Yosemite Valley Plan SEIS, Volume III, Chapter 4: Part 4

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

Section 4.12 ~ Visitor Services (cont.)

4.12.2.f ~ Drive-in Campsites

Respondents addressing drive-in campsites, as with those commenting on the number of campsites in general, believe the number of drive-in campsites proposed in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan is inadequate. Families prefer drive-in camping, many of these individuals claim, because drive-in camping is more affordable than other accommodations proposed in the draft plan. Many advocates of drive-in campsites argue that the draft plan emphasizes walk-in sites to the detriment of drive-in campsites, further diminishing the access of families to Yosemite Valley. In addition, some people recommend specific sites for additional drive-in campgrounds, including Taft Toe, the Curry Orchard, and Housekeeping Camp.

Focusing more on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS evaluation of the number of drive-in campsites, some people feel that the National Park Service attempts to mislead the public about the scale of reduction in drive-in camping opportunities. These people believe the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS should include a clear comparison of changes proposed in the plan by campsite type rather than lumping all campgrounds together.

211. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should establish additional drive-in campgrounds in Yosemite Valley.

"We do have one major concern that is shared by many, many folks we talked with on our recent camping trip to Yosemite. The severe reduction of family camping suggested in all plans except #5 is not family friendly. Prior to the January 1997 flood, there were over 800 campsites with the majority being drive-in family campsites. All of the draft plans, save one, cut those sites down by more than half. Since 1997 we have heard from you that the lost sites will be replaced. Now even the signs in the Visitor Center state that the River Campgrounds are ‘Permanently’ closed. To state that there will only be a reduction of ten campsites in the ‘Preferred Alternative’ in disingenuous at best. The walk-in sites can be little used by family campers. Family campers will take a double hit with the reduction in campsites as well as the conversion to more walk-in sites. A total of 295 drive-in family sites is not adequate. We believe that family camping is a major part of what our national parks should be about. To have more than a fifty percent reduction is unfair and intolerable. . . Build new drive in family campgrounds rather than so many walk-in campgrounds." (Individual, Santa Rosa, CA - #30077)

"Put my comment in the need for more drive-in camping file. I guess prior to the flood there was somewhere around 800 spaces, and now there’s maybe a couple more than 400. And all the alternatives look like there would be an additional cutback of about 25 percent. We don’t see that much of a drastic cut in the campsites because of the increase in the other types of camping; the walk-ins, the park-to, and drive-by, tent-type camping. But when we look through all the literature, we find that the drive-in camping would be cut by an additional 25 percent, and I think that would be quite a hardship on a number of people that enjoy that type of camping. Maybe there could be some additional drive-in. I’m not suggesting that we put back the campsites in Lower or Upper River, or the bottom portion of Lower Pines. But perhaps in the work that everyone has done, there might be some campsites found in the Taft Toe area or the Curry Village day parking if the Apple Orchard is ever dealt with, or in some of the other areas in the Valley so that there are more drive-in campsites." (Public Hearing, Costa Mesa, CA - #20306)

REPLACE HOUSEKEEPING CAMP WITH A DRIVE-IN CAMPGROUND

"With all the improvements available for setting up car camping (tent camping and cooking), I suggest eliminating all the housekeeping cabins and make it into RV and tent camping. You have been decreasing the camping areas and improving the high-end accommodations. Tent camping is the only option for many families, and they need to cook their own food. This would take care of the shantytown like housekeeping cabins that you are decreasing anyway. Eliminate them completely. At Curry Village, having to eat in the cafeteria can be very expensive for a family of four. Please allow for more RV and car camping. Not all seniors are wealthy and they can camp during the week if there were more spaces available." (Individual, Fulton, CA - #7739)

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 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS). The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS has identified those highly valued resource areas, and locates 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 provides a range from rustic to deluxe. In consideration of public comments, the number of campsites in Yosemite Valley has been increased in the Preferred Alternative from 465 to 500 campsites, of these, 330 (66%) would be drive-in sites. 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). Historically, demand for camping of all types within the Valley has exceeded the available number of accommodations. Given 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.
(Also see response to concern #21.)

647. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should not convert drive-in campgrounds to walk-in campgrounds in Yosemite Valley.

"Under no circumstances should any drive-in camping be converted to walk-in camping. If you are determined to add more walk-in camping, then create it somewhere else instead of eliminating drive-in camping. It is my contention that walk-in camping caters almost exclusively to people from California. There are very few people who can travel long distances with a family and still be able to make use of walk-in camping. It is simply not feasible. My father and I travel all over the country from Michigan and we are simply not able to engage in walk-in camping." (Individual, San Francisco, CA - #5194)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes a reduction of drive-in campsites from 404 to 330, while increasing the total number of campsites in the Yosemite Valley by 25. Other alternatives propose fewer drive-in sites. The consolidation of camping types would provide a greater number of campsites overall, because not every campground would be designed with a road network and integral parking spaces. Currently, many sites with individual parking spaces are occupied by campers who could be accommodated in walk-in campsites.
(Also see response to concerns #98, 210, and 341.)

656. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should clarify the number of drive-in campsites eliminated in Yosemite Valley.

"Why is the planning committee trying to make people believe that only 10 campsites will be lost in the new plan. The exact wording in the preferred alt #2 is, ‘total campsites from 475 to 465.’ According to the NPS reservation service there are 89 sites available in Lower Pines, 240 in Upper Pines, and 93 in North Pines, yet in alt. 2-5 the removal of North Pines that will happen is 93 sites. Alt 2 goes on to say ‘new campsites will be added,’ 40 campsites east of curry for group and backpackers, 28 sites added at Sunnyside, 45 walk-in at Upper Pines, and 20 new walk in at Tenaya Creek. All of the new added campsites are either for backpackers or groups, or walk-ins. You are not adding 133 campsites for those that generally do not camp with their children or grandparents. How can you in good faith lead people to believe you not taking 93 sites from the average American family that comes to Yosemite to camp in either tents or RVs? Once again the family will pay the price, yet it is the middle class American that pays the majority of the taxes that help to support things like our National Parks. Walk in campsites and group campsites should not be averaged into with the tent and RV sites. The average camper has already lost 2 1/2 campsites in the Valley and now you want to take another one by closing North Pines." (Individual, Whittier, CA - #5043)

Response: In the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS (Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Table A, Summary of Alternatives), the number of drive-in and other campsites proposed in each of the alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, is clearly identified.

4.12.2.g ~ Recreational Vehicle Campsites

Comments on recreational vehicle campsites are found in many public responses to the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. As with general drive-in sites, many people feel the number of recreational vehicle campsites proposed in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS is insufficient. Two suggestions from those opposing reductions in recreation vehicle campsites are to replace campsites lost to flooding and to provide parking at some walk-in sites for seasonal use by recreational vehicle campers.

The location of recreational vehicle campsites concerns some respondents more than the number of such sites do. Many people contend that recreational vehicles increase traffic congestion on Yosemite National Park roads, particularly in the east and central Valley. For this reason, the National Park Service should establish recreational vehicle campgrounds in the western Valley, these individuals recommend. Others suggest establishing recreational vehicle campgrounds outside of Yosemite Valley.

As with those requesting the separation of recreational vehicle and tent campsites, several respondents claim that recreational vehicles have detrimental visual impacts on other campers. Some of these people recommend that the National Park Service restrict the size of recreational vehicles allowed into Yosemite National Park, while others suggest methods to mitigate the perceived visual impacts of these vehicles. One person offers a slightly different vision of recreational vehicle camping than the more overt detractors. Criticizing both walk-in campsites and large recreational vehicles, this citizen recommends the National Park Service establish some campsites for small recreational vehicles.

The proposal in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS to add recreational vehicle hookups to some campsites elicits additional comments. Some people support National Park Service plans to add recreational vehicle hookups to some campsites, and recommend that hookups be added to more sites. In contrast, "RV hookups will severely deteriorate the camping experience for a significant number of adjacent campers because of the unlimited availability of electricity," one respondent contends. "While most campers are quite considerate of others there are always some who will party late, play loud radios, etc. RVers are no exception." Such individuals oppose providing recreational vehicle hookups in Yosemite Valley.

A closely related aspect of recreational vehicle camping, generator noise, draws criticism from several respondents. One such critic feels that "quiet is a part of the park experience and should be a priority." Recommendations from respondents to address generator noise include banning the use of generators, providing electrical hookups, and limiting generators to discrete areas within campgrounds.

98. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should provide for adequate recreational vehicle campsites in Yosemite Valley.

REPLACE SITES LOST TO FLOODING

"Please try to put back the RV camping that was there before the flooding . . . ! Yosemite has been cutting back on RV . . . camping but not on the hotels or their clientele." (Individual, Whittier, CA - #393)

PROVIDE PARKING AT SOME WALK-IN CAMPSITES

"I am aware that Alts 2, 3, and 4 have roughly the same number of sites but many are converted to ‘walk-in.’ Now, in early May, the walk-ins would not be used. Please make some of these ‘walk-ins’ have parking so they could be used off-season for RV’s." (Individual, La Verne, CA - #324)

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.

147. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should establish a recreational vehicle campground in the west end of Yosemite Valley.

"West Valley Campground: It would be a good idea to spread some of the campers into other Valley areas that are currently not so popular as the east Valley area. It is recommended that a new campground in the area of Pohono Quarry/Taft Toe be established. This would help decentralize the east Valley campers into the west end, and also reduce/decentralize camper vehicular traffic, which is extremely important. . . RV’s, motor homes and the like would be a good candidate for this new campground which would be dedicated. This would eliminate these large vehicles from the central and east end Valley roads which would be a definite plus." (Individual, American Canyon, CA - #907)

Response: The Merced River Plan/FEIS has established zoning for the areas of Yosemite Valley adjacent to the river, including most of the developable area at Taft Toe. This zone would allow for development of a parking area, but only if a similar area were not constructed at Yosemite Village. In the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS action alternatives where Taft Toe would not be used for day-visitor parking, the zoning at Taft Toe would revert to a "Day Use" zone that would not allow for camping. An advantage of any alternative that does not provide a parking facility at Taft Toe is that no new development would intrude upon the relative solitude and mostly natural environment in the mid and west Valley. Adding overnight facilities at Taft Toe or elsewhere in the west Valley would considerably alter the west Valley experience for all visitors and eliminate a substantial benefit gained by not locating parking there.

Note: One response is provided for concerns #403 and #650, and is placed following concern #650.

403. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the construction of recreational vehicle facilities outside of Yosemite Valley.

"RV sites with hookups and dump station should be built outside the Valley. This should be an attractive camp with convenient bus service available. It must be so desirable that most RVers would choose it over the traffic jams and congestion of the present sites." (Individual, Fresno, CA - #2321)

Response: See response following concern #650 below.

650. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should establish recreational vehicle campgrounds outside Yosemite Valley.

"In a personal view, even at the ‘low’ traffic levels, I noticed larger RV units having trouble with the Park’s twisting roads and parking pull-offs. Perhaps some RV camping spots can be relocated out of the Valley in the future (I say this while thinking I will travel by RV someday) while remaining "connected" via bus service." (Individual, Annandale, VA - #4487)

Response: Developing additional recreational vehicle sites outside Yosemite Valley is outside the scope of this planning effort. For a description of the recreational vehicle camping proposed in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, see response to concern #19.

This response also applies to concern #403.

209. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should restrict the size of recreational vehicles permitted in Yosemite Valley.

"Place a limit on motor home size. There has to be a reasonable footage. Some of those motor homes are huge and over-sized, with TV’s, microwaves etc. Let them camp somewhere else, outside the park." (Individual, Saratoga, CA - #331)

Response: Vehicle size restrictions are based on safety and road characteristics and these restrictions would be placed on all vehicles, not any selected grouping. This is an operational issue and is not within the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

651. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should mitigate the visual impacts of recreational vehicles in Yosemite Valley.

"RV sites should be well screened and RV comings and goings limited to short time windows to minimize their detrimental visual impact?" (Individual, San Juan Capistrano, CA - #7305)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. However, it is the intention of the Yosemite Valley Plan to consolidate types of camping and to better separate campsites by using natural barriers and design features.

210. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should establish campgrounds for small recreational vehicles in Yosemite Valley.

"Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 do not provide enough campsites (or the right kind of campsites) for the great numbers of us who wish to visit the Park ‘our way,’ i.e., by camping in small camper vans and small RV’s which do not contribute much to traffic congestion, pollution, noise, etc. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 seem to overemphasize walk-in and walk-to camp sites and tend to squeeze out those of us who aren’t up to that single, ‘younger person,’ approach to camping out ‘down on the ground.’ That seems unwelcoming and perhaps even discriminatory toward those of us for whom that ‘younger’ model of camping doesn’t work well. We are just as eager and should be just as entitled to make age-appropriate uses of the Park’s camping facilities as those younger people. In a great many other parks and places around the country which we have recently visited, our camping van style has been provided for and welcomed. They have let us occupy a so-called ‘tent site’ -- but it just needs to be one that allows us to park on a level place, on or adjacent to the site, which usually has a picnic table. Please try to be creative in providing enough low-tech camp sites of this sort for the many ‘small RV’ folks like us, who really do not even want to be forced to move over next to the RV ‘behemoths.’" (Individual, Alexandria, VA - #1276)

Response: Under the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, nearly two-thirds of campsites in Yosemite Valley would be drive-in sites.
(Also see response to concern #98.)

24. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should restrict the use of generators in Yosemite Valley campgrounds.

"Specifically related to camping, I don’t believe generators should be allowed at all in Yosemite campgrounds. This could be accomplished by giving full electric hookups to those who need it (if absolutely necessary). Another option would be to limit generators to one or two loops and not the entire campground . . . The current rules indicate ‘reasonable use of generators during the day.’ The unfortunate reality is that everyone’s idea of reasonableness is different. Quiet is part of the park experience and should be a priority." (Individual, Roseville, CA - #30015)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes the installation of some electrical hookups for recreational vehicles in Upper Pines and Lower Pines Campgrounds in Yosemite Valley. This would reduce noise from generators. Currently, park rules allow for limited use of generators between the hours of 7:00 a.m.. and 7:00 p.m., with quiet hours from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Specific site design is beyond the scope of this planning effort.

649. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should provide for additional recreational vehicle hookups at campgrounds in Yosemite Valley.

"There should be more RV hookups because people with RVs need a place to park and RVs are affordable lodging. More people would come if all they would bring is their RV. RVs should also be treated like cars and only be used to go in and out of the Valley and the Park." (Individual, San Jose, CA - #3695)

19. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should not provide for recreational vehicle hookups in Yosemite Valley.

"The proposal to install some RV hookups in camps should be deleted. . . RV hook-ups will severely deteriorate the camping experience for a significant number of adjacent campers because of the unlimited availability of electricity. While most campers are quite considerate of others there are always some who will party late, play loud radios, etc. RVers are no exception." (Individual, Pioneer, CA - #94)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes the installation of some electrical hookups for recreational vehicles in Upper Pines and Lower Pines Campgrounds in Yosemite Valley. By providing electrical hookups, there would be a reduction in the use of gasoline generators, thereby reducing noise and improving the visitor experience for both RV users and adjacent campers. Additionally, through campground design, there would be more opportunities in Yosemite Valley for tent campers to camp separately from RV campers.

4.12.2.h ~ Walk-in Campgrounds

Many respondents support the establishment of walk-in campgrounds, expressing opinions frequently opposed to those supporting drive-in campsites. Some of these supporters of walk-in camping claim that walk-in campsites have less environmental impact than other types of campsites. Establishment of additional walk-in campsites is recommended by many such individuals. Several campers recommend specific sites for the location of new walk-in sites, including areas near the Merced River, the Upper River Campground area, and Taft Toe. In addition to these locations, one person suggests the National Park Service retain Backpackers Campground as a walk-in facility at its current site. Expressing a disparate concern about walk-in campsites, one person insinuates that the current users of Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) engage in undesirable behavior and recommends that Camp 4 be eliminated as a walk-in campground.

306. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should only allow low-impact camping in Yosemite Valley.

"Eliminate all overnight camping in the Valley except for personal tent, backpacking and other low-impact camping that can be carried in or on shuttles." (Individual, Spring Valley, CA - #20412)

"We’re puzzled by your wanting additional ‘facilities’ in the campgrounds. RV’s are self-contained to the point where hookups for a few days are not really necessary. And we have not found the walk to Curry Village from Lower Pines for a shower to be an imposition. I wonder if the modern visitor really demands the upscale camping experience you seem to be assuming. Does this mean more expensive campsite fees? Are you thinking of turning the campgrounds and their daily maintenance over to the concessionaire? Surely the Park Service in their understaffed condition doesn’t have the personnel to maintain these facilities! I’d rather see the Park personnel leading nature walks than scrubbing shower stalls. Walk-to and walk-in campsites sound like a good idea." (Individual, Camp Sherman, OR - #1801)

Response: The 1980 General Management Plan prescribes the continuation of a wide range of camping opportunities in Yosemite National Park. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS also proposes to provide a range of opportunities for staying overnight in Yosemite Valley, including accommodation of a variety of camping experiences. Outside of wilderness areas, where informal campsites are widely dispersed, any camping allowed in the park would require developed facilities, such as marked sites and restrooms, in order to manage the impacts resulting from high use. Thus, the utility infrastructure for water and sewer and the requirements for campground maintenance would remain even with only walk-to camping sites in the Valley. Under the Preferred Alternative, walk-to campsites would be added in the Valley, providing opportunities for campers who do not drive to the Valley, and the percentage of walk-in sites would be increased to allow more efficient campground design (see response to concern #147 regarding west Valley camping, and concern #237 regarding impacts to natural resources).
(Also see responses to concerns #19, #206, #402, and #1110.)

151. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should establish additional walk-in or walk-to campgrounds in Yosemite Valley.

"We applaud the NPS’s creation of new campsites at South Camp, Tenaya Creek, Camp 4, and Upper Pines, and would favor an even greater increase in the number of walk-in and walk-to sites if locations could be found outside the Merced corridor and outside HVR areas." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #4594)

NEAR THE MERCED RIVER

"I would like to see some more of the near-river, walk-in sites." (Public Hearing, Los Angeles, CA - #20332)

UPPER RIVERS CAMPGROUND AREA

"One way to reverse this trend is to add walk-in campsites with nearby parking. As they lack roadways, they consume less land than traditional campgrounds. The YVP suggests some locations. I would add the central part of Upper River. The parking lot already exists; utilities are in place; simply redistributing the tables, banning wood fires, and removing your stockpiled debris would go a long way towards making the place habitable. Laid out that minimally, it would not be subject to much flood damage." (Individual, Oakland, CA - #3835)

BACKPACKERS CAMP

"I also urge you to retain the Backpackers Camp exactly where it is, as it contains some of the finest campsites in the Valley. Though part of ths camp lies within the Tenaya Creek floodplain, the ‘97 damage has already been repaired." (Individual, Oakland, CA - #3835)

TAFT TOE

"I propose an additional ‘Walk-in/Walk-to’ campground at ‘Taft Toe.’" (Individual, Berkeley, CA - #529)

706. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should eliminate Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) as a walk-in campground.

"Eliminate Camp 4 as a walk-in campground. It has always been a problem. . . [with] hanger-ons who don’t follow the rules and make Yosemite their home. A rule for one camper should pertain to all. You don’t need this element in the Park. The other (new) walk-in camp sites should be governed by the same rules. Yosemite has had their share of tragedies. Rules can be enforced so that the average camper can go home with a wonderful and safe experience." (Individual, Lodi, CA - #2318)

Response: Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Retention of the camp also facilitates the goal of providing diverse camping opportunities for Valley visitors. Each of the action alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes retaining Camp 4 as a walk-in campground.

4.12.2.i ~ Group Campgrounds

Respondents’ comments on group campgrounds generally support the retention of group facilities in Yosemite Valley. "Groups that take over campgrounds . . . do not live well with other guests," one person claims. "A group campground for large groups has less impact and just makes practical sense." Another advocate for a group campground in the Valley, specifically recommends that the National Park Service establish a group site in a "desirable" area, such as near the Merced River, along Tenaya Creek, or at the current group campground site at Yellow Pines. Though not explicitly opposing group campgrounds in the Yosemite Valley, other people suggest the National Park Service establish some group campgrounds outside Yosemite Valley.

78. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should establish a group campground in Yosemite Valley.

"A group camping area should be restored. Groups that take over campgrounds . . . do not live well with other guests. A group campground for large groups has less impact and just makes practical sense." (Individual, Saratoga, CA - #331)

LOCATE GROUP SITE IN A DESIRABLE AREA

"My main concern with the preferred alternative is the location of the group campground in Yosemite Valley. I feel that people traveling as a group to camp are using one of the least impact methods available. All vehicles of the group are occupied by several people, more are coming just for the day, and the area needed for the group is far less than if they were camping in smaller groups as in the other campsites. Therefore, since group campers provide less impact than individual campers, the group site should be in one of the best locations. Factors making campsites ideal, in my opinion, are water access and tree coverage. Your location near the apron provides neither. I strongly urge you to relocate the group camp closer to the Merced River or Tenaya Creek in a wooded location." (Individual, Wilton, CA - #5488)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Visitor Services–Camping) provides for the establishment of a group camp in a mostly wooded tract east of Curry Village, at the new South Camp location. In keeping with the goal to provide a greater separation of types of camping, the group camp would be separated from most other camping facilities.

212. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain Yellow Pine campground as a group site.

"Make the Yellow Pine area a group/volunteer camping area instead of restoring it." (Individual, Pacific Grove, CA - #156)

Response: Development of a public campground in this area would require new utilities and would introduce substantially greater overnight use of an area experiencing only minimal use now. To better meet the goals of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the Preferred Alternative proposes restoration of the area to natural riparian and conifer communities.

618. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should establish group campsites outside Yosemite Valley.

"Group sites should be available in Tuolumne or outside the valley." (Individual, Costa Mesa, CA - #7327)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. In the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS Preferred Alternative, group camping is proposed to be placed at South Camp. Also, a volunteer group campground would be relocated to a site previously used for this purpose at Foresta. Group camps are presently available outside Yosemite Valley at the Wawona, Bridalveil, Hetch Hetchy, Hodgdon Meadows, and Tuolumne Meadows Campgrounds.

4.12.3 ~ Lodging Accommodations

Lodging accommodations are central to many people’s comments regarding proposals for visitor services in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Concerns distilled from lodging comments are analyzed in three sections: general management direction, rustic accommodations, and hard-sided accommodations.

4.12.3.a ~ General Management Direction

The array of comments analyzed in this section address concerns pertinent to both rustic and hard-sided lodging facilities. Topics considered in these comments include the number of lodging units in Yosemite Valley, lodging for educational groups, lodging reservations, location of lodging facilities, zoning requirements, and the design of lodging units.

Addressing the number of lodging units proposed in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, many respondents oppose the reductions in the Plan, and some even suggest that the National Park Service increase the number of lodging units in Yosemite Valley. The National Park Service should restore lodging units to their pre-flood numbers, other such people recommend. Individuals expressing these sentiments offer a variety of reasons for opposing plans to reduce the number of lodging units. Similar to those who oppose proposals to reduce camping units, some respondents believe a reduction in lodging accommodations will limit access for low-income visitors. Others opposed to reducing lodging units contend National Park Service plans will negatively impact visitor experience. Overnight stays are necessary to truly enjoy the Valley, some of these people claim, while others feel long commutes from accommodations outside the park place undue hardship on visitors who wish to spend their days in the Valley. Some of the respondents addressing commuting difficulties from outside the park also believe that a reduction in Valley lodging will lead to development of facilities in communities outside the park. This development will negatively impact these communities, they assert. Other individuals opposing reduction in lodging facilities feel that the National Park Service is overemphasizing camping, while still others contend that the Valley can accommodate more lodging given proposed reductions in private automobile use.

In contrast to critics of the National Park Service plans to reduce lodging accommodations, some people feel that limits should be placed on the amount of lodging development in the Valley. Sufficient accommodations exist or can be developed outside Yosemite National Park, these people assert, and they oppose the construction of any new lodging facilities in the Valley. One person proposes an even more drastic management suggestion; the National Park Service should only provide lodging accommodations to disabled visitors.

Concentrating on the lodging needs of a specific population, many respondents address the provision of lodging for educational groups. The National Park Service should ensure sufficient lodging in Yosemite Valley for educational groups, especially Yosemite Institute classes, most of these people believe. Experiential education programs are vital to society because they are invaluable for teaching about ecosystem processes, some people claim. These people contend that moving lodging facilities for students outside the Valley will diminish their educational experience, particularly the nighttime experience. Daily commutes will not only cut into instruction time but also add to traffic congestion and pollution in the park, such people insist. For these reasons, the National Park Service should retain existing units at Curry Village for students, some individuals argue, while others recommend establishing separate student dormitories in this area.

Focusing more on administration of lodging accommodations than on facilities, many people feel the National Park Service should improve Yosemite National Park’s lodging reservation system. Complaints about the difficulty of acquiring lodging reservations are common from these respondents. Many such individuals contend that the number of reservations allotted to commercial tour operators is excessive, and they suggest limiting reservations by such businesses.

Concerns regarding restrictions on location and design of lodging units, which are the focus of several comments on lodging accommodations, conclude this section. A few respondents, citing safety concerns, suggest removing lodging facilities from rockfall zones. The Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does not provide sufficient zoning guidance, other people contend, and they call for inclusion of basic zoning regulations in the plan. Still other individuals highlight more specific design concerns in their comments. Expressing a common sentiment, one person asserts that lodging units "should not be visible from the Valley rim overlooks." People with such opinions recommend that the height of lodging facilities be limited. Addressing another design concern, some respondents suggests that the National Park Service increase spacing between tent cabins. Retrofitting lodging units to accommodate disabled persons is yet another design recommendation offered by a few individuals.

129. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should emphasize lodging accommodations in Yosemite Valley.

"I see a trend toward eliminating visitation, not only at Yosemite, but at other National Parks, as well. The goal of this disturbing trend seems to be to eliminating almost all visitation except by those who are willing/able to backpack and camp by removing rental cabins from the Lodge, Camp Curry, Housekeeping, etc. Some of us cannot camp, and can only enjoy the Yosemite experience if we can stay in a cabin or motel room. Face it, Yosemite is not a day trip because of the distance one must travel to access the valley floor from outside the Park. Housing must be provided for an overnight stay if one is to truly enjoy what the valley has to offer." (Individual, Canyon Country, CA - #927)

"Reducing the number of overnight accommodations of any kind. The wrong thing to do. Why? It already often takes one year+ lead time for reservations in and around the park. Fewer places to stay means fewer visitors and even longer lead times." (Individual, No Address - #7980)

"Reducing guest accommodations in Yosemite Valley has the predictable effect of increasing guest accommodations in the outlying communities. This forces the Park guest to spend more of their time commuting in and out of the Park. These commutes are very stressful for the guest and fill our roads with extra traffic that causes pollution and more dangerous situations on your roads. The emphasis on motels on the outside of the park brings the predictable sin city effect around the periphery of the park. The recent murders in Yosemite should be a warning as to the consequences of this emphasis." (Individual, Coulterville, CA - #3724)

"I object to any proposal to substantially reduce lodging for overnight guests at Yosemite. It is much easier to stay inside the Park and not commute 3 hrs daily, especially after a 3000-mile flight and a 6-hour drive up from Los Angeles." (Individual, Marlboro, MA - #5523)

INCREASE LODGING ACCOMODATIONS

"More people should be able to find accommodations in the Valley, and without their cars, the impact of additional overnight visitors would be acceptable. Many more accommodations should be constructed. There are good sites for these which have minimal impacts. The Taft Toe area would accommodate a hotel for instance. An extreme example of the result this would create is Zermatt, Switzerland. There, a huge number of visitors, with out their vehicles, is tolerable. A lesser number of hotel accommodations than Zermatt although more than is presently in Yosemite, should produce a good visitor experience without undue pressure on the environment." (Individual, Chico, CA - #537)

RESTORE LODGING ACCOMODATIONS TO PRE-FLOOD NUMBERS

"Lodging should be restored to preflood numbers allowing for more lower income families to enjoy the park. The draft plans do not allow adequate accommodations for lower income families." (Non-NPS Yosemite National Park Employee, Yosemite National Park, CA - #6242)

"Just a few of the many issues that have raised concern about the Valley Plan: Restore lodging to pre-flood levels." (Individual, Rancho Palos Verde, CA - #7919)

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 were further refined in the 1992 Concession Services Plan. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS 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.

Based on the diversity of public comments received on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the Preferred Alternative in the final plan would provide for overnight experiences that allow more direct access to and connection with park resources, thereby enhancing each visitor’s overall park experience. While the Preferred Alternative in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposed a total of 1,446 campsites and lodging units, the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes 1,461 campsites and units, with an emphasis on lodging accommodations that are economical and provide a unique resource-related experience.

622. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should increase the number of lodging units in Curry Village.

"I oppose the reduction in the sites of Camp Curry. I am in favor of adding 2 more sites of 150 to 250 each. At a $25.00 per night price with a maximum of 6 nights stay." (Individual, Sacramento, CA - #5327)

Response: Under the revised Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the National Park Service would rehabilitate existing facilities and add some new facilities to Curry Village. The National Park Service would strive to retain the historic character of the Camp Curry Historic District (which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places and is the most intact historic tent camp in the National Park Service), and continue this unique historical lodging experience. The National Park Service would accomplish this by retaining 174 tent cabins (a major character-defining feature of the district); retaining and rehabilitating the 80 existing cabins without bath; rehabilitating the existing historic wood bungalows; rehabilitating the historic residential units and adaptively reusing them as lodging units; and rehabilitating the historic commercial facilities. New cabin units with bath would be constructed in the historic district to provide additional lodging opportunities.
(Also see response to concern # 21.)

213. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should not establish new lodging accommodations in Yosemite Valley.

"I am against the building of motels on the premises because there has been an increase of motels outside of the park and feel there is no need to build more inside." (Individual, No Address - #30185)

"Because lodging for visitors outside the park has expanded dramatically in recent years, there is no need to build costly accommodations within the Valley. Since the flood, the Park Service has removed 40% of Valley camping sites, and is not proposing to restore them. Instead it proposes to remove the low cost, low impact tent cabins at Curry and build costly motel rooms at the Lodge. The imprint of Yosemite Lodge should be reduced over time, not expanded." (Individual, Santa Clara, CA - #2299)

Response: Significant public comments were made supporting economically priced accommodations in the Valley and at the same time expressed concerns about developing additional luxury motel units. In response, the Preferred Alternative has been modified from the draft so that new lodging units at Yosemite Lodge would be smaller-scale economy units.
(Also see response to concerns # 21, # 83, and #1065.)

696. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should limit the availability of standard lodging accommodations in Yosemite Valley to physically challenged visitors.

"Standard motel rooms should not exist in the Valley except for those physically unable to use more rustic facilities, as that is an extraneous attraction." (Individual, No Address - #7311)

Response: All new facilities resulting from the implementation of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would be accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Yosemite Valley Plan would provide a diversity of facilities and experiences available to all visitors. In response to public comments, new overnight visitor accommodations proposed in the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would provide unique experiences more closely associated with the Valley’s environment.

382. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should include a provision for adequate lodging accommodations in Yosemite Valley for educational groups.

"None of the proposed alternatives address the importance of providing accommodations for environmental study programs, as conducted by The Yosemite Institute. Environmental study programs provide invaluable practical scientific and environmental training for middle school children. Student facilities in natural areas, as important and influential as Yosemite Valley, will become increasingly vital to our society as open space dwindles. What better purpose can accommodations within Yosemite Valley provide than opportunities for future generations to better understand our environment and heritage? Student housing in Yosemite Valley is essential to support massive growth of student travel (predicted by leading tourism trend analysis)." (Business, Yosemite National Park, CA - #3962)

"As a teacher, I know the best way to get to a student and have them understand what’s going on in this world is to get them on an emotional level. So I am all for the Yosemite Institute. I am all for preservation of the Park, and I am concerned about what happens to the Yosemite Institute participant if they are housed outside the Park. Their time is quite limited in the Park if they are having to be bused into the Park. To see wildlife at night and see the activity level has made a profound effect on me as to my understanding of what’s going on with the processes of the ecosystem, and what happens with predator and prey. The Yosemite Institute has been [an] instrument in giving us opportunities for evening night hikes to see what is going on in the Park, and that will be taken away if we are housed outside the Park. I would really like to work with the Park and Yosemite Institute to be able to keep those kids in the park and in the Valley, so they can have a total experience, and so they can have a clear understanding as to the processes that occur in the Park." (Public Hearing, La Canada, CA - #20354)

ALLOCATE PORTIONS OF CURRY VILLAGE FOR STUDENT ACCOMODATIONS

"The Plan should consider allocating 150 of Curry Village’s proposed 420 rooms to campus-styled dormitories. These dormitory buildings ideally would have central hallways for security, communal male and female bath/shower rooms for lower cost, and individual dormitory-styled rooms with four single or bunk beds. Additionally, one teacher/chaperone room (accommodating two adults) for every five student dormitory rooms accommodating 20 kids) should be located on each floor. Combination classroom/lounges, as are provided at Asilomar, would be useful for winter classroom sessions and should be considered on each floor." (Business, Yosemite National Park, CA - #3962)

RETAIN CURRY VILLAGE ACCOMODATIONS

"The way I understand it, Curry Village would be mostly removed and the YI will be transferred to Crane Flat. The children attending YI would be bussed into and out of the valley daily. This alone, would devastate the program from a time standpoint. The YI counselors have a schedule that allows for very little ‘down time’ if any at all. Where would the time spent on the bus, both directions, come from? The only possible answer could be ‘from the YI program.’ While I attended YI with a class of 3rd graders, we took a night nature walk in the valley that my daughter and I will never forget. It is one thing to view nature with your normal senses during daylight, but a whole different experience in the dark. The impact nature and the YI had on the children and adults that evening was incredible. This would be lost if the YI program is moved to another location." (Civic Organization, Citrus Heights, CA - #1358)

"The tent cabins in Curry Village have served as ‘base’ for the students while learning about Yosemite’s origin, history, environment, and, ironically, preservation. To wake up on the Valley floor was one of the highlights of my daughter’s week-long visit. Eliminating such a large number of these cabins will lead to the demise of the program as it exists today. This loss would be tragic. Alternative housing outside the Park, or even on the perimeter of the park, is neither financially feasible for these students nor environmentally practical. Hundreds of students each day will still need access to the Valley floor, requiring buses or other vehicles to transport them to and fro. This reality adds to traffic congestion and pollution." (Individual, Carmichael, CA - #9101)

"Do not remove the cabins without the baths and replace them with cabins with baths, which will greatly increase cost for YI and keep kids from being able to attend." (Individual, Rancho Cucamonga, CA - #1217)

Response: In response to public comment, the numbers and types of lodging available in Yosemite Valley in the Preferred Alternative have been changed between the Draft and Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS to provide a greater number of economical overnight accommodations. This would help to meet the needs of environmental education groups.
(Also see response to concern #83).

731. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should improve the lodging reservation system for Yosemite Valley.

"My wife and I went to Yosemite last week and tried to get a reservation for an overnight. There was nothing available in the valley or Tuolumne Meadows. As we stood at the registration desk hoping for a cancellation, we counted six busses full of Japanese, Germans and many others who had reservations. My wife was told one year ago to call reservations one year & one day ahead. When she called–they were already full–nothing available. We live in Merced and we pay all the taxes due whether local, state, or Federal. Why can these people from ten thousand miles get reservations and my family can’t?" (Individual, Merced, CA - #5522)

ESTABLISH A FIRST COME FIRST-SERVED SYSTEM WITH a 30-DAY LIMIT

"Establish a new Reservations Policy for lodging at any time or for any other activity at Yosemite National Park as a First-Come-First-Served system, with not more than 30-days advance reservation, to include recreational vehicle (RV) reservations." (Conservation Organization, Camarillo, CA - #2627)

LIMIT RESERVATIONS BY COMMERCIAL TOUR OPERATORS AND TRAVEL AGENTS

"We currently have a very difficult time making reservations for the days we want to go to the park. We usually go in late September and have to speed dial 366 days in advance sometimes for and hour or two and we don’t always get accommodations. With more people possibly wanting to stay in the valley it may become nearly impossible to get reservations even with planning a year ahead of time. We suggest that the blocks of rooms sold to tour operators be limited to allow family groups a chance to get in. We also recommend that a waiting list be instituted for those that call in 366 days in advance because these people have really tried to work with the system." (Individual, Countryside, IL - #3680)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. It is acknowledged that the demand for lodging accommodations inside Yosemite National Park far exceeds the available supply, which results in frustrations for many people wishing to stay in the park. Tours account for less than 20% of the total rooms rented. The National Park Service would continue to work with the concessioners to establish a fair and equitable system to allocate this popular and unique experience.

441. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the removal of lodging from geological hazard areas in Yosemite Valley.

"I agree the Merced River needs to be restored and the lodging located away from Geologic Hazards because it saves lives and reduces injuries. The geologic hazards are unpredictable like an earthquake that can happen at any time." (Individual, San Jose, CA - #3695)

Response: Geologic hazards guidelines are considered within this plan. The guidelines allow for retention of lodging within rockfall areas but prohibit the construction of new facilities within those areas, unless no practicable alternative exists and all safety and hazard probability factors have been considered.

342. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should include basic zoning regulations for visitor facilities.

"The thousands of pages of the plan fail to give such basic zoning factors such a height, density, floor-area-ration and footprint for the various use areas. In one place, the document dismisses such factors as site and height of proposed buildings as being ‘design details’ to be considered later. The documents are also extremely vague about allowable uses, giving only the most general labels to some areas which cry out for further delineation, as noted in my previous letter. Such things are rock-bottom basic factors in zoning. Failing to disclose them makes a sham out of the pretense of having public hearing to discuss the plans. Valid public hearings cannot occur when the most basic and normal information is absent. Lest anyone think that lack of space was the cause of this egregious level of non-information, I brought a modest sized manila envelope containing the entire zoning regulations of the city of Ashland, Oregon. They are less than 40 pages long. I compared this with the huge mass of the proposed plan. Clearly an extra 40 pages would not have increased its bulk by much." (Individual, Menlo Park, CA - #3564)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS is a conceptual plan. Development and other specific areas, also called "bubbles," were identified in the document at a gross level in order to analyze environmental impacts associated with the proposed projects. The next step for these "bubbles" is to prepare comprehensive site design plans. These design plans would contain traffic circulation linkages, building locations and footprints, and design specifications and capacities of facilities including height and design parameters. The National Park Service has made a commitment to share these plans with the public in order to develop the best design solutions possible (see Vol. II, Appendix M, Compliance insert, for more information). The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS also commits to developing land-use zoning to complement the land-use zoning developed for the Merced River Plan/FEIS. (Also see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Actions Common to All Action Alternatives, and Vol. II, Appendix B, Merced Wild and Scenic River.)

163. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require specific features in the design of lodging units.

HEIGHT OF LODGING UNITS

"The YVP calls for three-story lodgings at Yosemite Lodge (page 2-41) and three-story dormitories at Curry Village (page 2-52). These new structures should not be so tall that they would clear the trees and be visible from Valley rim overlooks such as Yosemite Point and Glacier Point." (Individual, Oberlin, OH - #580)

SPACING OF TENT CABINS

"The spacing of tent cabins is a disgrace by any standard. By and large, the spacing between tent cabins is just enough to allow the carpenters minimum workspace to erect the units each spring, and is usually about 24 inches which is ridiculous. This closeness results in embarrassing and senseless situations which are a constant insult to lodgers. . . Tent cabins should be spaced out more to allow for more privacy between units." (Individual, American Canyon, CA - #907)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS both proposes actions and is a conceptual plan. Many actions would require specific site designs. These design plans would contain circulation linkages; building locations and footprint; design specifications; and capacity of facilities including height, spacing (tent cabins), and design parameters. New developments would maintain a park-like character and be sensitive to the fact that Yosemite Valley is a cultural landscape eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Although the National Park Service is not required to put site design plans out for public involvement, the National Park Service has made a commitment to share these plans with the public to develop the best design solutions possible.

442. Public Concern: The National Park Service should retrofit existing hotels to accommodate the needs of people with disabilities.

ﾒRetrofit existing hotel facilities with the necessary aids for handicapped persons–not simply wider doors, but grab bars by toilets, in showers, for example. Don’t simply build these into new construction which we do not want anyway." (Individual, Palo Alto, CA - #3522)

Response: As addressed in Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives 2 — 5, Access for Visitors with Disabilities, the National Park Service would develop an accessibility plan to provide the best feasible access for visitors with disabilities.

4.12.3.b ~ Rustic Lodging Accommodations

Rustic lodging accommodations are of significant interest to many who commented on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Some individuals make general comments on the amount and location of rustic lodging, while others address management of specific sites.

Most of those people addressing rustic lodging units feel that the National Park Service proposes excessive reductions in the number of such accommodations. Respondents cite a variety of reasons for opposing these proposed reductions. Capturing a sentiment shared by many individuals, one person states, "The people that stay there are like the people who sit in the last row of the opera, they appreciate it more but are limited financially to getting better accommodations." Rustic units are more affordable than other lodging options and more convenient than camping, especially for families and the elderly, they assert. Other respondents believe rustic facilities provide a more natural and appropriate experience than hard-sided units, while some people claim that rustic units have less impact on park resources than other facilities. In addition to those who advocate for the retention of rustic units, one detractor of the draft plan’s reduction in rustic accommodations recommends replacing the Ahwahnee Lodge with tent cabins. Focusing more on mitigating the impacts of the proposed reductions, another critic of the draft plan believes the National Park Service should encourage the development of rustic facilities outside Yosemite National Park.

The Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposals for Housekeeping Camp elicit comments from many people. Expressing similar sentiments as those discussed above, many people specifically oppose reductions in the number of units at Housekeeping Camp. "Housekeeping allows for families to camp without having to purchase all of the camping necessities. Furthermore, it allows for a comfortable environment for aging adults who have difficulties and for young children and their parents," one Housekeeping camp proponent claims. Another individual muses, "We wonder about adding expensive units at the lodge while drastically reducing lower-priced accommodations at Housekeeping Camp. Frankly, you experience the park more naturally in those simpler accommodations." A few advocates of Housekeeping Camp believe the National Park Service should retain the number of units proposed under Alternative Five because extra rustic facilities in the Merced River floodplain are more important than impacts to a highly valued resource. Some of these people also feel that Housekeeping Camp units would not be economically viable for the concessioner at the numbers proposed in Alternative Two.

In contrast to those supporting the retention of Housekeeping accommodations located in the floodplain, a few respondents suggest the National Park Service relocate these units. Other individuals opposing reduction in units at Housekeeping Camp focus on management of specific Housekeeping facilities. They call for the removal or reduction of fire pits at Housekeeping Camp to help remedy the smoke problem in the Valley.

Not all of those who comment on Housekeeping Camp champion the idea of maintaining this area as it currently exists. "Regardless of its value as a place for communal and family camping in Yosemite Valley, Housekeeping Camp should not be retained. It should be removed entirely, because it is an eyesore and an affront to the river," one person reasons. Whether they call for complete elimination of Housekeeping Camp or only a reduction in numbers, several people exhort the National Park Service to implement lodging plans that protect the Merced River.

Curry Village facilities, like Housekeeping Camp, are the emphasis of many comments on rustic accommodations. Many people oppose Yosemite Valley Plan proposals for a reduced number of rustic lodging accommodations at Curry Village. Reasons cited by such individuals are similar to those expressed for Housekeeping Camp, especially the contention that such rustic units provide affordable options for low-income visitors. Suggesting a mitigation measure for the removal of some Curry Village units in rock-fall zones, a few respondents believe the National Park Service should consider relocating rather than eliminating such units.

The design of Curry Village’s rustic facilities is the topic of a few comments. Some respondents believe the density of Curry Village tent cabins is detrimental to visitor experience. The National Park Service should, they contend, require a reduction in the density of Curry Village tent cabins. Other respondents commenting on design considerations argue that housing both student groups and vacationing families in Curry Village tent cabins detracts from the latter visitors’ experience. Given the excessive noise generated by these student groups, they recommend the construction of dormitory facilities separate from the tent cabins.

71. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain rustic lodging units in Yosemite Valley.

"For God’s sake do not do away with the tents. The people that stay there are like the people who sit in the last row of the opera, they appreciate it more but are limited financially to getting better accommodations." (Individual, San Francisco, CA - #312)

"I am generally pleased with the plan to improve Yosemite. However, I would like to see the tent cabins remain. Visiting a National Park is not just about seeing what it looks like. People also need the opportunity to experience what it is like to live there, if only for a short time . . . Generic motel rooms do not give a sense of place." (Individual, No Address - #322)

"Curry Village/Housekeeping Tents Removal: Many people enjoy this type of accommodation. Families who do not have camping equipment and cannot afford Curry or Lodge cabins or rooms can enjoy these facilities at a reasonable price." (Individual, Roseville, CA - #341)

REPLACE AHWAHNEE LODGE WITH TENT CABINS

"Tear down the Ahwahnee, and convert the property and grounds to tent cabins. Assuming a generous 80% occupancy, the Ahwahnee’s 123 rooms will accommodate, maybe, 73,000 people a year. Add in the proposed 120 new motel rooms which will accommodate another 72,000 or so people a year and that totals about 145,000 visitor nights. Now, let’s trade all of those visitor nights for, say, 150 tent cabins on the same property and assuming a likely occupancy by a family of 4 we have eliminated the very unnatural presence of the Ahwahnee and a two story motel, preserved the river flood plain [sic] once occupied by the tent cabins and provided access to the same number of people but in more environmentally esthetic, John Muir type of accommodations." (Individual, Roseville, CA - #7336)

Response: In response to public comments about retaining rustic lodging that provides quality park experiences, are economically priced, and offer unique overnight experiences in Yosemite Valley, the number of rustic lodging units has been increased in the Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. More tent cabins have been retained as part of the Curry Village Historic District, a cultural highly valued resource. Housekeeping Camp units have been retained in the Preferred Alternative to the extent possible given the implementation of the River Protection Overlay established by the Merced River Plan/FEIS. Locating Housekeeping units in other areas and retaining more tent cabins was considered. But given constraints on developable land, the corresponding reductions in other opportunities that would have to take place, and the trade-off between seasonal and year-round use for each lodging type, the number of various lodging types found in the Preferred Alternative are felt to provide an appropriate overall mix of overnight experiences.

698. Public Concern: The National Park Service should encourage the development of rustic lodging units outside Yosemite National Park.

"The NPS should work strenuously to foster the construction of both tent cabins and housekeeping units immediately outside of the park, at comparable rental rates, to replace all if not more [?] of the units it proposes to eliminate within the park. This will ensure that these two types of accommodations will still be available to visitors, especially those of more modest economic means or levels of physical health." (Individual, Carmichael, CA - #5558)

Response: The development of rustic lodging on private lands outside of Yosemite National Park is outside the scope of this planning effort. Since the 1980 General Management Plan was adopted, it has been the policy of Yosemite National Park to reduce lodging from pre-General Management Plan levels within the park. The General Management Plan also encouraged the development of overnight accommodations in gateway communities and other lands outside the park. However, the National Park Service has no means to ensure that rustic lodging options would be provided outside the park’s boundary.

339. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain existing Housekeeping Camp units.

"I am writing to urge that you keep Alternative #1, retaining Housekeeping, as it is and retaining all of the campsites. Housekeeping is unique, allows middle-class families to enjoy the camping experience without having to purchase expensive camping equipment or stay in the lodge. There is nothing like it anywhere else, and probably nowhere else in the country." (Individual, Venice, CA - #2357)

"The Housekeeping units should not be removed. They provide a comfortable alternative to car camping and an affordable alternative to more the more expensive lodging available. If your plan to eliminate all but 52 units takes effect, those who cannot afford to pay the rates charged and also eat out every day will not be able to enjoy the Yosemite experience." (Individual, San Diego, CA - #3493)

"This letter is in reference to your plans to remove 212 housekeeping units. It would be unfortunate if my family and other families were prevented from the Yosemite experience because lodging was not available. Housekeeping allows for families to camp without having to purchase all of the camping necessities. Furthermore, it allows for a comfortable environment for aging adults who have difficulties and for young children and their parents. Please consider what the action of removing these units will do to not only current families that enjoy the Park but also other individuals that may have the opportunity to enjoy Yosemite if these units are removed." (Individual, San Ramon, CA - #4413)

"Over the last 40 years, our family has used the Housekeeping units many times and have loved it. We feel strongly that everyone should have a chance to visit Yosemite and enjoy the real experience by living outdoors in the Housekeeping Units. We wonder about adding expensive units at the lodge while drastically reducing lower-priced accommodations at the Housekeeping Units. Frankly, you experience the park more naturally in those simpler accommodations such as in those units." (Individual, No Address - #7104)

RETAIN NUMBER OF UNITS PROPOSED IN ALTERNATIVE FIVE

"We favor the 162 unit approach of Alt 5. Why? The lack of rustic accommodations (after the Curry Village changes) over-rules the small loss of HVR land. This is still 102 units less than previous years, a reduction we can support." (Individual, Oakhurst, CA - #3379)

"I fully support your river overlay plan with the 150’ setup in the Housekeeping area. Because the Housekeeping units are so popular and are so well suited for families and friends camping together, I suggest that alternative 5 which retains 162 units instead of only 52 be recommended. This suggestion would trade a very few acres of the ‘highly valued resource’ for 110 extra Housekeeping units which more that triples the number of units. Also, at only 52 units, I question whether or not the Housekeeping units would remain economically viable for the concessionaire. This seems to me to be an excellent trade-off. I would point out that camping and Housekeeping units require fewer employees per visitor that other lodging since we provide most of our own food and don’t require daily unit cleaning." (Individual. Palo Alto, CA - #3143)

Response: Based on public comment regarding the importance of Housekeeping Camp as a unique experience and economical lodging option, the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS has been modified to maintain the existing units located outside the River Protection Overlay as prescribed in the Merced River Plan/FEIS. Under the Preferred Alternative, 100 units would remain at Housekeeping Camp, an increase of 48 units from that proposed by the Preferred Alternative in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.
(Also see response to concern #21 and #113.)

73. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should relocate rather than remove the Housekeeping Camp units eliminated for protection of the Merced River.

"Let me start by saying that I see the need for relocating the 212 individual housekeeping units from the River Protection Overlay as specified in the ‘preferred’ Draft Yosemite Valley Plan. I say relocate rather than remove because these 212 units are essential if the balance of accommodations in Yosemite National Park is to be maintained. In the criteria that provided guidance for ‘accomplishing the broad goals of the 1980 General Management Plan,’ your draft states that the visitor should be provided with’. . . a variety of camping and lodging experiences.’ . . . With an ice chest, bedding and some appropriate clothes, a family can affordably gain the experiences that the best of camping has to offer, without the baggage and without a heavy toll on the natural resources of the Park." (Individual, Visalia, CA - #457)

"I suggest that if housekeeping tent sites must be removed for restoration of the floodplain, that they be replaced be [sic] an equal number of bare campsites, or other affordable accommodations." (Individual, Forest Hill, CA - #4962)

Response: The National Park Service acknowledges that Housekeeping Camp provides economically priced accommodations and a unique overnight experience in Yosemite Valley. In response to public comment, the number of Housekeeping Camp units proposed in the Preferred Alternative has been increased from the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Given the implementation of the River Protection Overlay established by the Merced River Plan/FEIS, the total number of units would be 100. Locating Housekeeping units in other areas of the Valley was considered. But given constraints on developable land and corresponding reductions in other facilities that would have to take place, the numbers of overnight accommodations (camping and lodging) proposed in the Preferred Alternative is felt to be an appropriate mix of overnight experiences.
(Also see response to concern # 21.)

693. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require fire pits be eliminated from Housekeeping Camp .

"I heard that a representative of the Sierra Club said the biggest problem with the Housekeeping facility was the fire pits. I have always been opposed to them because they create so much smoke that lingers in the trees and the valley. But do not take out sites to reduce fire pits. Leave the sites and take out all the fire pits" (Individual, Los Alamitos, CA - #5574)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The ability to have a camp-like experience without requiring extensive camping gear is part of the unique character of Housekeeping Camp. The management of campfires, including those at Housekeeping Camp, is an operational issue. Campfires are already regulated in Yosemite Valley.

72. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should reduce the number of Housekeeping Camp lodging units.

"It is recognized that the River Protection Overlay is necessary, and that it . . . provides the opportunity to remove many of the House Keeping units. We would agree with this facility being reduced to the absolute minimum." (Individual, San Jose, CA - #139)

"Regardless of its value as a place for communal and family camping in Yosemite Valley, Housekeeping Camp should not be retained. It should be removed entirely, because it is an eyesore and affront to the river. Why stop at removing all but 52 sites? They all should be removed. The remaining 52 sites would only reinforce the notion that they are provided as private camping for the rich, as that’s who will make sure they do what’s necessary to get the few remaining prime spots a year and a day in advance." (Individual, CA - #7215)

Response: In response to public comment regarding this economically priced accommodation that provides a unique overnight experience in Yosemite Valley, the number of Housekeeping Camp units proposed in the Preferred Alternative has been increased. Given the implementation of the River Protection Overlay established by the Merced River Plan/FEIS, the total number of units would be 100. With the constraint of the River Protection Overlay, however, the number of units would remain less than at present.
(Also see response to concerns # 21 and # 73.)

732. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain existing rustic lodging units at Curry Village.

"It is less clear why the Park Service wishes to remove 277 rustic tent cabins at Curry Village and replace them with eighty-one new and more expensive ‘economy’ units. The Curry Village tent cabins are popular with overnight Park guests, despite the fact that they lack private bathrooms, and they offer the cheapest form of lodging within Yosemite. We therefore support the retention of ninety additional rustic units at Curry Village, even at the expense of the proposed new ‘economy’ units, to better east the public’s transition to this plan and to ensure a sufficient range of accommodation choices available to overnight Park visitors." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #4594)

RELOCATE CURRY VILLAGE TENT CABINS PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL

"If the tent-cabins are being removed from the Curry area for geological safety issues, could they not be relocated somewhere else?" (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #4594)

Response: In response to public comments about retaining tent cabins that are part of the Curry Village Historic District (a cultural highly valued resource), that provide quality park experiences, are economically priced, and provide unique overnight experiences in Yosemite Valley, the number of tent cabins at Curry Village has been increased in the Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

(Also see response to concern # 21.)

119. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require a reduction in the number of Curry Village tent cabins.

"Reduce the tents at Curry Village by at least 1/2. There are way too many tents [and] . . . too many people." (Individual, Westlake Village, CA - #481)

"Follow through on the plan to cut down on the number of tents in Curry village. It sounds like the only way to save the park." (Individual, No Address - #4954)

Response: The Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Visitor Services–Lodging) calls for a reduction in the number of Curry Village tent cabins from 420 to 174. In response to public comments advocating the retention of more of this economical lodging type, the Preferred Alternative was revised to remove 24 fewer of these cabins. This would further help maintain the integrity of the Curry Village Historic District and enhance the visitor experience provided by this type of lodging. These actions comply with the 1992 Concession Services Plan, which proposed similar reductions, citing rockfall hazards and crowding as the two most pressing issues at Curry Village.

(Also see response to concern #626 and #732.)

626. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the reduction in density of Curry Village tent cabins.

"As for the tent cabins at Camp Curry, most of its customers stay there because that’s all they could find, not because of its low price. They stay there because they couldn’t find a room with private bath elsewhere in Yosemite Valley. . . They dislike the shared baths (who wants to use a sink that someone else has just shaved in, or walk barefoot on muddied floors?) They dislike the noisy tent cabins that are set side by side in rows. . . People on vacation don’t want confrontations and Camp Curry (as it is laid out today and as how society has changed) is a platform for confrontations. What should be done to improve the tent cabin experience and reduce confrontations would be to reduce their density by two-thirds . . . Reducing the density of tent cabins and moving them farther away from each other would improve the experience." (Individual, No Address - #7215)

Response: Curry Village is included in the National Register of Historic Places, and as such, will be managed to preserve and rehabilitate its historic character. Since it is the most intact historic tent camp in the National Park Service, it is considered a highly valued resource and will be managed for its unique and historic visitor experience. Part of this historic character is the density and configuration of the tent cabins, which would be retained. However, they would be reduced in number to 174 in the Preferred Alternative.
(Also see response to concern #119 and #732.)

628. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require that dormitory-style accommodations for educational groups be separate from standard tent cabins at Curry Village.

"As for the tent cabins at Camp Curry, most of its customers stay there because that’s all they could find, not because of its low price. . . They did like the noisy and disruptive youth groups who keep them awake at night . . . People on vacation don’t want confrontations and Camp Curry (as it is laid out today and as how society has changed) is a platform for confrontations. What should be done to improve the tent cabin experience and reduce confrontations would be to . . . place student and youth groups in separate dormitory-styled accommodations. . . Separating youth groups from other visitors (by placing them in dormitory buildings designed for student stays) would improve their visits and lessen their conflicts." (Individual, No Address - #7215)

Response: The constraints on developable land in Yosemite Valley are such that construction of dormitory style accommodations for educational groups to be used for only part of the year cannot be achieved without prohibiting other types of lodging accommodations that would be used throughout the year. Although potential conflicts may exist at Curry Village, operational responses to address such conflicts are beyond the scope of this planning effort.

4.12.3.c ~ Hard-sided Lodging Accommodations

The types of hard-sided accommodations available in Yosemite Valley are central to the comments of several people addressing lodging facilities. Some of these respondents recommend that the National Park Service establish lodging accommodations with shared facilities, such as hostel-style units. Such shared facilities would be more affordable and have a smaller developed footprint than other types of hard-sided units, these hostel proponents contend. Offering a site-specific suggestion, one organization recommends the retention of the Ahwahnee Row houses as "hostel-style facilities or other inexpensive lodging." Focusing on a different type of hard-sided lodging, other individuals ask that the National Park Service maintain some cabin lodging in Yosemite Valley, particularly at Curry Village. Some of these people cite use by the Yosemite Institute as a good reason for maintaining Curry Village cabins, while others feel that these rustic cabins make for a unique and valuable experience.

The Curry Village tent cabins are the subject of other comments regarding hard-sided lodging accommodations. Some of the Curry Village cabins "need to be remodeled or replaced," one person contends. Proposing a somewhat different management suggestion, another individual suggests converting some of the Curry Village tent cabins to cabins without baths.

Another site respondents frequently address is Yosemite Lodge. Most of these people oppose National Park Service plans for the Yosemite Lodge area. Capturing a common sentiment, one organization states, "At this time we oppose the construction of any and all new units at the Lodge. Although the retention of existing units is perhaps justifiable, the building of 141 new units is unacceptable . . . The scale of this new construction is highly inconsistent with the overarching goal of removing development out of the Valley. . . The admirable goals of both the GMP and the current draft YVP–reclaiming priceless natural beauty, allowing natural processes to prevail, and reducing traffic and crowding–can only be fully accomplished by relocating all nonessential permanent functions and structures outside the Valley." The new proposed units at Yosemite Lodge are unnecessary given the availability of lodging outside Yosemite National Park, this group also contends.

Addressing other Yosemite Lodge development concerns, some respondents feel that the proposed development excessively increases the developed footprint of the lodge complex. In particular, the four-plex cabins proposed for the lodge inordinately increase development, one of these individuals claims. Offering more specific recommendations on limiting lodge development, some people suggest that the National Park Service not replace any lodging units damaged by the 1997 floods. Another person believes lodge expansion near Camp 4 (Sunnyside Camp) should not occur because "the unique character of Camp 4 would be ruined by the proximity of the suggested expansion of the lodge." Similarly, one respondent asserts, "Without a doubt, the lodge complex, right there in the center of the Valley in front of Yosemite Falls, is the Valley’s major eyesore." Submitting the most drastic proposal, this individual suggests that the National Park Service remove Yosemite Lodge from the Valley. Still another conservation organization opposed to expansion of lodge facilities insinuates that proposals for lodge development fail to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. This group suggests the National Park Service consider the impacts of building fewer units at Yosemite Lodge than contained in any of the Plan alternatives.

In contrast to those who are against proposed additions to Yosemite Lodge facilities, a few respondents support the establishment of additional units at the lodge. "I recommend that more lodging be added to the Yosemite Lodge so that the amount of lodging in the Valley stays closer to the current amount," one of these people states. Addressing specific lodge facilities, other advocates of increased accommodations suggest that lodge cabins be restored. In a more modest proposal, another respondent requests that the lodge be maintained in its current condition.

Affordability of accommodations is critical for many people who comment on Yosemite Lodge management proposals. Most of these respondents recommend an increase in the number of economy units at the lodge. "The mix of rooms at the lodge should be adjusted to reduce mid-range accommodations and increase the number of economy-styled motel rooms with private baths," one such person asserts. Another individual also recommends increasing the number of economy rooms but suggests that these units be rooms without private baths. This person contends that private baths not only "increase the cost of the lodging" but also "increase the footprint" of lodging facilities.

In addition to those who comment on Curry Village and Yosemite Lodge accommodations, many respondents specifically address management of The Ahwahnee. These people offer a significant range of management alternatives for The Ahwahnee. Some respondents argue that the Ahwahnee enables those who are not "young and vigorous" to better enjoy their Yosemite visits. They recommend the retention of the hotel in its current condition. Conversely, others believe this structure should be removed from the Valley. "The structure does not promote the purpose of a resource-based visitor experience. The Ahwahnee customer wants the experience of staying in a 5-diamond hotel with world-class dining, beautiful Sierra scenery and first-rate service. The Ahwahnee Hotel could be moved, reconstructed, or replicated on any of a hundred sites in the Sierra with no loss to its clientele." This person also cites the hotel’s location in a highly valued resource area, as justification for its removal. As with other accommodations, affordability is also a concern of some respondents commenting on The Ahwahnee. One such person suggests that all new units at the lodge be small, affordable rooms.

One discrete recommendation regarding the location of hard-sided accommodations completes this section. A few people suggest that the National Park Service encourage the development of hard-sided lodging accommodations outside the Yosemite National Park instead of in Yosemite Valley.

667. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should establish lodging accommodations with shared facilities in Yosemite Valley.

"Instead of building more hotel/motel units at Yosemite Lodge, build hotel style accommodations--shared units w/ same kitchen, shared bath, large rooms w/ bunk bed--there are ample hotel/motel accommodations in El Portal & Oakhurst." (Individual, No Address - #5304)

Response: Based on public comments received, the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS has been revised to propose that no additional motel or hotel structures be built in Yosemite Valley. All replacement lodging rooms would be built using smaller structures that provide closer relationships between the lodging room and the natural environment, thereby providing a more characteristic park experience. Accommodations with shared baths and common areas currently exist at Curry Village and Housekeeping Camp although no common kitchens exist.
(Also see response to concern # 733.)

733. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should establish hostel-style accommodations in Yosemite Valley.

"Consider dorm-style shared-bath ‘hostels’ as a higher density, budget accommodation option. In addition to being more affordable, this type of structure would occupy a smaller footprint than tent cabins, housekeeping units, or fancy Lodge ‘cottages.’ More acreage would be opened up for restoration. Yosemite Institute students could occupy these units during the school year, and they would revert to employee housing or visitor hostels during the summer." (Individual, El Portal, CA - #9013)

"My second idea is accommodations for economic lodging. If there’s a possibility of hostel-style lodging, which is basically buildings which have dorm rooms, single rooms, rooms for two people, et cetera, that would be able to contain more people in those settings versus like Housekeeping which is more spread out, and it’s harder to monitor impacts of people in those areas." (Public Hearing, San Diego, CA - #20444)

Response: New construction of a large facility that could serve as a hostel was considered during this planning process. However, based on public comments received, the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, has been modified to reflect that no additional large-scale lodging structures, such as motels or hotels, would be built in Yosemite Valley. All replacement lodging rooms would be built using smaller scale structures that provide a closer relationship between the lodging room and the natural environment, thereby providing a more characteristic park experience. Hostels are often located in large structures or complexes, for which an adaptive use is being sought. No vacant facility would be retained in Yosemite Valley that would lend itself to use as a hostel. Given the limitation on developable land, any accommodation of a hostel experience would require a direct tradeoff with other types of experiences.

512. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the retention of the Ahwahnee Row houses.

"Our organizations could support retention of the Ahwahnee row houses if they are used for appropriate purposes, and not maintained simply to provide nicer accommodations for NPS or YCS employees, for example. We would consider using them as hostel-type facilities or other inexpensive lodging to be more appropriate (as well as a means to offset some of the reductions in lodging we have called for)." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #4594)

Response: In the Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS the National Park Service proposes to retain the Ahwahnee Row houses. These would be retained to address critical housing needs. Visitor services for lodging would continue to be accommodated in lodging areas such as Yosemite Lodge, Curry Village, and The Ahwahnee. Housing retained in Yosemite Valley would accommodate the minimum needs for valley services, and not just provide nicer accommodations for employees.

117. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain cabin lodging units in Yosemite Valley.

"Recently I was informed of the new Yosemite Valley Plan (YVP), which amazingly includes removing the cabins in the Valley which I personally stayed in March of 1999. I, frankly, am appalled at this idea. I believe that to do this would be an incredibly unwise decision, especially if one of the goals of the Yosemite Institute is to teach others about nature, and the beauty it holds. [I] implore you: Do not remove the cabins! The goals set out in the 1980 General Management Plan are excellent goals, but they should not be achieved by destroying future generations’ Yosemite experiences. Please, if visitors’ opinions count: leave the cabins in the valley!" (Individual, No Address - #3661)

RETAIN THE CURRY VILLAGE CABINS

"The removal of any of the cabins at Camp Curry would be absolutely horrible. Their charm, the delight of experiencing a stay in ‘cabin in the woods’ is one of the most valued parts of a visit to Yosemite to so many people we know. . . We realize that the number of tent cabins may have to be reduced for many reasons, but please keep the wooden old cabins with a minimum of modernization. Their link with the past will be appreciated more with each future generation. A modern hotel room will never compare for many people. Too often we eliminate these historic elements in the name of practical progress, only to regret their loss in the future." (Individual, Thousand Oaks, CA - #5)

Response: In order to help maintain the integrity of the Curry Village Historic District, a cultural highly valued resource, all existing cabins in Curry Village would be retained in the Preferred Alternative.

624. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should improve the Curry Village cabins.

"Upgrade Curry Village cabins, some need to be remodeled or replaced." (Individual, Minden, NV - #6272)

Response: The 1992 Concession Services Plan recognized that work needed to be done on the existing cabin-with-bath units at Curry Village and called for their rehabilitation. Under the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, new cabin-with-bath units would be constructed and the existing cabins would remain and be rehabilitated.
(Also see response to concern #617.)

617. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require that some Curry Village tent cabins be converted to cabins without baths.

"Curry Village tent cabins: . . . Convert 200 tent cabins to hard sided cabins without bath." (Individual, Lafayette, CA -#4499)

243. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should limit the number of lodging units added to the Yosemite Lodge complex.

"Neither restoration nor natural processes are served by adding 141 new or reconstructed units to Yosemite Lodge, however. As a result, at this time we oppose the construction of any and all new units at the Lodge. Although the retention of existing units is perhaps justifiable, the building of 141 new units is unacceptable for several important reasons. First, the scale of this new construction is highly inconsistent with the overarching goal of removing development out of the Valley. As discussed above, the admirable goals of both the GMP and the current draft YVP–reclaiming priceless natural beauty, allowing natural processes to prevail, and reducing traffic and crowding–can only be fully accomplished by relocating all non-essential permanent functions and structures outside the Valley. Only then can visitors obtain the kind of quiet, natural, and reflective experience the national parks were set aside to provide. Our organizations do not believe the Yosemite Lodge qualifies as such an essential permanent structure. Yosemite Lodge appears to have been made superfluous by ‘mid-scale’ accommodations at El Portal, Mariposa, Oakhurst, and other areas. There are not less than five full-scale motels just outside the Valley (Yosemite View Lodge, Best Western Yosemite Way Station, Comfort Inn Mariposa, Cedar Lodge, and Comfort Inn of Oakhurst), and accommodations are available at no less than eighty-nine other nearby locations. These facilities are easily connected to the Valley by YARTS (or, at worst, satellite parking), thus reducing automobile and air pollution levels in the Valley. They require no NPS or YCS employees to service them, reducing the need to build expensive new employee housing in the Valley or El Portal." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #4594)

"For Yosemite Lodge we favor the 386 units of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 over the 440 units of Alternative 5. Why? The 15 four-plex cabins of Alt. 5 would add significantly to the footprint of Yosemite Lodge and 386 is plenty by any standard. The 2 and 3 story additions are not offensive to us. The same number of units in a single story structure would enlarge the footprint too much." (Individual, Oakhurst, CA - #3379)

DO NOT REPLACE UNITS DAMAGED IN 1997 FLOODS

"Do not rebuild Yosemite Lodge units damaged by the 1997 flood." (Individual, Albany, NY - #1837)

LIMIT EXPANSION TOWARD CAMP 4

"Expanding the lodge up against camp 4 should not even be considered. The unique character of camp 4 would be ruined by the proximity of the suggested expansion of the Lodge." (Individual, Berkeley, CA - #9238)

Response: In response to public comment regarding Yosemite Lodge, the total number of lodging rooms has been reduced from the 386 units proposed in the Preferred Alternative presented in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, to 251 units in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS Preferred Alternative. Yosemite Lodge would not be reconstructed to the extent that existed prior to the 1997 flood; new units would be constructed outside the 100-year floodplain and the River Protection Overlay, as prescribed in the Merced River Plan/FEIS.
(Also see responses to concerns #21, #83, #144, and #1114.)

691. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the removal of Yosemite Lodge.

"I recommend that the entire Lodge complex be torn down and restored to natural conditions -- possibly replaced by a small campground. Without a doubt, the Lodge complex, right there in the center of the Valley in from of Yosemite Falls, is the Valley’s major eyesore." (Individual, San Francisco, CA - #7154)

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 experience remains a challenging issue. Proposals for new lodging units at Yosemite Lodge in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS have been changed in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. The Preferred Alternative would provide for overnight experiences that allow more direct access to and connection with park resources. Lodging units at Yosemite Lodge would contribute to the diversity of lodging types and costs desired for Yosemite Valley.
(Also see response to concern #120.)

471. Public Concern: The National Park Service should analyze the impacts of building fewer Yosemite Lodge units than allowed in the Yosemite Valley Plan.

"We also believe that the subsequent NEPA review document should analyze the impacts of building fewer units at the Lodge than allowed by this draft plan. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has indicated that the NPS must analyze and compare a ‘reasonable number of examples covering the full spectrum of alternatives.’ The CEQ regulations also require the Service to ‘rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives,’ and have stated that this exploration is the ‘heart’ of the NEPA process. We believe that the 1997 flood opened for consideration alternatives not previously available to the NPS, and that the Park Service should seize the opportunity, either now or in a supplemental NEPA process, to initiate an open and honest public discourse regarding the proper size of Yosemite Lodge." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #4594)

Response: Based on public comment and the new River Protection Overlay identified in the Merced River Plan/FEIS, the design and experience of the Yosemite Lodge under the Preferred Alternative has been modified. See Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Alternative 2–Visitor Services–Lodging, for more details on the proposed lodging modifications. Also see Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, Alternative 1, for an analysis of impacts of the No Action Alternative, which would provide fewer units than proposed in the Preferred Alternative.

Note: One response is provided for concerns #459 and #120, and is placed following concern #120.

459. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should establish additional lodging units at Yosemite Lodge.

"I recommend that more lodging be added to the Yosemite Lodge so that the amount of lodging in the Valley stays closer to the current amount rather than the significant reduction proposed under Alternative 2." (Individual, Sacramento, CA - #5586)

RESTORE CABINS in the YOSEMITE LODGE AREA

"Restore Yosemite Lodge cabin area." (Individual, Glendale, CA - #3682)

"The cabins at Yosemite Lodge should be replaced if they can be without going into the flood plain." (Individual, Modesto, CA - #3538)

Response: See response following concern #120 below.

120. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain the Yosemite Lodge in its current condition.

"Yosemite Lodge is not a run-down or decrepit facility needing replacement. It is relatively new, modern, and functional. It is a beautifully designed facility that can provide service and enhance visitors experience for years to come. It should be preserved in its present form." (Individual, Los Angeles, CA - #470)

Response: The number of existing Yosemite Lodge buildings to be retained in the Preferred Alternative has changed from the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. The total number of rooms called for in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS is 251, reduced from the 386 proposed in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. This change has, for the most part, been in response to updated information on the 100-year floodplain and the River Protection Overlay established by the Merced River Plan/FEIS. Other changes are to provide better design of replacement facilities to allow for maximum resource protection and more efficient design of facilities. New units at Yosemite Lodge would be designed to provide a greater connection to park resources than present or previously proposed motel units.

This response also applies to concern #459.
(Also see response to concern # 21.)

144. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should emphasize affordability in new accommodations at Yosemite Lodge.

"I am sure that changes need to be made at the Lodge, but keep accommodations within the price range of the middle class family." (Individual, Lodi, CA -#2318)

"There’s nothing wrong with the idea that there should be more rooms for low-income visitors, but if so, there should not be more Housekeeping Camp units nor more tent cabins (rooms without bath). Instead, the mix of rooms at the Lodge should be adjusted to reduce mid-range accommodations and increase the number of economy-styled motel rooms with private baths (similar to Motel 6 or Econolodge)." (Individual, No Address - #7215)

ESTABLISH ROOMS WITHOUT BATHS IN YOSEMITE LODGE

"The 192 new Yosemite Lodge rooms called for in alternative 2 (page 2-40) should be economy rooms with common baths rather than mid-scale rooms with private baths. I am well aware of the ‘clear guest preference for accommodations with [private] baths’ (page III-84). . . The private baths increase the cost of the lodging. They increase the footprint of the structure. They increase the obtrusive development both directly and through the multiplier effect. There are tens of thousands of lodgings in the United States, but there is only one Yosemite Valley. If private baths are so extraordinarily important to some visitors, they can lodge elsewhere. There is no goal, no principle, no criterion listed in the YVP that demands rooms with private baths." (Individual, Oberlin, OH - #580)

Response: In response to public comments regarding economically priced accommodations that provide a quality park experience, specifically those at Yosemite Lodge, the numbers of economy rooms at Yosemite Lodge have been increased from the Preferred Alternative in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. The number of economy units proposed has increased from 90 in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS to 117 in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.
(Also see response to concerns #21 and #83.)

331. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain The Ahwahnee in its current condition.

"Please don’t do anything to the Ahwahnee. Not all of us are young and vigorous mountain climbers, backpackers, wilderness hikers, bike riders. Some of us have physical disabilities and simply enjoy the beauty of Yosemite from a table at the Ahwahnee or from their outside--in their patio. I think there’s room for all of us." (Public Hearing, Sonora, CA - #20285)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS retains and protects The Ahwahnee, a National Historic Landmark.

218. Public Concern: The National Park Service should remove the Ahwahnee Hotel from the highly valued resource area.

"Vol. 1A, Chapter 1, Direction For This Planning Effort, Criteria, Protection of natural and Cultural Resources: ‘Remove facilities . . . Outside of highly valued resource areas . . . ‘ Vol. 2C, Plate C, shows the Ahwahnee Hotel standing directly within a highly valued resource environment. This structure should be removed. Vol. 1A, Chapter 1, Need for Action: ‘ . . . and at the same to welcome visitors, provide equitably for their park-related needs, and offer a range of resource-based recreational opportunities . . . ‘ A structure the size of the Ahwahnee accommodating such a small number visitors limits, rather than welcomes visitors. The hotel does not contribute to any resource-based recreational experiences, anything associated with such experiences, nor provide for any such experiences equitably. Vol. 1A, Chapter 1, Direction For This Planning Effort, Goals, Reclaim priceless natural beauty: ‘This beauty is made up . . . Meadows . . . ‘ Removing the Ahwahnee, it’s parking areas and roads would allow restoration of this meadow. Vol. 1A, Chapter 2, Table A Summary of Alternatives, Visitor Experience, Visitor Services, Lodging, The Ahwahnee, Alternative 2: Demolish or remove the Ahwahnee. The structure does not promote the purpose of a resource-based visitor experience. The Ahwahnee customer wants the experience of staying in a 5-diamond hotel with world-class dining, beautiful Sierra scenery and first-rate service. The Ahwahnee Hotel could be moved, reconstructed or replicated on any of a hundred sites in the Sierra with no loss to its clientele." (Individual, Livermore, CA - #3091)

Response: The Ahwahnee is a designated National Historic Landmark and is itself a highly valued resource and the Ahwahnee area is highlighted as a highly valued resource on Plate C (see Vol. 1c). The structure, designed by architect Gilbert Stanley Underwood, is an example of the rustic design style used in Yosemite Valley. The hotel is also significant because of the innovative use of materials employed during its construction in 1927. National Park Service policy guides the care of the nation’s important historic resources. The National Park Service is also mandated under the National Historic Preservation Act to protect and preserve National Historic Landmarks to the maximum extent possible.

701. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require that new units at The Ahwahnee be smaller, affordable rooms.

"Regarding the Ahwahnee Hotel-seems to me the mortgage must be long paid off on this property. Why do the rooms have to be that expensive? If it needs re-modeling inside then the new rooms could be smaller (who wants to stay in their rooms anyway) and more people could be accommodated at more reasonable prices and the footprint wouldn’t change." (Individual, Palo Alto, CA - #4397)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, within the scope of this planning process, there are no new units proposed for The Ahwahnee. The 1992 General Management Plan, as amended by the 1992 Concession Services Plan, expresses the intent of providing a diversity of lodging opportunities in Yosemite National Park. The Ahwahnee is at the high-cost end of this spectrum. Rates are comparable to other grand hotels and equivalently rated lodging establishments in California.

699. Public Concern: The National Park Service should encourage the development of lodging accommodations outside Yosemite National Park.

"Don’t build larger accommodations in the Valley. Encourage hotel/motel ventures outside the Park." (Individual, Escondido, CA - #5651)

Response: The development of lodging on private lands outside of Yosemite National Park is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. 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 in order to visit 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 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.

4.12.4 ~ Visitor Facilities

Public comment analyzed in this section comprises concerns related to visitor service facilities. The analysis to follow is divided into several parts: general management direction, park facilities, health and safety, and concession services. For concerns regarding camping and lodging facilities, refer to Sections 4.12.2 and 4.12.3.

4.12.4.a ~ General Management Direction

Several people express concern about the construction, removal, restoration or maintenance of Yosemite Valley structures and facilities. For new construction in the Valley, one respondent would like to see environmentally sound construction practiced to avoid "the sort of incredible waste and destruction apparent at Happy Isles." The Madera County Board of Supervisors recommends that the National Park Service conduct in-depth studies evaluating all Yosemite Valley structures for possible removal. "I don’t believe we should just get rid of everything because it may be in need of repairs," one person attests. "Eliminating is just going around the problem, not solving it." This person suggests restoring structures instead of removing them. One individual asserts that facilities, such as the restrooms at Curry Village, require more frequent cleaning and monitoring.

105. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require environmentally sound construction practices in Yosemite Valley.

"I would hope that the sort of incredible waste and destruction apparent at Happy Isles due to recent construction is not repeated. . . How can such a concerned, erudite and educated staff allow such a situation to occur? Analogous to the time a ‘permit to build’ was issued in 1980 and they destroyed a meadow and built a motel so fast the State EPA didn’t have time to file grievance (until after the fact). And it’s still there! A constant vigilance must be maintained or the indiscretions will occur." (Individual, Berkeley, CA - #394)

Response: Implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan would incorporate best management practices and adhere to a comprehensive development plan. Prior to any construction, a site plan would be developed in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. There would be appropriate oversight with assurances that sustainable practices and energy conservation are part of the design criteria (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Mitigation Measures, in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS).

350. Public Concern: The National Park Service should evaluate the possibilities for removal of Yosemite Valley structures.

"Conduct in-depth study of all in-valley structures, evaluating possibilities for removal (e.g., Federal Court, NPS/YCS management housing, retail facilities, etc.)." (Madera County Board of Supervisors, Madera, CA - #4284)."

Response: The National Park Service has evaluated all Valley structures as part of this planning process. Individual structures were evaluated based on the following criteria:

Does the function need to be located in the Valley?
What is the location with respect to highly valued resources?
What is the location with respect to the River Protection Overlay?
What is the proximity to the 100-year floodplain?
What is the proximity to mapped geologic hazards?

697. Public Concern: The National Park Service should consider restoring structures in Yosemite Valley.

"Restoration or the building of structures in the Valley is more of what is needed. Most of the buildings are old and they are still needed. I don’t believe we should just get rid of everything because it may be in need of repairs. Eliminating is just going around the problem not solving it." (Individual, Yosemite National Park, CA - #5898)

Response: The great majority of historic structures in Yosemite Valley would be preserved under the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Facility replacement is generally occurring only when facilities are in highly valued resource areas, are in the River Protection Overlay, are in the high-hazard rockfall zone or 100-year floodplain, or are required to be removed to more efficiently or effectively designed facilities for a particular site.

325. Public Concern: The National Park Service should improve the maintenance of public facilities in Yosemite Valley.

"We have always loved Curry Village as a family camp. The tent-cabins are basic, but comfortable. In previous years, we have enjoyed clean bathrooms and gathering in the dining room to enjoy ‘family-style’ eating. This year, however, there is some kind of new management. The results are this: filthy bathrooms, all hours of the day and evening. Toilet paper everywhere, toilets backed up, and human waste flowing on the floors. No apparent effort or attention made to remedy the problems. Prior years we would notice frequent cleaning and monitoring of these facilities. The showers, which used to be kept clean, were found to be very mildewy." (Individual, Encinitas, CA - #20461)

Response: The day-to-day maintenance of concessioner facilities is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The park’s contract with the primary concessioner requires maintenance to be provided at established standards; the National Park Service manages this contract through facility inspections and administrative procedures. Visitors are urged to inform both the concessioner and the National Park Service when problems are encountered.

4.12.4.b ~ Park Facilities

The National Park Service provides a variety of facilities to enhance the visitor experience in Yosemite Valley. Many respondents offer suggestions regarding the future management of these facilities. The park service should be required to develop multi-use facilities for visitor and community use, some people attest. Directing attention to the limitation of existing facilities, one person urges that the National Park Service develop a new community center. Auditoriums are also important to several people who ask that management of these "valuable buildings" be addressed in the Yosemite Valley Plan.

A desire for worship facilities informs many respondents’ comments. One religious organization avows that the new auditorium design will not accommodate Catholic Mass and wants to know how the National Park Service plans to meet the spiritual needs of Catholic visitors and residents. The park service should retain the chapel as a Christian place of worship in Yosemite Valley, some people hold, because "The chapel provided an unobtrusive place to reflect and worship together with others, as well as resources for emotional, spiritual, and at times, physical assistance for the people of Yosemite." Therefore, they profess that a provision addressing the needs of the religious community should be contained in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. A five-year conditional use permit for the Yosemite Community Church, another person submits, should be provided by the National Park Service to ensure that a place of worship is available in the Valley. In addition to the Yosemite Chapel, one person writes, the Church Bowl Picnic Area is used for religious experience and should be retained as a religious site. Several individuals also contend that the clergy housing should be retained within Yosemite Valley and recommend relocating the pastor from Wawona to Yosemite Valley during the winter season when roads become impassible.

A number of people propose improvements to Yosemite Valley visitor facilities: drinking water fountains at major trailheads, day camp facilities for children, food storage boxes along backcountry trails, wilderness permit kiosks, additional benches in high traffic areas, and a seasonal post office at Curry Village.

Note: One response is provided for concerns #65, #64, #700, #111, and #309, and is placed following concern #309.

65. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should establish multi-use facilities in Yosemite Valley.

"Provide a multi-use facility for religious or other groups to use based on the military model whereby many denominations share a facility. Make it large enough for community meetings of most of permanent community. Maybe it could also house indoor recreational facilities and be shared with YCS rec, thus meeting needs of visitors and residents alike." (Individual, Yosemite National Park, CA - #201)

"It has long been recognized that a Community Center of some sort is sorely needed in Yosemite Valley - a multiple use facility which could serve as a meeting site, fellowship hall, special function site or any number of purposes for which a community comes together. Over the years, there have been discussions about the suitability of facilities already exiting for such purposes, including the elementary school gym, NPS auditoriums and the chapel. Interesting to note that over the years, each of these sites has been made available upon request to accommodate meetings, gatherings and functions. Each has built-in logistical, scheduling and infrastructure limitations that preclude them from serious consideration as a Community Center. Therefore, we request that in future planning for Yosemite Valley a Community Center be included." (Religious Organization, Yosemite National Park, CA - #3567)

AUDITORIUMS

"Auditoriums: did not see plans for these valuable buildings. Programs are a necessary part of the overall park experience, and must be accessible to those staying at the Park. We recently enjoyed the John Muir program and purchased several books to share with friends. We attend Catholic Mass there." (Individual, Ore Valley, CA - #2794)

Response: See response following concern #309 below.

64. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should address the needs of religious and spiritual groups in Yosemite Valley.

"It appears that the proposed Yosemite Valley Plans do not make provision for Catholic Church Services. We find this very distressing, as it is a basic and well-understood requirement of the Catholic Church that its members attend Mass every week. The design of the new auditorium will not accommodate Catholic Mass as it has so adequately done in the past. Also, we have heard that the Catholic priest may be removed from Yosemite Valley as well. This means that Catholics will no longer attend church in Yosemite. We are not visitors. We are residents and employees for well over 30 years. Will we be sharing the chapel with other denominations? What is the plan for meeting the spiritual needs of the people?" (Religious Organization, No Address - #339)

Response: See response following concern #309 below.

700. Public Concern: The National Park Service should provide a conditional use permit to the Yosemite Community Church.

"I understand that there is nothing mentioned in the Valley Plan regarding the Yosemite Chapel and that Yosemite Community Church has not had a conditional use permit for the chapel for about five years. I would like to see a conditional use permit in place that allows worship services." (Individual, No Address - #30240)

Response: See response following concern #309 below.

111. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should provide for clergy housing in Yosemite Valley.

"I am very concerned about a plan that does not include local housing for clergy. I view the many tragedies, searches, murders, etc. that have taken place in recent years, we need our clergy closer. Also, it is important to the resident community of the Park." (Individual, Pharr, TX - #428)

Response: See response following concern #309 below.

309. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should relocate the pastor residence from Wawona to Yosemite Valley.

"Truly strong consideration should be given to relocating the residence for the pastor who is currently housed in Wawona down to Yosemite Valley. During the off-season, during any times of snow, the road, Highway 41, between Wawona and the Valley becomes impassible, and he is often unable to make the connect down there for services or to tend to emergencies down there." (Public Hearing, Costa Mesa, CA - #20314)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes two multi-use facilities to serve community and park needs, functions, and activities. One would be at the Curry Village Cafeteria and the other as part of the new interpretive-education center in Yosemite Village. The multi-purpose use of the latter would be designed to continue the existing agreement with the Fresno Diocese for also serving the religious needs of park visitors and residents as would the Yosemite Chapel. National Park Service management policies provide housing for nongovernment entities that support park operations and needs. Housing for resident ministers that support park operations and the community may be provided in the same manner as for teachers, postal employees, and others who meet park and community needs.

(This response also applies to concerns #65, #64, #700, and #111.)

263. Public Concern: The National Park Service should retain the chapel in Yosemite Valley.

"If there is a question about provision for the ongoing use of the Yosemite Chapel in the Valley, I would like to go on record as saying that my visits to Yosemite have been nothing but enhanced when I have attended the services there. I have been completely surprised each and every time I attend. I hope that you will continue to grant its heritage as a Christian house of worship amidst the natural beauty that only exists in your park." (Individual, No Address - #3501)

"I would like to point out a concern regarding one of the landmarks in the Valley, the Chapel. The local community has used it for decades, as well as the community at large who come to visit, and at this point there is not a provision in the Plan for its continued use as it was originally intended, as a Christian place of worship. . . The Chapel provided an unobtrusive place to reflect and worship together with others, as well as resources for emotional, spiritual, and at times, physical assistance for the people in Yosemite. . . The Chapel and staff greatly contribute to that feeling by meeting needs of community members, and I request that a provision be written into the Valley Plan for the continued use of the building as it was originally intended." (Individual, Oakhurst, CA - #4485)

Response: The National Park Service does not call for the removal of the Yosemite Chapel or a change in the functions performed at the chapel under the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

265. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain the Church Bowl Picnic Area as a religious site.

"Church Bowl Picnic Area: The Church Bowl stands out as a favorite outdoor site for visitor’s religious experience. It is located away from the more crowded areas in the Valley, and is constructed in a way that honors the cathedral effect of nearby granite walls. Its effects run deep." (Individual, Seattle, WA - #1354)

Response: The use of park facilities for organized religious services is an operational issue, based in law, policy, and regulation, and is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would impose no restrictions on facility use beyond those resulting from other actions based on land-use. In the Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the Church Bowl Picnic Area would be restored to natural conditions and formal picnic facilities removed. Picnicking would be available near the day-visitor parking area in Yosemite Village.

112. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should provide drinking water at trailheads in Yosemite Valley.

"With the removal of food service at Happy Isles, there is one loss that you might want to make up for. From my own experience, having drinking water at Happy Isles is very important to people coming off the trail dehydrated. Perhaps you can add more drinking fountains?" (Business, Yosemite National Park, CA - #385)

Response: The siting of drinking water fountains at trailheads in Yosemite Valley is at a level of detail beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Several areas do have drinking water fountains, such as Happy Isles, the Vernal Fall footbridge, and Lower Yosemite Fall parking area. All of these locations are close to existing waterlines and are in heavily used areas. The National Park Service strongly encourages visitors to carry an adequate drinking water supply on hiking trails via the Yosemite Guide, visitor centers, and wilderness information and permitting stations.

149. Public Concern: The National Park Service should re-establish day camp facilities for children in Yosemite Valley.

"When my brother and I were kids, we were sent to the Curry Kids Day Camp so mom and dad could take the day off from us and hike to the top of Yosemite Falls. We kids had a ball, and so did they. This type of facility should be reinstated to allow parents to have time to themselves for enjoyment of the quiet scenery without being distracted by their noisy kids. Interpretative nature activities could be tailored to kids who would enjoy it more than riding a shuttle or tour bus with mom and dad. The Upper River Campground might be a good location for this facility. This is a must." (Individual, American Canyon, CA - #907)

Response: Specific day camp facilities were not identified in the 1992 Concession Services Plan and are not identified in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS because of the priority uses already in place for buildable space. However, the concept is one that is supported and is provided by the Yosemite Institute. They would continue to operate youth-oriented residential field science programs. In addition, while beyond the scope of this planning effort, the concessioner may offer specific educational and recreational opportunities for children.

321. Public Concern: The National Park Service should install food storage boxes along backcountry trails.

"I strongly believe all of the more heavily used trails should have more food storage boxes to protect food from bears. Bears are not natural in the high country and are only there because of backpacker’s food. The argument that these boxes are not ‘natural’ does not impress me. They can be placed out of sight of the trail, and thus seen only by backpackers. Small inconspicuous trail signs can point to their location." (Individual, Carmichael, CA - #1793)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Changes in bear management practices in wilderness areas could be considered during a future revision to the park’s Wilderness Management Plan.

255. Public Concern: The National Park Service should build a wilderness permit kiosk in Yosemite Valley.

"I would like to see a kiosk for the wilderness permits in the Valley similar to what they have at Tuolumne Meadows where they have the wilderness permits available in the parking lot." (Public Hearing, Merced, CA - #20106)

"I’d like to suggest that easily accessible kiosks for wilderness permits be available with extended hours. That would be helpful to coordinate with late arrivals into the Park so that backpackers could get an early start the next morning." (Public Hearing, Fresno, CA - #20488)

Response: The Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes that wilderness permits would be available at the Yosemite Valley Visitor Center and at the Yosemite Village Parking/Transit Center. The permits would also be available at the proposed visitor centers near park entrances.

381. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should provide for additional benches at popular sites in Yosemite Valley.

"We also have comments on the conditions of Yosemite Valley for people staying more than one day in the valley. It was very obvious that anyone with any type of physical limitation, not necessarily officially labeled handicapped, has limited access to almost everywhere. There is virtually no seating, i.e., benches, at any of the most favorite spots like Yosemite Falls, Happy Isles, along the Merced or meadows, or on the walk bridges. For us the lack of seating was disappointing. There were many places we would liked to have stopped and stayed awhile, not necessarily to rest but to take in the beauty. Unfortunately, we either had to sit on the ground or find boulders to sit on or to lean against. Anyone above the age of 60 and/or with physical limitations might not be able to do either. . . We would also like to recommend that wood benches be installed in various locations, such as on the walk bridges, at various spots along the meadows, in the area of Yosemite Falls (in the area between the parking lot and the trail up to the lower falls). We saw the perfect type of benches in downtown San Jose. They were circular benches around large tree trunks. The wood appeared to have been treated to prevent rot. There is no shortage of trees where benches could be placed. The trees would provide shade; the benches would be low maintenance; they would blend in with nature; and people would have the opportunity to stop not only to rest but to take in Yosemite’s beauty without ruining the landscape that the Sierra Club and others are so worried about." (Individual, Irvine, CA - #4288)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes seating along trails, at shuttle bus stops, and specifically along the trails at Lower Yosemite Fall (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Visitor Experience–Recreation–Trail Use).

443. Public Concern: The National Park Service should retain the seasonal post office at Curry Village.

"Why not leave the seasonal Post Office at Curry? Will there be mailboxes in the Valley absent a Post Office?" (Individual, Walnut Creek, CA - #3674)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would remove the seasonal post office from Curry Village. The post office boxes are predominately used by park employees and would be relocated to new permanent housing. The main post office in Yosemite Village would remain to meet the needs of visitors and residents.

4.12.4.c ~ Health and Safety

The health and safety of visitors enjoying Yosemite Valley is an area of concern for several people. One person recommends establishing an emergency response plan for the Valley arguing that, in the event of a disaster, limited resources may be stretched to the maximum, and the existing transportation system may not be able to handle a large volume of visitors. For these reasons, a contingency plan should be developed to address potential problems such as communications, evacuation, sheltering, supplies, and medical response. Addressing a different safety concern, another respondent points out that the firehouse must be moved out of the rockfall zone.

Other respondents voice concerns regarding the enforcement of established visitor use regulations in Yosemite Valley related to pets, parking, smoking, and littering. Of the enforcement topics people mention, domestic animal controls are most frequently addressed. These people contend that horses and household pets interfere with other people, wildlife, and native plants.

171. Public Concern: The National Park Service should establish an emergency response plan for Yosemite Valley.

"Yosemite has extremely limited medical personnel, facilities and emergency personnel and resources. Local community facilities require lengthy travel time and a mode of fast transportation for life-threatening incidents. In the event of a large-scale disaster, all available resources will be stretched to their maximum capability, and back-up personnel and equipment will require time to assemble and commute to the scene. Due diligence and common sense dictate that unique issues should be anticipated and planned for in a disaster plan written specifically for a particular area. Contingency plans should exist to address potential problems commonly related to disasters (i.e., internal and inter-agency communications, evacuation, sheltering, supplies, medical response, etc.). To complicate matters, the Valley Plan proposes an unproven public transportation system. A specific Disaster Plan must exist to cope with the high volume of visitors who will be stranded throughout the Valley due to a lack of available buses to transport them to safety." (Individual, Malibu, CA - #1164)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The National Park Service follows the nationally recognized protocol for the Incident Command System to address emergencies and disasters in Yosemite National Park and the El Portal Administrative Site. In addition, the National Park Service operates a full-time program for emergency responses to such events as searches and rescues, emergency medical needs, fire fighting, hazardous material spills, rockfalls, floods, and law enforcement situations.

262. Public Concern: The National Park Service should consider moving the Yosemite Valley Firehouse out of the rock fall zone.

"There are significant points brought up in most all the alternatives which are crucial for the Valley’s survival. The first is the removal of the firehouse from the rock fall zone. As an emergency service, it’s obvious why the firehouse should be moved out of a potential disaster area." (Individual, No Address - #1520)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS has been modified from the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS in regard to the location of the firehouse. In the Preferred Alternative, the National Park Service and concessioner structural fire operations would be consolidated. Two new fire stations would be constructed, one in the Yosemite Village area (out of the historic district) and one in the Curry Village area.

744. Public Concern: The National Park Service should enforce the established visitor use regulations in Yosemite Valley.

"Enforce regulations that are already in place, especially traffic and parking laws, pet rules, and smoking rules. As a Park resident, I would like to be able to tell visitors truthfully that the rangers will fine them for taking their dogs on the trails, letting dogs off leashes or stopping their cars in traffic lanes and no-parking zones." (Individual, No Address - #5879)

"We have conservation corps to help maintain these areas and I believe there should be strict enforcement of non litter laws. I’m tired of the way people throw soda cans, beer cans, papers, [and] plastic bags because they are too lazy to pick up after themselves. Don’t let them come back if they leave a mess. Check their campsites before they leave and put dumpsters at the entrance and exit. As they come in ask them to dispose of garbage in the car and tell them they are to save all garbage and dump when they leave!" (Individual, No Address - #7202)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. However, the National Park Service does enforce regulations set forth in the code of Federal Regulations.

100. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should establish controls for domestic animals in Yosemite Valley.

"Even the sacred horse is a problem. First of all, it is an introduced species, not a native animal. Its hooves tear up the ground wherever it goes. It is allowed to leave its excrement wherever it is deposited, which is a nuisance to others and can be a pollution source. It can introduce weed seeds from other areas, and its food needs are a problem in natural areas. Domestic animals, including horses and household pets interfere with other people, wild animals, or native plants, and they need to be controlled." (Individual, Wooster, OH - #314)

ENFORCEMENT OF DOG POLICIES

"When I first came to Yosemite dogs were discouraged in the park. They had to stay in kennels, not great. Now--you have relaxed the policy so that dogs can be in any campground, not even one specifically designated for dogs, bad idea. Consequently, I never saw so many dogs as I saw this April, everywhere. Dogs are not allowed on trails on the Valley floor, what a joke. I personally saw a dog on the trail to Nevada and a dog on the Yosemite Falls trail. It is sort of like the rule that no bikes are to ride on non-paved trails. Without enforcement, forget it. My feeling is that you have insufficient personnel now to enforce these rules. You just don’t have the manpower to make people responsible for their dogs, which don’t belong in a National Park anyway, disturbing people and flora and fauna." (Individual, Saratoga, CA - #331)

Response: Under the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, all concession and National Park Service stable operations would be removed from Yosemite Valley. Limited corral facilities for private stock would be provided in the Valley but would be located where effects on resources would be minimized. The elimination of commercial rides in Yosemite Valley would help alleviate many of the adverse effects of stock use. Concession and National Park Service stables to provide stock for operations (e.g., High Sierra Camps supply and trail crew support, respectively) would be moved to Foresta. The National Park Service recognizes that, in this location, impacts associated with non-native plant and animal species could occur. Mitigation measures described in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, such as cowbird trapping and the use of processed feeds to reduce both food sources for cowbirds and the introduction of non-native plant species, could minimize adverse effects.

As the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS is implemented, the National Park Service would monitor the effects of the removal of stables on park resources and on the visitor experience. Such information would enable the National Park Service to make adjustments aimed at providing maximum benefits to both concerns.

The presence of dogs and other domestic pets in Yosemite Valley would be reduced by the reduction of parking in the Valley. During times of peak visitation, a majority of day visitors would be entering Yosemite Valley via shuttle buses, and pets would not be allowed on the buses, because of their potential to adversely effect the experience of other visitors. The issue of enforcement of existing regulations regarding pets (e.g., leash law and restriction of pets to paved trails on the Valley floor) is an operational concern that is outside the scope of this planning effort.

4.12.4.d ~ Concession Services

The adequacy of and need for private concession services in Yosemite National Park is a concern for many people who offer management suggestions for various concessions. One person writes that "People go to Yosemite and other parks to get back to nature and away from all those big stores and commercial shops," and for this reason the National Park Service should limit commercial facilities in Yosemite Valley. Another person alleges that concessions overcharge park visitors while paying a "paltry fee to do business in the park," and recommends eliminating all concession services from Yosemite Valley.

Conference services, some respondents argue, are incompatible with the Yosemite Valley environment and should be eliminated. "We are most distressed that in all of your plans, no mention is made of the impact of conventions," one person writes. "A huge number of people are brought in to the park for a short period of time for purposes completely foreign to the goals of the park."

Several respondents comment on food and beverage services in Yosemite Valley. In particular, the relocation of the grocery store to Curry Village generates opposing views. While one person advocates the relocation of the grocery store to Curry Village, others believe it should be retained because Curry Village is inaccessible during the winter. Also contesting the Curry Village location, one person argues that this area is not readily accessible to campers and should not be the site for a grocery store. Several respondents offer suggestions to improve the restaurant facilities: provide moderately priced fare, establish a fast food restaurant, and provide a permanent snack bar at Happy Isles. The National Park Service should also prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages in the Valley, one person claims.

People express strong opinions about proposals to remove the medical and dental facilities from Yosemite Valley. Most fear that removing the Valley medical clinic will delay response time. A former director of the Valley medical clinic writes that retaining the medical facilities in the Valley will help decrease ground and air traffic in a medical emergency. This person believes that "Given the reality of limited helicopter evacuation ability, especially during nonsummer months, eliminating medical services in the Valley will probably cost several lives a year and significant morbidity from delay in treatment." Constructing a new, full-service medical center outside of the talus zone but within the Valley, another respondent contends, will eliminate the need to transport every serious injury or illness victim 45 minutes to the hospital. One individual insists that the park service does not possess the expertise to render a competent decision and should consult with experts prior to removing the clinic from the Valley.

Vehicle servicing facilities, many believe, are necessary in the Valley to ensure that visitors, National Park Service employees, and concession staff have access to fuel and automobile maintenance services. An automobile service facility should be established at a location outside of Yosemite Village to avoid crowding and vehicle exhaust, one person suggests. Another questions removing the service station from the location near Camp 6.

Other recommendations for improving concession services in Yosemite Valley include prohibiting construction of a gym in the Valley and reintroducing the Firefall.

69. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should limit commercial facilities in Yosemite Valley.

"Take down all those fast food places, the big grocery store and rebuild the old village log cabin stores across from the church. Camp Curry is getting to be too commercial and we don’t need a big grocery store by the Indian Village and Museum. People go to Yosemite and other Parks to get back to nature and away from all those big stores and commercial shops. If you need more food, drive to Modesto. Have the dairy/bakery truck drive through in the morning and a deli, meat market, vegetable and misc. small shop in the old village is enough if you run out of a few things." (Individual, Antelope, CA - #143)

Response: The Yosemite Valley Plan would limit commercial development in Yosemite Valley by amending the 1980 General Management Plan as amended by the 1992 Concession Services Plan, both of which impose limits on commercial development. Commercial development would be limited to those services needed to meet the basic needs of park visitors and which contribute to their experience. Services would be provided at locations that would minimize unnecessary travel and be in existing developed areas that are areas of concentrated visitor activity. However, suggestions for operational changes, such as mobile grocery delivery systems, are beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan but could be considered for potential implementation.

108. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the removal of all private concessions from Yosemite Valley.

"My suggestion would be to eliminate (remove) all private concessions within the Valley. These concessionaires feed on the public like buzzards after road-kill, using Yosemite in general as a backdrop to rip off not only the people visiting Yosemite, but the public in general by paying the Park Service a paltry fee to do business within a national park." (Individual, Townsend, MT - #349)

Response: Congressional policies state that the development of public accommodations, facilities, and services in Yosemite National Park shall be limited to those that are necessary and appropriate for public use and enjoyment of the park and are consistent to the highest practicable degree with the preservation and conservation of park resources and values. It is also the direction of Congress that necessary and appropriate accommodations, facilities, and services shall be provided by private business through concession contracts. Concessioners exist in Yosemite National Park because the National Park Service determines that services are needed to enhance the visitor experiences. Those accommodations, facilities, and services that are necessary and appropriate for public use and enjoyment of Yosemite National Park have been established by public process through the 1980 General Management Plan as amended by the 1992 Concession Services Plan, and now the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. The National Park Service contracts with concessioners to provide the accommodations, facilities, and services within Yosemite National Park. The National Park Service controls the concession contracts and the nature of the services provided by the terms of the contracts. Concessioners will continue to play an important role in providing necessary and appropriate services to park visitors. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS further defines the role of concessioners within Yosemite National Park in the future.

18. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should prohibit conference services in Yosemite Valley.

"I have just attended a 3-day conference at G. Lodge, leaving me with a bad feeling. This is a drain on expensive resources and we were not fundamentally here to enjoy the park. I would suggest eliminating conference/meeting services." (Individual, Athens, OH - #37)

"We are most distressed that in all of your plans, no mention is made of the impact of conventions. A huge number of people are brought in to the park for a short period of time for purposes completely foreign to the goals of the park. We once counted 300 single occupancy cars leaving the valley after an A.A. convention. We see no reason why conventions should be held in national parks at any time." (Individual, Sacramento, CA - #1318)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The 1992 Concession Services Plan addresses the issue of conference-type activities in Yosemite National Park. Conferences, seminars, group meetings, and similar activities are governed by National Park Service concession management guidelines and park policies and procedures.

526. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the relocation of the Yosemite Village grocery store to Curry Village.

"We strongly support this course of action, and we additionally advocate moving the Yosemite Village grocery store to Curry Village (leaving only one grocery store in the Valley)." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #4594)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS provides for the relocation of the main grocery store to Curry Village. A smaller grocery and deli function would be retained in Yosemite Village to reduce the amount of travel around the Valley.
(Also see response to concern # 150.)

747. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not relocate the grocery store to Curry Village.

"No to the Valley Plan relocating the grocery store to curry Village, a site that is usually closed in the winter and where no day-use parking is proposed!" (Individual, No Address - #5435)

"Village Store - Leave at present location; however, take the modernized approach with an expanded take out food and deli section." (Individual, Walnut Creek, CA - #3386)

Response: Selecting the proper site for a grocery store in Yosemite Valley has been dilemma for decades. Based on public involvement, the 1980 General Management Plan provided for a central grocery store to be relocated to Curry Village. That decision was reconsidered in the 1992 Concession Services Plan, and retained the existing Yosemite Village Store instead of constructing a grocery store at Curry Village. Under the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, a smaller grocery store with deli would be retained near the transit center and day-visitor parking to provide for the needs of day visitors and employees residing in the area. A larger grocery function would be provided at Curry Village, where the needs of campers, lodging guests, day visitors, and resident employees could be met. This split in grocery functions exists today, but the relative facility sizes would be reversed and the overall facility size would be decreased. The continuation of grocery services at both locations would minimize the amount of travel and traffic needed for visitors and employees to meet their basic needs.

150. Public Concern: The National Park Service should establish an accessible grocery store for campers in Yosemite Valley.

"The idea of establishing a grocery store primarily for campers is a great idea and goes a long way in reducing the distance campers have to travel to get groceries. Unfortunately the proposed new location, Curry Village, is not a good idea, because there are no campers at Curry Village. As almost all the campgrounds will be the same general region, it makes sense to have the grocery store centrally located in the same region." (Individual, American Canyon, CA - #907)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS calls for an enlarged grocery store at Curry Village, which is located near the entrance to the campgrounds in the east end of Yosemite Valley. The grocery store would serve Curry Village guests as well as Valley campers and those embarking from the Valley on backpacking trips. Shuttle bus service to the Curry Village area would make it accessible to campers. A smaller grocery operation would be located in the Degnan’s Deli in Yosemite Village. The grocery stores would be located in areas previously impacted by similar development and consistent with the zoning prescribed by the Merced River Plan/FEIS.

15. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should encourage the development of moderately priced food services in Yosemite National Park.

"I’d love to see more healthy, moderate priced places to eat. We miss the homemade soup." (Individual, Fullerton, CA - #39)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The 1992 Concession Services Plan provides for a range of food service opportunities at multiple locations in the park. Several of the changes in food service in the last few years were intended to provide moderately priced menus. The National Park Service would continue to review concessioner menus with the intent of providing healthy food choices at moderate prices.

401. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the development of fast food restaurant service in Yosemite Valley.

"Provide fast-food restaurant service, which will accommodate the financial needs of low-income visitors." (Conservation Organization, Camarillo, CA - #2627)

Response: The 1992 Concession Services Plan provides for a range of food service opportunities at multiple locations in Yosemite National Park. A number of the changes in food service outlined in the Concessions Services Plan are intended to be reasonably priced fast food options. The Yosemite Valley Plan would implement those aspects of the Concession Services Plan. The National Park Service would continue to review concessions menus with an eye to providing healthy food choices that are moderately priced.

423. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should provide for a permanent snack stand at Happy Isles

"Construct a small permanent snack stand immediately south of the existing restroom facility [at Happy Isles]." (Individual, Lafayette, CA - #4499)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does not call for a permanent snack stand at Happy Isles. Rather, it calls for an enlarged grocery store at Curry Village, which is located near the entrance to the campgrounds in the east end of Yosemite Valley. The grocery store would serve Curry Village guests as well as Valley campers and those embarking from the Valley on backpacking trips. The proximity of this and other food service facilities to Happy Isles would make a snack stand unnecessary at that location. It would also contribute to crowding at this popular visitor destination and trailhead.

107. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages in Yosemite Valley.

"The commercial services seem to be adequate. As for the gift shops and store, the only objection is the bars and the sale of alcoholic beverages. If anyone wants booze they bring it along, but I have also seen more than one drunk in the Valley. This we can do without, as it doesn’t have any place in a national park." (Individual, San Francisco, CA - #312)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The 1992 Concession Services Plan has designated locations in the park where alcoholic beverages may be sold. The personal use of alcohol is up to the discretion of each person of legal drinking age.

89. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain medical and dental facilities in Yosemite Valley.

"Do not move the medical and dental facilities. All the other options keep them in their current locations. Alternative #2 should also. People with sick and injured children or are sick or injured themselves while in the Valley do not want to travel to El Portal for medical assistance. Helicopter landings for emergencies is easier in the Valley." (Individual, Pacific Grove, CA - #156)

"I cannot understand the elimination of the Valley Medical Clinic. Without this, any accident involving a dozen people in the Valley would seem a disaster." (Individual, Del Mar, CA - #64)

"I have given a lot of thought as a former physician, medical director of the clinic and EMS medical director for the park. This regards the preferred alternative of eliminating the clinic. I think it’s a poor idea and reflects inadequate impact assessment. Given what is possible (rather than recent performance of the current concessionaire who has vested interests in increasing transports out of the park) the clinic has potential for a great deal of positive impact by decreasing ground and helicopter traffic out of the park. A paramedic based triage system with a remote base station medical supervisor cannot hope to do the same. The nature of such a system is to err on the side of caution given the very limited information received by the medical supervisor. Many moderate severity problems can be stabilized and even definitively treated in the park without impacting as negatively on the environment. Given the reality of limited helicopter evacuation ability, especially during non-summer months, eliminating medical services in the Valley will probably cost several lives a year and significant morbidity from delay in treatment. I know this from personal experience, even given the limited service we were able to provide. Paramedics can’t replace this function entirely. The environmental impact of having a clinic and housing for essential personnel (such as a few resident doctors and nurses) would be less than the impact of the increased, ultimately unnecessary transports. Getting rid of the current concessionaire and scaling down services to the unprofitability of providing services in the park (such as was done formally and is being done at Grand Canyon), is the most sensible and least impacting way of meeting the needs of the visitors and staff." (Individual, CA - #6763)

CONSTRUCT NEW FACILITY OUTSIDE OF THE TALUS ZONE

"The National Park Service has identified the medical center in Yosemite Valley as an ‘Essential Facility’ - at the same time it is located within the Talus Zone of Yosemite Village. The Yosemite Valley Geologic Hazards Guidelines are quite clear in specifying that all structures that fall within the ‘Essential’ or ‘Hazardous’ categories be removed if they are within the Talus or Rock Fall Shadow Zones. The Preferred Plan calls for the complete removal of the existing medical center. A new firehouse is to be built to handle emergency medical services as well as the fire fighting needs of the Valley. The Chamber is concerned that this will prove inadequate for the needs of the Yosemite Valley. The medical center currently treats an average of 60 patients a day in the summer months. The other three plans keep the medical center where it is within the Talus Zone but also call for the new emergency treatment center with the firehouse. We suggest that a new medical center be considered within (or just outside) the Yosemite Valley designed to handle the 18,000 visitors a day that Yosemite averages during summer months. By keeping a complete medical center within the Valley (or just outside), the need to medivac patients to hospitals 45 minutes away for every serious injury or illness would be eliminated." (Business, Fresno, CA - #7458)

Response: Due to responses to public comments received to the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS during the public review period, the Preferred Alternative has been modified to retain the medical clinic at its current location in the Valley. However, the dental clinic function would still be removed from the Valley, as originally indicated in the Preferred Alternative in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

664. Public Concern: The National Park Service should consult with independent experts before removing the medical clinic from Yosemite Valley.

"The proposed removal of the Clinic from Yosemite Valley is a very significant step for the National Park Service to suggest. If implemented, I believe the adverse consequences for visitors, residents and employees would be significant, and in some cases, life-threatening. In this regard, I am concerned about the factual basis upon which this aspect of the ‘preferred alternative’ has been made. I do not believe that planners within the National Park Service possess the specialized knowledge of medical services planning, management (including financing) and delivery to render a competent decision on this critical topic. I recommend that no further action to remove the Clinic be made until subject-matter experts outside the Department of the Interior are consulted to assist the Service in developing a comprehensive plan for providing the necessary range of emergency and non-emergency medical care service that will be essential to visitors, residents and Park employees. This subject appears to be treated in a very superficial manner in the Plan, with little in-depth discussion of the mechanics of any future medical system that remains to be developed. Please seek a neutral, independent analysis by subject-matter experts before proceeding further to reduce or eliminate medical services (beyond ambulance capability) in Yosemite Valley." (Individual, Yosemite National Park, CA - #7020)

Response: In response to public comment received to the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS has been revised to keep the medical clinic in its current location in Yosemite Valley.

Note: One response is provided to concerns #99, #153, and #279, and is placed following concern #279.

99. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain vehicle service facilities in Yosemite Valley.

"Emergency automotive repair service is an important service in Yosemite Valley that should be retained. El Portal is too far distant to provide this." (Individual, Los Angeles, CA - #470)

"The gas station went out a few years back and that again seems like a poor move as the visitors must make certain they have gas before heading to the Valley. That too is taking away ease of travel in the park." (Individual, Long Beach, CA - #482)

"For the company concessions to maintain their bus fleet there should be a garage in Yosemite Valley. Can the old NPS garage be used for this purpose? How will the Park Service maintain their trucks, patrol cars and now plows in Yosemite Valley?" (Individual, American Canyon, CA - #907)

Response: See response following concern #279 below.

153. Public Concern: The National Park Service should establish a gas station outside the Yosemite Village area.

"There is one alternative for the placement of a new gas station in the Village. The need for a public commercial gas station is obvious. Its use would be continuous and heavy. To set its location adjacent to an existing concentration of tourists would complicate the entire area. Its location should be in an isolated area on the outbound valley exit road, perhaps in the west valley. At least this potential location would reduce the exhaust from the tankers who supply the fuel." (Individual, American Canyon, CA - #907)

Response: See response following concern #279 below.

279. Public Concern: The National Park Service should explain why the gas station was removed from Yosemite Valley.

"Why was the gas station removed from the Valley there near Camp 6, other than everyone saying that the tanks were leaking, but how come they’re not leaking at Wawona or Big Oak Flat Road?" (Individual, Alameda, CA - #20019)

Response: Gasoline is available along all park entrance roads within a reasonable distance of Yosemite Valley. It is not necessary to duplicate this service in the Valley. In the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS Preferred Alternative, a vehicle fueling facility is proposed for Yosemite Village to support park operations and shuttle bus fueling. The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would limit day-visitor parking. In addition, private vehicles would also be allowed to travel to overnight lodging facilities, where they would mostly remain until guests departed the Valley. Therefore, a vehicle service facility in the Valley would not be necessary. The removal and relocation of these facilities to El Portal would meet public needs.

(This response also applies to concerns #99 and #153.)

249. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should prohibit the construction of a gym in Yosemite National Park.

"Don’t add a gym. Yosemite is for getting back to nature. If people don’t like it then they should go somewhere else for vacation." (Individual, No Address - #3066)

Response: No public gym is proposed in any of the alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. However, there is a Valley employee/residential wellness facility co-located within employee housing included as part of the Preferred Alternative.

703. Public Concern: The National Park Service should reintroduce the Firefall for Yosemite Valley visitors.

"If you want to make it better, bring back the Firefall." (Individual, Fremont, CA - #6273)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. It is unlikely that the firefall will ever again be offered as an attraction because of the damage that was done to park resources. The damage included forest impacts from the collection of massive amounts of red fir bark, heat damage to rock lichen, discoloration of the rock face, and meadow damage from trampling and parking by onlookers. Such synthetic attractions are no longer considered appropriate to the park or to the mission of the National Park Service. However, their memory may be important as part of what was done historically to promote a park experience, gain support of national parks, and as an example of past practices that have changed because their impacts are better understood.