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

---

Section 4.11 ~ Visitor Experience (cont.)

422. Public Concern: The National Park Service should reconsider the proposed loop trail and horse corral.

"The proposed loop trail is a plus, but it is almost a waste of time if no provision is made for horse access to that trail. Most riders will have to transport their horses a distance that requires overnight facilities. It is inconceivable that anyone would expect a horseman to trailer his horse 4-8 hours in each direction and have a 6-10 hour ride that makes no sense. To propose daytime parking for 5 rigs of undetermined size, with a corral, is equally inane. The corral is useless as planned. A good horseman would never leave his horse unattended in an area where there is no security. Horses are prey and a confined horse is easy prey for predators. The Draft Plan’s preferred alternative calls for the elimination of the rental stable concession, the only available facility for overnight stay in the Valley." (Recreational Organization, Clovis, CA - #3568)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS provides the minimal facilities necessary for day visitors to Yosemite Valley to use their own stock for touring the Valley or accessing wilderness trails from the Valley. These visitors would continue to have access to horse camps elsewhere in the park.

289. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should substantiate claims that horse camps and stables in Yosemite Valley cause undesirable effects.

"Documentation should be provided to support claims that establishing a horse camp in Yosemite Valley would not meet ‘project objectives’ or considerations.’ Statements that the present location of rental stables impacts riparian areas and water quality of runoff should be supported by tests run by environmental biologists. Where are the test results?" (Recreational Organization, No Address - #3701)

Response: It is a goal of the Yosemite Valley Plan to preserve the natural processes and cultural heritage of Yosemite Valley while providing a wide range of high quality visitor experiences and opportunities. The long tradition of stock use and its importance to some users is recognized and much consideration has been given to providing opportunities for stock use. Conversely, other visitors have voiced concerns about conflicts with stock on trails and the effects of the presence of stock on the quality of their experience and on natural resources.

The current concessioner stable operation sits directly adjacent to Tenaya Creek, just upstream of its confluence with the Merced River. Land immediately upstream and downstream of the stable has been identified as wetlands in site-specific surveys. Soils in these areas consist of hydric black sandy loam. Small pockets of vegetative cover are characterized by facultative wetland species, including white alder, and obligate wetlands species, such as rushes and sedges. These characteristics, in conjunction with known flood frequencies through the stable area, indicate that the stable is situated on a site that could (and historically did) support riparian vegetation. Most of the stable area is denuded of vegetation, indicating a loss or impact to riparian communities (see Vol. IA, Chapter 3, Affected Environment, in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS).

The stable also supports a large seasonal population of brown-headed cowbirds that frequent the site because of the high concentration of horse manure that supports the insects on which the cowbirds feed. Various wildlife studies indicate that impacts from nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds on bird species that nest in riparian habitats can have severe effects on these species (see Chapter 3, Affected Environment).

The geographic location of the stable directly adjacent to Tenaya Creek and only a few feet above it vertically means this site receives fairly frequent flooding, as well as frequent groundwater inundation of portions of the site during spring runoff. All fecal and urinary wastes on the ground and in the soils are flushed away through either sheet wash or near-surface water flows, carrying these wastes directly into the river system. Due to the lack of wetland and riparian vegetation between the stable and the river's edge, there is little to no ability for nutrient uptake to minimize these massive discharges into the river.

These impacts to the riparian environment (soils, water, vegetation), to the highly valued resources, and to natural river processes support the proposed action to remove the stable from its current location. No horse camps exist in Yosemite Valley, but similar impacts of varying intensity could be expected from these facilities.

741. Public Concern: The National Park Service should recognize the revenue opportunities from stock users in Yosemite National Park.

"I have used our National Park system on horseback in the past and would like to continue to do so into the future. Equestrian use of national parks provides the park with a revenue opportunity that may be overlooked. Do not underestimate the monetary value of horse people in the park." (Individual, Martinez, CA - #5017)

"Please remember that the equine industry is a major economic force. The horse owning public spends billions of dollars each year for the care and recreational use of their horses. By implementing a park use fee, the economic benefits could be utilized by the National Park Service for the creation, maintenance, and repair of equestrian facilities, thus reducing or limiting the amount of funds for these facilities to come out of the general park fund." (Individual, Perris, CA - #5675)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Fee policy is set by the National Park Service headquarters in Washington, D.C., under the direction of the Secretary of Interior and Congress. This includes both what fees are charged, and how the revenue can be used.
(Also see response to concern #87.)

288. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require a reservation system for horse campsites and staging areas in Yosemite Valley.

"A reservation system for horse campsites and staging areas is essential. Except by special arrangement, two nights stay per rig should be permitted. This would allow the campsites to be more widely available for use by other equestrians." (Recreational Organization, No Address - #3704)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS provides the minimal facilities necessary for day visitors to Yosemite Valley to use their own stock for touring the Valley or accessing wilderness trails from the Valley. These visitors would continue to have access to horse camps elsewhere in the park.

608. Public Concern: The National Park Service should provide maps to horse camps in Yosemite National Park.

"We were unable to find any maps defining Horse Camps. In each instance a Ranger has directed us to them. I am certain no such maps exist." (Individual, Adelphi, MD - #6959)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

742. Public Concern: The National Park Service should expand stock use operations in Yosemite National Park.

DUDE RANCHES

"Increase the horse operations to create a privately operated full dude ranch inside the Valley, another on the south ridge and another at one or both of the main redwood groves." (Individual, Oroville, CA - #4948)

OVERNIGHT MULE RIDES

"Add overnight mule trips." (Individual, Redding, CA - #2806)

Response: Because of the impacts on fragile areas in Yosemite Valley and the heavy pedestrian use which occurs on Valley trails, guided trail rides would be eliminated in Yosemite Valley and the stable moved under the Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. 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. New overnight facilities for stock users in Yosemite Valley are not proposed because of the unavailability of developable land and other facilities that would have to be eliminated to provide them. New facilities outside Yosemite Valley are beyond the scope of this planning effort.

38. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should restrict stock use in Yosemite Valley.

"I’m opposed to continuing private stock use, as indicated for all but Alternative 3. Horses have no place in Yosemite Valley, even though they may have in the past, when it wasn’t so crowded. They frighten away wildlife, pollute and damage the trails, and create unpleasant odors." (Individual, Watsonville, CA - #52)

RESTRICT OFF-SEASON STOCK USE

"If you must, you might reduce equestrian use to spring or fall only, so that the busy summer months are avoided. You should continue to provide loop trails for stock use. We already avoid summer visits altogether. The trails existing are fine for stock use at those times, and last visit in early June, we encountered few people on trails at all. If horses are allowed ‘off season,’ then you have no conflicts with hikers because there are very few at all. . . After ski season and before the summer hits, you could have a window of opportunity for equestrians to enjoy Yosemite each year. The fall is another time when the trails are quiet. In this way, you accommodate the largest number of people." (Individual, Graham, NC - #85)

DO NOT DEVELOP A DAY USE CORRAL AND PARKING AREA

"I have concerns that your preferred alternative will allow for construction of a corral and parking for day use by private stock users in Yosemite Valley. I strongly object to this proposal as it would provide preferential treatment to stock users by allowing them to drive large polluting vehicles into the Valley while others would be required to park their vehicles outside of Yosemite Valley." (Individual, Mammoth Lakes, CA - #4386)

LIMIT SIZE OF STOCK USER GROUPS

"Having traveled in the back country, I have one more comment. Large horse groups should never be allowed in the Park. Through the years, I have seen trails, meadows and trees devastated by their careless use. They dam up the streams to water their animals and let their dogs go about unleashed. They make powder out of the trails, making hikers walk off the trail. The meadows are left sans vegetation. If this still goes on, you have my vote to ban, ban, ban, these certain ‘selfish elite’ groups." (Individual, Lodi, CA - #2318)

CLOSE PORTIONS OF THE VALLEY LOOP TRAIL

"There are many things I love about the Valley, and a few things I dislike. One of the latter is the overwhelming presence of commercial stock use. The area around the stables and the trails I have to share with horses is a disgrace. The feces smells horrible, the flies are atrocious, and the dust is ungodly. The plan to close only 1/2 mile of trails to stock animals in the Draft Yosemite Plan is inadequate. This is far too small of a quantity. Considering the impact of stock animal use, this plan needs to do a little more trimming, so that we can enhance the environmental condition in the Valley that will lead to more pleasurable hiking experience by human-powered recreates." (Individual, Truckee, CA - #3955)

DO NOT CREATE A LOOP TRAIL AT SWINGING BRIDGE

"The HSHA also strongly opposes the creation of a new loop trail for stock users at Swinging Bridge. Again, the majority of the Valley’s unpaved trails should be reserved for the majority of the Park’s visitors - those who travel on foot. It is unfair and unconscionable to allow a privileged minority to substantially degrade the experience of Park visitors by damaging and polluting the lion’s share of the Valley’s unpaved trails." (Recreational Organization, So. Lake Tahoe, CA - #4431)

ELIMINATE COMMERCIAL TRAIL RIDES

"I approve the elimination of commercial trail rides in the Valley, and removal of the concessionaire stable, as features of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4." (Individual, Watsonville, CA - #52)

"We strongly oppose the following aspects of Alternative 5: Retaining commercial horse ride operations in the Valley. This service is better provided in the high country, not in the Valley." (Individual, Santa Barbara, CA - #109)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS removes the stable operations and guided trail rides from Yosemite Valley. The National Park Service recognizes that extensive stock use on trails in Yosemite Valley causes impacts on resources and the quality of experiences of other visitors that outweigh the benefits to the relatively few people who take guided rides. The stable operation in Yosemite Valley has also had impacts on the highly valued resource area intended for restoration in the Yosemite Valley Plan. The stable is being proposed for removal because of its location within a highly valued resource area and the impacts it has on that area in terms of water quality, erosion, trail degradation, and attraction of non-native cowbirds. As part of overall accessibility planning proposed in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, provisions may still be made for use of concession-guided stock trips for those with disabilities. Use of private stock in the Valley is currently at a very low level and continued use would be allowed in the preferred alternative, subject to findings of the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection program outlined in Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Actions Common to All Alternatives Visitor–Use in Yosemite Valley. Day-use visitor facilities would be provided in order the manage impacts from this limited use. Access to the limited trailer parking like other in-Valley parking, would be managed through the traveler information and traffic management system. The Valley Loop Trail would be maintained, for the greatest part, in its historical use as a joint stock and pedestrian trail, except that the heavily visited area near Yosemite Falls and Yosemite Village would be closed to stock use. Instead, stock use would be rerouted across Swinging Bridge to maintain a loop-trip opportunity. The maximum size of stock user groups in wilderness is addressed in the Wilderness Management Plan. Elimination of all private stock use is evaluated in Alternative 3.
(Also see response to concerns #87, #86, and #289.)

644. Public Concern: The National Park Service should implement a land ethics program for stock users in Yosemite National Park.

"There is no mention of advocating a land ethic for horseback riders. The leave no trace outdoor ethics program teaches and develops practical conservation techniques designed to minimize the ‘impact’ of visitors on the wilderness environment. ‘Impact’ refers to changes visitors create in the backcountry, such as trampling of fragile vegetation or pollution of water sources. The Draft proposes to conduct a series of visitor experience and resource protection studies that would analyze data concerning visitor preferences and impacts to the natural and cultural resources of the Valley. Incorporating the findings of leave no trace, especially those related to backcountry horse usage, would offer an educational opportunity that benefits all Park visitors and ensures that the Park remains open to multiple forms of recreation in a responsible manner." (Recreational Organization, Silver Spring, MD - #10092)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. However, this concern could be addressed in the next revision of the Resources Management Plan and the Wilderness Management Plan.

567. Public Concern: The National Park Service should eliminate stock use from Yosemite National Park.

"If one day horses and all their attendant trail damage and stench would be eliminated from the trails that would be a dream come true. When finalizing your draft plan please consider eliminating horses from the park along with the trailers, corrals etc. to the greatest extent possible. Horses, as everyone knows, cause a great deal of damage to the trails such as turning them into dust bowls in the summer and drainage ditches in the spring." (Individual, Santa Rosa, CA - #4774)

Response: Horse use in Yosemite National Park is recognized as a historical and popular activity. It is only within the narrow confines of Yosemite Valley that horse use is being addressed in this plan–horse use parkwide is outside the scope of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.
(Also see response to concern #38 for specific actions in Yosemite Valley.)

666. Public Concern: The National Park Service should address the impact of stock use on the Yosemite Valley waterways.

"Horses have long been a bone of contention of mine personally in Yosemite. I find the pack trains and horse riding incompatible with hiking, but realize that is my opinion. My issue however, is the ‘camp’ that occurs at Wawona in Spring. This camp is a mere foot or two from the bank of the river! Surely the water quality is affected by this long-term arrangement. What is the arrangement between the Park and these ‘private stock users?’ Do they pay the Park for their use (and abuse) of the trails and waterways?" (Individual, San Luis Obispo, CA - #5328)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS discusses the impact of stock use in the water resources sections of Chapter 3, Affected Environment, and Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. These chapters also discuss stock use in the context of park operations and visitor experience.

The water resources section of Chapter 3, Affected Environment, states that "Recreational activities such as horseback riding, swimming, and hiking can lead to the introduction of organic, physical, and chemical pollutants into the aquatic system. Areas where livestock are concentrated, including the High Sierra Camps, introduce nutrient sources, while the developed areas introduce human waste and debris." Areas of concentrated livestock use include the concessioner and government stables in Yosemite Valley, the stock trails (especially the Mirror Lake Loop and the John Muir Trail at Happy Isles), and areas of backcountry operations (ranger stations and trail maintenance).

The water resources sections for each alternative of Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, discusses the impacts, both beneficial and adverse, of changes in stock use in Yosemite Valley. Under the No Action Alternative, "nutrients, turbidity, and Coliform would continue to enter the river from both National Park Service and concessioner stables and would continue to create adverse effects to water quality because of their proximity to storm drains that empty into the Merced River and Tenaya Creek." Under the action alternatives, "The restoration of areas now occupied by the concessioner stable and the Swinging Bridge Picnic Area would eliminate a source of nutrients, Coliform, turbidity, and other water pollutants from the Merced River. The River Protection Overlay would result in the removal of the development from areas adjacent to the Merced River, thereby creating a long-term beneficial impact to water quality by providing an area for non-point source pollution, such as waste matter from livestock, to be intercepted and degraded prior to entering the Merced River or Tenaya Creek."

377. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should prohibit the construction of stock facilities for day visitors near Curry Village.

"The HSHA strongly opposes provisions in the draft plan that would allow for the construction of a new corral and parking area (near Curry Village) for day-use by private horse users. Private stock users should not be allowed to drive into the Valley in large, polluting diesel trucks and trailers when private autos are being increasingly restricted. At a minimum, your plan should include specific and mandatory limits on the size of any facilities for day-use by stock users, and specify that no stock trucks will be permitted to enter the Valley at any time when private autos are being turned away." (Recreational Organization, So. Lake Tahoe, CA - #4431)

"Many years after the closure and earth covering of the old dump site, bears still nightly prowl the areas because of the smells and odors which still permeate the area, so sensitive is the nose of a bear. To place a horse/mule stable in a known bear habitat area is unwise. This change should not occur." (Individual, American Canyon, CA - #907)

Response: It has been determined that private stock day-use is a valid activity and would continue. In addition, the National Park Service and its concessioner have a need to access certain wilderness areas by stock from the Valley. Both of these decisions necessitate a facility from which to operate. The Preferred Alternative calls for the removal of the administrative stable from the Valley and relocating it to McCauley Ranch in Foresta, leaving only a corral facility east of Curry Village in the vicinity of the historic Curry dump to stage administrative stock operations and support limited private day-use stock. This action is pending a wilderness suitability study of the McCauley Ranch area. See Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternative 2 for more information.

The entire Valley and park are potential bear habitat. The historic Curry dump area, proposed for construction of the corral, is currently used as an overnight wilderness parking area. This particular site is no more of a bear attractant than other locations within the Valley. Bears that have been conditioned by finding food in vehicles may frequent this area. Visitor education is dramatically reducing the number of human/bear conflicts.

439. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not allow stock facilities in Foresta.

"No stables or horses in Foresta - it would cause too much destruction to the meadows." (Individual, San Dimas, CA - #3954)

"The Draft Plan’s ‘Summary of Environmental Consequences’ states: ‘The placement of NPS and concessioner stables at McCauley Ranch would have a long-term minor adverse impact in the Foresta area.’ This is an incorrect assessment of the long-term impacts to Foresta. To move approximately 120 head of livestock to and from the Valley and backcountry locations will require major road construction through Foresta, grossly impacting the environment, safety and cultural history of the area. These same major adverse impacts would continue long-term with the daily transportation of stock in and out of Foresta. With increased traffic flow from heavy trucks and other vehicles, I am concerned for my safety and that of my small children. I am equally concerned about the loss of Foresta’s peace and beauty as a result of this plan. I offer three alternatives to this plan, in order of preference: 1. Leave the stables in the Valley where they are centrally located with existing buildings and road access. 2. Relocate the stables to the South Landing area near Crane Flat; road access already exists. 3. Relocate the stables to the Foresta ‘wood yard’ just below the Foresta dumpsters. Though paved road access exists, further development of the area is required, however with far less adverse impact than development of roads through Foresta to McCauley’s Ranch." (Individual, Yosemite National Park, CA - #7030)

Response: The National Park Service must retain stock facilities in order to accomplish its mission effectively. It has been determined that they are not essential to remain in the Valley and Foresta is the only area identified that will accommodate the use and still retain some relationship to the administrative needs of the National Park Service. The proposed site in Foresta has historically been used for similar operations and was identified as a location for stable operations in the 1980 General Management Plan.

106. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should detail the impacts of relocating the commercial stables to Foresta.

"Since it is proposed [that] the NPS and concessioner administrative stables operations would be relocated to the McCauley Ranch in Foresta it is imperative that the public is given the details regarding this relocation. How will this ‘human built environment’ impact Foresta both socially and environmentally? And more specifically, how exactly will this new development and stock run-off impact the Crane Creek drainage - an integral part of the biological and recreational environment of the Merced River Canyon?" (Individual, El Portal, CA - #456)

Response: The impacts associated with relocating the stable operations to McCauley Ranch, in the vicinity of Foresta, are addressed in Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

4.11.3.f ~ Other Recreational Activities

This subsection focuses on comment regarding miscellaneous recreational activities in Yosemite Valley including motorized recreation, skiing, and hang gliding. Motorized recreational activities, according to one respondent, should be restricted in Yosemite Valley. This person contends that motorized activities such as individual watercraft and snowmobiles are noisy and a safety hazard.

Several respondents offer suggestions to improve the skiing experience in Yosemite National Park: reduced season pass prices, expanded runs and lifts, exemption of Park fees for skiers, and a year-round ski camp at Lyell Glacier.

One respondent insists that hang gliding be banned from the Park because it has "always created unnecessary traffic to Glacier Point."

128. Public Concern: The National Park Service should restrict motorized recreational activities in Yosemite Valley.

"Jet skis and snowmobiles are noisy and a safety hazard. Although each has its own set of problems, they destroy the aesthetics of a quiet, mountain lake and a snowy day. Speed and noise are not assets in national parks. Banning jet skis and greatly reducing snowmobiles (and muffling them) seems like a good idea to me." (Individual, Wooster, OH - #314)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. These activities are already prohibited by National Park Service regulations.

640. Public Concern: The National Park Service should encourage the improvement of the downhill ski operation in Yosemite National Park.

"The ski facility is grossly inadequately promoting its use and should be encouraged to utilize the Idaho plan of selling Season Passes for a vastly reduced price. They should also be greatly encouraged to expand their territory with new runs and lifts." (Individual, Oroville, CA - #4948)

Response: Developmental and operational considerations regarding the downhill ski operations at the Badger Pass Ski Area are outside the scope of this planning effort.

322. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should exempt skiers from paying entry fees to Yosemite National Park.

"A lot of people would like to cross-country ski or use the ski-lift facilities during the winter. There needs to be accommodation for this use without having to pay a $20 fee to enter the park every time." (Individual, No Address - #3707)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Issues related to entry fees are not being considered in the Yosemite Valley Plan.

572. Public Concern: The National Park Service should establish a year-round ski camp at Lyell Glacier.

"I want a massive physical fitness year-round snow ski camp built at Lyell Glacier." (Individual, Yosemite National Park, CA - #2345)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

584. Public Concern: The National Park Service should prohibit hang gliding in Yosemite Valley.

"I suggest the banning of hang gliding. Hang gliding has always created unnecessary traffic to Glacier Point." (Individual, Lodi, CA - #2318)

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.)

4.11.3.g ~ Recreational Facilities

Yosemite Valley contains a variety of recreational facilities including picnic areas, tennis courts, golf courses, swimming pools, and ice rinks. This subsection addresses recommendations regarding retaining, removing, or improving these facilities.

Picnicking in Yosemite Valley is an activity enjoyed by many park visitors who make specific recommendations for improving this activity: retain all existing picnic areas in the Valley including the rustic picnic areas and the picnic area at Swinging Bridge; establish new picnic areas at the Upper and Lower River Campgrounds and Curry Orchard; use portable amenities that can be removed during the winter; and establish a computer-based daily permit program to allow for reasonable usage without eliminating any existing facilities.

Many respondents express opposing views regarding the existence of tennis courts, golf courses, swimming pools, and ice rinks in Yosemite Valley. Some believe the tennis courts at the Ahwahnee Hotel should be retained because they are a "low impact, low tech, low visibility, nonpolluting" facility. One person cautions the National Park Service to consider the impacts of removing the tennis courts on the adjacent sequoia trees. Given that removing the concrete slabs may damage the trees’ roots, this individual believes "it does not seem to be worth the risk to tamper with the soil there." However, some people believe that the tennis courts should be removed because tennis is inconsistent with the Yosemite experience.

While some assert that the public swimming pools in Yosemite Valley prevent river damage and pollution by directing swimmers away from the Merced River, others argue that pollution from the noxious chemicals and demands on the water supply and wastewater disposal systems exceed the degradation caused by river swimming.

The ice rink is another point of contention for several respondents. One person writes that there should be an ice rink in the park but not necessarily in the Valley. Conversely, another person contends that the ice rink at Curry Village should be removed and replaced with cabins. A new ice rink, one person remarks, is incompatible with the Yosemite Valley environment and should not be built.

One conservation organization opposes retaining the Wawona golf course. The biological and scenic impacts of the golf course, this group maintains, should be addressed in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

743. Public Concern: The National Park Service should retain existing picnic facilities in Yosemite Valley.

"All existing picnic areas should remain as being necessary and appropriate for visitor enjoyment of the Valley." (Individual, Arroyo, CA - #3555)

RUSTIC PICNIC AREAS

"Rustic picnic areas, not just standard tables and benches, should be encouraged, not removed." (Individual, No Address - #7305)

SWINGING BRIDGE PICNIC AREA

"Swinging Bridge is the most attractive and heavily used of the remaining picnic areas. It frequently hosts large family gatherings, commonly of ethnic minorities. Closing it would further the ‘pogrom,’ add to the demand for dining facilities, and for the workers who serve them." (Individual, Oakland, CA - #3835)

Response: In the Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the Sentinel, Cathedral, and El Capitan Picnic Areas would be retained. However, the present Swinging Bridge and Church Bowl Picnic Areas would be removed in order to restore these areas to natural conditions. The use of private automobiles would be eliminated from the Sentinel, Cathedral, and present El Captain Picnic Areas to reduce the amount of vehicle traffic in the Valley; shuttle bus service would be extended to serve two of these facilities. A picnic area is proposed near the day-visitor parking and transit facility in the Preferred Alternative, and another new picnic area would be available at the base of El Capitan (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Visitor Experience–Recreation.) Informal picnicking would likely become more attractive in areas where motor vehicles were eliminated from Northside Drive (such as the former Upper River and Lower River Campgrounds area and west of Yosemite Lodge).

148. Public Concern: The National Park Service should establish new picnic facilities in Yosemite Valley.

"Two new picnic areas could be established. One would be located in the Upper River campground, so as to be immediately accessible from the new proposed day use parking lot in the Lower River Campground. Portable toilets and picnic tables could be temporarily placed during the peak summer season, and then stored in the winter. The other location should be in the Curry Orchard area, which would be blocked off from any vehicular use. Again, portable toilets and picnic tables could be brought in during the summer peak months and removed during the winter." (Individual, American Canyon, CA - #907)

CURRY ORCHARD

"I think a picnic area in Curry Orchard would be a good idea and would be extremely well-used. I truly enjoy the Curry Orchard area. I would rather see a picnic area developed in the Curry Orchard rather than at the Yosemite day using parking area." (Individual, Columbia, CA - #7149)

Response: A new picnic area is proposed near the day-visitor parking and transit facility in the Preferred Alternative, and another new picnic area would be available at the base of El Capitan (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Visitor Experience–Recreation). In the Preferred Alternative, the present Swinging Bridge and Church Bowl Picnic Areas would be removed in order to restore these areas to natural conditions. Additionally, the use of private automobiles would be eliminated from the Sentinel, Cathedral, and present El Capitan Picnic Areas to reduce the amount of vehicle traffic in the Valley; shuttle bus service would be extended to serve two of these facilities. Informal picnicking would likely become more attractive in areas where motor vehicles were eliminated from Northside Drive (such as the former Upper River and Lower River Campgrounds area and west of Yosemite Lodge). The Upper and Lower River Campground areas were not considered to be used for formal picnicking, as these areas would be restored to natural conditions.

574. Public Concern: The National Park Service should establish daily permits for use of picnic areas in Yosemite Valley.

"Keep and maintain all existing picnic areas and require a permit to use them on a daily basis, including permission to park at the picnic area. This will give Park authorities ability to allow reasonable picnic area usage without eliminating any of the areas. Computer/LAN support [with] this type of usage permit program should be paramount to avoid making it a burden on the visitor." (Individual, Los Altos, CA - #3165)

Response: Consideration of a permit process for picnic areas would be out of the scope of this planning effort. Permits could be considered for use of picnic areas, but this would reduce spontaneity of use for most visitors. If the intent of this comment is to use reservations to provide continued access by private vehicles, then the purpose of prohibiting use by automobiles needs to be understood. The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes to reduce traffic volume and congestion by the removal of parking spaces at all Valley destinations except lodging and the day-visitor parking facility. If parking is permitted at other destinations such as picnic areas, back and forth vehicle use would occur, and traffic volume and congestion would increase, contrary to the goals of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Picnic areas would remain available for use and two of three present drive-to areas would become accessible by shuttle bus. All present picnic areas, other than Church Bowl and Swinging Bridge, would remain but be evaluated for continued use.

82. Public Concern: The National Park Service should retain the tennis courts at Ahwahnee Lodge.

"Ahwahnee tennis courts. Since Ahwahnee Hotel is an historic structure the grounds should be part of it. The courts are part of the cultural (people) landscape - provide some variety for outdoor exercise options for locals as well as visitors; are low impact, low tech, low-visibility, non-polluting, not in river protection area; and do not affect the Valley footprint as seen from above. They cause no harm, so why take away something of value?" (Individual, Yosemite National Park, CA - #201)

Response: The tennis courts were constructed in 1927 and were identified as a contributing structure in the 1994 Yosemite Valley Cultural Landscape Report. However, when evaluating the other cultural and natural resource values of the landscape holistically–the black oak woodlands and the meadow itself–those values combined to create a greater good for resources stewardship. Thus, the National Park Service has proposed restoring the black oak woodland and meadow as elements of the landscape ecosystem rather than preserving the tennis court as an isolated feature.

393. Public Concern: The National Park Service should ensure that the removal of the tennis courts at the Ahwahnee Lodge does not damage adjacent sequoia trees.

"I want to call special attention to something that concerns me regarding the removal of the tennis courts at the Ahwahnee. There are seven or eight beautiful ‘young’ giant sequoias surrounding the tennis courts. There is a very great chance that their roots will be disturbed in an effort to take out the tennis courts, and the trees will suffer accordingly. I have recently observed this very thing happened to a magnificent, well-established giant sequoia that is about 95 years old and growing next to a church in Berkeley. The tree was in absolutely flawless condition until construction was done on the property next to the tree three years ago. Unfortunately, the side of the tree next to the construction has suffered from branch die back. Since the tennis courts are not used and exist on an area of the Ahwahnee grounds where a few people go, it does not seem to be worth the risk to tamper with the soil there. Take the fence down, but be particularly judicious when considering the removal of the concrete slab, lest the roots of the trees be disturbed." (Individual, No Address - #3819)

Response: The intent of the National Park Service would be to remove the planted giant sequoia trees surrounding the Ahwahnee tennis courts during removal of the courts themselves. California black oak woodlands surround this site, one of the highly valued resources identified in the Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. The giant sequoias do not contribute to the ecological function of the oak woodland or adjacent riparian and meadow habitats (also highly valued resources) and are not native to the floor of Yosemite Valley. (Sequoias did not survive glaciation of Yosemite Valley, and the distance from the three existing groves in Yosemite National Park to Yosemite Valley precludes their natural post-glacial reintroduction). Finally, these trees have reached reproductive age, and are able to produce seedlings if other conditions are favorable. Since the surrounding black oak and meadow communities will be maintained, in part, with prescribed burning, conditions will be created that would facilitate establishment of giant sequoias, resulting (eventually) in a non-native giant sequoia grove inappropriate to Yosemite Valley. The impacts of removal of these and other individual sequoia trees are explained in the Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species section of Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

637. Public Concern: The National Park Service should remove the tennis courts from Yosemite Valley.

"The tennis courts should be removed. Tennis is not necessary part of a Yosemite experience." (Individual, Visalia, CA - #5714)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes the removal of the tennis courts at the Ahwahnee. (Also see response to concern #82.)

638. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain public swimming pools in Yosemite Valley.

"I agree that the swimming pools should remain, if only for the fact that they may help keep more people from swimming in the Merced Ricer and thus causing pollution and possible damage to the river environment." (Individual, Columbia, CA - #7149)

Response: The existing swimming pools at lodging in Yosemite Valley are retained in the Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

140. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the removal of public swimming pools from Yosemite Valley.

"The multiplier effect comes into play dramatically for swimming pools: They must be staffed, cleaned, and maintained. More towels need to be washed. Pools require shipments of noxious chemicals and place considerable demands on the water supply and wastewater disposal systems. They are in fact, ‘detracting developments’ of exactly the sort that Olmsted objected to. The YVP does not call for the removal of swimming pools and in fact calls for the Curry Village pool to ‘be rehabilitated or replaced.’ This is justified because the pools have ‘historic value’ and they ‘help reduce the impact of swimmers along the Merced River.’ . . . The environmental degradation, outlined above, due to pool swimming probably exceeds the environmental degradation due to river swimming, especially if river swimmers are ‘directed toward river areas not able to withstand heavy use, such as sand and gravel bars.’ Finally, if 25% of the millions of Valley visitors swim in the river, then the pools can at best siphon off only [a] minute percentage of swimmers." (Individual, Oberlin, OH - #580)

Response: Removal of pools was addressed in the 1980 General Management Plan and the 1992 Concession Services Plan. The pools will be retained to provide an alternative for swimming in the Merced River, and also to help lessen impacts on the Merced River ecosystem.

Note: One response is provided for concerns #282, #571, and #639, and is placed following concern #639.

282. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain an ice rink in Yosemite National Park.

"In regards to the ice rink, I would like to see an ice rink in Yosemite, but not necessarily in the Valley." (Public Hearing, Sonora, CA - #20286)

Response: See response following concern #639 below.

571. Public Concern: The National Park Service should remove the ice rink at Curry Village.

"We suggest that the ice rink be removed and that its section of Curry Village be used for more cabins." (Individual, Stockton, CA - #2335)

Response: See response following concern #639 below.

639. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not construct a new ice rink in Yosemite Valley.

"My proposed guidelines for recreational activities in the Valley which apply to ice skating as well as rafting. They are not vital means of transportation, there is nothing unique about doing them in the Valley other than having a spectacular background, they do not benefit the natural environment, and they can be done in some other place than our special Valley. For these reasons, a new ice rink should not be built either." (Individual, Columbia, CA - #7149)

Response: The removal of the ice rink at Curry Village was proposed in the Preferred Alternative of the Draft Concession Services Plan in 1991. Based on public comment at that time, the Preferred Alternative was revised to retain an ice rink in the 1992 Concession Services Plan. That decision, based on public input, was not revised in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, but the facility would be relocated to allow for more efficient design of the Curry Village area.

This response also applies to concerns #282 and #571.

554. Public Concern: The National Park Service should remove the Wawona golf course.

"We oppose the retention of the golf course at Wawona under this plan. It is, again, indicative of the lack of guidance from an adequate and final Merced River Plan. The scenic, biological, and water quality impacts from the golf course are not dealt with in the YVP." (Conservation Organization, Yosemite, CA - #7883)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The Wawona Golf Course, opened in 1918, is the oldest in the Sierra and part of the historic tourism culture of Yosemite National Park.

4.11.4 ~ Orientation and Education

Interpretation and education serve a vital role in the National Park Service’s mission to promote understanding and responsible enjoyment of Yosemite National Park. In order to better fulfill this mission, some people propose expanding the ranger presence in Yosemite Valley by increasing ranger-led interpretive programs. Others recommend that the Yosemite Valley Plan encourage the Yosemite Institute to maintain affordable quality interpretive and educational services for all park visitors. In addition, people offer a myriad of suggestions for improving orientation and interpretative programs: visitor service sites with orientation and interpretative programs at out-of-Valley parking facilities, an interpretive partnership with the National Geographic Society, visitor information services at entrance stations, orientation and interpretive services on shuttle buses, interpretive resources on multi-use paved trails, a nature club for park visitors, and a park directed visitor wellness program.

People express an array of concerns regarding the development and location of visitor centers in the park. While some respondents propose not developing a new visitor center in Yosemite Village, others believe that the visitor center should be retained at its current location along with directional signs near the entrances clearly showing the location of Yosemite Village. Whereas some suggest constructing visitor centers at gateway communities to alleviate congestion near park entrances, others recommend locating visitor centers at park entrances because they believe that "A visitor center near an entrance welcomes the public to the unique park wonders that lie ahead." Conversely, another respondent believes it is "unnecessary and fiscally wasteful" to locate a visitor center at each park entrance and that the existing centers are adequate. Other people offer proposals for visitor centers: convert the existing museum into a visitor center, partner with CALTRANS to establish a visitor center at Yosemite Junction, and develop visitor facilities at Badger Pass including a visitor center and transfer facility for easy access to areas outside of the Valley. Some people address operational concerns including extending the Yosemite Valley visitor center hours to accommodate early morning and evening visitors and opening the Happy Isles Nature Center year-round.

In addition to the aforementioned concerns, many people comment on interpretive and educational facilities in Yosemite Valley. Several respondents offer suggestions regarding the Art Activity Center in Yosemite Valley. For instance, some people insist that the Art Activity Center be retained in Yosemite Valley, although one person recommends that the facility be moved to the Wilderness Center or the Superintendent’s House (Residence 1). In addition, one respondent recommends the Yosemite Valley Plan provide a permanent solution for the problem of housing for visiting artists in Yosemite Valley. Other people offer suggestions for interpretive and educational facilities in Yosemite Valley: construct a natural history museum outside of the Valley; convert the Ahwahnee Hotel into a natural and cultural history museum; make the Yosemite art collection available to the public; consolidate the research library, museum collection, and archives in Wawona; and convert the Curry Village Post Office into an historic exhibit. One person proposes removing the Ansel Adams Gallery from Yosemite Valley and eliminating the structure that currently houses the gallery to further the goal of Valley restoration. Another respondent recommends applying access controls to the new interpretive amphitheater proposed for the vicinity of the concessioner stable parking lot.

125. Public Concern: The National Park Service should improve education and orientation programs in Yosemite Valley.

"Offer an orientation video to sites and how to get to them by public transit etc. for tourists vs. hikers. Offer far more educational programs, orientations, sensitivity training, ecology training at visitors center.There is confusion in the image of the park as a place to exploit nature - i.e. climbing, van & car, vs. sensitivity to ecology. Very unclear messages. Too bad. Seemed to us like a place on the edge of ruin and we were there off season!" (Individual, West Roxbury, MA - #102)

Response: An improved sequence of orientation to park features, activities, and resource stewardship would be implemented in the Preferred Alternative. Additionally, interpretive programs would be expanded to assist visitors in enjoying park resources while assisting in resource preservation. Though outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan, a parkwide interpretive plan is being developed that emphasizes improvement of interpretive services by the National Park Service and each of its partners in interpretation. A primary goal of that plan is to develop a program that would reach the majority of park visitors with a consistent stewardship message.
(Also see response to concern # 259.)

746. Public Concern: The National Park Service should provide ranger-led interpretive and educational programs in Yosemite Valley.

"Bring back the Ranger and naturalist talks and walks. An examination of the schedule of events from years ago, and comparing it to the current one will show you how much we have lost." (Individual, Reseda, CA - #4421)

"NPS Interpretive rangers do a wonderful job of educating the public, but they are such a small force when you consider the many thousands of daily visitors who will never come close to talking to a ranger. . . What Yosemite herself needs the most are enlightened, educated, concerned visitors. We need multiple interpretive park rangers all day, every day, throughout the summer roving and educating at key locations . . . these are the places where huge crowds of innocent ignorant happy visitors feed animals, throw rocks, trash the vegetation, and cause significant resource impacts. Many also look at the beautiful scenery, read an interpretive sign, snap a photo, and leave with a gaping missed opportunity for deeper understanding of this sacred place. Do we want visitors to refrain from feeding animals? Then we need to educate them better. Do we want to remove the ugly and unnatural 'restoration keep out' fencing all over the Valley? Then we need to teach people how to best take care of the resources. The signs, notices, and announcements in the 'Yosemite Guide' are not enough. People need more personal contact. That is the NPS mission!" (Individual, El Portal, CA - #7866)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, as described in Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Visitor Experience–Orientation and Interpretation, proposes increases in interpretive services and facilities, particularly to meet the increased and diverse needs of visitors touring by means other than in private vehicles.

568. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should encourage the Yosemite Institute to provide affordable quality educational services.

"Here [it] comes down to the question: Is this excellent educational program only affordable for richer people? I cannot help to feel desperate about the new plan. In truth, I consider myself very lucky to have the chance to experience the teaching from YI before the new plan takes effect. Otherwise, I would never have learned the importance of the nature environment because I would not have been able to attend the program. Nevertheless, I hope YI can keep its integrity to provide valuable educational experience with minimum cost for more students to come." (Individual, Upland, CA - #1018)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does not address the affordability of programs offered by the Yosemite Institute.

139. Public Concern: The National Park Service should provide orientation opportunities and visitor services at the proposed out-of-Valley parking facilities.

"When the out-of-Valley parking areas are constructed, most visitors will stop there. . . These three sites should be developed for orientation and interpretation, and for gift sales and food service, to make them not just parking lots but welcoming reception areas. More visitors will pass through the three out-of-Valley reception areas than will pass through any single point within Yosemite Valley. Visitors who choose only to tour the western Valley in their cars will not even approach Yosemite Village. Thus the three reception areas, not Yosemite Village, are the logical sites for visitor service, orientation, and interpretation development. . . 1) Visitors can take advantage of their 'waiting for the bus' time at the visitor center. 2) Each visitor center should have an interpretive trail. 3) Given the increased orientation and interpretation opportunities at the out-of -Valley parking areas, there is no longer any need to develop a new full service Valley Visitor Center in the Yosemite Village area. The existing visitor center will be adequate." (Individual, Oberlin, OH - #580)

Response: While there is value in placing orientation facilities at the out-of-Valley parking areas for the smaller number of visitors who would park there, the need for orientation and sense of arrival for all visitors to the park can be accomplished at proposed visitor centers near each park entrance (see the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Visitor Experience–Orientation and Interpretation). In the case of El Portal and Big Oak Flat under the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, orientation facilities have the potential to be located near day-visitor parking. Otherwise, the intent at the out-of-Valley sites is not to create new areas of extensive development, but for these sites to serve as quick transfer points to transportation to Yosemite Valley. Comfort facilities (such as restrooms, drinking fountains, and perhaps minimal food services) would be needed, but additional development would be avoided. Visitor orientation would be limited to information about the shuttle bus operations and transit facility in Yosemite Valley and activities in the immediate area of the parking facility.

419. Public Concern: The National Park Service should enter into an interpretive partnership with the National Geographic Society and interpret global issues at Yosemite National Park.

"The new visitor center is mentioned, and I was struck repeatedly at Yosemite at what a great opportunity we have to directly educate 3.5 million visitors about the environment and the strategy of 'think global, act local.' You should team up with National Geographic–they have an excellent exhibit in DC and tremendous fundraising capacity–or someone like that to fund this. The visitor center should help people understand how things like turning off the water when you brush your teeth, recycling, not driving a car–all those things impact the environment all over the world. When we do the right thing in our local communities, we do the right thing by Yosemite." (Individual, Washington, DC - #4853)

Response: Interpretive partnerships are outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan, but are being considered as part of long-range and annual interpretive planning. While there is long-range value in developing exhibits at Yosemite that interpret global issues, for visitors to maintain an interest in Yosemite’s exhibits they must meet the immediate needs of the visitor while in the park. Exhibits that simultaneously meet visitor desires to understand Yosemite’s stories and provide direct connections between Yosemite’s resources and larger issues are ideal. Even more effective than exhibits at making these connections are the live programs presented by interpretive staff, which have the highest priority in the park for this type of message delivery.

745. Public Concern: The National Park Service should improve visitor information services at Yosemite National Park entrance stations.

"Everyone receives the Yosemite newspaper guide when entering the Valley but I don't think everyone reads it to find out the 'do's' and 'don'ts.' Perhaps a better mechanism can be developed to insure that people are informed (day visitors and overnight visitors)." (Individual, San Diego, CA - #7309)

"Better information at the entrance stations is needed, especially a detailed map of the east end of the Valley." (Conservation Organization, Fresno, CA - #7881)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes improvements in the way that visitors are informed about activities, opportunities, and stewardship in Yosemite National Park, including substantial improvements in orientation facilities near each park entrance.

376. Public Concern: The National Park Service should provide orientation and interpretative services on shuttle buses.

"The present shuttle system is a transportation system, but the new In-Valley Shuttle System will serve an increasing role in providing Park interpretation. To fulfill this role, it is recommended that recorded narrations be rented at Valley Visitor Centers, similar to headset systems provided at museums. The recorded narrations could repeat the words of Muir, Roosevelt, Adams and others who have spoken and written eloquently about Yosemite and entertainingly provide information to people who would not otherwise have the opportunity to experience Park interpretive programs. This approach could reduce the need for separate Valley Floor tours (which add traffic and disruption to the Valley) and guarantee more customized (children, foreign languages) and controlled descriptions of Valley sites." (Business, Yosemite National Park, CA - #3962)

Response: The National Park Service has been examining methods for providing orientation and interpretation on both shuttle and transit buses, particularly those traveling from outside Yosemite Valley. Replacing the Valley Floor Tour in its entirety could require an increase in the number of shuttle buses and a route expanded beyond that proposed in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. While the specifics on how to accomplish these objectives are outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan, orientation and interpretative services on shuttle and transit buses will continue to be evaluated as part of the long-range and annual interpretive planning process.

380. Public Concern: The National Park Service should maximize the placement of interpretive resources along multi-use paved trails in Yosemite Valley.

"To maximize the interpretive value of these new trails, it is recommended that a series of interpretive signs about the natural and cultural history of the Valley be placed along the trail along with rest areas for bicyclists (including racks) and walkers." (Business, Yosemite National Park, CA - #3962)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Visitor Experience–Orientation and Interpretation) proposes the development of an exhibit plan to evaluate locations of existing exhibits and to recommend new exhibits and interpretive trails, with a focus on new pedestrian and bicycle trails.

432. Public Concern: The National Park Service should establish a nature club for Yosemite National Park visitors.

"You should also directly engage people in the wildlife issue and use some sort of nature club to educate people. They take a class and get some sort of reward when they finish–I am thinking a short, 30 minute experience on the basics of man co-existing with wildlife. Get your food out of the car, etc. etc. Help people understand how their actions impact the Park as a whole, and how, when they return to real life, they need to become more wildlife savvy to support wildlife world-wide. Tell them what you need them to do: bear food, no litter, less plastic, less waste, visit the less heavily-used sites (or visit the used sites to control damage, I don't know which you want), mix your trips to Yosemite with trips to other less-used parks (lots of people come to Yosemite every year, and that may be something to reconsider), and whatever other stuff you do/don't want people to do. Then, you get something like a 'Yosemite hat' and the only way you can get it is to score xx on the Yosemite earth friendly test. This is why you need some types of funders, especially corporate folks. I know you need to be careful with fund raising stuff so you don't end up putting corporate logos on Yosemite, but it is a great source of funding to augment government funds, and will increase your political power." (Individual, Washington, DC - #4853)

Response: Development of specific interpretive programs (such as a nature club) is outside the scope of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, but is being considered as part of ongoing long-range and annual interpretive planning. Present proposals do include the reestablishment of the Yosemite Guardian program, similar to the concept described above in the sample quote. The program is also similar to the Junior Ranger program currently being operated by the park. The park’s concessioner and other partners also provide family-oriented nature programs that present some of Yosemite National Park’s resource issues.

435. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should establish a wellness education program for Yosemite National Park visitors.

"I am just dreaming here, and I am a health care advocate, but a little bit on how having good health (moving your body and eating right) makes it possible for people to do all the fun stuff like hiking, swimming, biking–climbing up to see the waterfalls. The place is very inspiring and people naturally want to be active–so it would be a good thing to drive that lesson home to folks, so they will work out during the year and come to Yosemite prepared." (Individual, Washington, DC - #4853)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The establishment of a wellness education program is an operational/human resources issue.

20. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should not require the development of a visitor center in Yosemite Valley.

"I am against another visitor center in the Valley. The pristine bend in the Merced River, that is a possible site for a new visitor center, should again remain in its present pristine state for future generations." (Individual, No Address - #30090)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes a new visitor center in the Yosemite Village area of the Valley to serve the large number of visitors in Yosemite Valley each day. Visitor centers serve both orientation and educational needs necessary to provide a safe and enjoyable visit and to assist in the protection of park resources. The new visitor center would be located in an appropriate area compatible with the Merced River Plan/FEIS.

657. Public Concern: The National Park Service should retain the Valley Visitor Center in Yosemite Village.

"The main visitor center should remain in Yosemite Village where development already exists. It should be simple to post directional signs near the entrances clearly showing the way to the Village for those first-time tourists who need it, or else prepare a special flyer to be handed to those who have never been in the park. As far as new visitor centers at the entrance stations - where is the space? We fail to see why removal of more forest areas is acceptable." (Individual, Madera, CA - #6493)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes a new visitor center in the Yosemite Village area to serve the large number of visitors in Yosemite Valley each day. Visitor centers serve both orientation and educational needs necessary to provide a safe and enjoyable visit and to assist in the protection of park resources.
(Also see response to concern #110 for a discussion of entrance station visitor centers.)

110. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should provide for the construction of visitor centers in gateway communities.

"Constructing Visitor Centers at Park entrances . . . would waste Park land and cause congestion of vehicles and visitors near park entrances. A better approach would be to provide roadside Yosemite Visitor Information Centers away from the park boundaries at Oakhurst (Hwy 41), Mariposa (Hwy 140), Groveland (Hwy 120), and Lee Vining (Hwy 120). The same functions could take place in those locations." (Individual, Los Angeles, CA - #470)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS (Chapter 2, Alternatives, Visitor Experience–Orientation and Interpretation) proposes sequential orientation measures, including providing greater support for joint-agency visitor centers in gateway communities. While some visitors would utilize these facilities, many more would seek in-park activity planning information closer to the park. Visitor centers near each entrance (inside or outside the park) would serve the needs of these visitors, would contribute to a sense of arrival, and would provide interpretive exhibits and activities, which are much more effective when experienced within the resource being interpreted.

277. Public Concern: The National Park Service should construct visitor centers at Yosemite National Park entrances.

"Entrance Station Visitor Centers: A Visitor Center near an entrance welcomes the public to the unique park wonders that lie ahead. Maps and 'how to' directions outlining the many means for mental and physical exploration can be offered. A range of natural and historical information can ignite a visitor's curiosity. Each park entrance has an historic personality, and can be designed to set it apart from the park as a whole. Regardless of the visitor's attention span, each has some degree of hunger for knowledge and understanding. If that is attended to early in a visit, the entire time spent in the park can become more valuable." (Individual, Seattle, WA - #1354)

Response: Chapter 2, Alternatives, Visitor Experience–Orientation and Interpretation, describes the proposed visitor orientation sequence for each alternative. Each of the action alternatives proposes visitor centers near each of the park entrances. Future planning would determine exact locations, but the intention is to have these facilities provide orientation, visit planning, area-specific interpretation, and a sense of arrival.
(Also see response to concern #110.)

424. Public Concern: The National Park Service should reconsider the Yosemite Valley Plan's proposal to build visitor centers at Yosemite National Park entrances.

"It is unnecessary and fiscally wasteful to have a visitor center at each Park entry as outlined in Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5. Visitor centers at Yosemite Village and Tuolumne Meadows are adequate." (Individual, Lodi, CA - #4474)

Response: Visitors, particularly those visiting for the first time, often seek out a visitor center upon arrival to assist them in planning their activities while in the park. A visitor center near the entrance would provide them immediate access to information and interpretation that would help visitors enjoy the park. Also, some visitors may choose not to or may not be able to travel to visitor centers located in Yosemite Valley or Tuolumne Meadows. Visitor center services located at park entrances (part of the traveler information and traffic management system described in Chapter 2 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS) would assist visitors in choosing alternative locations and activities, making accommodation arrangements, obtaining wilderness permits, or selecting activities outside the park. In addition to providing a brief park overview, the visitor center interpretive exhibits would interpret resources in their vicinity, assisting visitors in enjoying the diverse recreational, natural, and cultural resources available parkwide. These visitor centers would provide necessary visitor services, reduce unnecessary travel, and lead to more enjoyable visitor experiences. They would generally replace present, seasonally staffed visitor contact stations near each principal entrance.
(Also see the response to concern #110.)

400. Public Concern: The National Park Service should convert the existing museum into a visitor center.

"Convert the existing museum to a Visitor Center." (Conservation Organization, Camarillo, CA - #2627)

Response: The differing functions of a visitor center and a museum both have value for Yosemite Valley visitors. The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS keeps all preservation and research functions of the Yosemite Museum in Yosemite Valley. The extensive collection of museum objects relates closely to Valley resources and, like any interpretive program, finds its greatest value when interpreted in its physical context. The National Park Service would like to make the extensive natural history, art, and American Indian collections, among others, more accessible to park visitors. The Yosemite Museum was the first in the National Park Service, and the existing museum building was constructed with donated funds. Continuation as a museum is the highest possible use for this building from a historic preservation perspective. The broader, less specific, and less object-oriented information and educational goals of a visitor center should be met at the closest opportunity to the place of visitor arrival. Therefore, in the final Preferred Alternative, the Valley’s visitor center would be located at the edge of the parking and transit facility to immediately serve the needs of arriving visitors.

232. Public Concern: The National Park Service should work with CALTRANS to construct a combined Yosemite National Park entrance and visitor center at Yosemite Junction.

"Entrance Station Visitor Centers: These centers should specialize in the orientation of arriving first time visitors and leave the interpretation of natural resources to the Valley Visitor Center. The Visitor Center for the Highway 120 entrance should be combined with a major Roadside Rest being planned by CALTRANS at the junction of Highway 120 and Highway 108 (Yosemite Junction) and be operated in cooperation with the Tuolumne Visitors Bureau, which currently operates a center at that location. Park entrance passes could be presold, and information given on camping and lodging availability." (Individual, Columbia, CA - #1322)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS Preferred Alternatives proposes visitor centers near each principal park entrance. Determining specific locations for visitor centers is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The locations and scale of these facilities will be determined through future planning, including the traveler information and traffic management system which will be initiated shortly after the completion of the Yosemite Valley Plan.
(Also see response to concern # 110.)

455. Public Concern: The National Park Service should develop year-round visitor facilities and recreation opportunities at Badger Pass.

"Visitors should be given more opportunities for easy access sight seeing outside of Yosemite Valley. I believe that Badger Pass should be developed for spring, summer, and fall use, as well as expanded use in winter. Here we have around one thousand parking spaces that could accommodate all overflow traffic from Yosemite Valley. The lodge at Badger Pass could be converted to a visitor center and shuttle bus boarding area to Glacier Point as well as the rest of the Park where car traffic is restricted. Restaurant and restroom facilities already exist and employee housing could be constructed to service Badger year round." (Individual, El Portal, CA - #6787)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would maintain parking at Badger Pass for use as needed year-round and existing visitor facilities could be utilized. While there is potential for transportation links from Badger Pass to other parts of the park, establishing these links is beyond the scope of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

504. Public Concern: The National Park Service should extend the hours of the Visitor Center in Yosemite Valley.

"The opening hours of the Visitor Center are not very user-friendly either: it closes at 5 PM, which is a pity if someone arrives in the afternoon (some of the buses do). Even if you cannot simply extend the opening hours, it would be better to be open in the morning and in the evening and have a break during the day: After all, people are engaged in all kinds of activities (tours, hiking, trips, etc.) during the day." (Individual, No Address - #2528)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The Yosemite Valley Visitor Center extends hours into the evening during the busiest seasons. The operating hours of all visitor centers would be determined in annual operations planning which coordinates staffing in order to meet the greatest needs of visitors.

569. Public Concern: The National Park Service should ensure that the Happy Isles Nature Center is open on a year-round basis.

"Operate the Happy Isles Nature Center on a year-round basis by assigning the building to the Yosemite Fund/Yosemite Institute working in partnership through a cooperative agreement." (Individual, Lafayette, CA - #4499)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS Preferred Alternative calls for keeping the Nature Center at Happy Isles open year-round. The nonpeak season months see the highest visitation to Yosemite National Park by educational groups, and there is already a demand for use of the Nature Center during the winter by these groups. Educational groups visiting the park during the winter, particularly in time of inclement weather, seek interpretive opportunities indoors, in addition to outdoor activities. Yosemite National Park’s draft Long-Range Interpretive Plan proposes expanding use of the Nature Center at Happy Isles for educational groups, and anticipates training educators to use its resources in the winter without the need for additional park staff, or expanding partnerships for the building’s operation. Because the road to the Nature Center is routinely cleared of snow for access to nearby utility facilities, winter conditions would have little adverse effect on its use.

704. Public Concern: The National Park Service should retain the Art Activity Center in Yosemite Valley.

"Moving the Art Center to El Portal is ridiculous. Who would go to El Portal for painting classes or art supplies once they're in the Park. This proposal sounds like you want to eliminate the Art Center all together. If I'm wrong don't remove it. If I'm right I know artists will miss it from your Michel Angelo to Andy Warhol and beyond." (Individual, Yosemite National Park, CA - #4344)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes retention of the Art Activity Center in Yosemite Valley.
(Also see the response to concern #264.)

264. Public Concern: The National Park Service should consider the relocation of the Art Activity Center in Yosemite Valley.

"Art Activity Center: The Center should be moved to the current Wilderness Center area or to the Historic Superintendent's House, while restoring its current site or using it as a new Visitor's Center. The function of the Activity Center is to provide visitors an active link between past and present." (Individual, Seattle, WA - #1354)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, as described in Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Visitor Experience–Orientation and Interpretation, proposes to relocate the Art Activity Center to the present Wilderness Center.

695. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should establish housing for visiting artists in Yosemite Valley.

"Under the DYVP, the Art Activity Center is to be relocated to the former Pohono Indian Shop, where the Wilderness Center is now functioning. To make the center effective, there should be some consideration given in the plan to housing for visiting artists. For years, artist housing has been a problem, and we recommend that a permanent solution be proposed in the plan." (Non-Governmental Organization, El Portal, CA - #9476)

Response: Housing for visiting artists associated with the Art Activity Center is included within the housing proposed under the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. The assignment of specific quarters is an operational issue outside the scope of this planning effort.

219. Public Concern: The National Park Service should build a natural history museum outside of Yosemite Valley.

"Vol. 1A, Chapter 2, Table A Summary of Major Changes in Relation to Existing Conditions. Convert the NPS Administration Building to a natural history museum . . .'This Activity could be located outside the Valley. Possible locations include the Yosemite Institute area, Wawona or even outside the Park in Mariposa or Groveland." (Individual, Livermore, CA - #3091)

Response: The Yosemite Museum is proposed to remain located in Yosemite Valley for several reasons. The Yosemite Museum was the first museum established within the National Park Service. It was also the birthplace of interpretation in the National Park Service. Like other interpretive functions, the museum is most effective when its collections are exhibited and its education programs are conducted within the geographical context of the park resources represented in the collection. The Yosemite Museum is also very closely associated with American Indian resources in Yosemite Valley. The museum (which includes an archive, research library, and graphic collections — see Vol. IA, Chapter 3, Affected Environments, Cultural Resources–Museum Collection) receives greater visitation than most in California. However, most of that use is of a casual nature–few visitors other than serious researchers would travel to the museum if it were located outside the Valley or park. But being in proximity to the visitor center invites this casual use and makes its important collections accessible to millions of visitors each year. Also, from a historic preservation perspective, the most appropriate possible use for this historic building would be to continue its original use as a museum.

397. Public Concern: The National Park Service should convert the Ahwahnee Hotel to a natural and cultural history museum.

"Convert the Ahwahnee Hotel to a natural and cultural history museum, research library, and auditorium to feature Yosemite National Park as the living laboratory it is, protecting one of our most magnificent centerpieces of National Heritage." (Conservation Organization, Camarillo, CA - #2627)

Response: The Ahwahnee is indeed a national treasure, reflected in its designation by the Secretary of the Interior as a National Historic Landmark. Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to exercise a higher standard of care when considering undertakings that might adversely affect National Historic Landmarks. In consideration of its historical value, its continued use as a hotel (as originally designed) is the highest and best use of the structure and is most compatible with its historic preservation.

576. Public Concern: The National Park Service should make the Yosemite art collection available to Yosemite National Park visitors.

"We failed to find a reference to the art museum and the display of the considerable collection of Yosemite art pieces that have been garnered over the years. We were amazed when we viewed the Dave Robertson Cook to discover what a rich collection the Park owned. It would be a shame not to make those pieces available to the Park visitor as a way to experience the historic Yosemite." (Individual, Camp Sherman, OR - #1801)

Response: In all alternatives of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the National Park Service continues to make the art collection available to park visitors. The Yosemite Museum is an element that is addressed in sections relating to both cultural resources and in visitor experience. Several alternatives propose two museums, one dedicated to natural history and one to cultural history. There is no separate museum proposed solely for art history, but art is an important element in interpreting both natural and cultural history and portions of the art collection would be used to achieve that goal.

In the present historic Yosemite Museum, one gallery is devoted to rotating exhibits which are assembled to interpret the works of one artist or a group of artists, (painters, photographers, and sculptors). Several of the shows have also traveled to other museums as well. Over 90,000 visitors a year experience the various rotating exhibits in the Museum Gallery.

The museum also has an active loan program which provides the opportunity for other museums to borrow pieces for their exhibits, allowing the Yosemite collections to have a wider impact. At any one time the National Park Service has 200 to 300 pieces from the collection on loan to other institutions.

The Yosemite Museum collection is available to scholars and to park visitors by appointment. In the new collection storage facilities proposed in the Preferred Alternative to be placed in Yosemite Valley, the collections would be consolidated in modern facilities meeting all current museum storage standards. These facilities would be able to accommodate more visitors and researchers, but would not have exhibit space. The exhibits would remain in Yosemite Valley in the original, historic museum building, which would continue to have a rotating exhibit gallery and would also incorporate other fine art pieces in permanent exhibits.

141. Public Concern: The National Park Service should consolidate the research library, museum collection, and archives in Wawona.

"The research library, museum collection, and archives will be consolidated into a single site on the Valley floor (page 2-33, see also page 16). These collections should indeed be consolidated in an improved facility, but the logical site for that facility is Wawona adjacent to the Pioneer Yosemite History Center." (Individual, Oberlin, OH - #580)

Response: Under the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, park offices, including resource management staff and park headquarters, would move to the El Portal Administrative Site. In order to have the important reference materials available to staff and managers, it is necessary to consolidate the collections in one location. Currently a portion of the museum collection and archives is housed in El Portal. For operational efficiencies it is preferable to move the remainder of the collections to the Valley rather than Wawona.

575. Public Concern: The National Park Service should convert the post office in Curry Village into an historic exhibit.

"Post Office at Curry Village. Convert to an exhibit of historic interest, interpreting the history of mail service in the Park." (Individual, Lafayette, CA - #4499)

Response: The original Camp Curry Post Office currently functions as a registration building for visitor facilities in Curry Village. As part of the revised Preferred Alternative for the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, this facility would be rehabilitated for continued use as a registration building. As part of this rehabilitation, the National Park Service would consider interpreting the historic use and function of the building.

220. Public Concern: The National Park Service should remove the Ansel Adams Gallery from Yosemite Valley.

"Vol. 1A, Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered But Dismissed, Remove the Ansel Adams Gallery: ' . . . These structures are considered historic . . . the services they offer benefit visitors and the community.' These structures are not historic enough. They have no significance other than they are old by human-built structure standards. Although I enjoy the works of Ansel Adams, as well as Galen Rowell and Albert Bierstadt, a gallery showing Yosemite art, would have just as much significance if located in Coarsegold, Mariposa or Groveland. These buildings could be removed, furthering the goal of restoring Yosemite Valley to a more natural state." (Individual, Livermore, CA - #3091)

Response: Under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Park Service is required to evaluate the significance of structures that are 50 years old. The structures associated with The Ansel Adams Gallery were evaluated and found to be significant enough for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. As such they are cultural resources that the National Park Service is charged with managing.

708. Public Concern: The National Park Service should establish controls for access to the proposed interpretive amphitheater.

"The DYVP indicates that a new interpretive amphitheater is to be built in the vicinity of the current concessioner stable parking lot. We recommend that the plan specify that the amphitheater to be designed so that there is a method by which access can be controlled so that for pay interpretation (such as Yosemite Theater presentations) can take place there." (Non-Governmental Organization, El Portal, CA - #9476)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, operational policies and procedures for interpretative facilities are outside the scope of this planning effort. Physical elements for controlling access to the amphitheater would be considered during the design phase for campgrounds.

Section 4.12 ~ Visitor Services

Draft Yosemite Valley Plan proposals for visitor services elicited many wide-ranging comments from those who respond on the Plan. The group of concerns extracted from this spectrum of public comment is sorted into four categories: general management direction, campground management, lodging accommodation, and visitor facilities.

4.12.1 ~ General Management Direction

Public comments analyzed in this section address both the overall development of visitor services in Yosemite Valley and overnight accommodations. Moreover, analysis in the overnight accommodations section evaluates public comments that address both camping and lodging facilities.

4.12.1.a ~ General Development Direction

The importance of adequate analysis of visitor needs and impacts is highlighted by the many comments on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Several respondents insist that the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS should include an assessment of Yosemite Valley’s carrying capacity in order to properly evaluate the need for various facilities. Offering a different analysis need, some people assert that the National Park Service’s evaluation of the impact of winter commercial attractions is insufficient. These respondents believe the National Park Service should conduct studies to determine whether winter commercial attractions have any impact on summer congestion problems.

A great number of respondents express concern regarding the level and type of development in Yosemite Valley. Many of these people feel that the primary purpose of Yosemite National Park should be natural experiences and that commercial development should be restricted. As one respondent states, "I believe the primary purpose of the Valley should involve primitive uses." Commercial facilities and amenities, most of these people claim, add to crowding in the Valley by requiring unnecessary employees and attracting additional visitors. Several recommendations for restricting Valley development are proffered by such respondents: removing nonessential development from Yosemite Valley, encouraging the development of retail facilities outside the Valley, not replacing facilities lost to the 1997 floods, and consolidating commercial development in one area of the Valley. Impacts of the National Park Service’s concessions contract are the focus of other people opposed to Valley development. The National Park Service should renegotiate the concession’s contract to support plans for less Valley development, one conservation organization suggests. Contrary to those people urging restricted development, a few people believe the National Park Service should retain existing visitor service facilities in the Valley. One respondent contends that "changes to the Valley floor should be directed toward things which enhance the experience of the visitor by making the visiting process easier and reducing his difficulties and distractions."

A few respondents express concern about the perceived process of eliminating existing facilities and replacing them with new ones. These people suggest reusing existing facilities and contend that this direction is both less costly and less environmentally damaging.

Focusing on nondevelopment strategies for addressing Yosemite Valley congestions, some respondents request that the National Park Service promote the use of Yosemite National Park backcountry areas. Other people recommend the National Park Service offer incentives to encourage spring and fall visitation.

425. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should include an assessment of Yosemite Valley’s carrying capacity.

"A comprehensive and current assessment of the Valley’s carrying capacity in addition to regional transportation, economic and demographic impacts of the Plan’s implementation should be included in the YVP. According to the 1980 General Management Plan (GMP), a guiding document for the YVP, the amount of parking is adequate to accommodate the number of visitors to the Park. Furthermore, carrying capacity of people in the Park remains undefined. The YVP claims visitor population (using a 1988 baseline) is estimated to remain unchanged in the future. California and the world population are expected to double in the next twenty years. This is an example of the YVP contradicting one of its primary source documents in addition to an inconsistent use of data and existing studies to propose the NPS’s current position regarding implementation of a mass transit in Yosemite." (Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors, Sonora, CA - #4436)

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 carrying capacity. 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 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.

145. Public Concern: The National Park Service should evaluate the need for winter commercial attractions in Yosemite Valley.

"Winter entertainment and attractions in Yosemite Valley (such as the ice skating rink, wine tastings, and the Bracebridge dinner) violate Olmsted’s ‘no detracting development’ principle, but have long been justified on the basis that they attract visitors during the off-season and thereby reduce summer crowding. But does a winter visit really reduce summer demand? Or does a winter visit actually whet the visitors appetite and stimulate summer demand? I don’t know the answer to this question. The five-year ‘visitor experience, resource protection, and facility capacity study, called for on pages 2-28 and 2-34, should address this issue by simply asking winter visitors, as they leave the park, whether their visit made them more or less likely to visit the park again in the summer. If the study contradicts the age-old folklore, then the winter attractions should be removed; otherwise they might remain. No new development, such as the proposed new rink, should be installed until the study is completed." (Individual, Oberlin, OH - #580)

Response: These activities were considered in the development of the 1992 Concession Services Plan, which prescribed the retention of the ice rink (with its winter and nonwinter uses) at Curry Village. The Concession Services Plan also prescribed the reduction or elimination of special events sponsored by the concessioner depending on the events’ effect on general use of the park by visitors. The National Park Service would continue to periodically evaluate the effects of concessioner-sponsored special events in the park.

702. Public Concern: The National Park Service should remove nonessential commercial establishments from Yosemite Valley.

"Nonessential commercial ventures like gourmet restaurants, bars, and a surfeit of clothing, jewelry, and gift shops should not be part of Yosemite. Nor should large-screen filming facilities. This is not Disneyland or a resort; the Valley itself should be what people should be encouraged to come for." (Individual, Oakland, CA - #7673)

Response: The Concession Services Plan/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, approved in 1992, presented guidance for the management of concession services in Yosemite to meet the goals of the General Management Plan. The Concession Services Plan amends the General Management Plan, and provisions of the Concession Services Plan are incorporated into the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. The Concession Services Plan established levels of visitor services to be provided through concession operations, with a major objective that they be compatible with park purposes and that they preserve environmental processes. The intent of the Yosemite Valley Plan would be to implement facility, service level, and activity provisions of the Concession Services Plan, unless data on floodplain, geologic hazard, or highly valued resource areas, or new operational requirements suggest the need for adjustment.

146. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should encourage the development of retail services outside Yosemite Valley.

"The out-of-Valley reception areas are also the logical location for gift shops and food service. It has been my experience that visitors are more interested in shopping while traveling to or from a primary destination. Why would anyone want to spend his/her limited time in Yosemite Valley shopping? Alternative 2 calls for ‘gift sales’ in Yosemite Village and ‘food service functions [in] a new facility . . . in Yosemite Village.’ . . . These functions should be located instead in the three out-of-Valley reception areas. Other retailing functions, such as the Curry Village sport/mountaineering shop, should also be moved to one of the reception areas. Given the attractiveness, high quality, and multiple features of these out-of-Valley reception areas, most tour buses and overnight visitors will choose to stop at one even though they are not required to do so." (Individual, Oberlin, OH - #580)

Response: Other than at out-of-Valley parking areas and El Portal, retail services outside Yosemite Valley are outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Visitors may indeed enjoy having retail and food service facilities available at the remote parking areas. The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS has been revised to state that the potential need for minimal food service facilities at the remote parking areas will be evaluated. Because overnight and day visitors as well as residents would continue to require retail services within the Valley, relocation of these facilities would not be possible and any new facilities at outlying areas would duplicate those already in existence.
(Also see response to concern #139.)

96. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should not require the replacement of facilities lost to floods in Yosemite Valley.

"Nothing destroyed by the flood is of historical significance, only financial interest, so leave it gone. By duplicating facilities located outside of the Park the NPS is only increasing the crowding of Yosemite by bringing in even more people." (Individual, No Address - #408)

"Taking as an example planning for the Lodge, we should not even think about replacing structures lost to the flood. Nature has done our planning, and has done a good job. Now, instead of increased development to be allowed north of a new Northside Drive, we should be thinking about how to bring the lodge and the campgrounds more ‘in touch’ with the meadow." (Individual, Laguna Beach, CA - #350)

Response: Prior to the 1997 flood, Yosemite National Park published a Draft Valley Implementation Plan/SEIS. That plan included a proposal to remove facilities from the Merced River floodplain. After the 1997 flood, the National Park Service consolidated this and other draft compliance documents into the Draft and Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. This document considered the facilities that were lost in the 1997 flood, as well as new knowledge about highly valued resources, the Merced Wild and Scenic River, and rockfall hazards. The park is using information learned from the extent of the flood to better locate development in the Valley. The action alternatives presented in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would relocate facilities to areas less prone to severe flooding and other hazards. Executive Order 11988 allows limited development within floodplains, and park policy mandates that development within areas of fast-moving, high-energy floodwater be limited to nonovernight uses.

The 1980 General Management Plan called for the relocation or removal of many of these facilities to restore and protect natural processes of the Valley, including natural flood cycles, dynamic channel shifts, and interconnection of groundwater and surface water systems. Generally, in acknowledging Wild and Scenic River protection values, highly valued resources, and flood plain considerations, new and redevelopment in floodplains would be limited. However, because Yosemite Valley is relatively narrow and bounded by steep cliffs, leaving some facilities (such as roads, trails, and river crossings) in the floodplain is unavoidable.

204. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the consolidation of commercial development in one area of Yosemite Valley.

"Yosemite Lodge, Curry Village, and Yosemite Village: I believe that all commercial development and in-valley parking should be consolidated in one area. (I realize this would require getting rid of 2 of the 3 large developed areas within the Valley and that many people would consider these 3 areas sacred but to achieve the goals I think are important, this would be a good step to take.) I believe the primary use of the Valley should involve primitive uses. . . This would reduce the number of employees required and reduce the number of visitors by not significantly catering to the visitor who is in the valley mainly to interact with commercial facilities." (Individual, Elk Grove, CA - #132)

Response: Consolidation of commercial development in one area is not possible for several reasons. The visitor experience in Yosemite Valley should be shaped by the interaction with the park’s resources, which are both natural and cultural. The consolidation of all development in one area would involve the removal or relocation of significant historic structures and would drastically alter the cultural landscape that is Yosemite Valley. In addition, there is not sufficient developable land in one part of Yosemite Valley to consolidate all development without significant impacts to highly valued resources. Also, because the location of facilities in Yosemite Valley is also guided by zoning instituted in the Merced River Plan/FEIS, there is insufficient land in any one developed zone for commercial development consolidation. Instead, the emphasis of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would preserve and restore large contiguous blocks of undeveloped areas, provide for the function of natural systems, provide for the existence of wildlife travel corridors, and preserve other highly valued resources and natural systems.

689. Public Concern: The National Park Service should renegotiate the concessions’ contract prior to implementing Yosemite Valley Plan projects.

"Nor can this Lodge expansion be justified by reference to the Park Service’s responsibilities under the current concessioner contract. The current contract is set to expire well before the implementation of most of the YVP’s major capital projects, and it can of course be renegotiated prior to its termination. We understand that the concession company has stated that it can make a profit regardless of the configuration of in-Valley development, so long as it is allowed to renegotiate the current contract (or negotiate an entire new contract). It therefore makes far more sense for the Service to plan for less development at the Lodge and elsewhere, and then negotiate or renegotiate the contract. We strongly urge the Park Service to follow this course of action, and not allow the concessions contract to dictate the size and direction of development in the Valley." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #4594)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Overall, the number of facilities that provide revenue for the concessioner would be reduced below the Concession Service Plan and the existing contract. The result of the Yosemite Valley planning process is likely to have a direct affect on concessioners; however, development of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS has in no way been constrained by any of the existing concession contracts. Analysis has been done to the long-term financial viability of a concessioner to provide the visitor services described in each of the action alternatives, and can be found in Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives.

203. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain existing visitor service facilities and amenities in Yosemite Valley.

"Changes to the Valley floor should be directed toward things which enhance the experience of the visitor by making the visiting process easier and reducing his difficulties and distractions. . . It should be realized that most people, while experiencing the great beauty of Valley, still want to enjoy the amenities of civilization. The Ahwahnee, Yosemite Lodge, restaurants, stores and the other facilities have been utilized and enjoyed by millions over the years and should be maintained." (Individual, Pacific Palisades, CA - #17)

Response: In the Preferred Alternative, changes would occur in the numbers and locations of overnight accommodations, and some functions would be relocated closer to where the greatest need exists. Nearly all other visitor service facilities and amenities in Yosemite Valley would remain. Major exceptions would include the concessioner stable and the snack stand at Happy Isles, some picnic facilities, the tennis courts at The Ahwahnee, and the Village Garage.

619. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should emphasize reusing existing facilities rather than constructing new ones in Yosemite Valley.

"Instead of tearing down, changing or replacing buildings, use the ones that already exist. It costs less and has less impact on the environment." (Individual, No Address - #30240)

Response: Existing facilities are being adaptively reused to the extent practical and feasible. In some locations, the traffic circulation demands or current building requirements cannot be met through reuse of existing structures and therefore removal is proposed in order to accommodate proposed new development. In conjunction with comments received and concerns for cultural resources, the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS includes more adaptive reuse of structures at Curry Village and a goal to try to reuse additional historic structures if feasible at other locations during the site-specific design phases.

319. Public Concern: The National Park Service should reduce congestion in Yosemite Valley through promoting the use of backcountry areas.

"I propose that you reduce the excessive people use of Yosemite Valley by encouraging more use of the back country." (Individual, Carmichael, CA - #1793)

Response: Access to wilderness areas is controlled by a trailhead quota system to manage the wilderness experience. There would be little opportunity to redistribute visitation in Yosemite National Park through promotion of the wilderness.

559. Public Concern: The National Park Service should offer incentives for people to visit Yosemite National Park in the spring and fall.

"You would do well to offer more incentives for people to visit in spring and fall." (Individual, Orangevale, CA - #556)

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

4.12.1.b ~ Overnight Accommodations

Many respondents believe that the number of overnight accommodations in Yosemite Valley are inadequate and that the National Park Service should not reduce the numbers of lodging and camping units. Overnight stays are essential to ensure the time necessary to truly experience and appreciate the Valley, these people contend. One of these respondents specifically claims that the effects of transportation strategies in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEISﾐsuch as greater reliance on public transportation, bicycling, and walking–will necessitate longer visitor stays. Longer visitor occupancy of lodging units will require more lodging facilities if the same number of visitors is to be served, such people assert.

In contrast to these advocates of overnight facilities, some respondents feel overnight accommodations should be limited. They claim reducing overnight accommodations will help reduce crowding in the Valley. Other people take issue with this perceived connection between crowding, especially traffic congestion, and the amount of overnight accommodations. They recommend that the National Park Service reevaluate the connection between the amount of overnight accommodations and traffic congestion.

The relationship between the availability of affordable accommodations and equitable access for visitors of all economic strata is a key theme expressed in public comments. A great many respondents feel that the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS increases the amount of expensive lodging units while decreasing the number of affordable overnight accommodations. The decrease in the number of campsites and tent cabins limits the affordability of overnight stays for low- and middle-income people, these people claim. Consequently, these respondents request the National Park Service to provide a sufficient number of affordable overnight accommodations. Other people believe that current rules allow retired people and wealthier visitors to unfairly book overnight accommodations for long periods of time, thus limiting the availability of these accommodations to others. These respondents recommend limiting the length of overnight visitor stays in Yosemite Valley.

As with individuals who address affordability, a few respondents focus specifically on campground and tent cabin accommodations in Yosemite Valley. The data presented in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, claims one person, "deceptively minimizes the overall loss of [these] lower cost accommodations." Such respondents insist that the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS include the pre-flood numbers of campground and tent cabin sites to provide a clear assessment of changes in the numbers these units. Addressing two specific types of overnight accommodations, other people contend that campground and tent cabin accommodations units require fewer employees to operate. The National Park Service plans include more of these accommodations, these individuals recommend.

Note: One response is provided for concerns #21 and #109, and is placed following concern #109.

21. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should emphasize overnight accommodations in Yosemite Valley.

"I believe to truly enjoy the Yosemite experience it requires an overnight stay. On a day trip you cannot enjoy the quiet wonder of the early morning or evening. Therefore retaining lodging and camping facilities is essential. I don’t believe facilities should be reduced further." (Individual, Roseville, CA - #30015)

"We would like to see an increase in the amount of camping and lodging proposed, but not the full extent shown in other alternatives. We believe that the Park must be experienced close up, and this requires time. Therefore more preference should be given to the overnight visitor than the casual tourist." (Individual, San Jose, CA - #139)

"To appreciate the stunning experience of Yosemite Valley requires an overnight stay at least. To remove 279 units of lodging and camping is much too restrictive, and will make reservations frustrating and impossible to obtain." (Individual, Sunnyvale, CA - #23)

"The plan seems to emphasize dealing with the traffic and associated problems from people who are only one-day visitors. Over the last 45 years, all of my visits to Yosemite Valley have been at least for two nights and more typically a week or two at a time. The Plan should ensure that visitors are encouraged to stay and enjoy the experience fully. By reducing the opportunity to drive while increasing the opportunity to hike or bicycle, there needs to be more opportunity for people of all means to stay overnight or longer in order to take advantage of the more leisurely pace of transportation." (Individual, CA - #234)

Response: See response following concern #109 below.

109. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should limit the number of overnight accommodations in Yosemite Valley.

"I’m okay with limiting the number of campsites and lodging units. This will help reduce the crowded feeling during peak times." (Individual, Gilroy, CA - #388)

"I believe that if it’s good public policy to reduce the carrying capacity in terms of lodging in the Valley that the pain should be shared equally among the campgrounds, the Housekeeping cabins, the Curry Village, the Yosemite Lodge, and even the iconic Ahwahnee Hotel, which personally I don’t think typifies letting natural processes prevail." (Public Hearing, Los Angeles, CA - #20355)

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. Determining the appropriate amount and types of overnight accommodations to provide a quality visitor experience remains a challenging issue.

Target numbers of campsites and lodging units were established through a public process in the 1980 General Management Plan. The number of lodging units was further refined in the 1992 Concession Services Plan. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS also proposes to modify 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. The Preferred Alternative reduces lodging from 1,260 to 961 units and increases camping from 475 to 500.

A range of approaches to resolving this issue can be found in the alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Based on the diversity of public comments received on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the Preferred Alternative would provide for overnight experiences that allow more direct access to and connection with park resources, thereby enhancing each visitor’s overall park experience.

This response also applies to concern #21.

(Also see response to concern #234.)

132. Public Concern: The National Park Service should re-evaluate the connections between traffic congestion and the amount of overnight accommodations in Yosemite Valley.

"Each of the action alternatives need to distinguish, and address separately, traffic-related issues and lodging related issues. No one can deny that reducing vehicular traffic in the Valley is desirable, but I do not believe that the reduction in the number of cars and car trips needs to be directly tied to a reduction in the amount of available lodging--an association which all of the action alternatives seem to make to some degree." (Individual, Mill Valley, CA - #223)

"The belief has long been held as ‘conventional wisdom’ that the only way to reduce the traffic congestion and related problems in the valley was to reduce the number of Valley visitors and their vehicles, by reducing the number of campsite and lodging units. This view, promoted in part by those who would like to see the Valley almost completely devoid of any ‘modern civilization,’ is not necessarily true. It may in fact be true, but this will not be proven until all other less radical plans for reducing the vehicular traffic and crowd concentrations are put to the test, and their results analyzed." (Individual, American Canyon, CA - #907)

Response: Changes in lodging and camping facilities in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS alternatives were developed in response to resource preservation goals and visitor safety (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Development Considerations, and Resource Stewardship). Changes in facilities for overnight visitors were not proposed for the purpose of reducing traffic congestion. Each action alternative sought to provide an appropriate number and range of overnight facilities consistent with resource protection and restoration goals. The resulting traffic and parking demand from overnight facilities is accounted for in the evaluation of transportation consequences of the alternatives. The relative contribution of day visitors and overnight visitors to traffic volume and parking demand is documented in Vol. IA, Chapter 3, Affected Environment, of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.
(Also see response to concern #21.)

83. Public Concern: The National Park Service should emphasize affordability of overnight accommodations in the Yosemite Valley Plan.

"You’re planning to tear down the cabins to build a RV park? It seems the accommodations that will be left will be the expensive hotels, campsites and RV sites. What about the middle income people who aren’t campers and cannot afford the expensive hotels? Where will they be able to stay, only outside the park? I am a middle income taxpayer. I’ve been to Yosemite, and I know the only affordable place to stay are the cabins. And they are the best place to stay. It’s the only place where it’s quiet and peaceful in the valley. . . You must provide affordable accommodations to middle income, non-camper taxpayers, but not only the option of staying in a hotel with thousands of tourists." (Individual, No Address - #30208)

"Don’t make the valley off limits to people who want to camp and price young families and older folks out. If you eliminate so many units from housekeeping and have already eliminated the River campsites--then where are these families supposed to go? And don’t say the Curry tents–they still have to eat out, which is quite prohibitive." (Individual, Saratoga, CA - #331)

"It seems inappropriate to maintain the most expensive and luxurious lodgings at the Ahwahnee and Yosemite Lodge while removing low cost lodging." (Individual, Oxnard, CA - #203)

"The number of proposed accommodations in the Overnight Lodging part of the plan is too high on the mid-scale range. We do not support any additional construction of units in that category. A few additional units in the economy category should suffice." (Individual, San Rafael, CA - #5640)

"We are concerned with any plan which decreases the existing level of campsites or tent cabin sites in the valley. We are opposed to the plan to increase the level of higher rate accommodations and decrease the level of lower cost accommodations." (Individual, No Address - #6842)

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. Under the Preferred Alternative, and compared with the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, campsites would be 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.
(Also see response to concerns # 21, # 70, # 73, and # 117.)

663. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should limit the length of stays at overnight accommodations in Yosemite Valley.

"If there are time limits for the number of days stayed within the Park, then they should be fairly applied to all levels of accommodations. Develop methods to limit the current unfairly long stays within the Park of retired people and those of means. This would immediately open up overnight accommodations to more different people." (Individual, No Address - #4291)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Currently, there are limits for stays in overnight accommodations in Yosemite National Park.

341. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should include the pre-flood numbers of camp and tent cabin sites.

"There is no clear reply to the concerns about the reduction of the number of campsites and tent cabins relative to the hard-edged and more costly hotel rooms. See part III, p. 71 and also part 2, p. 32. What numbers are given are given in a deceptive way. The document compares the proposed numbers to the ‘present’ numbers of camp and tent cabin sites. But many campsites and tent cabin sites were ruined in recent floods. Not giving any pre-flood numbers deceptively minimizes the dramatic overall loss of lower cost accommodations relative to proposed hotel/motel facilities." (Individual, Menlo Park, CA - #3564)

Response: Legal requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Council on Environmental Quality provide that an Environmental Impact Statement include a No Action Alternative that represents the present condition in order to establish a baseline for comparison. Recognizing that many Yosemite National Park visitors might consider the number of accommodations existing prior to January 1997 as a baseline, and not being able to include this number in the No Action Alternative, the difference between pre-flood accommodations and accommodations proposed in each action alternative has been discussed in Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, Visitor Experience–Cumulative Impacts–Visitor Services. These numbers were also illustrated in exhibits presented during Yosemite Valley Plan public meetings (held during the public comment period).

665. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should emphasize accommodations with minimal service and maintenance requirements in Yosemite Valley.

"Another approach to mitigating employee impacts is to reduce the ratio of employees to visitors. This is all the more important because transit workers are going to drive this ratio the wrong way. It is evident from Table III-16 of the Draft Merced River Plan that Housekeeping requires the smallest ratio of employees to lodging units, even though these units likely have the highest number of guests/unit. Campsites, with their even lower levels of service, must have even lower ratios. Thus reducing the number of Housekeeping units or campsites tends to increase the impact on the employees relative to visitors." (Individual, Oakland, CA - #3835)

Response: Target numbers of campsites and lodging units were established through a public process in the 1980 General Management Plan. The numbers of lodging units were further refined in the 1992 Concession Services Plan. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS also proposes to vary 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.

A range of approaches to resolving this issue can be found in the alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Based on the diversity of public comments received on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the Preferred Alternative would provide overnight experiences that allow more direct access to and connection with park resources, thereby enhancing each visitor’s overall park experience. Providing diverse overnight accommodations would require varying employee/visitor ratios.

4.12.2 ~ Campground Management

Comments on campground management pervade many responses commenting on the Yosemite Valley Plan and cover a wide range of topics. Concerns expressed in this section are grouped into several categories: general management direction, number of campsites, location of campsites, relationship of campground types, drive-in campsites, recreational vehicle campsites, walk-in campgrounds, and group campgrounds.

4.12.2.a ~ General Management Direction

Public comment analyzed in this section includes concerns related to campground reservations and occupancy, as well as disparate concerns on campfires, campground classification, amenities, maintenance, and law enforcement.

Many respondents express concern with the difficulty of securing camping reservations in Yosemite Valley. Limiting the time for establishing reservations to one day a month is a major source of problems, most of these people contend. Many such individuals suggest that the National Park Service return to the former system of establishing reservations. This method would stagger reservation requests and relieve the pressure on the phone-in reservation system, these people contend. Other individuals feel that the National Park Service should limit the length of stay in campgrounds to allow more visitors to enjoy the camping experience. Expressing apprehension that a reservation system will be applied to all campsites in Yosemite Valley, a few respondents recommend that some campgrounds operate on a first-come, first-served basis. In contrast, other people express strong support for reservation campgrounds, with one individual indicating that without reservations their family could not visit Yosemite Valley.

The use of campfires in Yosemite Valley is a concern for many respondents. Impacts on air quality and illegal wood gathering are most often cited by critics of campfires as the reason to ban such activities. While most respondents concerned with campfire impacts recommend an outright ban, a few others suggest mitigation measures such as time constraints or decreasing the number of fire rings in campgrounds.

A few unrelated camping concerns round out this section. One individual contends that campgrounds are "are busy at all times of the day," and recommends that the National Park Service classify these facilities as Standard Occupancy Facilities instead of Miscellaneous Structures. Some respondents think the National Park Service should employ a rotation system to restore campgrounds. These people believe such a system would allow for the retention of some campsites. Campground amenities are the focus of other respondents’ comments. These people recommend locating stores, showers and other conveniences in or near campgrounds. Locating amenities conveniently for campers will help reduce automobile use in the Valley, these individuals contend. One individual recommends that the National Park Service maintain a continuous ranger presence in campgrounds.

739. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should improve the campground reservation system for Yosemite Valley.

"Work on the reservation system. At the present time almost all of the summer months reservations are made on one day in April. At one time you called 8 weeks from the day you wanted to come, for one week. Now its 3 months, for the entire month. The previous system was a fairer and created fewer empty campsites." (Individual, Reseda, CA - #4421)

ESTABLISH A STAGGERED RESERVATION SYSTEM

"I think it is very important to anybody camping in Yosemite National Park how the reservations are made. I don’t know if that’s considered in your plan or not, but in the past it was that you call eight weeks in advance of the day that you wanted to begin your camping, and thus it was staggered very nicely. Now, everybody literally in the entire world has to call on the 15th of the month, five months in advance of when you want to go camping. And unless you have all day to spend at the telephone trying to get through, you can’t get through. I’d like to see it go back to a staggered way to make reservations so that way people can plan. And if one day is not good, they can try again the next day and just move on. If one wants to start their camping experience on the 15th or 16th of the month, they have to wait a whole other month to start trying to call to make those reservations. But if one wants to start their camping reservation on the 14th, they can call a month earlier, and I don’t see where that’s of benefit. And I think it would help in the office where they take the reservations to have it staggered. I think it would be a lot more fair for people. I think they could make their plans easier." (Public Hearing, San Diego, CA - #20432)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. However, the National Park Service takes this concern seriously and will continue to work with the contractor to improve the campground reservation system.

738. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should limit the length of stays in Yosemite Valley campgrounds.

"Restrict camping in the valley to 3 nights per party per year! This will allow more people to enjoy the unique experience of camping in the Valley while still removing campgrounds." (Individual, Berkeley, CA - #4699)

"I would support limiting camping to 4 days to accommodate more visitors if number of spaces is reduced." (Individual, No Address - #6844)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Currently, there are limits for stays in overnight accommodations in Yosemite National Park.

79. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should provide for some first-come, first-served campgrounds in Yosemite Valley.

"Make available some campsites on a first-come, first served basis rather than having a reservations-only policy." (Individual, Cuppertino, CA - #253)

"We also want to ask specifically that you set aside a significant part of your campsite reservation system for those of us who are traveling on variable schedules and cannot easily try to reserve a site for specific dates, far ahead of time. We want to be able to at least have a shot at finding a non-reserved site available when we reach your area (even if it means having to learn the best days, times and ways to get ‘in line’ for scarce sites, try several times, etc.)." (Individual, Alexandria, VA - #1276)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes maintaining Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) as a first-come, first-served campground. However, depending on how the traveler information and traffic management system manages traffic entering the Valley, it may be necessary to register for these campsites at other park locations such as at visitor centers near park entrances.

592. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should maintain a reservation system for campgrounds in Yosemite Valley.

"We have a three-year-old and we have camped with her in the Valley for the past three years. This was possible because we were able to have a reservation. This may sound obvious, but as responsible parents we could not subject our preschooler to a several hour drive only to discover that there was no place to sleep because the campground we’d hoped to use was full. Without a guaranteed reservation, we could not visit the Valley." (Individual, Santa Rosa, CA - #8917)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS has assumed the continuation of a reservation system for Yosemite Valley campgrounds.

85. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should restrict campfires in Yosemite Valley.

"I have concerns for campfires in the valley. My concern is two-fold. One, due to the physical essence of the valley, the smoke from the fires hangs low over the valley creating a smog, fouling the air that all visitors are breathing. Second, many of those making fires had not brought their own from outside the park as mandated by law but were collecting dead fall from the surrounding woods, as is known to be bad for the forest. For these reasons I propose banning all campfires within the Valley." (Individual, No Address - #30205)

"Campers do have polluting campfires; however, campfires could be prohibited or restricted much of the time, or there could be just one fire ring for every 4-6 campsites." (Individual, San Diego, CA - #3479)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Vol. IA, Chapter 3, Affected Environment, Air Quality, in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, identifies campfires as sources of particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and volatile organic compounds in the Valley. The park has recognized that campfires make significant contributions to air pollution in the Valley and has taken measures to reduce their impact. For example, campfires are permitted only from 5:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. from May 1 to October 15, and campfires are permitted only in established fire rings. Collection of firewood, including "dead and down" wood, is prohibited in the Valley, as is cutting live or dead trees and attached limbs. These rules are widely disseminated to park visitors through the park’s newspaper (Yosemite Guide), web site (www.nps.gov/yose/), and other media.

451. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should categorize campgrounds as standard occupancy facilities.

"We question the categorization of campgrounds as ‘Miscellaneous Structures’ (Appendix C). Although not occupied to capacity for parts of the year, campgrounds typically are busy at all times of the day and are probably better categorized as ‘Standard Occupancy Facilities." (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento, CA - #6584)

Response: Geologic hazards guidelines (See Vol. II, Appendix C of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS) categorize campgrounds as miscellaneous rather than standard, occupancy facilities based on the low density of occupants, the open nature of campgrounds, and the minimal occupancy of campground structures. Miscellaneous facilities require site-specific evaluations of safety and hazard considerations and may be newly placed in the Talus Zone only if there is no practicable alternative.

237. Public Concern: The National Park Service should consider a rotation system for restoration of campgrounds in Yosemite Valley.

"I would not object to a rotation system that would permit one closed campground area at a time to allow time for restorations of the undergrowth. At such times the campground is reopened the area surrounding the campsite [will] be partitioned off with restricted access to restrooms, etc., much like meadow restoration." (Individual, South Pasadena, CA - #1734)

"Since the flood of 1997 it is more difficult to obtain camping reservations since there are less campgrounds. The elimination of North Pines would make it even worse. A rotation of campgrounds might be a better solution if natural reclamation is the desired result." (Individual, Calabasas, CA - #30233)

Response: Campground development and maintenance includes installation of permanent infrastructure, including restrooms and asphalt (to prevent development of rutted roads and high levels of dust) and temporary features such as grills and tables that negate the potential for ecological restoration of a site. High levels of human use of these areas results in a variety of long-term impacts that would not be mitigated by short rest and rotation periods. These include soil compaction, loss of nutrients through removal of woody debris, loss of soil infiltration capabilities, and alterations in hydrology from surface impacts. Impacts to subsurface flows also are caused by the damming effects of utilities and road base. There are permanent impacts to overstory trees because of these soil and hydrologic changes, which include the loss of overstory vigor and loss of seed-producing vegetation. This lack of regeneration of slow-growing shrub and tree species with eventual loss of mid- and upper-level canopies over time and encroachment by non-native species due to lack of natural ground cover results in a permanent decline in the condition of the site. Loss of natural hydrology, fire patterns, and other natural processes also reduces the capability of an impacted area to provide habitat for wildlife. It generally takes years for a site to recover to the point where it functions naturally and provides habitat. This recovery process is generally assisted through soil decompaction, weeding, revegetation, and the removal of structures and facilities. Rotational restoration would not achieve the goals of the General Management Plan. It would require more campgrounds resulting in larger areas of impact and development than proposed in any of the action alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

206. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require that visitor amenities be located conveniently for campground users in Yosemite Valley.

"An ice machine at the entrance to the campgrounds would drastically reduce the traffic. The campers can use the bus to go to the grocery store or a bicycle but not to bring back ice. A return of a convenience store [in] a place closer to the campgrounds would again reduce traffic." (Individual, North Highlands, CA - #219)

"I think you can put block-ice machines and showers in the campgrounds, that will eliminate the need for people to get in the cars and drive down to Curry Village and buy block[s] of ice and to take the kids for showers. Upgrading the campgrounds rather than limiting them is something that we all should be striving for. Camping is an incredible experience in Yosemite; it’s one that I’ve been doing for more than 20 years. And I think block-ice machines, showers in the campgrounds, and expanding the number of campsites, not fewer campsites." (Public Hearing, Costa Mesa, CA - #20301)

SHOWERS

"Construct showers in the campgrounds." (Conservation Organization, Camarillo, CA - #2627)

"There are only two locations in the Valley for campers to shower. Curry Village and Housekeeping. At lease those two locations need to be kept." (Individual, Exeter, CA - #2309)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes that the camp store would be located at Curry Village, but an ice machine could be located near the centralized check-in facility or shower buildings. This level of detail would be considered during the final campground design.
(Also see response to concern #402.)

152. Public Concern: The National Park Service should maintain a continuous ranger presence in Yosemite Valley campgrounds.

"I think that they should have a ranger in the camping grounds 24 hours a day, 7 days a week." (Individual, Henderson, NV - #1244)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The staffing of campgrounds is an operational issue. Each year Yosemite National Park undergoes a park management priority setting process. Based on yearly priorities, a budget is established for each program area. It is not possible to fund all programs annually without an increase to the park’s annual operational budget.

4.12.2.b ~ Number of Campsites

Many of the respondents addressing campground concerns contend the number of campsites proposed in the Preferred Alternative of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS is inadequate. As with other types of overnight accommodations, the relationship between affordable accommodations and equal access is a key theme in comments regarding camping. Many individuals feel the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS caters to more affluent visitors. Reducing the number of campsites will make a trip to Yosemite National Park less affordable and eliminate some low-income visitors, these people assert. One person more specifically claims that, "The low-income citizens are under represented . . . ! More campsites are an obvious need to equalize this disparity."

Some critics of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS cite other reasons for believing that the proposed number of campsites is insufficient. Campers have less impact on park resources than other visitor types, many individuals claim. Others contend that campers use their automobiles less than other visitors, while some believe that campground facilities have less environmental impact than other lodging facilities do.

Advocates of providing more campsites than proposed in the draft plan offer several suggestions for improvement. These camping proponents urge the National Park Service to adopt a variety of measures: establish additional campsites in Yosemite Valley; retain the number of sites proposed in Alternative Five; retain existing campsites; and replace campsites lost to flooding.

Highlighting a related concern, several respondents feel that the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS should include the pre-flood number of campsites as the figure with which the proposed number of campsites is compared. The plan’s comparison of proposed campsites to currently existing sites does not adequately reflect the proposal’s impact, these individuals believe. In addition, some of these people think the draft plan’s comparison is an attempt by the National Park Service to mislead the public about the impact of this proposal on camping.

In contrast to those advocating increased camping opportunities, a few respondents support a reduction in the number of campsites in Yosemite Valley. Some of these campground critics feel reductions beyond those called for in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS are appropriate, even to the extend of eliminating all Valley campsites. More moderately, other respondents suggest that campsites eliminated by flooding not be replaced.

Note: One response is provided for concerns #13, #734, and #735, and is placed following concern #735.

13. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should establish additional campsites in Yosemite Valley.

"Your stats show that 26% of the visitors earn more than $100,000 and that 5% of the visitors earn less than $20,000. Also, those earning less than $20,000 in California number 37%. The lower income citizens are under represented . . . ! More campsites are an obvious need to equalize this disparity. For years we camped and without camping we wouldn’t have had a vacation. This is a National Park for all people, not just the affluent." (Individual, Ahwahnee, CA - #329)

"The need for more campsites is tremendous. If lodging is cut from 1260 to 981, there should be an additional 280 campsites added to the 756 figure to reach the GMP level of overnight visitors, for a total of 1036 campsites. I don’t think that a campground is really a development that matters whether it is put in the path o? a 100 year flood. Just place the bathrooms as far from the river as possible, and turn off the plumbing and electricity for a few days each century." (Individual, San Diego, CA - #3479)

ESTABLISH NUMBER OF CAMPSITES PROPOSED IN ALTERNATIVE FIVE

"More campsites are needed, at least as many as in Alternative #5! Perhaps the prized river-edge spaces must be pushed back from the water, but more spaces can certainly be added." (Individual, Long Beach, CA - #5644)

Response: See response following concern #735 below.

734. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain existing campsites in Yosemite Valley.

"I am appalled and dismayed at the proposal to cut back the number of campgrounds by 42% . . . Why is it that it’s always the low cost affordable alternatives for the American people that are the first to get axed? I’m sure the founder of the National Park System, the great Theodore Roosevelt would also be upset and dismayed at this type of class elitism exemplified by the Interior Secretary’s plan, for surely by cutting the number of campgrounds while retaining the number of hotel rooms in the Ahwahnee and Yosemite Lodge will only make the park less accessible to average American citizens while retaining the it’s accessibility for the wealthier in our society as well as the wealthier from other nations." (Individual, San Jose, CA - #199)

"Please keep the campgrounds. Our family has been camping for 50 years. We would like to pass on this tradition generation to generation!" (Individual, Torrance, CA - #40)

"I’m sad to see a reduced number of campsites offered. I believe that campers are the visitors most likely to stay out of their cars during their stay. We always bring our bikes and hiking shoes, and make it a policy to leave the car parked for the whole week." (Individual, Santa Barbara, CA - #85)

"The . . . large change I find objectionable is the elimination of some forty-two percent of the camping sites in the Valley. Why pick on the campers? Campers have a relatively light impact on the local environment, especially when compared to the infrastructure and staffing required by hotel guests." (Individual, San Carlos, CA - #99)

"We just spent a week at Hodgdon Meadow campground and wished we had been in the Valley because we spent so much time commuting down into it. We really would not like to see any more campgrounds taken away because of this driving aspect." (Individual, No Address - #9015)

Response: See response following concern #735 below.

735. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should replace campsites lost to flooding in Yosemite Valley.

"Campgrounds provide the best way for serving visitors because they have the least overall impact and cost even less. The number of spaces in campgrounds in Yosemite Valley should be returned to the levels available before the 1997 flood, though not necessarily in the same places (sensitive habitat should be avoided). The number of spaces should be returned to the range of 600-800 sites." (Conservation Organization, Fresno, CA - #7881)

"It would be good if more campsites could be added to replace at least some of the ones lost due to flooding." (Individual, No Address - #531)

Response: The number of campsites in Yosemite Valley has been a major concern throughout this planning process, as the National Park Service is challenged to determine an "adequate" number of campsites. Within the narrow Valley, visitor accommodations cannot be provided merely on the basis of visitor demand but must be located and designed in consideration of safety constraints (floodplain and rockfall) and, particularly, of highly valued resources (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Developing a Range of Alternatives–Development Considerations, and Resource Stewardship–Highly Valued Resources, in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS). The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS has identified those highly valued resource areas, and proposes locating visitor accommodations outside of these areas as much as possible. Those areas in Yosemite Valley suitable for visitor accommodations are few, and within that small space, the Preferred Alternative proposes a variety of overnight accommodations, including various camping options and lodging accommodations ranging from rustic to deluxe. The greatest number of these accommodations is at the lower end of the cost spectrum.

In consideration of public comments under the Preferred Alternative, the proposed number of campsites in Yosemite Valley has been increased from 465 in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS to 500 in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. While park-use statistics suggest that low-income visitors are underrepresented in the park, this is not necessarily because they are not able to find low-cost accommodations. Low-income visitors have the same opportunity to secure economical overnight space in Yosemite Valley as do visitors with higher incomes, yet their proportions remain low even in the campgrounds and rustic lodgings. Historically, demand for camping and lodging of all types within the Valley has exceeded the available number of accommodations. Given the limits imposed by a sensitive and confined area, it is important to understand that a quality Yosemite Valley experience may be had in a variety of ways, including: in the off-season, as a day visitor, staying in accommodations (either camping or lodging) outside Yosemite Valley but still in Yosemite National Park, or by staying in communities outside the park. Considering the increasing population and long-term visitation trends, it is unlikely that the National Park Service would ever be able to provide enough camping in Yosemite Valley to meet the demand.

(This response also applies to concerns #13 and #734.)

736. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should compare proposed campsite numbers to pre-flood campsite numbers in Yosemite Valley.

"There’s also no clear reply in any of those documents to many people’s concerns about the number of campsites. First of all the numbers were massaged; the numbers that were given in the summary are the present numbers, which doesn’t account for all the washed out and destroyed campsites so that the net number of lost campsites is not clear." (Public Hearing, San Jose, CA - #20532)

"Alternative 2 claims to keep the number of campsites at about their current number, but this is really disingenuous, because, as a matter of fact, the Park has eliminated hundreds of campsites over the past two years. This means that under this alternative, there will be far fewer campsites than was the case before the flood of ‘97." (Individual, No Address - #6871)

Response: Legal requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Council on Environmental Quality provide that an Environmental Impact Statement include a No Action Alternative that represents the present condition in order to establish a baseline for comparison. Recognizing that many Yosemite National Park visitors might consider the number of accommodations existing prior to January 1997 as a baseline, and not being able to include this number in the No Action Alternative, the difference between pre-flood accommodations and accommodations proposed in each action alternative has been discussed in Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, Visitor Experience–Cumulative Impacts–Visitor Services. These numbers were also illustrated in exhibits presented during Yosemite Valley Plan public meetings (held during the public comment period).

659. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should reduce the number of campsites in Yosemite Valley.

"Greatly reduce Valley floor camping sites. I would prefer to see these spots reduced even more than in the proposed plans. I even support removing all Valley floor camping sites." (Individual, Atherton, CA - #3798)

Response: With increasingly available regional 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. Determining the appropriate amount and types of overnight accommodations to provide a quality visitor experience remains a challenging issue.

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 vary 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.

A range of approaches to resolving this issue can be found in the alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Based on the diversity of public comments received on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the Preferred Alternative would provide for overnight experiences that allow more direct access to and connection with park resources, thereby enhancing each visitor’s overall park experience.

658. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should not replace campsites lost to flooding in Yosemite Valley.

"We don’t need to rebuild the destroyed and flooded campgrounds." (Individual, No Address - #7653)

Response: Prior to the January 1997 flood, Yosemite National Park published a draft Valley Implementation Plan/EIS. That document included a proposal to remove facilities out of the Merced River floodplain. After the 1997 flood, the National Park Service consolidated this and other draft compliance documents into the Draft and Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS considers the facilities that were lost in the 1997 flood, as well as new knowledge about highly valued resources, the Merced Wild and Scenic River, and rockfall hazards. The National Park Service is using information learned from the extent of the flood to better locate development in the Valley. The proposed action and other alternatives presented in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS propose relocating facilities to areas less prone to severe flooding and other hazards. Executive Order 11988 restricts development within floodplains, and park policy mandates that development within areas of fast-moving, high-energy floodwater be limited to day uses.

The 1980 General Management Plan called for the relocation or removal of many of these facilities to restore and protect natural processes of the Valley including natural flood cycles, dynamic channel shifts, and interconnection of groundwater and surface water systems. Generally, in acknowledging Wild and Scenic River protection values, highly valued resources, and floodplain considerations, campsites lost to flooding would not be replaced under the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.
(Also see response to concern #13.)

4.12.2.c ~ Location of Campgrounds

Comments regarding campground location are expressed by some respondents who comment on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Many of these people express concerns regarding the impact of campgrounds on sensitive areas. Citing ecological restoration as the most important issue, one organization feels that campgrounds should be removed from sensitive areas, such as the Merced River floodplain. Other respondents, however, feel that campsites near the Merced River should not be eliminated. They contend that campsites located near the river are a desirable part of their camping experience. Other advocates of riverside camping argue that flooding only impacts campsites seasonally, and therefore campsites in the floodplain could be used during the appropriate seasons.

Offering an alternative management direction, several people recommend establishing additional campsites outside Yosemite Valley. Additional out-of-Valley campsites would help alleviate Valley congestion, encourage visitors to explore other areas of the park, and offset the loss campsites in the Valley, they claim. Some specific suggestions offered by these individuals include replacing all campsites eliminated in the Valley with out-of-Valley sites, establishing campsites along Tioga Pass and Glacier Point roads, and developing winter campsites in El Portal.

655. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should eliminate campgrounds in sensitive areas.

"Ecological restoration is the single most important substantive issue in the draft YVP. Despite the loss of campgrounds, we support the Park Service’s decision not to rebuild the former Upper and Lower River Campgrounds, as well as North Pines and portions of Lower Pines Campgrounds. We strongly believe the Merced River should be given space to naturally meander and reshape itself over time, allowing for the restoration of riparian, wetland, meadow, and aquatic communities within the Sierra Nevada. We applaud the Park Service for beginning to change that." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #4594)

Response: The two primary purposes for Yosemite National Park 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. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS has identified meadows, riparian areas, and California black oak woodlands as highly valued resources, and as such, they would receive the highest priority for protection and restoration. The document also calls for the restoration of natural water flow patterns through removal or modification of campgrounds, roads, paved paths, and parking lots. These actions are intended to emphasize the defragmentation and restoration of vegetation and sensitive habitats through the center of Yosemite Valley, as well as to improve overall ecosystem function of the Valley. These treatments are proposed to varying degrees in each of the action alternatives, with consequences outlined in Vol. IB, Chapter 4 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

662. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain campsites located next to the Merced River.

"Please give us campers our river sites and river access back. Don’t go through with the 150’ set backs and heavy vegetation as described in volume 1A page 2-69 under the heading ‘camping.’ Please give us back our campsites and more free access to the river and a camping experience." (Individual, No Address - #6473)

Response: As required by the Merced River Plan/FEIS, the River Protection Overlay requiring a setback of 150 feet from normal high water for most development in Yosemite Valley is being implemented in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. This is for the purposes described in Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Actions Common to All Alternatives–Implementation of the River Protection Overlay.

205. Public Concern: The National Park Service should consider establishing campgrounds within the Yosemite Valley floodplain for seasonal use.

"We were in Lower River in the flood (May) of 1996. My husband drove people’s motor homes out for them and we helped folks dry out in the auditorium. The river campgrounds could still be used in July and August and Sept. without concern." (Individual, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA - #62)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does call for some campsites within the 100-year floodplain. These campsites may be inaccessible during seasonal periods of high water. The Preferred Alternative avoids locating campsites in particular areas of the floodplain because of potential severe and dangerous flooding and impacts to highly valued resource areas (e.g., meadows, California black oak woodlands, and riparian communities) and the River Protection Overlay prescribed in the Merced River Plan/FEIS. (See Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Developing a Range of Alternatives–Development Considerations; Resource Stewardship–Highly Valued Resources; and Actions Common to All Alternatives–Implementation of the River Protection Overlay.)

26. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should increase camping opportunities outside Yosemite Valley.

"Each time I respond to proposed changes I mention expanding camping areas outside the Valley. Many people have no idea that Yosemite is much more than the Valley. . . It seems that developing areas for campers outside of the Valley would allow people to experience other parts of Yosemite and reduce congestion." (Individual, Roseville, CA - #341)

MITIGATE FOR SITES ELIMINATED IN YOSEMITE VALLEY

"If you decrease the number of campsites in the Valley by 42% then why not increase by 42% the campgrounds in the other existing campgrounds of the Park such as Tuolumne Meadows or Wawona, or even select new areas for additional campgrounds where environmental impact would be minimal? The 1997 flood has provided the opportunity to restore the valley floor, not by eliminating campgrounds altogether, but by rebuilding them and redistributing them elsewhere in the park. This would ensure Teddy Roosevelt’s plan that the National Park’s be a refuge accessible to all Americans, not just the wealthier ones." (Individual, San Jose, CA - #199)

ESTABLISH CAMPSITES ALONG TIOGA PASS AND GLACIER POINT ROADS

"We strongly recommend the development of new campgrounds along the Tioga and Glacier Point roads. This will help reduce Valley congestion while providing alternative camping experiences." (Individual, Santa Barbara, CA - #109)

ESTABLISH WINTER CAMPSITES IN EL PORTAL

"Winter camp sites could be located in El Portal." (Individual, No Address - #4291)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS is an implementation document for the park’s General Management Plan for the Valley area. But, adding campsites in other areas of the park (e.g., along Tioga Road and in Wawona) is beyond the scope of this planning effort. This is an important issue and one that would be evaluated seriously and thoroughly, but in the context of other site-specific planning. Planning for Wawona, the Tioga Road corridor, and other areas will be initiated in the future and this issue will be carried into these future efforts.

The General Management Plan recognized the need to remove campsites from the Valley and expand sites in other areas of the park.

4.12.2.d ~ Site-specific Management Direction

Many citizens comment on the campground proposals of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Most of these people argue for or against the retention of particular campgrounds or campsites proposed for elimination in the Yosemite Valley Plan. As with campgrounds in general, advocates of retaining certain campgrounds contend that sites should be maintained because they offer affordable accommodations and create less environmental impact than other forms of lodging. They also insist that these existing campgrounds are in desirable locations. The National Park Service should reopen Upper and Lower Rivers Campgrounds, and retain North Pines and Lower Pines Campgrounds, these constituents suggest. Conversely, a few individuals feel that rebuilding Upper and Lower Rivers Campgrounds would run counter to the park’s restoration efforts. They oppose such actions. Commenting on an exception to the draft plan’s overall pattern of reducing the number of campsites in existing campgrounds, one organization affirms its support for the plan’s proposal to enlarge Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground).

Comments on new campgrounds proposed in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS contain two discrete management recommendations. Contending that construction of the proposed Yellow Pine Campground in Foresta will increase traffic and harm the water quality of Crane Creek, some individuals oppose the establishment of this campground. Other people recommend the relocation of South Camp Campground to the North Pines Campground because, they claim, South Camp is in a potential rockslide zone.

Some individuals identify locations for new campgrounds in addition to those sites proposed in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. One person suggests the placement of a new campground in Curry Orchard "in an effort to meet the [General Management Plan] goal for number of campsites in Yosemite Valley." Other locations for new campgrounds proposed by respondents include the concessioner stable area and the Mirror Lake area.

302. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require that the Lower and Upper River Campgrounds be reopened.

"I would like to see the camp sites of Lower and Upper River reopened and available to the public. They provide a very affordable, intimate, and low impact experience for the public. Even if they flood at times, maintenance work could easily restore these sites, as there are limited structures at these areas." (Individual, San Francisco, CA - #1791)

Response: The Upper and Lower River Campgrounds are located in a highly valued resource area. In the Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the fill material added to this area to establish these campgrounds would be removed and the area would be restored to a mosaic of meadow, riparian, and oak woodland communities. The restoration of meadow communities also improves the cultural landscape.
(Also see response to concern #13.)

440. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain North Pines Campground.

"North Pines should not be removed. It is a very enjoyable location for tent camping and offers various opportunities for small children to view and participate in what nature has to offer on the river without the crowds (at the other campgrounds)." (Individual, Torrance, CA - #3953)

Response: The North Pines Campground is proposed for removal under the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS in order to restore the area to riparian and California black oak woodland habitat, which are highly valued resources.
(Also see response to concern #13.)

97. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain the existing campsites located in the Lower Pines Campground.

"Campgrounds . . . they have been reduced drastically over the years. Back in the forties . . . a Ranger told me there were about a thousand families camping in Camp 14, now Lower Pines. I saw the campgrounds redefined as time went by until Lower Pines had about 200 sites . . . But now, after the flood, there are only about 65 . . . They are saying the rest are in the floodplain and can’t, by Executive Order, house overnight accommodations. This perspective also applies to the Rivers Campgrounds . . . Let’s make an exception. Aren’t over three hundred campsites serving thousands of visitors annually important enough to warrant special dispensation?" (Individual, Ahwahnee, CA - #329)

"I personally wish they would restore some of the beautiful campsites that were destroyed in the Lower Pines Campground by the ‘97 flood." (Individual, No Address - #378)

Response: In response to public comments advocating additional campsites at Lower Pines Campground, the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes that 60 sites be retained in the Lower Pines Campground, rather than the 40 proposed in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.
(Also see response to concern #13.)

660. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should not require that Upper River and Lower River Campgrounds be rebuilt.

"I do not think the Upper and Lower campgrounds should be rebuilt. I am sure there are reasons that I am not aware of for the adding and removing of campgrounds, but, if the other main issue with the park is to return it to nature, why would you be creating new campgrounds that would need water and sewer service?" (Individual, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA - #5646)

Response: Following the prescriptions within the Merced River Plan/FEIS, all action alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS have been revised to propose that camping at the Lower River and Upper River Campgrounds not be retained. This area will be restored to natural conditions.

326. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require an increase in size of Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground).

"The American Alpine Club supports these aspects of Alternative 2 and recommend that they be included in the final plan: Camp 4 is preserved and its size is increased." (Conservation Organization, No Address - #20074)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes to increase the number of campsites at Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) by 28 sites.

25. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should not require the construction of Yellow Pine Campground in Foresta.

"We oppose the construction of Yellow Pine Campground in Foresta. The Foresta residential area will be burdened enough by the increased traffic of the McCauley Ranch stables use and the 14 employee housing units. The addition of the campground on top of these new rules will further increase vehicular traffic, primarily transient in nature. The absence of a water supply at the campground will unfortunately result in campers using Crane Creek for drinking, cooking, and bathing to the detriment of the creek’s water quality and environs." (Individual, Santa Barbara, CA - #109)

Response: Yellow Pine Campground was reopened to accommodate park volunteer groups displaced from Foresta following the 1990 A-Rock Fire. The campground called for in Foresta is a rebuilding of the group site that existed prior to the 1990 A-Rock Fire. It is for park volunteer groups only and not the general public; therefore, controls would be more easily applied. It is not development of a new site, but reopening of a previously used area.

207. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should relocate the proposed South Camp campground to the North Pines Campground area.

"Location of South Camp—Due to rock slides in the Glacier Point area during the last 30 plus years (that I am aware of) I do not think this is a safe place for camping or any other activity. In my opinion, it would be better to place those campsites at the North Pines Area out of the River Protection Area, if possible." (Individual, Pacific Grove, CA - #156)

Response: In the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the Preferred Alternative proposes that South Camp would be located outside the highest hazard rockfall zones (but not completely out of the base of talus line). North Pines Campground would be removed and the area was not considered for camping in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS because it is located both within the 100-year floodplain and highly valued resources area.

480. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should establish a campground in Curry Orchard.

"Another area in the East Yosemite Valley that could be developed for camping is the Curry Orchard. The Plan calls for the removal of parking from this area and letting the trees deteriorate over time. Other alternatives of the plan call for part or all of the orchard area to be converted to picnicking, but none propose it be developed for camping. I see little difference between using this area for picnicking or camping, especially walk-in camping. A review of the constraints for this area shows that it contains a small area of highly valued resource which could be avoided, it is outside the rockfall and flood zones but it is within an A scenic area. As explained previously, I don’t feel the scenic resources should be a constraint for campground development since other developed areas are within A scenic areas. The only constraint that would have to be remedied is the Merced River zoning. The Merced River Plan zones this area for visitor lodging (3B) instead of camping (3A). I believe camping would be less of an impact to the scenic river corridor than lodging so this should not be a constraint. At the very least this could be developed as a walk-in camping area. I ask that you consider an alternative that develops the Curry Orchard into a camping area in an effort to meet the GMP goal for number of campsites in Yosemite Valley." (National Park Service Employee, Mariposa, CA - #6240)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS calls for the removal of the parking facility at Curry Orchard. The Preferred Alternative also calls for the removal of the fruit trees and ecological restoration of this site to meadow and oak woodland communities (both highly valued resources).

Establishment of a campground on the site would prevent the restoration of this area to a highly valued resources area, one of the specific purposes of the Yosemite Valley Plan.
(Also see response to concern #21.)

208. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should establish a new campground at the present concessioner stable location.

"When the horse stables are removed, this area should be redeveloped into more campsites to compensate for the more than 400 sites lost throughout the years." (Individual, Santa Paula, CA - #20336)

Response: One of the principal goals in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS is the restoration of natural processes and natural and cultural resources that create Yosemite Valley’s unique character. The primary reason for removing or relocating the stables is the restoration of the area to riparian and California black oak woodland communities. While the National Park Service is trying to maximize the number of campsites in the Valley, in response to requests by the public, this site has been determined unsuitable for camping.

661. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should establish new campsites near Mirror Lake.

"There are some good options for the park that are not considered in any of the plans. The building of new campsites in the Mirror Lake area to replace destroyed campsites in the river campgrounds." (Individual, Coulterville, CA - #3724)

Response: As a principle day-visitor destination in Yosemite Valley, the Mirror Lake area was not considered for further development in the Yosemite Valley Plan. Management practices have changed significantly regarding the use and access of Mirror Lake over the past 30 years based upon new insights and respect of river process and integral riparian zones. The area known as Mirror Lake is a wetland area. A temporary pool formed by a rock fall was later enlarged by the placement of a rock dam. The "lake" was artificially maintained by dredging until 1971, and vehicle access was provided due to its popularity. Natural processes rather than artificial manipulation are now allowed to prevail. Additionally, the ecological impacts of numerous automobiles to fragile areas and their impact on visitor experience and the area’s natural beauty and processes is considered inappropriate. The multi-use paved trail is still available for walking and bicycle use. Vehicle access is allowed for those with mobility impairments.

4.12.2.e ~ Relationship between Types of Campgrounds

Potential conflict between different types of camping experiences is the topic of some comments on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Many people addressing these relationships recommend the separation of different campground types. Focusing mostly on drive-to camping, these citizens suggest the separation of tent and recreational campgrounds. Excessive equipment noise associated with recreational vehicles and recreational vehicle size diminish the experience of tent campers near such vehicles, many individuals claim. Concentrating on another campground proximity concern, one citizen recommends separating public and private campgrounds, noting several deficiencies of private campgrounds.

737. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the separation of different types of campsites in Yosemite Valley.

"Motor homes should be in one camp area by themselves away from the quiet tent campers. Motor home generators and TV noise and glow at night takes away from the family experience of family tent camping along the Merced River." (Individual, No Address - #6473)

Response: In order to accommodate the greatest number of campsites in the acreage available for campgrounds, consolidation of similar types of camping is necessary (i.e., walk-in sites with adjacent parking, walk-to sites with no parking, and automobile and recreational vehicle camping). While the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS Preferred Alternative provides for this mix of camping experiences, the final mix of automobile and recreation vehicle campsites would be determined in the design phase for each campground.

76. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should establish tent-only campgrounds in Yosemite Valley.

"Establish a tent-only campground for families . . . campers in tents shouldn’t have to be enveloped by giant motor homes and roaring generators." (Individual, Saratoga, CA - #331)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would continue or establish campgrounds for tents only (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Visitor Services–Camping). Those campgrounds that are walk-to sites have no vehicle access provided, and those campgrounds designated as walk-in sites provide only a remote parking area. Examples of tent-only areas are those at Backpackers Campground, Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground), and a part of Upper Pines Campground.

22. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require that concessioner campgrounds be separated from public campgrounds in Yosemite Valley.

"Private concession campgrounds should be separated from the public sites and I believe minimum site size and privacy should be part of the negotiations. Private parks try to get as many sites in a given area as possible and often are little more than an open field with trailers back to back and belly to belly. I do not think this is compatible with enjoying the park." (Individual, No Address - #30020)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does not propose to establish private campgrounds in Yosemite Valley; the National Park Service operates the campgrounds. In some campgrounds, concession operators under contract with the National Park Service may provide services such as showers and wood sales.