1 A, Chapter 2, Table A Summary of Alternatives, Visitor Experience, Stock Use, Alternative 2: This activity provides resource-based recreation, especially for people physically unable to enjoy Valley views at higher elevations or Valley trail destinations (Nevada Falls, Yosemite Falls, Half Dome, etc.) by walking. Listed in the criteria for accomplishing the goals under ‘Visitor Experience.’ is to make sure that visitors have equal access for appreciating the Valley’s natural beauty. Eliminating this activity conflicts with that criterion. Furthermore, allowing the use of private stock and eliminating rental stock means that only visitors with the money to own and keep private horses may enjoy the Valley this way." (Individual, Livermore, CA - #3091)

Response: In the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the Preferred Alternative removes the stable operations and guided trail rides from Yosemite Valley. It has been recognized that extensive stock use on trails in Yosemite Valley has impacts on resources and on the quality of experiences of other visitors that outweigh the benefits due to the relatively few people who take guided rides. The stable operation in Yosemite Valley, necessary to support the rides, has also had impacts on the highly valued resource area intended for restoration in the Yosemite Valley Plan. Provisions may still be made for use of stock for those with disabilities, as part of overall accessibility planning proposed in the plan.

86. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should provide adequate facilities for stock users in Yosemite Valley.

"I question the findings in your plan for Yosemite National Park. There are no horse camping sites planned for the future of YNP. Park goers on horseback need an adequate horse camping site on the Valley floor. Alternatives #2 and 4 allow for five ‘parking spaces’ of undetermined size, plus a ‘corral,’ to accommodate day use of equestrians. Alternative 5 relocates the concessionaire stables, with possible visitor boarding. Three alternatives eliminate the stables, and none of the alternatives plan for horse campsites. Equestrians need more room in the staging area for day use -- a minimum of 15 to 25 max, with water. 4 ‘parking spaces’ for day use is non-functional. Remove the corral, and replace it with more and larger parking facilities for rigs (at least 35 feet in length per rig). Horse staging areas must have adjacent campsites for riders. The concept of unattended horses is unacceptable. This has serious safety flaws for the stock as well as liability issues to YNP. Keep the rental stable concession. This provides some stabling for private stock visiting Yosemite. The rent string serves up to 25,000 clients each season. The proposed elimination of this concession denies the elderly, the disabled, and younger children of opportunities to use the trails above the Valley floor. I am in my mid-50’s, with bad knees. How else can I enjoy the upper trails if I don’t rent a riding horse or trailer in my own? How many visiting horses will be allowed to board at the stables? A loop dirt trail for horses is planned around the Valley floor. I approve of this, but who can use it without adequate staging areas and horse camp sites?" (Individual, Milwaukee, WI - #3360)

RETAIN STABLES

"Keep the stables available for the disabled or elderly visitor. Horses have been used for many years, and provide a way up the trails for those who cannot physically hike that far. I have friends in their eighties who cannot hike anymore, but do well on horseback. They regularly visit trails they could not get to without the benefit of horses or mules. I agree that ponies were unnecessary, but horses and mules can get disabled people where wheelchairs cannot. I used them for my disabled daughter, so she could see Nevada Falls. Horses and hikers need not be in conflict. I believe that to be an excuse for people not familiar with stock animals. Horses play an important role in providing for every kind of visitor." (Individual, Santa Barbara, CA - #85)

"In each of the alternatives for the Valley floor the removal of the stables is called for. This shows a complete and arrogant lack of attention to the historic use of horses in the Park and to the partially mobile population. Many people can go on horseback who cannot hike in the back areas of the Valley. I believe that if you check the reasonable accommodation definitions of the Americans with Disabilities Act you will find that this is an action that can result in legal action if followed through. I believe that an alternative that does not call for the removal of this unique facility needs to be considered." (Individual, No Address - #174)

"Pack and riding stock is used extensively for NPS operations in Yosemite Valley. Trail maintenance in many areas depends upon it entirely. Horses are used in mounted ranger patrols and law enforcement activity, for which the need may be urgent and immediate. Animals may be necessary in search and rescue operation, for which the need may be urgent and immediate. All of these animals need to be cared for and stabled in the area in which they are used, and not trucked in from a remote location on a daily, or on an irregular basis. The NPS stables should remain operational in the existing location." (Individual, Los Angeles, CA - #470)

PROVIDE STAGING AREAS

"Here are a few suggestions that equestrians need in the park: . . . Staging areas for off loading and leaving rigs while riding trails." (Individual, Pine Bluff, AR - #105)

ESTABLISH CAMPING FACILITIES

"The Forest Service provides excellent campgrounds for human and equestrians together, why can’t the NPS? The occasional camper requesting camping places for private stock should be accommodated. We have camped at Wawona with our horses happily, and am glad you are keeping existing sites. We have also used the Valley stables to board our own horses. If you eliminate the Valley stables and don’t add equestrian sites, then you eliminate the best opportunity for the elderly or disabled to get to the nearby backcountry. We generally prefer to camp at Yosemite without the horses, but believe that all people should be accommodated." (Individual, Santa Barbara, CA - #85)

Response: The National Park Service recognizes the long history of stock in use in Yosemite National Park, and in the Preferred Alternative, provides for continued use of private stock in Yosemite Valley. However, it is also recognized that extensive stock use of heavily used Valley trails causes impacts on resources and the experience of other park visitors (see response to concern #38). Thus, while continuing to support day use of Valley trails by private stock users (with an appropriately designed staging facility and trailer parking managed, like other parking, through the travelers information and traffic management system), the stable and guided stock trips would be eliminated. (Retention of the stable and guided trips is evaluated in Alternative 5.)

Yosemite Valley is highly popular with a large number of park visitors, each desiring individualized experiences. It is not possible to accommodate all of these desires (with the facilities they require) while protecting the highly valued resources that characterize Yosemite Valley’s natural environment. The concession stable would be removed because of its location within a highly valued resource area and the impacts it has on that area in terms of water pollution, erosion, and attraction of non-native cowbirds. The trail rides are being discontinued due to the loss of the stable, the impacts on trails, and the impacts of the experience of other visitors. Similarly, because of the very limited amount of land available for competing facilities, campsites reserved solely for stock users would be an inefficient use of land, and multiple use of these campsites would be unacceptable to non-stock users. However, overnight accommodations for stock would continue to be available in Yosemite National Park. Horse camps are available at Wawona, Bridalveil Campground, Tuolumne Meadows, and Hetch Hetchy (these camps have an occupancy rate of less than 70%), and stables are located at Wawona and Tuolumne Meadows. Combined with staging facilities in Yosemite Valley, these provide opportunities for overnight stays in Yosemite with day excursions in Yosemite Valley.

Approximately 14,000 guided trail trips originate from the Yosemite Valley stable each year, the great majority of which are two-hour rides to Mirror Lake, which is accessible by private vehicle to visitors with disabilities. The accessibility study plan called for in each alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would consider the need and feasibility of supplying continued stock access to the Vernal and Nevada Falls corridor for visitors with disabilities. These trips would be coordinated through the relocated concession/National Park Service stables, which would also service park and concessioner operational needs in Yosemite Valley and support programs in the wilderness.
(Also see response to concerns #87, #38, and #289.)