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

---

Section 4.13 ~ Transportation

Next to visitor experience, transportation is one of the most fiercely debated and frequently commented on subjects of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Indeed, for many Yosemite National Park visitors, transportation is inherently wedded to their experience of the park. In other words, for these individuals, true enjoyment of the park entails entering and moving about the park in certain ways. Public concerns in the following subsections are organized according to the primary management action requested by respondents. These subsections include general management direction, roads, trails, bridges, parking, traffic management, vehicle management, employee transportation, alternative transportation and fuels, public transportation, and regional transportation.

4.13.1 ~ General Management Direction

This section includes analysis of public comments that either address the general need for further transportation-related analysis within the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, or request management strategies of the National Park Service that cross subject areas covered in Sections 4.14.2—4.14.11 to follow. To begin with, respondents request that the final plan include four types of analyses, or data: (1) an analysis of cumulative environmental impacts (to air and water quality, endangered species, and visitor experience) associated with implementing transportation system proposals in Yosemite National Park; (2) a cost-benefit analysis of operating buses versus varying the number of parking spaces in Yosemite Valley; (3) a definition and justification for the economic, air quality, and transportation benefits of limiting the number of private vehicles while increasing the number of diesel buses in Yosemite Valley; and (4) data supporting the judgment that transportation system proposals will, indeed, enhance visitor experience in Yosemite National Park.

Other respondents advocate an array of general transportation strategies, goals, and management directions. While many people believe that the National Park Service should reduce congestion in Yosemite Valley, the means they suggest to reach this goal differ widely. For instance, one person requests that the National Park Service consider congestion-reducing measures that are less costly than those currently proposed, especially given the vagaries of economics and future administrations. And even if changes are needed in the Yosemite Valley transportation system, such plans need to be tailored to the seasonal ebb and flow of park visitation, according to another respondent (see Section 4.14.7 ~ Vehicle Management, for additional public concerns on seasonality). Whatever else the Yosemite Valley Plan may accomplish, one U.S. Representative advocates plans that reduce visitor travel time in accessing Yosemite Valley. This will ultimately improve visitor experience, according to this person. Still others request that there be no changes to Yosemite Valley’s road and trail infrastructure.

183. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should address the cumulative environmental impacts of implementing transportation system proposals in Yosemite National Park.

"What are the cumulative environmental impacts [of transportation system proposals in the Park] to air quality, water quality, vegetation, wildlife, endangered species, and the visitor experience?" (Individual, Malibu, CA - #1164)

Response: The cumulative impacts of actions proposed in the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS and other related actions are described in Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, Transportation. A list and description of other ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future projects considered in the cumulative impact analysis is presented in Appendix H. This list includes other transportation-related projects in the park.

348. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should include a cost-benefit analysis of operating buses versus varying the number of parking spaces in Yosemite Valley.

"As I understand it, your preferred alternative consists of a one-time expenditure of $343 million dollars in capital and planning efforts, roughly $5.45 million in annual operating cost increases, and $11 million annually for operation of an internal transit system. This level of funding assumes 550 parking spaces in the Valley to accommodate all required day use parking during low visitation days, or at mid-winter levels. As I read the plan, we may increase the level of parking in the east end of the Valley to somewhat less than 900 spaces and reduce the annual operations of the shuttle system to approximately $5 million without significantly affecting other elements of the plan. Can your staff provide each level of service (number of parking spaces) on a cost/benefit chart so that we may identify where the point of diminishing returns for the cost of parking as compared to the cost of busing? The analysis should reflect from 550 to at least 1800 day-use parking spaces, as well as the shuttle costs required at each increment of parking facilities." (U.S. Representative, Fresno, CA - #2951)

Response: Although it would be possible to perform cost-benefit analysis specific to parking and internal transit system operations, one has not been performed as it would be of little benefit as a tool to compare individual alternatives. Additionally, many values recognized by the public and National Park Service do not have easily identifiable economic costs and benefits (e.g., soils, vegetation, wetlands, archaeological sites and historic structures, among others). Parking and internal transit system operations are but two of many actions that have been combined to formulate each of the action alternatives evaluated and analyzed in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does present the total estimated costs for capital and operating costs for each of the action alternatives in Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives. Understanding the total costs of implementing each of the action alternatives in a holistic manner is important, as it provides the best opportunity to compare the overall costs between each of the alternatives.

However, overall costs are but one of many comparisons between each alternative used to help identify the alternative that would be most successful at accomplishing the purpose and need for the Yosemite Valley Plan: to restore, protect, and enhance natural and cultural resources, including the Merced River’s Outstanding Remarkable Values; reduce automobile congestion; provide opportunities for enhanced, high-quality resource-based visitor experience; and provide effective park operations.

421. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should define and justify the economic, air quality, and transportation benefits of limiting the number of private vehicles while increasing the number of diesel buses in Yosemite Valley.

"The YVP fails to clearly define and justify the economic, air quality or transportation benefit of reducing traffic congestion and parking in the Valley by limiting the number of privately owned vehicles entering Yosemite while increasing diesel-powered buses. The YVP is designed to provide direction and propose specific actions toward preserving Yosemite’s natural, cultural and scenic resources. Alternative 1 of the YVP is based upon a continuation of current conditions. Alternative 2, the Preferred Alternative, endorsed by the NPS and Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 emphasize diesel-powered bus transportation as the primary mode of visitor circulation in Yosemite. Aside from Alternative 1, the proposed alternatives include the construction of additional infrastructure such as a bus terminal, additional roadway and bridge modifications, and vehicle check points in order to support mass transit. However, these types of ‘improvements,’ which will create greater Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and do not utilize the best technology available, are contradictory with Federal, State and regional air quality conformity practices." (Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors, Sonora, CA - #4436)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does not propose limits on the number of privately-owned vehicles entering Yosemite National Park. The Preferred Alternative includes implementation of a traveler information and traffic management system that would assure that the number of vehicles east of El Capitan crossover would not exceed the supply of parking. The Preferred Alternative also provides parking for day visitors at locations on each approach route to the Valley. Shuttle buses using the best available, cost-effective technology for fuel and propulsion would transport visitors from out-of-Valley parking facilities to the Valley only when the parking in the Valley was not sufficient. Other shuttle buses, also using the best available, cost-effective technology would transport visitors within the Valley in a manner similar to the existing Valley shuttle system.

The economic, air quality, visitor experience, and other consequences of the Preferred Alternative and the other alternatives are documented in Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. The analysis documented in Chapter 4 shows that vehicle miles traveled, pollutant emissions, and energy consumption would be reduced under the Preferred Alternative from the levels experienced under the No Action Alternative. Emissions from shuttle buses are included in the analysis. Several types of shuttle bus fuel and propulsion systems were analyzed and documented in Chapter 4.

182. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should cite data supporting the conclusion that transportation system proposals will enhance visitor experience in Yosemite National Park.

"Where is the data which supports the Valley Plan proposals and the conclusion that this transportation system will enhance the visitor experience in Yosemite National Park?" (Individual, Malibu, CA - #1164)

Response: In an extensive survey of park visitors in 1990 and 1991 (Grammann 1992), more than 80% of visitors supported (64% strongly supported) the concept of day-visitor parking in Yosemite Valley. The National Park Service has been considering a plan to limit the number of vehicles in Yosemite Valley and expand the shuttle system. Under the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, only day visitors would be required to ride shuttle buses to and from Yosemite Valley. The 1991-1992 survey asked visitors, "Would you be willing to park your car outside the park, one-half hour or more away, and take a shuttle bus to and from Yosemite?" 76% of day visitors supported the concept.

The conclusion of the study was that an arrangement that reduces the perception of crowding and traffic in Yosemite Valley (i.e., park-and-ride system) should contribute to visitors’ enjoyment.

Vol. IA, Chapter 3, Affected Environment, discusses existing conditions for transportation and visitor experience in Yosemite Valley. The Preferred Alternative proposed in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS sets forth actions to address transportation and visitor experience, and to achieve the goals established in the 1980 General Management Plan. The goals related to visitor experience in the General Management Plan include reclaiming priceless natural beauty, promoting visitor understanding and enjoyment, markedly reducing traffic congestion, and reducing crowding.

The Visitor Experience section of Chapter 3 reiterates that congestion, crowding, and intrusion of development into scenic resources were problems identified in the General Management Plan. Since then, visitation to Yosemite National Park has increased from 2.4 million visitors per year in 1980 to nearly 4 million in 1998, and the problems noted above continue today.

The estimated vehicle accumulation in the east Valley is estimated to be 4,696 vehicles on a typically busy summer day, with 1,082 resident, National Park Service, and concessioner vehicles. For a visitor parking demand of 3,614 vehicles in the east Valley, approximately 2,800 parking spaces are available in the east Valley. The shortage of about 1,000 parking spaces for visitors in the east Valley degrades the visitor experience, especially for those who are unable to find desired parking.

Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS documents the consequences to visitor experience of each of the action alternatives. The analysis presented in Chapter 4 shows the rationale for concluding that visitor experience would be enhanced under the Preferred Alternative.

166. Public Concern: The National Park Service should consider congestion-reducing measures in Yosemite Valley that are less costly than those currently proposed.

"Do we really need intrusive and expensive solutions to this [congestion] problem? Get out of your car once you arrive in Yosemite and you won’t see many cars. Get away from the visitor center and you won’t see many visitors. The new plan calls for hundreds of millions of dollars and will keep costing money forever because running dozens of buses costs big dollars. Can we really count on successive administrations and economies to support expensive and burdensome systems? History says, ‘don’t count on it.’" (Individual, Wawona, CA - #46)

Response: The alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS propose that visitors would park their personal vehicles when they arrive in the Valley. The alternatives also recognize that the Yosemite Valley Visitor Center, by definition, is the first destination for most visitors. The alternatives present a range of solutions with varying costs for transportation. The lowest cost alternative is Alternative 3, which requires no out-of-Valley parking. The other alternatives include out-of-Valley parking because it is needed to meet the day-visitor use levels established in the General Management Plan.

The traffic management measures and in-Valley shuttle included in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS are designed to allow visitors to find parking spaces efficiently, park their vehicles in one location, and travel throughout the Valley by a variety of means. Funding sources for the implementation of the transportation elements of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS include the Flood Recovery Appropriation, anticipated Fee Demonstration funds, the Line Item construction program, and other sources, such as the Federal Lands Highway Program. Various analyses, including value analysis and cost-benefit analysis, are required by the National Park Service for most projects, with review and approval by the Director, to ensure the accomplishment of the stated mission and to optimize cost-effective design, construction, or management.

581. Public Concern: The National Park Service should reassess off-season transportation plans for Yosemite Valley.

"Our vision would say to rethink the whole transit and parking scheme for the off-season and winter season. Eliminate all in-Valley shuttles in those seasons, or at least drop the west Valley route. And leave the distributed parking (pull outs, etc.) for use during those seasons. Why? Less costly and certainly much happier visitors." (Individual, Oakhurst, CA - #3555)

Response: Shuttles operating within Yosemite Valley would provide service year-round to sites within the Valley. Generally, the peak visitation season for Yosemite National Park occurs from mid-June through Labor Day weekend. The months of April, May, September, and October comprise the "shoulder" season, with intermediate levels of visitor use. Visitation is lowest from November through March. The operating hours of the shuttle bus routes and the frequency of service would be adjusted within each season as required to meet visitor needs while managing traffic so as not to exceed the capacity of parking and roads.

Shuttles from out-of-Valley parking sites to the Valley would not operate from November through March when parking in Yosemite Valley would be sufficient to serve day visitors. Out-of-Valley shuttle service would start in April, beginning with the weekends. As visitation increased, the amount of service would be expanded, reaching a maximum level of service on weekends in the summer. Then, in the last weeks of the season, service would be reduced in the fall as the need decreased, with shuttles to out-of-Valley parking areas operating only on weekends.

361. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should reduce visitor travel time to Yosemite Valley.

"Your plan reflects that the overall average travel time to Yosemite Valley as a result of this plan would increase by 21 minutes. I cannot see how that increase will contribute positively to the visitor experience. On the contrary, efforts to reduce the time of travel to the Valley should be sought. Recent improvement such as the rebuilding of Highway 140 into the Valley, are essential elements of improving the visitor experience in this way." (U.S. Representative, Fresno, CA - #2951)

Response: Transportation system changes in the Valley are designed to improve the visitor's experience. The Yosemite Valley Plan proposes to reduce vehicle traffic in the Valley to afford visitors a more nature-oriented experience that is less affected by the noise, pollution emissions, and visual presence of motorized vehicles. The improved visitor experience afforded by reducing vehicle traffic is determined to be worth the inconvenience and time associated with visitors riding a shuttle, walking, or biking to destinations in the Valley.

The Visitor Experience section of Vol. IA, Chapter 3 documents that congestion, crowding, and intrusion of development into scenic resources were problems identified in the General Management Plan. Visitation to Yosemite increased from 2.4 million visitors per year in 1980 to nearly 4 million in 1998. This trend and other information in Chapter 3 support the need for changes related to visitor access and transportation.

The analysis in Vol. IB, Chapter 4 shows the rationale for concluding that overall visitor experience would be enhanced under the plan. Although the visitor's travel time into the Valley would increase with the implementation of shuttle service from out-of-Valley parking areas, the overall experience once in the Valley would improve with the reduction in traffic and parking congestion and the restoration of natural areas currently being damaged by roadside parking. Also, visitors would no longer lose time circling the Valley in private vehicles searching for parking and contributing to traffic congestion.

Visitor spontaneity would be reduced in terms of deciding how to visit the Valley. Visitors may have to plan ahead to visit the Valley and be prepared to ride shuttles into the Valley. However, visitor acceptance of shuttle buses is documented in survey responses that show that more than 90% of surveyed users had a satisfactory experience. Once in the Valley, visitors would have pedestrian and bicycle paths and shuttle services available to gain access to all parts of the Valley.

599. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain existing trails and roads in Yosemite Valley.

"Existing trails should remain and no closure of highways permitted." (Individual, Arroyo Grande, CA - #3555)

Response: The actions proposed in the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS aimed at reducing congestion in Yosemite Valley provide an opportunity, through reduced traffic volume, to convert some existing road segments to trails, thereby providing access to areas of the Valley without the immediate presence of motor vehicles. Two areas where this is proposed are Northside Drive from Stoneman Bridge to Yosemite Village and from Yosemite Lodge to the El Capitan crossover. The latter segment would remain available for emergency vehicle use. Existing trails would remain, though some segments may be relocated due to site design requirements or to improve access.
(Also see the response to concern #1085.)

4.13.2 ~ Circulation and Roads

To the extent that roads circulate traffic, the topics of traffic circulation and roads in Yosemite Valley are inextricably linked. Nevertheless, since Valley circulation entails more than just roads, general circulation concerns are analyzed separately (4.14.2.a) from road-specific concerns (4.14.2.b—e). Road-related comments range from the very general and programmatic to the very specific and project-level. A wide array of these concerns are addressed below under General Management Direction. However, enough public concerns address Northside Drive, Southside Drive, and the El Portal Road, they warrant treatment in their own sections of this analysis.

4.13.2.a ~ Yosemite Valley Circulation

A great many respondents request that Yosemite Valley’s traffic circulation remain as it has functioned in the past, or functions presently. A widespread sentiment is that "the existing ‘round-robin’ one-way traffic pattern [along Northside and Southside Drive] through the Valley" needs to remain. To do otherwise, they claim, would jeopardize safety (given two-way traffic on Southside Drive) and fail to clearly reduce traffic volume or traffic flow efficiency. Besides the need for the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS to address traffic circulation in Yosemite Valley, one person requests that the final plan address how such circulation proposals might impact California state highways adjoining the park–highways that arguably must remain accessible regardless of any access restrictions to Yosemite Valley.

81. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain existing traffic circulation patterns in Yosemite Valley.

"We need to keep the existing ‘round-robin’ one-way traffic pattern through the Valley. Two-way traffic on the ‘south-side’ road was a danger in the past and would be worse now. Setting the ‘north-side’ road aside for bike/hiking ‘only’ would be giving a very small segment of park visitors a very large percentage of the Valley. I could see a trail for bike/hiking traffic adjacent to the north-side road making it safer for all. Not a bike lane attached to the existing roadway, but a separate trail meandering through the trees between the river and road." (Individual, El Dorado, CA - #243)

"The one-way loop for private vehicles through the Valley remains the most effective means of transportation, offering spectacular scenery which can be taken in at one’s leisure for people unable to walk or bike. Two-way traffic which includes large shuttle buses together with private vehicles is a recipe for accidents, as people cast their views towards the granite domes and waterfalls and not towards oncoming traffic." (Individual, Eugene, OR - #326)

"I find little justification in the DYVP for these [Valley circulation] proposals other than the desire to create a bicycle/hiking path free of vehicle traffic and noise along the site of the present Northside Drive. This will disrupt the present Valley traffic circulation that separates incoming and outgoing traffic and will double the volume of traffic on Southside Drive." (Individual, Mountain View, CA - #151)

"The current road system in the Valley is a good sound system, which accomplishes two fundamental missions: (1) the mass movement of vehicles in an efficient manner and (2) doing same in a safe manner. It must be kept, totally, in place. . . The choice, based on safety, seems quite clear between a two lane, two way road and a two lane, one-way road. Safety from near elimination of head-on collisions, increased/improved car movement, reduced traffic jams, and improved air quality would dictate in favor of maintaining the current road system. Visitor safety must always be uppermost in any decision-making process." (Individual, American Canyon, CA - #907)

SOUTHSIDE DRIVE

"It blows me away that NPS has considered making Southside Drive a two way road. On a regular basis guests can be found parking in the road looking at a map, or worse, leaving their car in the road as they wander off to take a photo of the granite walls. Imagine even half of the vehicles in Yosemite Valley, repeatedly waiting as one after another driver stops for the deer. Not to mention it is hard enough for vehicles and rented RVs on blind curves." (Non-NPS Yosemite National Park Employee, Yosemite National Park, CA - #4827)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS seeks to provide visitors with an experience that is less dominated by the presence of automobiles. Touring the Valley via automobile would still be possible for those with cars in the Valley, although less convenient. (See Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, Visitor Experience–Recreation for impacts to auto-touring.) Visitors desiring a more natural experience would be able to visit more areas without being affected by the sight, sound, and emissions of vehicles. Maintaining safe traffic conditions and reliable vehicle access and circulation would be providing an improved experience and the opportunity to restore natural processes.

The day-visitor parking reduction, traffic management strategies, and changes to overnight visitor capacity as proposed in the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would result in a decrease in traffic on Southside Drive east of El Capitan crossover, even with two-way traffic. The traffic volume on Southside Drive would be similar to or less than the volume of traffic using two-lane, two-way roads elsewhere in the park. Two-way traffic on similar two-lane roads occurs on all of the other roads in the park as on those leading into the park from gateway communities. There is no evidence that two-way traffic presents a safety hazard in a national park setting. Traffic accident rates on two-lane, two-way roads throughout the National Park System are low. A detailed engineering study of Southside Drive would be performed to identify needed improvements to ensure the safe operation of all the types of vehicles that would use the road.

Adequate turnouts would be provided to allow slower vehicles, such as Valley Tour trams, to be passed by other vehicles. Turnouts at historic views would remain for short stops. Two-way operation of Southside Drive could result in somewhat slower travel, but the benefits to visitor experience of a long stretch of the north side of the Merced River not affected by vehicle traffic outweigh the inconvenience that slower traffic could cause.

Northside Drive would not be removed. It would be closed to everyday use by motor vehicles. In the event that Southside Drive would have to be closed temporarily because of rockfall, flood, fire or other events, Northside Drive could be used for emergency access and egress.

677. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should address the potential impacts of changes to Yosemite Valley traffic circulation on State Highways 120, 140, and 41.

"Additional information is needed concerning traffic circulation within and outside the Park boundaries. Please discuss the potential impacts of each alternative to State Routes 120, 140 and 41 and what is being proposed to mitigate these impacts. There should be specific discussion regarding levels of service (LOS), peak hour congestion, and queuing problems on state routes leading to the Park. State Route 120 is a designated Interregional Route even though a portion of it traverses Yosemite National Park. This state highway must be accessible and useable by interregional traffic regardless of any National Park Service policy limiting automobile access into Yosemite Valley." (Individual, Stockton, CA - #30245)

Response: The Yosemite Valley Plan would potentially cause changes in travel conditions on state Highways 120, 140, and 41 as a result of changes in visitation to Yosemite Valley. The plan would not cause changes to visitation in other parts of Yosemite National Park or changes in travel through the park on state highways. The plan does not propose limits on visitation to the Valley; any changes in visitation and resulting travel conditions would be caused by changes in overnight accommodations and transportation facilities and services for day visitors in the Valley.

The Yosemite Valley Plan action alternatives each provide overnight accommodations in the Valley and day-visitor parking to support a total daily visitation of 18,241 people. While this level of visitation is consistent with the 1980 General Management Plan and approximately 5% higher than visitation on average summer days, it is about 17% less than visitation on typically busy days. Any visitation in excess of 18,241 people per day to Yosemite Valley would be served by regional transit or by other alternative forms of transportation.

The combined effect of the potential visitation changes on daily vehicle traffic to and from Yosemite National Park on state highways would be a decrease of 10 percent on typically busy days. There may be an increase of up to 5% on the average day if visitation shifts from the busiest days to other days. Because traffic to and from Yosemite Valley represents only a portion of all traffic on state highways outside of and within the park, the impact of changes associated with the Yosemite Valley Plan would be negligible. The Yosemite Valley Plan would have no impact on the ability of visitors to travel through the park using connections among state highways.

Because the action alternatives in the Yosemite Valley Plan would reduce overnight accommodations in Yosemite, visitation could shift from overnight to day use. This shift could change the diurnal distribution of traffic to and from the Valley. Under none of the action alternatives would day-visitor use be greater than on typically busy days in the No Action Alternative. As a result, peak hour traffic volumes would not be expected to be any higher than on typically busy days in the action alternatives. There would be negligible impacts to traffic levels on state highways outside the park and on access routes to Yosemite Valley within the park as a result of visitation shifts from overnight to day use. Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, describes changes in travel conditions on parts of the park road system that would have significant impacts as a result of the plan.

4.13.2.b ~ General Management Direction

Public comments on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS contain a variety of general road management concerns. They range from imperatives to remove most existing roads in Yosemite Valley to geographic and geological constraints on where or where not to build roads. At least one person urges the National Park Service to move away from a road-dependent "Disneyland" management paradigm. To accomplish this, this person requests that all roads, except one Valley loop road, be eliminated from the Valley. If roads are built in Yosemite Valley in the future, they should be surfaced with nonasphalt pavement, writes another respondent. Transitioning to the use of nontoxic binders, this person asserts, will help maintain water quality of the Merced River.

Yosemite Valley talus zones, rockslide areas, and meadows are three general areas that a number of respondents address in their discussions of road management. According to one person, the classic case of why road building should not occur in talus zones is exemplified in the case of the Old Big Oak Flat Road, a road that "is plainly visible from the Wawona Tunnel View." If, however, the reason for relocating roads out of rockslide areas is the potential for personal injury, roads should not be relocated, according to another. This person questions the National Park Service’s analysis of risk and goes on to claim that "the chances of being struck by a rock are miniscule–far less than being hit by falling debris in a city environment."

The Preferred Alternative prescribes meadow restoration throughout Yosemite Valley, part of which entails road removal through Stoneman and Ahwahnee Meadows. As with other transportation changes, people respond both positively and negatively to this proposal. Some question the park service’s definition of "noncontributing roads," especially in relation to roads through Ahwahnee and Stoneman Meadows. Moreover, those in favor of retaining meadow roads argue that roads should remain "so people can view and experience the meadows and vistas in the way that provides the most access to all citizens and the least trampling." Offering a counterpoint, others urge the park service to remove roads from select meadows such as Cook’s, El Capitan, and Sentinel. Doing so, they claim, would create open space, reduce noise, and follow prescriptions laid out in the 1997 Draft Yosemite Valley Implementation Plan.

A miscellany of other road concerns round out this section: the need to build a new road into East Yosemite Valley campgrounds, the need to create vehicle access to Mirror Lake, and the need to limit development in the Cascades area based on the park service’s alleged failure to analyze cumulative impacts of the Cascades rock-crushing facility.

634. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the removal of all roads from Yosemite Valley with the exception of one day-use loop.

"Eliminate all roads within the Valley with the exception of one loop road, to be used in daylight hours only, that the motorized public would be allowed to use for day-use only. This not only solves the crowding problems, but gets you out of the ‘Disneyland’ concept that the Valley has taken on. Sure you will hear howls of protest from all corners, but so be it . . . Stand firm!" (Individual, Townsend, MT - #349)

Response: The presence of roads within Yosemite Valley provides essential visitor and management access needs consistent with the park's purpose, that of making the unimpaired resources of Yosemite available to people for their enjoyment. In the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the park proposes to remove all nonessential roads from Yosemite Valley. Priority in removing nonessential roads is given to those that run through meadows or affect other sensitive resources. Where nonessential roads are removed for purposes of resource preservation, alternative means of pedestrian access to areas will be provided.

Northside Drive is also proposed to be closed to vehicle traffic from Yosemite Lodge to El Capitan crossover in order to provide a multi-use paved trail and to offer visitors an area near the Merced River that is unaffected by traffic. The closure of this portion of Northside Drive to vehicle traffic would require Southside Drive to be converted to two-way traffic from Sentinel Bridge to El Capitan crossover.

489. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the use of nonasphalt pavement in Yosemite Valley.

"Toxic asphalt pavement binders need not be used for pavement in Yosemite Valley because a non-petroleum alternative is available. (The toxicity of petroleum-based compounds, especially in fresh asphalt, is known but, not widely publicized. I understand that photochemical reactions of PAH’s have been found to occur in alpine lakes far from roads.) Check with your aquatic biologists as they are most likely to know of research references which provide scientific support for your decisions. This is another area in which the Yosemite National Park staff representing the whole NPS can take a leadership position. The extra cost of non-asphalt pavement may well be mitigated by health of the Wild & Scenic River and its tributaries." (Individual, Merced, CA - #9329)

Response: Decisions regarding the use of nonasphalt pavement in the Valley would be part of an operational plan for Valley road improvements. The operational aspects of roadway improvements in Yosemite National Park are beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

632. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should prohibit road construction in talus zones of Yosemite Valley.

"Action: Talus zone road construction in Yosemite Valley. . . Result: Switchbacks and construction in the rockslides of the Old Big Oak Flat Road is plainly visible from the Wawona Tunnel View. This type of road construction is a mistake and should not ever again be allowed in Yosemite National Park." (Individual, Los Angeles, CA - #470)

Response: During the Yosemite Valley planning process, rockfall and debris flow zones in the Valley were identified and were mapped. Based on the hazards associated with these zones, National Park Service staff have evaluated the potential uses allowable in these areas and recommended the types of facilities that are acceptable for each zone. Housing and lodging are considered higher intensity uses and therefore not allowable in rockfall or debris flow zones. Some roads and parking facilities may be allowable in rockfall and debris flow zones because of the low exposure of humans at any one time associated with this use. Construction of these facilities would be temporary and would adhere to mitigation measures as identified in Vol. IA, Chapter 2 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

643. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should not require road relocation based on rockslide potential.

"The plan to relocate roads, etc., because of environmental concerns (i.e., rock slide danger) is patently wrong in all aspects. There has never been a problem with rockslides injuring people or damaging structures. The recent death was a so-called ‘heart attack’–the chances of being struck by a rock are miniscule–far less than being hit by falling debris in a city environment." (Individual, No Address - #402)

Response: It is not the intention of the National Park Service to relocate facilities based solely on rockfall potential, but rather the combination of the rockfall hazard and the type of structure. Under the new Geologic Hazards Guidelines, all existing facilities will essentially remain in their present locations, including roadways. New facilities will be located based on the Geologic Hazards Guidelines.

485. Public Concern: The National Park Service should clarify its rationale designating roads as "noncontributing" in the Yosemite Valley Plan.

"Although the SEIS states in many sections that the proposal is to ‘remove noncontributing roads from Ahwahnee and Stoneman Meadows,’ how is it that the Park Service reaches this conclusion with knowledge that hundreds of thousands of visitors (including visitors with disabilities) utilize these noncontributing roads and access ways?" (Individual, San Diego, CA - #7884)

Response: The presence of roads within Yosemite Valley provides essential access for visitors and management consistent with the park's purpose: to make the unimpaired resources of Yosemite available to people for their enjoyment. In the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the park proposes to remove all nonessential roads from Yosemite Valley. Priority in removing nonessential roads is given to those that impact sensitive resources, such as meadows.

Where nonessential roads are removed for purposes of resource preservation, alternative means of access to areas will be provided. Access to Ahwahnee and Stoneman Meadows, and to areas served by roads currently running through these meadows, would be provided by existing parallel roads that are outside of the meadows. The Preferred Alternative would also increase pedestrian and bicycle paths throughout the Valley.

Note: One response is provided to concerns #711 and #710, and is placed following concern #710.

711. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the removal of roads from Yosemite Valley meadows.

"There are some good options for the Park that are not considered in any of the plans: Removal of the road that goes through Cooks Meadow. This road should be put back to the trees to the south. This would create a lovely open meadow and reduce noise. . . The removal of the road through El Capitan Meadow. The road should be put in the trees to the north of the meadow." (Individual, Malibu, CA - #3832)

"Northside Drive near Yosemite Village should be removed from Cook’s Meadow as prescribed in the 1997 Draft Yosemite Valley Implementation Plan." (Individual, Oberlin, OH - #580)

"There is no mention of rerouting Southside Drive between the Swinging Bridge and the Sentinel Bridge where it goes right through the middle of Sentinel Meadow. I think Southside Drive should be rerouted out of the meadow either along the south side of the meadow, or better yet, in the trees south of the meadow." (Individual, Modesto, CA - #3538)

Response: See response following concern #710 below.

710. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain roads through meadows in Yosemite Valley.

"Leave roads through the meadows so people can view and experience the meadows and vistas in the way that provides the most access to all citizens and the least trampling." (Individual, No Address - #7305)

"Do not remove roads through Stoneman and Ahwahnee Meadows." (Individual, Modesto, CA - #7005)

Response: In Yosemite Valley, open meadows intermixed with other vegetation types are an important natural resource and cultural landscape component, and are recognized as a highly valued resource. As discussed in Vol. IA, Chapter 2 of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, these highly valued resources will receive the greatest level of protection and restoration effort in order to achieve the goals of the 1980 General Management Plan. In the Merced River Plan/FEIS, river-related wetlands including some meadows are identified as one of the Outstandingly Remarkable Values for the Merced River in Yosemite Valley.

As described in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, Vol. IA, Chapter 3, Affected Environment, meadows in Yosemite Valley have undergone an unnaturally rapid decline in size and continuity over the past 150 years. One cause of this decline has been the change in hydrologic flows into meadows as a result of roads. Roads through meadows cause damming of surface and subsurface flows up-gradient, and unnatural drying down-gradient of roads, with consequent changes in vegetation composition. These unnatural water patterns can have impacts on adjacent vegetation such as oak woodlands that are kept unnaturally moist, leading to their more rapid demise. Vehicles and high densities of foot traffic adjacent to the pavement along "strip parking" lead to loss of native vegetation cover and eventual establishment of weedy species, which can then spread to less impacted areas of the Valley.

Actions proposed in the Yosemite Valley Plan seek to either remove or modify as many roads through meadows as possible to mitigate these problems. It is also recognized that the road alignments in Yosemite Valley are a significant contribution to the cultural landscape, providing access to views Valley-wide. These issues have been taken into account in the Preferred Alternative, with retention of some road sections through meadows. In these cases, roads will be modified to allow improved drainage underneath road prisms. These treatments are proposed to varying degrees in each of the action alternatives, with consequences outlined in Vol. IB, Chapter 4 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

Prior to proposing the relocation of roads in Yosemite Valley, the location of highly valued resources, pedestrian and stock trails, multi-use paved trails, and utilities were all considered. In some areas where roadway and trail corridors are present, there is not enough space outside of meadows to locate both roadway and trail corridors. An example of this is west of the chapel where there is only enough room for the Valley Loop Trail between the edge of the Valley floor and the edge of Sentinel Meadow. Retaining the Valley Loop Trail and relocating both the roadway and the multi-use paved trail out of the meadow is not possible because of spatial constraints.

(This response also applies to concern #711.)

157. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the construction of a new road to East Valley campgrounds.

"The final piece of the plan for resolving the traffic-related problems in the Valley is to create a new road to the campgrounds in the east end of the Valley, thereby allowing campers to completely bypass the Curry parking lot area. This proposed road would be on an existing roadbed, and reestablishes the road which was eliminated many years ago. This road would start at the north/west corner of the Upper River Campground (off the existing major one way loop Valley road), cross the Ahwahnee and Sugarpine bridges, past the Indian Caves, south at the foot of the Mirror Lake road, on to the stables area, past the Upper and Lower Pines Campgrounds and rejoin the existing road to Happy Isles. This entire road section would be almost entirely in wooded areas so as not to be seen from Glacier Point, which is another factor in its favor." (Individual, American Canyon, CA - #907)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes that access to the campgrounds in the east Valley would be provided along a new road connection along the north edge of Curry Village, south of the existing day-visitor parking area at Curry Orchard. The existing road across Stoneman Meadow would be removed and this area would be restored. Establishing a road on the north side of the east Valley would preclude the removal of the Sugar Pine Bridge, thus reducing the ability of the National Park Service to restore the natural dynamics and hydrologic processes of the Merced River.

126. Public Concern: The National Park Service should allow vehicle access to Mirror Lake.

"The road to Mirror Lake should be made accessible by car–now the only way to get there is by hiking & bicycling (for the young) or if one has a handicap card." (Individual, San Francisco, CA - #67)

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

593. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should limit transportation facilities development in the Cascades area.

"[We object to] the addition of parking and tree removal at Cascades area before the 1997 high-water, and ongoing plans (see the zoning for the draft RMP) to accommodate more visitors there. The effects of the current resource destruction at Cascades by the non-NEPA decision to run an enormous rock-crushing/roadbed material/batch plant/etcetera operation at Cascades. The impacts are tremendous, and collectively these actions already prejudice the development of Cascades as a high-use visitor area. No consideration to the important cultural and biological resources was given." (Conservation Organization, Yosemite, CA - #7883)

Response: The Yosemite Valley Plan does not propose the development of transportation facilities in the Cascades area. The existing parking lot and picnic area will remain in place and the area will continue to be used for recreational purposes.

4.13.2.c ~ Northside Drive

At the center of the Yosemite Valley traffic circulation debate is the Preferred Alternative’s proposal to close portions of Northside Drive to motor vehicles. This is reflected in public concerns that request the retention, closure, relocation, or physical modification of this road. Those who want Northside Drive to remain open to motor vehicles argue their position on the grounds of safety and access. Closing Northside Drive, some suggest, will merely shift traffic and congestion to Southside Drive. Such increased congestion coupled with visitors’ propensity "to sight-see and rubberneck as they drive along," writes another, "may lead to the kind of inattention to driving and weaving about that soon results in nasty head-on crashes." Others claim that visitor access will be unduly infringed upon by closing portions of Northside Drive. This, according to one person, is in violation of Title I and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Even if Northside Drive is closed, according to another, it should remain open for emergency vehicle use. People are also very concerned about the proposed relocation of Northside Drive in the Yosemite Lodge area and generally argue against the proposal. Perceived adverse effects of relocation include destruction of oak habitat and increased noise in the Yosemite Lodge area from passing buses.

This section concludes with concerns advocating the closure, rerouting, and alteration of Northside Drive. Several respondents who are concerned about resource protection within the Valley request that portions of Northside Drive be closed, including the El Capitan Bridge to Pohono Bridge segment and the Yosemite Lodge to El Capitan Crossover segment. One person suggests that the National Park Service reroute Northside Drive between the Village Store and Degnan’s Deli in an effort to reduce redundant roads that "absorb valuable parking space in Yosemite Village." Rather than closing Northside Drive to vehicles, cement barriers should be constructed on both Northside and Southside drives to separate vehicles from bikes, according to some. This would maintain existing circulation and help slow traffic, they claim. And, finally, it is suggested that asphalt on Northside Drive be replaced with gravel. This, states one testifier at a public hearing, "would be nicer for hikers, and it might also be more accommodating to wildlife." Presumably, such a conversion would take place after the road has been converted to a multi-use trail, though the respondent does not make that point clear.

29. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain Northside Drive for motor vehicle traffic.

"On the whole, I find the plans to be pretty workable with one exception–the elimination of part of the existing north exit road between the Lodge and the meadow below El Capitan (approximate end points). First of all, I assume this is going to make it necessary to make part of the old incoming road two-way, which considering the proclivity of incoming visitors to sight-see and rubberneck as they drive along . . . may lead to the kind of inattention to driving and weaving about that soon results in nasty head-on crashes. At least when everyone is traveling the same direction this impact is lessened." (Individual, Aptos, CA - #15)

"Northside Drive should be retained. The elimination of this drive will increase traffic congestion in the Lodge, Village and Sentinel Bridge areas. The better choice would be to change Northside Drive to a combination one-way road and trail. See Alternative 5." (Individual, Santa Barbara, CA - #109)

"Although we understand the rationale, we don’t approve of closing Northside Drive to vehicles. Why? Simple. It would basically shut us or anyone else not in excellent physical condition or with small children out of that part of the Valley. Besides, we like the one-way traffic circulation approach as it is much safer than two-way. Also, it has been intimated that the Northside Drive interferes with the hydrology of the meadows, so removing it would allow the natural processes to take place. However, if you can build a biking/hiking trail in its place that is also suitable for emergency vehicle traffic, we’re sure you could just redo the present road to the same specifications and thus keep that road open." (Individual, Oakhurst, CA - #3379)

"The proposal to eliminate the North Drive to only hikers and bike riders is a very unfair plan. It is a beautiful and refreshing drive and has several lovely places to stop and enjoy a picnic lunch or enjoy the beautiful view of the river or meadow. The proposed plan would eliminate the opportunity for the elderly and infirm to take advantage of this delightful experience." (Individual, Cupertino, CA - #51)

"Don’t close Northside Drive to cars. The current one-way loops are the key to avoiding traffic problems while allowing visitors to drive very slow (occasionally stopping at vehicle pulloffs to take pictures, etc.) so that they can enjoy the entire Valley. Driving this loop (with occasional stops) is very important to many people if they want to have the complete Yosemite Valley experience." (Individual, Groveland, CA - #380)

COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

"If, as proposed in Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, the Northside road is removed between Yosemite Creek and El Capitan, this will effectively remove about 1/3 of the Valley experience from access by elderly and disabled people. It cannot obviously then ‘continue as presently existing.’ If there is no road, there is no access. It seems that restricting access of elderly and disabled to any area of the park provided to other people is in clear violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, both Title I and Title II, and can lead to long and contentious litigation. The Northside road should not be removed." (Individual, No Address - #3502)

Response: As part of the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, Northside Drive would be closed to vehicle traffic from Yosemite Lodge to El Capitan crossover in order to provide a multi-use paved trail and to offer visitors an area near the Merced River that would be essentially free of traffic. Closing this portion of Northside Drive to vehicular traffic would necessitate that Southside Drive be converted to two-way traffic from Sentinel Bridge to El Capitan crossover.

The traffic management strategies and changes to overnight visitor capacity proposed in the Preferred Alternative would result in a decrease in traffic on Southside Drive east of El Capitan crossover and Sentinel Bridge, even two-way traffic. The traffic volume on Southside Drive would be similar to or less than the volume of traffic using two-lane, two-way roads elsewhere in the park and on entrance roads. By removing the vehicle trips exiting the park from Northside Drive, traffic congestion in the area of the Yosemite Lodge would be reduced. Traffic congestion in Yosemite Village also would be reduced because visitors exiting the park from Curry Village and the campgrounds would travel along Southside Drive, rather than through Yosemite Village. Traffic flow would also be improved at the intersections of Sentinel Road with Northside Drive and Southside Drive.

Other two-way roads in Yosemite National Park and entrance roads from gateway communities currently carry a volume of traffic similar to that projected for Southside Drive without unacceptable impacts to emergency vehicles. There is no evidence that two-way traffic presents a safety hazard. Traffic accident rates on two-lane, two-way roads throughout the National Park System are low. A detailed engineering study of Southside Drive would be performed to identify needed improvements and to ensure the road would be safe for the types of vehicles expected to use it.

Adequate turnouts would be provided to allow slower vehicles, such as Valley Tour trams, to be passed by other vehicles. Two-way operation of Southside Drive could result in somewhat slower travel, but the benefit to visitor experience of a long stretch of the north side of the Merced River that is not affected by vehicle traffic is shown by the analysis in the plan to outweigh the inconvenience that slower traffic would cause.

615. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should maintain Northside Drive for emergency motor vehicle use.

"There are still going to be people in the Park–accidents and emergencies will occur. Restricting the Southside road to one lane each way will inhibit emergency vehicles in traffic with perhaps the cost of lives. Winter conditions make it even worse. If it is determined, in spite of these considerations, that the Northside road should be closed to traffic, it should not be removed. It should be kept open and serviceable for such emergencies and, of course, as an escape route in case of naturally occurring catastrophes (earthquake, fire, and as we have experienced, flooding)." (Individual, No Address - #3502)

Response: Under the Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, Northside Drive is proposed to be closed to vehicle traffic from Yosemite Lodge to El Capitan crossover in order to provide a multi-use paved trail to offer visitors an area near the Merced River that is unaffected by traffic. The closure of this portion of Northside Drive to vehicle traffic would necessitate that Southside Drive would be converted to two-way traffic from Sentinel Bridge to El Capitan crossover. Other roads in Yosemite Valley and the park that are two-directional currently carry similar volumes of traffic as that projected for Southside Drive without negatively impacting the operation of emergency vehicles.

The National Park Service has evaluated emergency access needs in Yosemite Valley. The closure of Northside Drive to private vehicles would not preclude the use of Northside Drive for emergency purposes. It is anticipated that Northside Drive will remain in place and simply be converted to recreational uses.

160. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should prohibit the relocation of Northside Drive in the Yosemite Lodge area.

"Once Northside Drive is closed to autos east of Yosemite Lodge, there shouldn’t be much traffic or many conflicts on this road. Foregoing the relocation will both save money and support the principle of ‘an undisturbed natural area is preferable to a restored one.’" (Individual, Oberlin, OH - #580)

"A portion of Northside Drive is proposed for relocation south of the Yosemite Lodge along the banks of the river and the construction would involve the destruction of numerous old oak trees. Why construct a road in such an environmentally sensitive area?" (Individual, Richmond, CA - #373)

"Action: Reroute Northside Drive around the southern perimeter of Yosemite Lodge. . . Result: Severely degrades the southern perimeter of Yosemite Lodge, including many retained visitor accommodations, with high and frequently recurring levels of vehicular noise (75 dbA to 80 dbA), because of the close proximity of the road. The passage of outbound, out-of-Valley buses through this area would result in a major sound disturbance here every few minutes, from early in the morning until late in the evening. This change should not take place." (Individual, Los Angeles, CA - #470)

Response: In the Preferred Alternative, Northside Drive would be relocated south of the current development in Yosemite Lodge. In fact, in one area, three motel buildings would be removed to accommodate the new road alignment. The road is being realigned for several reasons: to eliminate the physical barrier between Yosemite Lodge and Yosemite Falls, to eliminate conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles at the Lodge/Falls intersection, to help in changing the character of Yosemite Lodge from one dominated by cars and parking to a smaller scale, pedestrian-friendly place, and to provide more efficient circulation and parking in the Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) area. The new road alignment would be located away from the Merced River and would be designed to preserve existing highly valued resources, including oak woodland communities. Areas currently affected by development that would be between the new road and the Merced River would be restored to natural conditions consistent with highly valued resources.

30. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the closure of Northside Drive to motor vehicle traffic.

"Convert Northside Drive to non-motorized transportation." (Individual, No Address - #30003)

CLOSE EL CAPITAN BRIDGE TO POHONO BRIDGE SEGMENT

"I would get rid of the road between El Capitan Bridge & Pohono Bridge on the El Capitan side." (Individual, Mountain View, CA - #109)

CLOSE YOSEMITE LODGE TO EL CAPITAN CROSSOVER SEGMENT

"We should close the Northside Drive to vehicles from Yosemite Lodge to El Capitan Crossover. Obviously this would limit visitor activities but protect this highly valuable resource for future generations. By protecting this highly valuable resource we may not be able to handle as many visitors as we have in the past but isn’t that why we hired professionals?" (Individual, Malibu, CA - #3832)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes closing Northside Drive to motor vehicle traffic from Yosemite Lodge to the El Capitan crossover. The road would be converted to a multi-use paved trail reserved for the use of hikers and bicyclists, although it would still be available for emergency use whenever necessary. The result would be a quieter, safer experience for pedestrians and bicyclists as they access the central portion of Yosemite Valley on a trail separated from the immediate presence of motor vehicles. Closing Northside Drive to motor vehicles west of the El Capitan crossover would require the rerouting of traffic at the intersection of Northside Drive and the Wawona Road, the redesign of the Pohono Bridge river crossing, and the loss of west Valley drive-through opportunities for visitors not driving to east Valley destinations. The segment of Northside Drive through the former Lower Rivers and Upper Rivers Campgrounds would also be closed under the Preferred Alternative and a multi-use trail would be relocated to provide pedestrian and bicycle access to this area.

616. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should consider an alternate route for Northside Drive in Yosemite Village.

"I understand that routing all traffic in front of the Ranger Club would destroy its historic setting, but NPS could still route all Ahwahnee traffic in front (west) of the Village store and then right between the Village Store and Degnan’s Deli. Redundant roads should not absorb valuable parking space in Yosemite Village." (Individual, Fresno CA - #20511)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS recommends that Yosemite Village Drive be rerouted around the perimeter of the Village so as to minimize conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. The Yosemite Village area is one of the most highly visited areas in the Valley, offering visitor services, parking, and shuttle operations. Based on the initial conceptual development plans, the visitor facilities would be located adjacent to day-use visitor parking and shuttle operations so that it is not necessary for pedestrians to cross Yosemite Village Drive. In addition, Northside Drive would be converted to a multi-use paved trail and closed to vehicle traffic from Yosemite Lodge to El Capitan crossover under the Preferred Alternative.

193. Public Concern: The National Park Service should construct bike path dividers along Northside and Southside Drives rather than change traffic circulation patterns.

"If we need a bike path on the Northside Drive, just block off part of it with a cement barrier and put cars on one side of the barrier and bikes on the other side. This could also be done on the Southside Drive making both of them one way, but with only one lane. The cars would go more slowly because of a single lane and you would thus keep all the cars within the speed limit." (Individual, Ceres, CA - #1220)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS considers this approach in Alternative 5 as a means of providing a multi-use paved trail for the portion of Yosemite Valley east of El Capitan crossover and west of Yosemite Lodge and Swinging Bridge, a substantial benefit to bicyclists. West of El Capitan crossover, traffic volume would be too high to allow conversion of one lane of traffic to use as a multi-use paved trail. The principal disadvantage of this approach, however, is that motor vehicle traffic would be consistently and immediately adjacent to the trail, making the trail more a means of traveling from one location to another rather than a predominantly resource-based experience. This approach could have been utilized in other alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, but it is believed that the opportunity for a mostly natural area without the presence of motor vehicles between Yosemite Lodge and the El Capitan crossover had greater benefits for visitor experience than the bicycle lane adjacent to traffic lanes.

583. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require that Northside Drive be reconstructed using gravel instead of asphalt.

"I think [the Northside Drive area] should be definitely closed to motor vehicles. I’m wondering if there’s a possibility of replacing the asphalt with gravel or . . . Sandstone-like substance that could still be accessed by emergency vehicles but would add to the scenic value. It wouldn’t be black asphalt, and it would be nicer for the hikers, and it might also be more accommodating to wildlife, if you’re hoping to increase wildlife in that area by decreasing motor vehicles. And it might be easier for wildlife to cross those roads versus asphalt." (Public Hearing, San Diego, CA - #20444)

Response: As described in Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternative 2, of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, Northside Drive (from Yosemite Lodge to El Capitan crossover) would be closed to vehicles and converted to a multi-use paved trail.

Trails in Yosemite Valley receive heavy use from bicycles as well as pedestrians and provide some access for visitors with disabilities. National Park Service management policies provide for the paving of trails for the protection of resources and for the safety and convenience of travelers. Paved bicycle trails mitigate potential damage to trails and adjacent vegetation. With the limited space available in Yosemite Valley, multiple uses of trails must be available to the extent practicable. However, the longest trail in Yosemite Valley, the 13-mile Valley Loop Trail, would remain unpaved.

4.13.2.d ~ Southside Drive

Since one result of closing Northside Drive is the conversion of Southside Drive circulation from one-way to two-way traffic, the reader will note some overlap in comments on Northside and Southside Drives and Valley circulation. Nevertheless, public concerns in this section focus on Southside Drive and either question the adequacy of analysis and level of detail provided in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS or address the sufficiency of lane width.

Given the potential safety hazards of two-way traffic on Southside Drive (such as slow-moving sightseeing vehicles) several people request that a safety analysis be conducted of Southside Drive traffic circulation. Another respondent questions the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS’s analysis of how many day-use vehicles Southside Drive will be able to accommodate.

A number of individuals address widening of Southside Drive. One conservation organization asks for clarification of the "necessary widening" definition in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. As it now stands, the group claims, widening "could be interpreted as increasing the width to four or six lanes." Others contend that Southside Drive needs sufficient lane width to accommodate both motor vehicles and bicycles (also see Section 4.13.3.b ~ Bicycle Trails). This view, however, is not shared by all. One person urges the National Park Service to exclude widening of Southside Drive from the Yosemite Valley Plan. To do otherwise, this respondent argues, would jeopardize Merced River riparian areas and oak woodlands.

80. Public Concern: The National Park Service should conduct a safety analysis of proposed changes to Southside Drive traffic circulation.

"A three-phase approach is given for implementation of the DYVP with conversion of Southside Drive in Phase-1 and closure of Northside Drive in Phase-3, with presumably a gap of some years. Out-of-Valley parking for visitors is not planned until Phase-3 so that there will be no reduction of visitor cars on Southside Drive for some time. I see no analysis of safety hazards for this proposed two-way section. . . Also, I see no mention of the impact of sightseeing trams that may well go slower than anything else. This is a definite safety hazard. Virtually all of the picnic areas and scenic pullouts are located on the north side of Southside Drive and will create an access hazard for east bound traffic attempting to turn left. Any closure of Southside by rockfall or debris flow would isolate the east end of the Valley. I would hope that an option not to close Northside Drive would remain available should two-way traffic on Southside create more problems than it solves." (Individual, Mountain View, CA - #151)

"With the elimination of the Northside Road there will be two-way traffic on the Southside Road. Will this create a safety issue, never mind the increased traffic? The Northside Road also provides some of the best (photographic) vistas in the Park. Not anymore, unless you want to hike for about an hour or more each way." (Individual, Oakland, CA - #281)

Response: The traffic management strategies and changes to overnight visitor capacity would result in a decrease in traffic using Southside Drive east of El Capitan crossover, even with two-way traffic. The traffic volume on Southside Drive would be similar to or less than the volume of traffic using two-lane, two-way roads elsewhere in the park and on entrance roads. There is no evidence that two-way traffic presents a safety hazard. Traffic accident rates on two-lane, two-way roads throughout the National Park System are low. A detailed engineering study of Southside Drive would be performed to identify needed improvements and to ensure safe operation of the road for these vehicles that would use the road.

Adequate turnouts would be provided to allow slower vehicles, such as Valley Tour trams, to be passed by other vehicles. Two-way operation of Southside Drive could result in somewhat slower travel, but the benefits to visitor experience of providing a long stretch of the north side of the Merced River that would not be affected by vehicle traffic are assumed in the plan analysis to outweigh the inconvenience that slower traffic could cause.

Northside Drive would not be removed. It would be closed to everyday use by motor vehicles. In the event that Southside Drive had to be closed temporarily because of rockfall or other events, Northside Drive could be used for emergency access and egress.

Historic viewpoints on the western portion of Northside Drive, such as El Capitan Meadow, Hanging Valley, and Valley View would continue to be accessible by private vehicle. Short-term parking for photography and viewing would continue to be available. Viewpoints on Northside Drive between El Capitan crossover and Yosemite Lodge could be reached by walking or biking from the lodge or from a shuttle stop on Southside Drive at El Capitan crossover. The maximum walking distance between any two locations on Northside Drive would be 1.3 miles. At an average pace, this distance could be walked in 30 to 40 minutes.

578. Public Concern: The National Park Service should reassess the maximum number of day-use vehicles that Southside Drive can support.

"The Plan states that with 2-way traffic on Southside Drive, only a maximum of 800 day-use cars can be supported. This number is outrageously low. The present 2 lanes each way support 5000 day-use cars, 7200 vehicles total entering the Valley, plus all the short trip driving within the Valley that is presently allowed (several thousand trips). The Plan may not be accounting for the reduction in traffic due to 5000 campers/lodgers being required to leave their vehicle in its assigned space." (Individual, San Diego, CA - #3479)

Response: During the planning process for the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the National Park Service conducted a level-of-service analysis to determine the maximum number of vehicles that can be supported on Southside Drive from Pohono Bridge to the Chapel. In general terms, level-of-service is a transportation planning and engineering index to describe the level of congestion experienced by motorists. The index ranks roadways from "A" (free-flow conditions with no deterioration of travel speeds caused by other vehicles) to "F" (extreme congestion with stop and go traffic movements). Under the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, traffic on Southside Drive is projected to operate at level-of-service "D" assuming no roadway improvements are made to Southside Drive. If roadway modifications are undertaken, traffic conditions could improve to level-of-service "C". Other roadways in the Valley have lower capacities than Southside Drive and would be considered when planning for overall traffic volumes in the Valley.

532. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should provide additional detail about plans to widen Southside Drive.

"The ‘necessary’ widening [page 2-28] is undefined. Again, the extent of the widening is left to the whim of the decision-maker. ‘Widening’ could be interpreted as increasing the width to four or six lanes. This is not inconceivable since the widened Southside Drive will be replacing two eastbound lanes on the south side and two westbound lanes on the north side. Additionally, this would be consistent with the proposed construction of the multi-lane traffic check station. Furthermore, the comments submitted by Representative George Radanovich, indicate that the proposed traffic check-point will consist of 10 lanes; although we have not been able to identify this specification with a computer search on the CD-ROM version of the Plan." (Conservation Organization, Mariposa, CA - #9224)

Response: Under the Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, Southside Drive is proposed to be converted to two-way traffic with one lane in each direction. From El Capitan crossover through Curry Village, the roadway could be widened to accommodate up to 11-foot lanes and 2-foot wide shoulders each direction. Vol. IA, Chapter 2 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS describes the overall operational and initial design characteristics of the roadway system in this area. Detailed design characteristics will be finalized in planning efforts subsequent to the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

127. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should provide sufficient lane width on Southside Drive to accommodate motor vehicles and bicycles.

"Ensure sufficient lane width on Southside Drive so that drivers of cars, SUVs, buses and RVs can safely share the road with bicyclists." (Individual, No Address - #30003)

"We realize that in Alternative 2, you would close the North Road. We want to make sure that on the Southside Drive, that’s going to remain open, there would be adequate lane width for bicycles on there, as well as the RVs, bikes, and cars because there will be people who won’t want to use the bike path that’s going to be provided, because it’s going to be full of people walking, baby strollers, and all of those sorts of things. People who are in a little bit of a hurry are going to be on that road anyway, and it would be good if you guys planned for that in advance." (Public Hearing, San Diego, CA - #20431)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS calls for widening Southside Drive from El Capitan crossover to Curry Village to accommodate two-way traffic where required for safety and operational efficiency. The proposed width of Southside Drive is 26 feet, which would accommodate 11-foot travel lanes and 2-foot paved shoulders on each side of the two-way road. This width would be sufficient to accommodate traffic and the small number of cyclists who would use the roads to travel into the Valley.

Bicycles would not be prohibited from sharing the road with general traffic. In addition, new multi-use paved trails designed for use by bicycles would be provided on the north and south sides of the Merced River from El Capitan crossover to Yosemite Village. A new multi-use paved trail would serve bicyclists traveling between Yosemite Village and the campgrounds and Curry Village via the Ahwahnee Bridge.

678. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should prohibit widening Southside Drive.

"Please–no widening or adding lanes to Southside Drive. Widening this segment would involve major riparian destruction, destruction of rare Valley oak woodlands, ancient trees and go into the river itself. Instead a good River Plan would preclude this destructive project and the Valley Plan should follow that." (Individual, No Address - #6504)

Response: Northside Drive is proposed to be closed to vehicle traffic from Yosemite Lodge to El Capitan crossover in order to provide a multi-use paved trail and to offer visitors an area near the Merced River that is relatively free of traffic. Closing Northside Drive would necessitate that Southside Drive be converted to two-way traffic from Sentinel Bridge to El Capitan crossover.

The traffic volume on Southside Drive would be similar to or less than the volume of traffic using two-lane, two-way roads elsewhere in the park and on entrance roads. By removing the vehicle trips exiting the park from Northside Drive, traffic congestion in the area of the Yosemite Lodge would be reduced. Traffic congestion in Yosemite Village would also be reduced because visitors exiting the park from Curry Village and the campgrounds would travel along Southside Drive, rather than through Yosemite Village. Traffic flows would also be improved at the intersections of Sentinel Road with Northside Drive and Southside Drive.

The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS calls for widening Southside Drive to provide 11-foot travel lanes and 2-foot shoulders on each side of the two-way road. A detailed engineering study of Southside Drive would be performed prior to this action being implemented to confirm needed improvements, to assure the safety of those using the road and to minimize resource impacts. Two-way operation of Southside Drive may result in somewhat slower travel, but the benefits to visitor experience of providing a long stretch of the north side of the Merced River unaffected by vehicle traffic are assumed in the plan’s analysis to outweigh this inconvenience.

The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, provides a description of the impacts associated with potentially widening Southside Drive to11-foot travel lanes with 2-foot shoulders.

4.13.2.e ~ El Portal Road

Many people argue against further improvements to the El Portal Road. Some question the adequacy of the El Portal Road Improvement Project’s environmental analysis. Hence, one conservation organization asks the National Park Service to analyze the cumulative environmental impacts of roadwork in the Merced River Gorge. Those who oppose widening and reconstructing the road overwhelmingly cite the potentially harmful ecological effects of the project as the basis for their positions. Moreover, "the ecological damage already done through widening the more westerly portions of the El Portal Road should be reversed through a process of restoration," writes one person.

537. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should include a cumulative effects analysis of the El Portal Road project.

"The environmental effects of the El Portal Road Project (ongoing) are never discussed or quantified. The NPS owes the public a comprehensive analysis and view of what it has done to the Merced Gorge environment (ecology, scenery, hydrology, safety, etcetera) for the purpose of cumulative impact analysis in the VP." (Conservation Organization, Yosemite, CA - #7883)

Response: Future reconstruction of the El Portal Road between the Cascades Diversion Dam and Pohono Bridge (Segment D) is an element of all Yosemite Valley Plan action alternatives. Consequently, the impacts resulting from construction of this segment are presented in Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. Subsequent environmental compliance would be necessary to complete this project, and the project would be guided by both the General Management Plan and the Merced River Plan/FEIS.

Reconstruction of the El Portal Road between the park boundary at El Portal and the Cascades Diversion Dam has been completed, and is analyzed in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS in the cumulative impact analysis for the various resources. Cumulative impacts were analyzed based upon the description of the present project found in Vol. II, Appendix H, Cumulative Impact Scenario (see Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Cumulative Impact Analysis). Environmental compliance for this project was prepared, which included mitigation measures that have been and will continue to be implemented. Examples of measures employed included weed control at staging areas and throughout the project site, construction compliance monitoring, revegetation, fencing of sensitive resource areas, and long-term monitoring.

215. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should prohibit improvements to the El Portal Road.

"Further damage to the Park must not be done by widening the El Portal Road east from the junction of Highways 120/140 to Pohono Bridge." (Individual, Portland, OR - #1121)

"No environmental impact statement has been prepared on the effects of reconstructing that segment. The ecological damage already done through widening the more westerly portions of the El Portal Road should be reversed through a process of restoration (including the construction staging areas)." (Individual, Fresno, CA - #7881)

"I am concerned that the proposed Valley Plan allows continued ‘improvement’ of the highway in the Merced River Canyon, to the detriment of the river and canyon." (Individual, Richmond, CA - #224)

"Under no circumstances should the river road from the Pohono Bridge to the Big Oak Flat turnoff be butchered like the road to the Park boundary. It is outrageous that these sections of roads are being enlarged while vehicle traffic is being discouraged in the Valley." (Individual, Berkeley, CA - #9238)

"On the Cascades Impoundment-Pohono Bridge road segment, the decision to destroy additional ancient oak trees, blast additional rocks, fill more river channel, reinforce more embankment, etc. needs also to be seen in the context of local (Merced Gorge) and regional Sierran River stream ecological and scenic losses. We object to any proposal to widen this road segment." (Conservation Organization, Yosemite, CA - #7883)

Response: In July 1999, a federal court ruled that the existing sections of the El Portal Road already under construction could be completed despite inadequacies in the underlying planning process. This ruling covers the segment of road extending from the park boundary in El Portal to the intersection of El Portal Road and Big Oak Flat Road. The judge also ruled that the final section of the road construction (from the intersection of El Portal Road and Big Oak Flat Road to Pohono Bridge) could not be undertaken until a comprehensive management plan was completed for the Merced Wild and Scenic River and, if necessary, additional environmental analysis completed.

The Merced River Plan/FEIS was completed in June 2000, and the Record of Decision was signed in August 2000. The plan allows for the removal of Cascades Diversion Dam and directs that the associated section of the river be reclassified from "recreational" to "scenic" if the dam were removed. Reconstruction of the road from Pohono Bridge to the Big Oak Flat Road intersection is also allowed in the plan if it is determined that it will not adversely affect the Outstandingly Remarkable Values for which the river was designated Wild and Scenic. Compliance with Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act would be undertaken for both projects.

The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS calls for the Cascades Diversion Dam to be removed and the natural river channel to be restored. The removal of the dam would require additional regulatory compliance and public involvement.

The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS also calls for the road from Pohono Bridge to the El Portal Road/Big Oak Flat Road intersection to be reconstructed after the natural river channel has been re-established and additional regulatory compliance and public involvement have been completed. This section of road was severely damaged by the January 1997 flood and is in danger of collapsing. Should this section of road collapse, the Valley’s main wastewater line under the road could be ruptured, possibly resulting in untreated wastewater spilling into the Merced River. Such a collapse could also cut off access to Yosemite Valley from three of the four primary access corridors. This section of road is also hazardous for buses and other large vehicles. Any design for reconstruction of this section of road would have to comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, including the mandate to protect the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Merced River.

4.13.3 ~ Trails

This section includes analysis of public comment addressing the transportation function of pedestrian and bicycle trails. For the recreational aspect of trails see Section 4.11.2.c ~ Trail Use, or for horse trails see Section 4.11.2.d ~ Stock Use.

4.13.3.a ~ General Management Direction

Many respondents do not dispute that trails are an important part of Yosemite Valley’s transportation system,. however, where and how trails are constructed is. Several people request that the National Park Service improve the trail system in Yosemite Valley. Since "people are like lemmings," according to one individual, "they will walk where there is a trail marked and cause less damage to soil than if they forge their own trail." Possible improvements to the system might include a Valley loop trail, maintained trail tread, and better directional and informational trail signs. Even more extensive changes to the Yosemite Valley trail system are suggested by others. They recommend replacing roads with pedestrian and bicycle trails, creating nonpaved, multi-use trails in the Valley, and rerouting the proposed Curry Village to Yosemite Village pedestrian and bicycle path over Stoneman Bridge. Regardless, for some individuals, if new paved trails are part of the National Park Service’s Preferred Alternative, the potential adverse impacts of these trails–like safety hazards and conflicts between pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles–should be analyzed. Finally, one person asks the park service to "implement a more aggressive policy to encourage people to stay on trails."

57. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require improvements to the trail system in Yosemite Valley.

"Restore paved trails from Lodge to El Cap crossover and behind chapel to Bridalveil Falls. People are like lemmings; they will walk where there is a trail marked and cause less damage to soil than if they forge their own trail. Build/make a trail on Southside Drive from Pohono Bridge to El Cap crossover to Swinging Bridge area. Make it possible for people to hike/bike a loop around west Valley." (Individual, Yosemite National Park, CA - #201)

"Trail maintenance and signs (Valley Circling Trail): clear the trail tread and fix the roughest spots (don’t need to re-asphalt); simple marker posts at trail forks and junctions (and certain specific distances?); trail access signs at branch trails leading to and from bus stops, popular sights, day parking areas, etc. (could be small with special logo); overall name for trail system emphasizing its scope and purpose–an example would be the Bay Area Ridge Trail; informational signs, graphics, etc. at locations like the Village plaza, Camp Curry, and in the Park brochure." (Individual, Mountain View, CA - #63)

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

In addition to adding more trails, the Preferred Alternative would improve existing Valley trails and their directional signs and realignment of some existing trails.

174. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require that some roads in Yosemite Valley be replaced with pedestrian and bicycle trails.

"I also feel it [would be] beneficial to take out some of the roads and put in foot paths for the pedestrians & cyclists. I feel this would help in maintaining the Valley and keeping the car traffic all around the Park down to a minimum." (Individual, Winters, CA - #20070)

"We agree with your encouraging both hiking and biking on multi-use trails, including the conversion of Northside Drive." (Individual, Camp Sherman, OR - #1801)

Response: In the Preferred Alternative, the road through the former Upper River and Lower River Campgrounds would be removed and replaced by a relocated multi-use paved trail. (Also see response to concern #57.)

426. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should reroute the proposed Curry Village to Yosemite Village pedestrian/bicycle path over Stoneman Bridge.

"The proposed pedestrian/bicycle path from Curry Village to Yosemite Village via the Ahwahnee Bridge has several problems. The area just to the southeast of the bridge by the slough is very prone to spring and early summer flooding, which will cause difficulty in building and maintaining a path. Also a bridge will have to be constructed over the slough. When this area is flooded, pedestrians at Curry Village will have to walk all the way to Sentinel Bridge to cross the river. This will result in less walking and more shuttle bus riding. The path is proposed to pass through the western edge of Stoneman Meadow. This area of the meadow is already worn down due to extensive use and will need a boardwalk or other reclamation. A more reasonable solution would be to retain Stoneman Bridge as a pedestrian/bicycle bridge and tie into the existing path that passes through the western edge of the old Lower Pines Camp and continues on to Camp 6 and Yosemite Village." (Individual, Lodi, CA - #4474)

Response: The Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS identified three bridges (including Stoneman Bridge) for removal in the Preferred Alternative due to their severe impacts on Merced River hydrologic processes. In response to public comments, the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes, instead, a phased approach to bridge removal. Stoneman Bridge would be removed only if the removal of Sugar Pine Bridge does not restore natural river dynamics to the river to a sufficient degree. If Stoneman Bridge remains, it would continue to provide a multi-use trail link between Curry Village and Yosemite Village. If removed, the inconvenience to many visitors that would be caused by rerouting the trail would be offset by their enhanced experience of a river restored to a more free-flowing character.

(Also see response to concerns #12 and #753.)

680. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should analyze the impact of new paved trails on safety and visitor experience in Yosemite Valley.

"Although the Park Service is proposing the construction of new paved trails (next to existing vehicular and bus roads), these new trails would not provide the direct connection across the Valley and would introduce potentially new conflicts and safety hazards between pedestrians, bicycles, automobiles, and buses. The existing paved and improved bike and pedestrian trails (where cars and buses are not allowed) provide for breathtaking views and enjoyment of the forest and scenery, without the noise associated with automobiles and buses. This adverse impact is not analyzed at all in the SEIS." (Business, San Diego, CA - #7884)

Response: The potential impacts of new paved trails on safety and visitor experience in Yosemite Valley have been considered and are discussed in Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS for each alternative under the Bicycling section.

246. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should establish nonpaved, multi-use trails in Yosemite National Park.

"The policy that bikes always belong on pavement is counter productive. Paved trails are less aesthetic to mountain bikers. Dirt is the way; and maintain. Gravel paths can allow ground water flows where paved bike roads are more of an impact. Dirt or gravel trails in the non-wilderness portions of Yosemite National Park open to bicycles are an important part of creating a Valley-wide and Park-wide non-motorized alternative transportation system." (Individual, Mammoth Lakes, CA - #1443)

"I question the need for paved multi-use trails and wonder if it would be possible to have at least some soft-surface trails for a less ‘industrial’ or city-like setting; we don’t need to roller skate with baby carriages in the national parks." (Individual, Boulder, CO - #9231)

Response: Trails in Yosemite Valley receive heavy use from bicycles as well as pedestrians. Paved trails also provide some access for visitors with disabilities. National Park Service management policies provide for the paving of trails for the protection of resources, and for the safety and convenience of travelers. Paving bicycle trails mitigates potential damage to trails and adjacent vegetation. With the limited space available in Yosemite Valley, multiple uses of trails must be accommodated to the extent practicable.

513. Public Concern: The National Park Service should implement an aggressive policy to encourage people to stay on trails.

"Implement a more aggressive policy to encourage people to stay on trails, such as boardwalks and railings and more clearly defined trails in general." (Individual, Arroyo Grande, CA - #1479)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Operational details such as managing trail users are not relevant to the purpose and need or goals of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

4.13.3.b ~ Bicycle Trails

Bicycle trails are a critical component of Yosemite Valley’s transportation system in the eyes of many respondents. But, according to one person, "traveling in Yosemite National Park is currently a borderline suicidal excursion." To remedy this, respondents offer suggestions such as implementation of a parkwide bicycle trail system and segregating bicycles from automobiles. One suggestion to accomplish the latter is to establish a Class I bicycle path along Southside Drive. Moreover, "only a trail system segregated from the motorized tyranny provides the safety, aesthetic rewards, disbursed recreation, and interpretive opportunities to make this alternative transportation/recreation tool functional, attractive, and popular," writes another. Yet, according to at least one respondent, a parkwide trail system is necessarily incomplete unless it provides access routes into Yosemite National Park, not just within the park.

A few people offer specific bicycle trail suggestions. One idea might be to designate nonwilderness trails along the western edge of Yosemite National Park (e.g., the Wawona Road or trails in the Mariposa Grove) for bike access. Another possibility would be to use existing firelines as bike trails, given that such trails are already maintained and that bike-use would arguably cause little, if any, damage.

269. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require a parkwide bicycle trail system in Yosemite National Park.

"Traveling in Yosemite National Park by bicycle is currently a borderline suicidal excursion. Busy highways with limited shoulders, no bike lanes, poor visibility, constant curves, and a high incidence of buses and Winnebagos, makes the roads in the Park among the least desirable for cyclists. The only worthy bike trails are limited and very crowded. Cyclists would appreciate and utilize a safe trail system throughout the Park. A Park-wide trails system immediately parallel to the four principle highways will revolutionize access to the Park." (Individual, Mammoth Lakes, CA - #1443)

Response: A parkwide trail system is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. However, the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does prescribe increasing multi-use paved trails in Yosemite Valley and extending them into the mid-Valley. (Also see responses to concerns #57, 193, and 244.)

267. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require that bicycle trails be segregated from vehicles and roads in Yosemite Valley.

"Segregating bicycles from cars and roads is the key to promoting the bicycle as alternative transportation. Only a trail system segregated from the motorized tyranny provides the safety, aesthetic rewards, disbursed recreation, and interpretive opportunities to make this alternative transportation/recreation tool functional, attractive, and popular." (Individual, Mammoth Lakes, CA - #1443)

Response: Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Visitor Experience–Recreation, describes the trail system proposed in each of the alternatives. In the Preferred Alternative, multi-use paved trails separated from motor vehicle traffic would be provided for bicycle use throughout the east and mid-Valley. Establishing a multi-use paved trail in the west Valley would require substantial modification of the natural environment in the narrowest sections of the Valley and therefore is not proposed in any alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

254. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should establish a Class I bike path along Southside Drive.

"Construct a separate Class I path on Southside Drive." (Individual, Los Gatos, CA - #1434)

Response: Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS address the need to increase bicycling opportunities in the Valley and reduce the risk of conflicts among bicycles, vehicles, pedestrians, and horseback riders. All action alternatives call for the conversion of Northside Drive from Yosemite Lodge to El Capitan crossover (one lane in Alternative 5) to a multi-use paved trail that would be closed to vehicles and the construction of a new multi-use paved trail adjacent to Southside Drive (one lane in Alternative 5) between Swinging Bridge and El Capitan crossover. These designated paved trails would offer safe and convenient bicycle access to the mid-Valley. Visitors would be able to access major Valley attractions and numerous recreational sites without the risk of conflict with Valley traffic.

245. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should provide adequate bicycle access routes to and within Yosemite National Park.

"Does current planning address how cyclists will access Yosemite Valley or Yosemite National Park? There seems to be only planning to allow for cycling if you are already there. Only the first 550 visitors on a given day will be able to utilize the trails. Having to take a bus with your personal bike to the Valley is a considerable barrier. Park wide access and extensive trails within Yosemite Valley are the solution." (Individual, Mammoth Lakes, CA - #1443)

Response: Bicycle transportation in the Valley is an important component of the transportation system. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS alternatives include the expansion of bicycle and pedestrian paths throughout the Valley and the retention of bicycle rentals in the Valley. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 call for the conversion of Northside Drive to a multi-use paved trail from Yosemite Lodge to El Capitan crossover (one lane in Alternative 5) that would be closed to vehicles. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 also call for the construction of a new multi-use paved trail adjacent to Southside Drive between Swinging Bridge and El Capitan crossover (one lane between El Capitan crossover and Swinging Bridge in Alternative 5). These paved trails would open up safe and convenient bicycle access to the west Valley. Visitors would be able to access major Valley attractions and numerous recreational sites without conflicting with vehicle traffic. Bicycle parking facilities would be developed as part of the Valley area site design.

The extension of multi-use paved trails outside the Valley and throughout the park is beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. However, with the implementation of out-of-Valley parking areas, the transport of bicycles aboard the shuttle system from the parking area into the Valley is an important consideration. Out-of-Valley parking shuttle busses would be equipped with bicycle racks. The details of this issue would be examined in the operational plan for out-of-Valley shuttle service and scheduling and in the procurement of shuttle vehicles. The accommodation of bicycles and the potential increases in ridership at certain times of day are operational aspects of service that would be examined in the operational planning phase for shuttle service but are beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

244. Public Concern: The National Park Service should consider nonwilderness trails along the western edge of Yosemite National Park for bike use.

"Any unidentified non-wilderness trails along the western edge of the park should be evaluated as bike access. The Wawona Road and trails in the Mariposa Grove offer non-motorized trails with an extraordinary natural history theme. A trail from Badger Pass to Yosemite Valley will be the most expensive and challenging part of the entire trails system. Trail to Glacier point will create a day’s adventure for cyclists based in Badger Pass." (Individual, Mammoth Lakes, CA - #1443)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Multi-use paved trails outside Yosemite Valley and not associated with out-of-Valley parking are outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Trails from out-of-Valley parking areas to the Valley were considered in Valley planning, but were not included due to the necessity for a new trail corridor paralleling the existing roads and which would, at frequent intervals, encroach into designated Wilderness. A trail from Glacier Point to Yosemite Valley would require a corridor within the wilderness, where bicycles are prohibited.

690. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should allow the use of firelines as bike trails.

"I would like to bring up the topic of fire line trails. In other parks, these are used as bike trails. I think this is a good idea for Yosemite. These trails are already maintained by fire crews. Allowing bikes to ride on them would cause no damage to wooded areas, as the trails are already there and clearly marked." (Individual, No Address - #5774)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Fire lines within Yosemite National Park are rehabilitated after fires and no evidence of those lines is allowed to remain. The National Park Service manages such lands to allow natural processes to prevail.

4.13.4 ~ Bridges

While many respondents suggest that Yosemite Valley bridges be retained or removed based on the bridges’ historical significance and aesthetic qualities (see Section 4.9.2 ~ Historic Bridges), others believe that these values are superseded by what they see as the deleterious effects of bridges on river hydrology (see Section 4.2.1 ~ Bridges and Hydrology). This section, however, focuses on transportation-related concerns regarding bridge retention, removal, and construction in Yosemite Valley.

Among those commenting on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, widespread support exists for retaining bridges in the Valley. And even if hydrologic problems warrant bridge removal, this should be a last resort, according to many. One U.S. Representative urges the National Park Service to implement and review all traffic management options before the historic bridges are removed. Others go further in requesting the retention of specific bridges, such as Stoneman, Sugar Pine, Housekeeping, and Ahwahnee. The main reasons people give for retaining bridges include their importance for Valley circulation (vehicle and pedestrian) and emergency egress. Both the Bay Bridge and the Gauging Station Bridge, some suggest, need not be retained in their current condition; however, at the very least, they should be rebuilt in the same location, possibly in a more rustic style. Like those who request that bridge removal follow implementation and study of other Valley transportation system changes, one nongovernmental organization argues that "sacrificing one Outstandingly Remarkable Value [historic] in order to preserve another [river ecology] offers no net gain."

Besides retaining or rebuilding existing bridges, many respondents request the construction of new bridges, mainly to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian travel. Not only should these bridges be built in such a way as to avoid adverse hydrological effects, but they should also be built to accommodate pedestrian needs, such as leaning over a rail "to watch for fish, floating leaves, and water ouzels." One person suggests that the National Park Service build seasonal bridges for cyclists and pedestrians based on the model of bridges at Jebediah Smith State Park. Two specific locations suggested for pedestrian bridge construction are Happy Isles and the Yosemite Lodge/Yosemite Falls bus parking intersection. The latter, however, consists of a pedestrian highway overpass rather than a stream-spanning bridge.

Finally, several respondents address Yosemite Creek bridges. One person asks the National Park Service to replace the existing Yosemite Creek Bridge near Yosemite Falls parking lot with a more rustic structure akin to those at Happy Isles. Others forcefully argue against any new vehicle bridges over Yosemite Creek, for "the time of bridge building and road construction in Yosemite belongs in the past."

352. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain Yosemite Valley bridges until all traffic flow issues have been resolved.

"I have seen the potential washout at Stoneman Bridge and share your concern that the abutments for that bridge will wash out in the relatively near term. However, historic bridges should at a minimum be preserved until all traffic flow issues have been completely reviewed in practice to see how they work. Irreversible decisions such as taking out a bridge should not be implemented until traffic flow has been experienced in all types of circumstances, and further public comment on that revised traffic flow has been obtained." (U.S. Representative, Fresno, CA - #2951)

Response: The historic bridges in Yosemite Valley are considered by the National Park Service as important components of the cultural landscape. Each bridge was evaluated and considered for removal or reconstruction based upon the extent to which it was causing significant damage to the Merced River system, and its importance as a component in the Valley traffic circulation system. In situations where a bridge is necessary, and a historic bridge exists, priority consideration was placed on retaining that bridge. As such, in the Preferred Alternative, Sugar Pine Bridge, which does not carry vehicle traffic, is proposed to be removed and a monitoring program established. Only after further analysis indicates unacceptable impacts on the Merced River would Stoneman Bridge be removed.

Roadway and bridge changes would be conducted in incremental steps according to a sequencing plan for Valley transportation improvements. The sequencing plan would examine the safest and most efficient method and timing of traffic changes and bridge removals. Removal or replacement of historic bridges would be handled in compliance with the cultural resource requirements and documentation procedures for historic structures.

11. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the retention of bridges in Yosemite Valley.

"I am in favor of restoring Yosemite to a more park-like and less commercial resort type atmosphere. However, I don’t want to see the historic bridges removed. For people who enjoy walking they are a means of crossing the river. How would one be able to visit the Chapel or hike up to Yosemite Falls without bridges across the river. Please don’t remove them. We need them." (Individual, Portola Valley, CA - #48)

"I do strongly object to removing the Stoneman, Sugar Pine, and Housekeeping Bridges across the Merced River. The Happy Isles foot bridge should be replaced. If an emergency occurs, to get people out of the upper end of Yosemite Valley, the Stoneman bridge and road will be needed. One road is not enough to get people out with their cars and camping gear from the Upper and Lower Pines campgrounds." (Individual, Mariposa, CA - #20271)

"Keep the bridges, if only for us walkers who are too old to continue the extra hike. We can still enjoy the Park and be able to cross the river. We see no reason to demolish these beautiful bridges!" (Individual, Mill Valley, CA - #2350)

STONEMAN BRIDGE

"It appears that there are plans to remove Stoneman Bridge from the Valley. When in the Park we never use our car to get around. We always walk or take the shuttle bus. We are concerned that if the Stoneman Bridge is removed, we will have trouble getting from Curry to the Village and other parts of the Valley. It appears that our only options would be to walk on the Southside Drive, where there is really not much room for pedestrians, or to go all the way around via Happy Isles. Mostly we choose to walk rather than wait for the bus. This plan seems very inconvenient for those of us at Curry. We realize that you are trying to save the river, but wondered if you have considered this impact on those of us at Curry." (Individual, No Address - #30016)

"The removal of Stoneman Bridge would leave only a single vehicle bridge to connect the north and south sides of the river, Sentinel Bridge. We believe that this would have two serious deleterious effects. First, it would result in greater traffic congestion at Sentinel Bridge. Second, it would pose a significant potential safety problem, e.g., if any emergency or disaster impaired or prevented the use of Sentinel Bridge, there would be no vehicle escape route for individuals on the north side of the river. This unfortunate fact could result in the loss of life in the event of a fire or other natural disaster." (Individual, Santa Barbara, CA - #109)

BAY BRIDGE

"I would like to see the Bay Bridge kept at Housekeeping. Now, the bridge doesn’t have to be the same one, but it’s nice to have the bridges to maintain the bike trails to get across." (Public Hearing, San Jose, CA - #20530)

GAUGING STATION BRIDGE

"Replace the damaged gauging station bridge in the same location with a classic back-country ‘parkitechture’ style steel beam-supported wooden bridge." (Individual, Lafayette, CA - #4499)

ALTERNATIVE ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION STRATEGIES

"Sacrificing one ‘Outstandingly Remarkable Value’ in order to preserve another offers no net gain. Without conclusive evidence that the bridges alone have a significant negative affect on the river ecology, and that their removal will significantly improve the river ecology, the National Trust believes that any removal of historic bridges would be premature. We remain adamant that all other ecological restoration actions be implemented and their effects studied before consideration is given to the removal of historic bridges in Yosemite Valley." (Non-Governmental Organization, San Francisco, CA - #7885)

Response: In the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the decisions to retain or remove bridges from Yosemite Valley were based on an analysis of roadway capacities, hydrologic impacts, cultural resource impacts, and biological impacts. Several bridges in Yosemite Valley would be retained or replaced. Specifically, Clark’s, Ahwahnee, Housekeeping, Sentinel, Superintendent’s, El Capitan, and Pohono Bridges would be retained. Happy Isles Bridge and Swinging Bridge would be replaced.

The Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS identified three bridges (including Stoneman Bridge) for removal in the Preferred Alternative due to their severe impacts on Merced River hydrologic processes. In response to public comments, the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes, instead, a phased approach to bridge removal. Sugar Pine Bridge, which is causing the most significant ecological degradation would be removed first. Stoneman Bridge would be removed only if the removal of Sugar Pine Bridge does not restore natural river dynamics to the river to a sufficient degree. If Stoneman Bridge remains, it would continue to provide a multi-use trail link between Curry Village and Yosemite Village. If removed, the inconvenience to many visitors that would be caused by rerouting the trail would be offset by their enhanced experience of a river restored to a more free-flowing character.

The bridges that would be retained provide the required capacity for vehicle traffic without causing unacceptable traffic congestion. In addition, enough pedestrian bridges would remain to provide access to the two sides of the Merced River for foot and bicycle traffic, as well as vista points for viewing and photographing the majestic scenery of Yosemite Valley. Sentinel and Ahwahnee Bridges would provide access for pedestrians and bicyclists between Curry Village and Yosemite Village. Also, Housekeeping Bridge would be retained to provide additional pedestrian access across the stretch of the Merced River between those two larger bridges. The damaged bridge at Happy Isles would be replaced with a new bridge in the same location. Although the style of construction would be determined during the site design process, the bridge would be designed to harmonize with the existing architectural styles in Yosemite Valley. In the event of an emergency, there is sufficient capacity on Southside Drive to handle an evacuation from the east end of the Valley. Also, if Sentinel Bridge is not accessible, emergency vehicles as well as evacuating visitors and employees can travel on the proposed multi-use paved trail where Northside Drive is currently located.

In the Merced River Plan/FEIS, management zoning does allow for bridge crossings of the river where necessary for access, improved circulation, safety, and resource protection. The historic bridges, collectively, are also part of the outstandingly remarkable cultural resource values of the Merced Wild and Scenic River. However, the River Protection Overlay protects the river channel and its immediate surroundings from future development, and encourages removal of facilities such as bridge abutments or riprap that affect the free flow of the river or have direct and adverse impact on other Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

(Also see response to concerns #12 and #753.)

479. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain Ahwahnee Bridge as an automobile route between Lower Pines and Rivers campgrounds.

"The YVP preferred alternative calls for the retention of Ahwahnee Bridge for a multi-use path. I suspect this path linked to the Ahwahnee road will be used for a secondary emergency access to the Curry Village and campground areas so it will have to accommodate fire trucks and snowplows and will probably have to accommodate two-way traffic for evacuation and emergency responses. If this is the case, then why not just make it a road from the proposed campground entrance through the Lower Pines area across Ahwahnee Bridge to Rivers Campground? The redevelopment of Rivers Campground is proposed in Alternative 5 but this routing traffic is not proposed. By routing traffic to Rivers Campground over Ahwahnee Bridge, the campground could be developed to accommodate visitor enjoyment and resource improvements could also be implemented. The Ahwahnee meadow could be restored without a road and the campsites within the River Protection Overlay could be eliminated and this area restored. The Rivers Campground should be redeveloped with the Ahwahnee Bridge as the access route in order to meet the GMP goal for number of campsites in Yosemite Valley." (National Park Service Employee, Mariposa, CA - #6240)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS calls for the removal of Sugar Pine Bridge and, if necessary to restore natural river processes, Stoneman Bridge. The Preferred Alternative also calls for the construction of a multi-use paved trail connecting the Lower Pines area to the Upper and Lower River Campgrounds. This multi-use paved trail would cross over the Ahwahnee Bridge and replace vehicle uses on the existing roadway with recreational and pedestrian uses.

Based on traffic flow analysis for the Valley, existing roadways in the east Valley would provide sufficient capacity to the campground areas and no new vehicle access would be needed in the area. The multi-use paved trail connecting Lower Pines to the Upper and Lower River Campgrounds would provide access for nonvehicle uses. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS also calls for the removal of roads through Stoneman and Ahwahnee Meadows and the restoration of these meadows.

682. Public Concern: The National Park Service should replace river-constricting automobile bridges with pedestrian suspension bridges in Yosemite Valley.

"Consider replacing river-constricting automobile bridges with pedestrian suspension bridges. We want to increase visitors’ ability to savor and learn about this special place, and one of the best ways is on foot or by bicycle. While I do agree that poorly planned bridges need to be removed to restore natural river systems, the access impacts to Yosemite’s hiking trail system are considerable. Has the NPS researched alternative bridge construction designs that would not constrict or hinder the river’s natural flow?" (Individual, El Portal, CA - #9013)

Response: As discussed in the water resources section of Vol. IA, Chapter 3, Affected Environment, of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, bridges can affect river flow by narrowing the channel and causing scour and upstream flooding to occur. Any bridges, whether vehicle, pedestrian, or bicycle, constructed in Yosemite Valley would be designed to avoid impacts to the free-flowing condition of the Merced Wild and Scenic River and to the river’s Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

The Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS identified three bridges (including Stoneman Bridge) for removal in the Preferred Alternative due to their severe impacts on Merced River hydrologic processes. In response to public comments, the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes, instead, a phased approach to bridge removal. Sugar Pine Bridge, which is causing the most significant ecological degradation would be removed first. Stoneman Bridge would be removed if the removal of Sugar Pine Bridge does not restore natural river dynamics to the river to a sufficient degree. If Stoneman Bridge remains, it would continue to provide a multi-use trail link between Curry Village and Yosemite Village. If removed, the inconvenience to many visitors that would be caused by rerouting the trail would be offset by their enhanced experience of a river restored to a more free-flowing character.

Suspension bridges have been used in Yosemite Valley: Swinging Bridge was originally a suspension bridge. However, suspension bridges require abutments that can interfere with the free-flowing condition of the river, and long spans require tall towers which may have an impact on scenic vistas. The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS decreases the amount of vehicle roadways in Yosemite Valley thereby increasing the portion of Yosemite Valley that can be accessed on foot or bicycle without the sight, sound, and emissions from vehicles. Additionally, the Preferred Alternative also improves and extends the system of multi-use paved trails throughout the Valley.

308. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should ensure that new bridges accommodate pedestrians.

"Bridge Design: Given that any new bridge in the Valley floor must be designed primarily to accommodate flood waters and not adversely impact the environment of the river scope, it is important that thought must be given to the experience of pedestrians. Design so that an adult can easily lean on the parapet and a child can step on a ledge so as also be able to lean on the top–in that way being able to watch for fish, floating leaves, and water ouzels." (Individual, La Mesa, CA - # 1314)

Response: When new bridges are constructed in Yosemite Valley, they would be designed to accommodate both pedestrian and vehicle traffic (when both are appropriate uses) and in accordance with safety and accessibility standards, and within those standards to accommodate optimum pedestrian experiences. Exact design specifications are outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan, but this concern would be considered during subsequent design activities.

573. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require construction of seasonal bridges for hikers and bicyclists in Yosemite Valley.

"Traffic along the highways is the big problem and though there are bike trails, the vehicles, bikes, and hikers all cross the river by the same bridges. Would it be possible to install seasonal bridges for the hikers and bikers and thus keep them from competing with the autos when crossing the river. Jebediah Smith State Park in Del Norte County uses seasonal bridges quite successfully." (Individual, Redding, CA - #487)

Response: Planning for Yosemite Valley has for the most part looked at removing bridges in Yosemite Valley west of the Happy Isles area. New seasonal bridges would be required to be completely out of the Merced River, particularly during the very busy spring season when river runoff levels are high. Therefore, bridges of the length required to cross the Merced River would be both costly and difficult to install and remove. The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS has been revised to allow for the retention of Housekeeping Bridge, which would reduce bicycling and pedestrian demand on Sentinel Bridge. Vehicle traffic reductions would also reduce conflicts on Sentinel Bridge.

519. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the construction of a footbridge at Happy Isles.

"The construction of a footbridge at Happy Isles to provide direct access to John Muir Trail and Mist Trail is a must for any Yosemite Valley Plan adopted." (Individual, No Address - #6998)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Visitor Experience–Recreation–Trail Use) proposes to replace the Happy Isles Bridge, which was damaged by rockfall and flood. It would be replaced with an appropriately constructed (so as not to impede stream flow) pedestrian bridge in order to maintain historic trailhead access and to provide an alternative for pedestrians to the vehicle bridge on the shuttle bus road further downstream.

679. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the construction of a pedestrian overpass at the Yosemite Lodge/Yosemite Falls bus parking intersection.

"Construct a pedestrian overpass/overcrossing at the Yosemite Lodge/Yosemite Falls bus parking intersection." (Individual, Pasadena, CA - #5618)

Response: Improvements are planned for the Yosemite Falls and Yosemite Lodge area. Conceptual plans for Yosemite Falls include improved pedestrian circulation in an effort to minimize conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. The section of Northside Drive that runs between the Yosemite Falls parking lot and Yosemite Lodge would be rerouted to the south of Yosemite Lodge, in part to eliminate such conflicts. Commercial tour bus loading, unloading, and parking would also be moved out of the Yosemite Falls area and moved to Yosemite Village. The parking lot at Yosemite Falls would be removed and the area restored to natural vegetation with an interpretive site added. By removing the parking lot and road through this area, an overpass would not be necessary. If the road were to remain, an overpass would not be appropriate because of adverse visual and aesthetic impacts.

681. Public Concern: The National Park Service should replace the current Yosemite Creek Bridge near Yosemite Falls parking lot with a more rustic structure.

"Please replace that abomination of a glue-lam foot-bridge over Yosemite Creek at the east end of the Yosemite Falls parking lot with a more rustic one, like those at Happy Isles." (Individual, Oakland, CA - #7749)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS calls for the removal of the existing pedestrian bridge at Yosemite Creek and the conversion of the adjacent historic vehicle bridge to a multi-purpose paved trail. A new bridge would be constructed downstream for vehicular access to the realigned access road at Yosemite Lodge.

(Also see response to concerns #102 and #160.)

102. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should not implement the Yosemite Creek Bridge Project.

"This [Yosemite Creek Bridge Project] is a major engineering construction project, similar to the Sentinel Bridge project, that could last several years. The bridge would have to be of sufficient length and height to prevent hydrologic alteration of Yosemite Creek, and to withstand future floods. It would have to withstand multiple heavy loads, such as large diesel buses and heavy commercial trucking. Its construction would cause a major disruption in the Yosemite Lodge area. . . This project would be located within an area defined as a Highly Valued Resource. The sensitive and beautiful oak and fern forest area just south of Yosemite Creek is one of the unique scenic treasures of Yosemite National Park. This project should not take place, and the area [should be] left undisturbed. The time of bridge building and road construction in Yosemite belongs in the past." (Individual, Los Angeles, CA - #470)

"If Northside Drive is a dead end, why is NPS adding a new vehicle bridge at Yosemite Creek? The traffic there will be greatly reduced since only shuttle buses and Yosemite Lodge guests should be driving across it. In my mind, the cost outweighs the benefits of building this new bridge. There appear to be three bridges in a 50-yard section of Yosemite Creek." (Individual, Fresno, CA - #20511)

Response: The proposed bridge over Yosemite Creek would be designed to accommodate large vehicles without disrupting the flows of Yosemite Creek. The construction of the new bridge would be coordinated with the proposed relocation of Northside Drive, the rehabilitation of the Yosemite Falls area, and redevelopment of Yosemite Lodge. Construction would be staged so as to minimize disruption. Upon completion of the proposed roadway bridge, the existing bridge would be converted to pedestrian use and the wooden pedestrian bridge would be removed. The use of the historic Yosemite Creek Bridge for nonmotorized travel would greatly enhance visitor experience and the removal of the existing wooden bridge greatly enhance the view of Yosemite Creek bridge from the north. The net effect of the projects would be to restore natural hydraulic processes along the creek.

During design, removal, and construction, every effort would be made to minimize impacts to and improve conditions for the black oak woodland.

(Also see response to concern #160.)

4.13.5 ~ Parking

Parking is one of the most frequently addressed transportation topics by respondents. This section includes public concerns covering general parking management and proposals for parking facilities both within and outside Yosemite Valley. The reader should note that all out-of-park parking concerns are included in the out-of-Valley section (4.13.5.c) since many respondents blur the distinction between in-park and out-of-park parking.

4.13.5.a ~ General Management Direction

The constellation of general parking management comments can be distilled into either non site -specific or user group specific concerns. Regarding non-site specific concerns, respondents offer a number of broad suggestions. Some individuals advise caution when it comes to removing or modifying parking infrastructure. "It is vital that existing parking not be removed nor existing roads converted to other uses until replacement parking and transportation systems are in place and ready to operate," writes one person. Part of being cautious, according to some, requires that the National Park Service explain how satellite (out-of-Valley) parking lots will replace in-Valley lots or what management strategies will be used for times when Yosemite Valley parking lots reach capacity (e.g., whether or not cars will be turned away at traffic check stations). Others question the adequacy of the National Park Service’s analysis of environmental impacts of idling vehicles waiting to enter the Valley. "Lines of idling vehicles at the traffic check points are no better than the current lines of idling vehicles seeking day-visitor spaces deeper in the Valley," writes one individual. Whether referencing existing or proposed parking lots, a number of people request that the National Park Service develop design standards that make them less obtrusive in the Valley. Proposals include painting pavement green, planting trees that obscure lots from Valley overlooks, or following the design principles outlined in the 1994 Draft Yosemite Valley Implementation Plan. For some, however, nothing short of a complete ban on new parking lots in Yosemite National Park will suffice. The parking lots are essentially a blight on a work of art that no amount of landscaping will remedy. In the words of one respondent, "Would you spit on Renoir?"

Some individuals offer parking proposals for specific user groups. One civic organization suggests that a Yosemite Institute parking area be established at Crane Flat, or some other location, rather than moving the entire camp. And speaking on behalf of those who ride motorcycles, one person at a public hearing asks the park service to designate special motorcycle parking spaces.

364. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not remove or modify existing roads and parking until new transportation infrastructure is in place.

"It is vital that existing parking not be removed nor existing roads converted to other uses until replacement parking and transportation systems are in place and ready to operate. The implementation schedule should be expanded and the removal of existing systems (particularly as involves transportation) be made contingent upon completion of replacement systems." (Business, Yosemite National Park, CA - #3962)

Response: Roadway, parking, transit center, and bridge changes will be conducted in incremental steps according to a sequencing plan for Valley transportation improvements. (See Vol. II, Appendix M of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS). The sequencing plan will examine the safest and most efficient methods and timing of changes to minimize the impacts to Valley visitors and park resources.

687. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should assure that out-of-Valley parking will permanently replace in-Valley parking.

"Satellite parking: While I support this concept the final NPS document needs to outlined in detail how NPS will assure out-of-Valley parking will truly replace in-Valley parking rather than add to it. If NPS closes some parking areas in the Valley because it has opened new parking areas out of the Valley, how will it guarantee pressure to allow more people in and reopen those closed parking areas? Assure that new out-of-Valley satellite parking lots do not themselves lead to a lot of new, additional development and more profit centers (of which there are too many now). Such specific assurances are badly needed in the final plan if the public interest is to be well served." (Individual, San Francisco, CA - #7154)

Response: Out-of-Valley parking is proposed in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS to accomplish the goal of reducing congestion in Yosemite Valley. To not remove in-Valley parking after the development of out-of-Valley parking would be inconsistent with this goal, and thereby inconsistent with the purpose of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Out-of-Valley parking is intended to permanently replace parking removed from Yosemite Valley.

Additionally, the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS Preferred Alternative proposes to reduce vehicle traffic in the Valley to afford visitors a more nature-oriented experience that is less affected by motorized vehicles. Parking in the Valley would be reduced and relocated to a single lot, sufficient to accommodate Valley visitors during the months from November to March. Out-of-Valley shuttles would not operate during these months. Eliminating all in-Valley parking was considered but determined to be infeasible (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Alternatives Considered But Dismissed). Out-of-Valley parking lots would be designed to supplement Valley parking during the busier summer season. Shuttle service to out-of-Valley parking lots would start in April and continue through the peak summer visitation months. Out-of-Valley parking would not eliminate Valley parking, but would supplement the reduced level of Valley parking proposed under the Yosemite Valley Plan.

The sequencing plan (see Vol. II, Appendix M) outlines the sequence of actions to occur over a period of years. Projects would be accomplished sequentially according to the physical links between developing replacement facilities outside Yosemite Valley, relocating functions, rehabilitating or removing structures, and redeveloping and restoring areas to natural conditions.

604. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should address traffic management strategies for times when Yosemite Valley parking lots reach capacity.

"The SEIS fails to address the way visitors will be handled when in-Valley day-use lots near capacity. Turning cars around in the Valley is unacceptable. Visitors should not drive into the Valley before being directed to the Out-of-Valley lots (Alternatives 2, 4,5) or being told no parking is available (Alternative 3). Lines of idling vehicles at the traffic check points are no better than the current lines of idling vehicles seeking day use spaces deeper in the Valley. That method of traffic management has avoidable impacts on air quality, water quality, energy consumption, etc." (Individual, Union City, CA - #4404)

Response: In Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Actions Common to All Action Alternatives, the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS addresses this issue. A traveler information and traffic management system would be developed to provide current information on parking availability. Visitors would be informed at the park entrance gates regarding where parking is available. This system would be designed before the parking reductions occur in Yosemite Valley, and that design would include a public involvement process. Although the details of this system have not been developed, an important element of it would be to prevent visitors from having to be directed to out-of-Valley parking after having already driven to Yosemite Valley.

161. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should specify design requirements for proposed parking facilities both inside and outside of Yosemite Valley.

"Alternative 2 provides for four new parking areas, three outside of and one within the Valley. While the YVP offers detailed treatments of the location and amount of parking, it is silent on important considerations of design quality. . . The 1997 Draft Yosemite Valley Implementation Plan offers good advice for any parking area that does in fact need to be built (page 43). . . These design principles should be written into the plan to apply to all four parking areas." (Individual, Oberlin, OH - #580)

"The Curry parking lot is one of the most visible landmarks from Glacier Point, but is going to be left in place for obvious reasons: its use for Curry lodgers and the new location for the ice rink. Therefore it is important to improve its looks, which at first, sounds silly, but is really possible, practical, relatively simple, and necessary. First, the lot should be repaved, along with the south side pedestrian walkway, which is long overdue. It should then be painted green so as to blend in with the Stoneman Meadow green. The parking stripes would be painted a darker color green. This would not only improve its looks, but it would be cooler in the summer which would be an added plus. It would also be less noticeable, if not invisible, from Glacier Point. Second, the first row of parked cars running east/west along the north side of the lot should be placed as close under the apple trees as possible so as to be hidden from above. The double row of cars in the center of the lot should have a closely spaced row of local shade trees planted between them. Again, this would make the cars less visible. The single row of cars along the south side of the lot should also have a row of closely spaced local shade trees planted along the front bumper line, making the cars less visible. What an improvement this would make, and it is relatively inexpensive." (Individual, American Canyon, CA - #907)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS establishes land-use changes in Yosemite Valley and in areas where facilities for use by Valley visitors are proposed. The Preferred Alternative also establishes general concepts for parking, shuttle services, and other operating systems and facilities that would serve visitors to Yosemite Valley. It does not determine or prescribe detailed designs, including design standards for facilities. These elements would be developed in subsequent site planning and design projects.

557. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should prohibit the construction of parking lots in Yosemite National Park.

"I do not want parking lots in Yosemite Valley, nor elsewhere in Yosemite National Park, especially at Yosemite Village! Would you spit on Renoir?" (Individual, Los Angeles, CA - #96)

Response: At this time there is not a feasible alternative to providing visitor access to Yosemite National Park and to accomplishing the five goals of the General Management Plan without providing some parking facilities. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS recognizes the impacts of parking lots on both the landscape and visitor experience. It therefore calls for the removal of facilities, particularly those that have the greatest impact to natural and cultural resources. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS considered but dismissed an alternative that would remove all private vehicles from Yosemite Valley, thereby eliminating the need for the construction of parking facilities. Providing all parking for day visitors to Yosemite Valley in locations outside the Valley and providing out-of-Valley parking for overnight visitors was also considered but dismissed. Serving all day visitors with shuttles from remote locations would require a very large fleet of buses, large parking areas outside the Valley, and year-round operation of the shuttle bus system. The roads leading to the Valley from the north and the south traverse high elevations that are subject to heavy snows in the winter. Operating shuttle buses on these routes in the winter and keeping parking areas cleared of snow would be difficult and expensive. Weather conditions in the winter would make waiting for shuttle buses uncomfortable. (See Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Alternatives Considered but Dismissed.) The number of parking spaces provided in the Valley for day visitors is adequate to serve all day users from November through March, when the heaviest snows occur. Day visitors in the peak season would use the parking provided in the Valley for day users in the winter, along with out-of-Valley parking.

602. Public Concern: The National Park Service should build a parking lot for Yosemite Institute attendees rather than relocating their facilities.

"I have one suggestion that I wish you would consider. In an effort to reduce traffic related to YI, rather than moving the entire camp and facilities, couldn’t a parking area at Crane Flat or another area be established for the attendees of YI? That area could be secured with a perimeter fence. It could remain dirt, less impact on the environment. A shuttle service could provide transportation to and from the vehicles." (Civic Organization, Citrus Heights, CA - #1358)

Response: The Yosemite Institute’s Crane Flat facility is not considered in the Yosemite Valley Plan. However, their administrative office, which is located in Yosemite Valley, is proposed for relocation from the Valley, similar to administrative offices of the National Park Service and other park partners. The Yosemite Institute would still be able to maintain a field office, associated with the National Park Service’s Valley district interpretation facilities in Yosemite Village.

258. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should designate more parking spaces for motorcycles.

"I would like to see more designated motorcycle parking spaces; since there are none at this point time, we take up a full car space." (Public Hearing, Merced, CA - #20104)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS recommends general changes in the number of parking spaces and the location of those spaces both in and out-of-the Valley. The specific parking configuration in the recommended locations, however, is beyond the scope of this plan and will be addressed in subsequent parking site plans for the Valley.

4.13.5.b ~ In-Valley Parking

Comments pertaining to Yosemite Valley parking fall into five general categories: clarification and analysis, retention of existing parking facilities, construction of new parking facilities, limitations on parking, and prohibitions on parking facility construction. Although for the purposes of this analysis explicit references to transfer facilities are treated separately from other parking facilities, there is overlap. Hence, parking facility concerns should be viewed as the more general of the two since they encompass all parking lots not otherwise denoted as transfer facilities or in the location of proposed transfer facilities.

A number of people request that the National Park Service clarify plans for in-Valley parking. One person asks for clarification of whether or not west Valley day-visitor parking will be eliminated under the Preferred Alternative. Other respondents, though, feel that the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does a poor job of explaining why parking lots are proposed for elimination in Yosemite Valley: "The problem solving here reminds me that a camel is a horse designed by a committee," writes one individual. Similarly, a few respondents, skeptical of Yosemite Valley Plan estimates, ask the National Park Service to re-evaluate the adequacy of proposed day-visitor parking. They offer their own minimum levels of parking such as 1,000 or 1,600 spaces.

Eliminating parking to reduce congestion is "a very draconian measure to take for a situation that appears a couple of times in the summer," according to one person. This sentiment is shared by many others who see no good reason to reduce the number of parking spaces in the Valley. Some suggest that the root of the problem with the National Park Service’s analysis is basing summer day use on peak winter use. One way to avoid this problem during peak seasons and times, states another, might be to require vehicles, once parked, to remain at lots (also see Section 4.13.7 for related public concerns on seasonality and transportation). Many people note specific types of parking, or locations of existing parking lots, they would like retained in the Valley. For instance, one conservation organization feels that it is simply inefficient to trade dispersed parking for concentrated parking, with the end result being fewer parking spaces. For others, roadside parking should be retained in the Valley to enhance visitor experience and reduce congestion. This is especially important to many climbers who feel they need the flexibility afforded by parking near the base of their climbs. Without this option, one climber asserts, "many long climbs in the park will become impossible without greatly increasing the risk of becoming stranded by dark." Finally, Curry Orchard is yet another area where some respondents believe parking should be retained.

Far from simply preserving existing parking opportunities, many others offer suggestions for new parking facility sites throughout Yosemite Valley, including the following sites:

Among those who propose new parking lots in the Valley, some individuals specifically request construction of public transportation transfer facilities. Respondents mention three locations: Taft Toe, Yosemite Village, and the Bridalveil Falls area. A few people who advocate the Bridalveil location take exception with claims that such a facility might negatively impact scenic views. Landscaping, they claim, could ameliorate such impacts.

Others outline general proposals for new parking facilites in the Valley. These include providing more spaces for disabled visitors, constructing high-density San Francisco-style valet parking facilites, and constructing Los Angeles-style underground lots. Both valet-style parking and underground lots are intended to eliminate the need for a more costly out-of-Valley shuttle system. However, instead of building new lots, one respondent outlines a parking space reservation system that assigns visitors a specific space where their vehicle must remain until exiting the park. "From [their] time of arrival they must use public transportation, hike, bike . . . etc."

Contrary to those who believe additional parking facilities should be built in Yosemite Valley, many others request strict limitations on parking, including both programmatic goals and site-specific requests. On a programmatic level, people suggest various proposals: "consolidation and eventual elimination of in-Valley parking," prohibition of constructing new permanent lots, restriction of parking to recognized areas within the park, and prohibition of siting new parking facilities in previously undeveloped areas. To minimize negative environmental impacts and increase visitor convenience, a number of respondents suggest that the Yosemite Valley Plan emphasize the use of small, unobtrusive parking lots throughout Yosemite Valley. In the words of one person, "turning huge meadows into asphalt parking lots . . . is far more ruinous of the environment than small parking lots nestled among the trees."

Respondents mention several areas where parking should either be prohibited or eliminated, including Taft Toe, Yosemite Village, and Camp 6. Though calls for the prohibition of new facilities or removal of existing parking at these sites are often founded upon ecological reasons, one person states that "the amount of noise, excitement, hubub, and commotion [at Yosemite Village] would far exceed anything known before. . . It is not Grand Central Station, nor should the ambience of one be created here." And one conservation organization calls for the National Park Service to include criteria for eliminating parking at Camp 6 in its Record of Decision for the Yosemite Valley Plan. To this end, the group writes, "the NPS could commit to closing Camp 6 (and restoring the area) as soon as the satellite parking lots are in use and YARTS is operating at full capacity."

613. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should clarify whether current west Valley day-visitor parking will be eliminated under the Preferred Alternative.

"At present there are 654-758 parking spaces for day users along the west Valley, says the EIS. Will this area be off limits to parking under the Preferred Alternative?" (Individual, Carmichael, CA - #30006)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS calls for limited parking in the east end of Yosemite Valley. The number of parking spaces would be reduced and parking would be located to allow the restoration of highly valued resources. Visitors traveling to the east Valley in private vehicles would be directed to parking areas at their overnight accommodations or at the designated day-visitor parking area. Once visitors park, they would travel by shuttle or by nonmotorized means to other Valley destinations. No parking would be provided at individual destinations to discourage travel in the Valley by private vehicles. The Preferred Alternative proposes to locate all day-visitor parking in the east Valley in a single parking lot near the Camp 6 area. Roadside parking would continue to be available in the west Valley for safety reasons and to provide short-term access to historic viewpoints. To accomplish the goals of the Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, long-term roadside parking would be discouraged or prohibited and replaced with improved Valley-wide shuttle access.