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

---

Section 4.13 ~ Transportation (cont.)

4.13.9.b ~ Alternative Fuels

People are largely adverse to any increase in vehicles that use diesel fuel in Yosemite National Park. In addition to alternative transportation, many people espouse the use of alternative fuels. One person would like to impose vehicle limits with exceptions for users of alternative fuels. A fee structure based on fuel types, another offers, would make "positive results much more likely." Another responds that any bus system "should use the cleanest and quietest proven technology." In order to keep up with clean fuel technology one person advises the Plan call for hiring a "consultant to determine the best ‘mix’ of alternative fuel vehicles for Yosemite’s own use." A number of people call for the Yosemite Valley Plan to "clearly establish specific goals and targets to minimize and reduce use of existing diesel technology." A respondent points out that the five-year implementation time frame for the plan leaves plenty of room for technological development and the Yosemite Valley Plan "should not rule out the possibility of alternative forms of public transportation." Many respondents request that the Final Yosemite Valley Plan should "contain a specific implementation plan to move toward the use of the cleanest and quietest transit vehicles."

223. Public Concern: The National Park Service should allow special provisions for clean air vehicle users in Yosemite Valley.

"All I would propose is that in limiting the number of vehicles in the Valley, during the peak seasons, that there be some sort of provision allowing an exemption for the cleanest air vehicles mostly as a perk for . . . drivers, as we’re trying to build . . . reasons for people to get these vehicles, but also as say a PR thing for the Park to show their support of the clean air vehicles." (Public Hearing, Costa Mesa, CA - #20300)

Response: The Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS includes the implementation of a traveler information and traffic management system that would manage the number of vehicles in Yosemite Valley so as not to exceed the capacity of parking areas and roads. Reservations or other means of managing access, such as the use of incentives, would be considered in the future planning process for the traveler information and traffic management system. However, the operational and policy details of the system are beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan and therefore would be defined during a subsequent planning process that would include extensive opportunities for public involvement.

521. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require differential fees for vehicles entering Yosemite National Park based on fuel types.

"To ensure that the ‘cleanest’ diesel is used for the shortest period of time, the Park Service should commit to using differential fees for incoming cars, buses, and trucks, depending on fuel types." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #4594)

"[Charge] higher fees for cars that pollute more (big SUVs and older cars) and lower ones for cars that don’t (electric cars). There are plenty of capable economists who could help determine how best to utilize such an approach. I would be happy to help identify such economists for such an effort. The best part about such an approach is that it would not be too drastic and positive results are much more likely." (Individual, Torrance, CA - #6421)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS includes the implementation of a traveler information and traffic management system that would manage the number of vehicles in Yosemite Valley (and potentially the park) so as not to exceed the capacity of parking areas and roads. Reservations or other means of allocating access, the use of incentives for parking or fuel type, and other matters would be considered in the planning process for the traveler information and traffic management system. Operational and policy details of the system are beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan and would be defined during a subsequent planning process, which would include extensive opportunities for public input.

Note: One response is provided for concerns #516, #522, #296, and #295, and is placed following concern #295.

516. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the National Park Service to replace its motor vehicle fleet with fuel efficient, low polluting vehicles.

"The YVP should also require the Park Service to replace its motor vehicle and motorized equipment fleets (including 4x4s, PWC, snowmobiles, automobiles, trucks, lawn and garden equipment, etc.) upon retirement, with only the most fuel efficient and lowest polluting equipment. Fuel-efficient technologies are highly correlated with lower emission levels, causing less smog and less global warming gases. Increased fuel efficiency will also reduce the NPS gasoline budget, saving money for other important uses. Automobile and snowmobile technology have seen dramatic advancements in the last several years, and moving to cleaner and greener fleets would encourage manufacturers to develop additional improvements. Furthermore, this move would help the Park Service better ensure that Park resources (such as air and water quality) are left unimpaired, while setting an important example and increasing agency credibility with the public." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #4594)

"The valley shuttle bus system should use the cleanest and quietest proven technology." (Business, San Francisco, CA - #2974)

Response: See response following concern #295 below.

522. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the hiring of an alternative fuel consultant.

"The final plan should also provide for the hiring of a consultant to determine the best ‘mix’ of alternative fuel vehicles for Yosemite’s own use, to take other affirmative steps to stay informed about new technology, and to help achieve a clean, quiet, efficient fleet of satellite lot transit within the next five years." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #4594)

Response: See response following concern #295 below.

296. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should establish specific goals and targets for reducing use of current diesel technology.

"The Plan should clearly establish specific goals and targets to minimize and reduce use of existing diesel technology. Specifically with regard to the air quality impacts of diesel buses, more detail is needed in the Plan to meet the requirement that, at the time it adopts a final EIS, the NPS state whether all practical mitigation measures and a monitoring and enforcement program have been adopted. See 40 C.F.R. 1505.2." (California Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA - #5430)

"The technology presently exists to phase-in alternatively fueled shuttles. . .We realize that the Draft is subject to change, and the visitor and resource protection study will take 5 years to complete but in Chapter 2, under Alternatives Considered But dismissed, the Draft rules out the possibility of alternative forms of public transportation , . . A clearer implementation process would be most helpful in understanding this key area of the Draft." (Recreation Organization, Silver Spring, MD - #7137)

Response: See response following concern #295 below.

295. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should contain a specific plan for the transition to the use of cleanest and quietest transit vehicles.

"The Yosemite Valley Plan should contain a specific implementation plan to move toward the use of the cleanest and quietest transit vehicles in the Valley as soon as is technologically feasible." (State Agency, Sacramento, CA - #5430)

"There should be a statement of intent to switch all service vehicles within Yosemite National Park to more environmentally friendly power systems such as fuel cell power." (Individual, Coulterville, CA - #3724)

Response: Yosemite National Park has consulted with statewide nonprofit organizations and has coordinated with local community groups to discuss the benefits associated with alternative fuels. In addition, numerous transportation studies have been undertaken for Yosemite National Park, and staff is continuing to work with the U.S. Department of Transportation and several transportation consultants to evaluate and test alternative transportation technology.

The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS seeks to accommodate visitor travel needs while protecting natural resources such as air quality and natural soundscapes. The availability of proven transit vehicle technology; supporting infrastructure, such as refueling and maintenance facilities and environmental characteristics, including air emissions and costs, are all major factors in decisions related to transit vehicle selections. The park has conducted a number of studies of transportation alternatives for travel to and in the Valley and continues to work with other federal agencies and transportation consultants to evaluate alternative transportation fuels and technology.

The National Park Service is moving toward using the cleanest and quietest transit vehicles in the Valley. The National Park Service has committed in Vol. IA, Chapter 1 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS to continue to implement technologies that reduce mobile sources of air pollution. Vol. II, Appendix M, Sequencing Plan, provides additional information regarding the sequencing and timing of the implementation of a shuttle system. Providing a more specific implementation plan for cleaner, quieter transit vehicles is impractical due to the uncertainties regarding the availability of future transit technologies.

(This response also applies to concerns #516, #522, and #296.)

4.13.10 ~ Public Transportation

Required use of public transportation gets mixed reviews among those who commented on the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Contained in this section are a wide variety of comments about the existing and proposed shuttle systems as well as reasons to limit commercial tour bus operations.

4.13.10.a ~ General Management Direction

Issues of quality, affordability, convenience, and safety as they relate to required public transportation are covered in this section. People want a user-friendly system that doesn’t inconvenience visitors. Others don’t want to be "waiting for a dozen families to load all their stuff on the bus," and resent "people everywhere in your space." Accommodations on public transportation, as well as the maintenance of vehicles, safety features, and emergency preparedness concern some people.

A number of people mention the size of tour buses as it relates to safety on the road and space in parking lots. Charging a premium for overwide buses, one respondent suggests, would help discourage companies from using large buses. Since oil seal replacement is more expensive than oil, many bus companies don’t perform regular maintenance on buses, states an individual who also asserts that "the NPS must force the bus concessionaire to provide leak-free buses."

43. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should establish a convenient, affordable public transportation system for Yosemite National Park visitors.

"If convenient and adequate public transportation is available at a reasonable price in convenient locations, it is the most desired alternative. I believe those coming to Yosemite for a day trip should be required to park at the entrances. However, public transportation to accommodate their needs should be available (including bicycle transport). If you compare the facility to an amusement park such as Disneyland, attendees park outside of the facility but are given access to a variety of free and convenient transportation facilities to meet their needs." (Individual, Roseville, CA - #30015)

"We recommend that you phase in a user-friendly, transit system that does not itself create more pollution, overcrowding or sprawling impacts." (Individual, Bakersfield, CA - #975)

Response: The Yosemite Valley Plan’s Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) provides out-of-Valley parking and convenient in-Valley parking areas. Parking outside the Valley was located where sites are of adequate size to meet expected parking demand, where natural and cultural resource impacts would be minimized, and where the topography would allow cost-effective development. There is not enough flat land near the entrance stations to accommodate the required number of parking spaces.

Transportation and parking actions in the Yosemite Valley Plan would be phased to maintain convenient access for day visitors. Out-of-Valley parking areas and shuttle bus service would be in place prior to the restoration of existing in-Valley parking areas or the closure of roads in the Valley.

94. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should not make public transportation mandatory for visitors to Yosemite Valley.

"Use of the buses from the entry portals should be optional. When adequate public transportation is provided, people will use it when it makes sense, as demonstrated by the success of the existing shuttles on the valley floor." (Individual, Tucson, AZ - #30183)

Response: Under the Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, day visitors to Yosemite Valley would have the option of traveling to the Valley on shuttle buses from parking areas along each of the approach routes to the Valley or, if parking in the Valley were available, driving to a designated parking area. When the parking areas in the Valley were full, day visitors would be able to travel to the Valley by shuttle bus or regional transit bus.

The buses that would operate as shuttles to and from the remote parking sites could be leased and, if appropriate, would be vehicles with low emissions and low noise levels. If necessary, the vehicles could be purchased. The decision to purchase or lease the buses is an operational detail that is beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

162. Public Concern: The National Park Service should consider the impacts of mandatory public transportation on Yosemite National Park visitors.

"If you don’t have overnight reservations, you have to load all your stuff, backpack, climbing gear, kid stroller, bike, swim fins, whatever, onto a shuttle bus at the gate and pay a fare that covers your admission to the park and shuttle service. You thought your park experience was going to be more serene but now you are waiting for a dozen families to load all their stuff on the bus. Their kids (or your kids) are calling out their needs and dissatisfactions and there are people everywhere in your space." (Individual, Wawona, CA - #46)

"Ordinary buses for public transportation [are] somewhat of a hassle, but sharing a bus with families and their gear for an all-day outing will be much worse." (Individual, San Jose, CA - #30088)

Response: All visitors would have the opportunity to drive into the Valley. Visitors staying overnight in the Valley would not be required to travel by shuttle bus. Except for campers using walk-to units, all overnight visitors would have the option of driving private vehicles to designated parking spaces in the Valley.

Some day visitors would be able to drive private vehicles to the Valley and park in designated spaces. When parking in the Valley was full, day visitors would park in areas along each of the approach routes to the Valley. Shuttle service would be provided on a frequent basis from the parking areas to Yosemite Valley. The shuttle buses would be equipped with baggage areas and, possibly, trailers to accommodate recreational equipment.

Some visitors could find using the bus less convenient than driving because of the need to load recreational gear onto the bus. These visitors could also be inconvenienced by having to transfer the gear from an out-of-Valley shuttle bus onto an in-Valley shuttle. Visitors to whom the convenience of carrying recreational equipment is of primary importance would be likely to adjust their travel schedules or plan ahead to ensure that they could drive to the Valley.

The overall impact of the need to load gear onto buses has been judged to be minor, since most day visitors bring relatively little extra gear and few visitors on busy days are able to park directly at the activity areas they visit. Many visitors today transfer gear onto a Valley shuttle or walk long distances from their cars carrying the gear they need. The added shuttle from out-of-Valley parking locations adds a relatively minor burden. It could actually improve access to popular locations for other visitors.

167. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should address safety of public transportation vehicles in Yosemite Valley.

"Bus safety features and accommodations will be required to ensure safe travel for numerous passengers. What maintenance schedules are proposed for out-of-Valley buses, and in-Valley shuttles? . . . These buses must be equipped and maintained regularly to navigate mountain passes. Will all buses be equipped with seatbelts . . . Will baby seats and child seats be available on each bus? . . . How will wheelchairs be secured to remain in place while buses travel up and down steep mountain roads? . . . Will each bus be equipped with Global Satellite Positioning units to enable YNP emergency personnel to quickly and accurately determine bus locations in the event of an accident?" (Individual, Malibu, CA - #1164)

Response: Specific buses to be used in the shuttle service, safety features of the buses, the specific means of accommodating passengers and gear, and maintenance schedules for buses are operating issues beyond the scope of this planning effort. Operation of buses would be based on established industry practice, and operators would be required to meet all applicable standards. All buses would meet federal and state safety standards. Buses would be inspected on a regular basis to ensure that they are in safe working order. Buses would be equipped with communication and other safety equipment as required for safe operation and response to emergencies.

448. Public Concern: The National Park Service should encourage the use of eight-foot-wide buses in Yosemite Valley.

"When selling road-use permits to tour operators, we might think about charging a premium for ‘over-wide’ (8’6") vehicles. If we do, it should be applied across the board to all over-wide vehicles; motor homes should not be exempt. Perhaps this over-width premium could be double the amount charged for standard-width vehicles. Such a premium would encourage the use of 8’ buses. It is possible that this premium could turn into a revenue center for the Park. Some tour operators have standardized their entire fleet to 8’6" buses. Other tour operators may refuse to compromise the comfort of their passengers on a cross-country tour . . . just to save a few bucks in one national park." (Individual, Pittsburg, CA - #6224)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Regulations or incentives regarding vehicle size in Yosemite Valley are operational details that are not consistent with the purpose and need or goals of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Vehicle size restrictions are based on safety considerations in Yosemite National Park, and this would continue under any alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Fee policy is set by the National Park Service headquarters in Washington, D.C., under the direction of the Secretary of Interior and Congress.

427. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should include maintenance requirements for buses in Yosemite Valley.

"The current fleet of shuttle buses leak engine oil and gear oil in great quantities. A look at the street in front of the Village Store or any other shuttle bus stop will confirm this problem. Much of the oil that leaks from vehicles eventually ends up in the river. The reason that a bus leaks oil is due to poor maintenance. Oil seals in engines, transmissions, and final drive units can and should be replaced on a regular basis. This and other common maintenance procedures will keep even old buses from leaking. But oil is cheap compared to oil seal replacement, so the bus concessionaire is not going to keep up with necessary maintenance unless required to do so. The NPS must force the bus concessionaire to provide leak-free buses. Any new contract must specify oil spill limits, measurement technologies, enforcement procedures, and significant and severe fines for non-compliance." (Individual, Lodi, CA - #4474)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Numerous transportation studies have been conducted for Yosemite Valley and have found that the rubber-tired, over-the-road vehicles should be the primary mode of transportation for moving people into, out of, and around Yosemite. The operation and maintenance of buses would be based on established industry practice and the operator would be required to meet all applicable standards. All buses would meet federal and state safety standards and would be inspected on a regular basis to ensure that they are in safe and efficient working order.

4.13.10.b ~ Shuttle Buses

Public reaction to the proposed transportation system is mixed, although many respondents suggest measures to improve the proposed system. Existing shuttle service, many say, should be increased to include walk-in campsites, Bridalveil Fall, the lower river area, and El Capitan. Others would like the shuttles to run for extended hours for the convenience of people, such as climbers, going to remote sites. In addition to these suggestions some people would like the shuttle service extended outside the Valley to outlying communities.

For other Park visitors "buses are a mediocre solution." People want to bring recreational equipment and "need someplace safe to keep belongings." Experienced respondents find the buses "nowhere near efficient enough to be a reasonable alternative" for getting to trailheads because they don’t run on time and are overcrowded. Some feel that it takes too much time to use public transportation. Another respondent worries that foreign tourists will get split up and lost. If the National Park Service enforces the 10,530-visitor limit proposed in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan, a respondent contends, "there would be no need for a for a bus or shuttle system."

People express a variety of concerns about the transition to public transportation. Some say the Park Service should encourage sightseers to ride the bus by offering incentives. They suggest partial rebates on fees, panoramic views through glass domes, better bus design, and low fares as good incentives. Others feel that the "seasonal use of the transportation system is unclear" and want to know how transportation will be handled in the off-season. A few people feel that winter operation of shuttle buses on Badger Pass and Glacier Point Road will prove unsafe.

Respondents offer various suggestions to make shuttle service more popular such as closing Northside Drive to all but shuttle and foot traffic. Many ask that any shuttle service include stops at Tunnel View because "the omission . . . could be so great a loss that it would likely motivate people to . . . avoid riding a bus to the Valley." Buses should make random stops, others feel, especially in the West Valley. Requests that adaptations for bikes and wheelchairs be made on shuttles come from people who want to be able to visit sights outside of the Valley. Afraid that mandatory shuttle systems might affect schoolchildren, an individual advocates that school buses "must have access at all times to the park schools."

17. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should increase shuttle services for Yosemite National Park visitors.

"Shuttles should be increased to help campers get to their walk-in campsites." (Individual, Fullerton, CA - #39)

"Please increase the local bus service to include Bridalveil Falls and the lower river area." (Individual, Newcastle, CA - #541)

"The shuttle should extend to the base of El Capitan also." (Individual, Fort Bragg, CA - #7304)

"We are especially in favor of the expanded shuttle bus service to Bridalveil Fall which is part of Alternative 2-5." (Individual, Oakland, CA - #4419)

EXTEND HOURS OF OPERATION

"Failure to address these issues could have the deleterious effect of denigrating the experience of climbers by concentrating climbing use in areas easily accessed by shuttle buses and by making it difficult to climb at more remote areas or to climb longer climbs requiring an extended day. A transportation system should service the entire valley during all hours in order to maintain the current climbing experience. Tired climbers should not have to find themselves miles from transportation after epic climbs." (Individual, Adelphi, MD - #6959)

"Adequate shuttle service from parking lots is important. . . Shuttle service should start early, end late, and be frequent." (Individual, Mammoth Lakes, CA - #7014)

PROVIDE SERVICE OUTSIDE YOSEMITE VALLEY

"Would it be possible to extend the free bus system to the outlying areas of the park? We might stay / camp in the Crane area if there was a way to get to the valley floor for both us and our bikes. We try to not drive our vehicle after we arrive." (Individual, Roseville, CA - #30015)

"I am a poor man. I take the bus. You now want shuttle-bus service to Bridalveil Falls. I want it to El Portal, or better still: Merced, Fresno, and Lee Vining. The Yosemite National Park experience should be only by bus." (Individual, Los Angeles, CA - #96)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS Preferred Alternative includes increased shuttle bus service in Yosemite Valley and to the Valley from parking areas outside, including El Portal, Badger Pass, and Hazel Green or Foresta. Shuttle bus service would be provided to the west end of Yosemite Valley, including Bridalveil Fall and El Capitan. Shuttle stops in Yosemite Valley would be located to serve visitor destinations, such as walk-in and walk-to campsites. Shuttle would operate from early morning to late evening. Visitors needing transportation when regular shuttle buses are not operated (early in the morning or late at night) would be served by specialized means, which could include early and late climber special buses or on-demand service with courtesy vans. The operational details of specialized transportation are beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. If out-of-Valley parking is constructed at Hazel Green, the details of how the shuttle service in this area would fit with transportation needs to Crane Flat is an operational detail that is beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan but would be addressed in subsequent planning. Shuttle bus service to other parts of the park, such as Tuolumne Meadows and Wawona, are beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The National Park Service cannot provide a free shuttle system outside the park. Rather, the park must work with partners, such as the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS), to develop these services. YARTS is currently running a demonstration transit service project to the park from Merced, Mariposa, and Mono Counties. As part of this demonstration system, it is possible to arrive in Merced via Amtrak and get to Yosemite Valley year-round. YARTS is striving to improve connecting service to Tuolumne Meadows and Wawona from public transportation hubs such as Merced and Mammoth Lakes from Memorial Day to mid-September.

159. Public Concern: The National Park Service should recognize the shortcomings of shuttle bus transportation for Yosemite National Park visitors.

"But for those who plan to stay a week and want a lot of active recreation, buses are a mediocre solution. When I come to the valley, I bring my bicycle (I hardly drive at all inside the valley except to get in and out), my swimming/snorkeling gear, etc. Other people bring rafts, etc. It’s going to be difficult to fit all that into a bus. And of course I need someplace safe to keep my belongings once I’m in the valley. Overall, the bus option is worth exploring, but I’m very skeptical that it will actually work well, at least for many of the visitors" (Individual, Mountain View, CA - #1077)

"We found the shuttle bus system nowhere near efficient enough to be a reasonable alternative to getting to trail heads for Mirror Lake, Vernal/Nevada Falls, etc. They didn’t run on time and at even intervals and were over crowded." (Individual, No Address - #1226)

"Average travel time to access the Valley would increase by 21 minutes over alternative 1, representing a moderate, long-term adverse impact to visitors.’ 21 minutes understates the delay significantly for most people. . . It applies only at peak summer times when buses run every 7-12 minutes or so. It does not include much time for increased packing/unpacking, paying fees, waiting, etc. It does not include added time due to less buses running in spring and fall. And additional time to walk from a bus stop to a location where presently parking is allowed. As worded this 21 minutes is a one way best case. If someone would like to have left the park thru a different exit then the effective delay may be more like 4 hours." (Individual, San Diego, CA - #3479)

"When a bus full of foreign-language speaking tourists and their foreign language guide arrives at the transit center, your plan will scatter them onto many shuttle buses for their valley tour. Without their guide, these tourists will find their experience severely degraded. . . And think of the liability when the foreign language tourists get lost or injured." (Individual, Oakhurst, CA - #3379)

Response: The in-Valley shuttle bus routes in the Preferred Alternative would provide improved service over that provided on the existing Yosemite Valley Shuttle bus system. The existing shuttle is operated with an insufficient number of aging buses. The existing shuttle buses are delayed by traffic congestion and serve stops that are inadequate in size and poorly designed. The Preferred Alternative would remedy these existing problems. People who stay overnight in the Valley, the minority of visitors, would be able to drive their cars into the Valley, unless staying in a "walk-to" campsite. These visitors could then use in-Valley shuttles, bicycles, or walk to destinations in the Valley.

Some day visitors, which are the majority, would have the opportunity to drive into the Valley and park at the designated day-visitor parking area, using their vehicles to transport recreational equipment. Visitors traveling into the Valley by shuttle bus would be able to use storage areas in the shuttle vehicles to transport recreational equipment. The transportation system for the Valley would provide a range of options to meet the varying needs of visitors.

135. Public Concern: The National Park Service should reconsider the need for shuttle bus service in Yosemite Valley.

"It (the Yosemite Valley Plan) would set a specific limit of 10,530 visitors to be allowed in the valley at any one time. It was estimated that these would consist of 50% day users . . . 30% local overnighters . . . and 20% park overnighters. . . I would like to convince you that if this limit is enforced there will be no need for a bus or shuttle system. In addition . . . trying to do this much with a bus system would be impractical . . . that calculates to one bus arriving and leaving the valley every 2.85 minutes over an entire 12 hour period. 60 persons per bus may not be a correct number, but whether you adjust the numbers up or down that kind of bus traffic in a national park makes little sense, either esthetically or from a cost of operation standpoint." (Individual, Pacific Palisades, CA - #17)

Response: The 1980 General Management Plan established a maximum use level of 18,241 visitors per day in Yosemite Valley. The action alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would provide facilities in Yosemite National Park that are scaled to accommodate the number of daily visitors established in the General Management Plan. There is no established limit on the number of people in the Valley at any one time.

The action alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS propose a range of facilities and services for access to the Valley for day visitors. Overnight visitors are assumed to travel to the Valley in private vehicles. Parking facilities for day visitors under the action alternatives would be located and sized to meet a range of objectives, including restoration of highly valued resources and an improved visitor experience. Except for Alternative 3, there would not be enough parking in the Valley to accommodate all of the day visitors. Each action alternative, except Alternative 3, provides out-of-Valley parking for day visitors and a system of shuttle buses. Shuttle service in Alternatives 2 and 4 would arrive in the Valley from out-of-Valley locations about every 3 minutes during peak travel hours. Early and late in the day, buses would arrive less frequently. The operating costs of the action alternatives reflect the amount of shuttle service that would be needed to bring day visitors from out-of-Valley locations. In addition, each action alternative includes in-Valley shuttle service that would be used by day visitors and overnight visitors.

715. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should provide incentives for people to use the shuttle system.

"Since the shuttle bus system is voluntary, there needs to be some sort of incentive, at least initially, to get people out of their cars and into the buses. Perhaps a rebate on part of the entrance fee upon return to the bus terminal would be useful. Or, alternatively a surcharge on the car." (Individual, San Jose, CA - #2314)

"If buses are going to be a viable alternative to the car for sightseeing day visitors, then taking a bus has to become a highly desirable experience. The buses need to offer visitors a panoramic view of the valley through a glass-domed roof with an air-conditioned cabin. The busses should have multiple entrances and exits so that sightseers don’t have to wait to get on or off the busses." (Recreational Organization, No Address - #3800)

"Inexpensive transportation is essential for automobile reduction. At this time bus tickets for a family of four from the valley floor to the Mariposa Grove will cost over $100.00. . . By comparison if you drive your own vehicle the cost is a maximum of $25.00 for the entire family." (Individual, Valinda, CA - #5642)

Response: Concerns regarding the design of shuttle buses are acknowledged; however, they are outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Shuttle buses operated as described in the Yosemite Valley Plan would incorporate design and technology considerations to provide a quality visitor experience. The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS includes a traveler information and traffic management system that would, among other things, create incentives to use shuttle buses. These incentives, including the use of fees or free transit, will be the subject of subsequent planning effort with intensive public involvement.

297. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should include an analysis of measures to ensure shuttles remain affordable.

"Given the contemplated reduction in automobile traffic and the projected use of shuttle buses, the Plan should also include an analysis of measures to ensure that these shuttles are affordable to the Park visitors who would no longer be able to stay in the Park in low-cost units." (California Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA - #5430)

Response: The Yosemite Valley Plan includes estimates of the costs associated with the shuttle buses serving Yosemite Valley and the out-of-Valley shuttle system. The cost estimates include the costs to purchase the buses and the facilities needed to operate and maintain the buses and the ongoing operating and maintenance costs. The National Park Service intends to keep shuttles affordable.

124. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should clarify operational details of off-season shuttle bus service in Yosemite Valley.

"The seasonal use of the transportation system is unclear. There are two references to off-season being October, April and May. Would the transportation system be operating only from April to October? . . . Who is going to operate the system, and what incentive will they have to maintain a minimum level of service? How will it be funded?" (Business, Yosemite National Park, CA - #385)

"What is to be done with the out-of-Valley shuttle bus fleet during the off season?" (Non-Governmental Organization, Wawona, CA - 7882)

Response: Shuttles operating in Yosemite Valley would provide service year round. Generally, the peak visitation season for Yosemite National Park is from mid-June through Labor Day weekend. April, May, September, and October comprise the shoulder seasons, with intermediate levels of visitor use. Visitation is lowest from November through March. The operating hours of the shuttle buses and the frequency of service would be adjusted within each season as required to meet visitor needs while managing visitation so as not to exceed the carrying capacity of visitor use areas. Routes and frequency could also be adjusted to manage use levels in some areas, as might be required by the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection program. (Also see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Actions Common to All Alternatives Visitor Use in Yosemite Valley).

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. Service on out-of-Valley shuttles would start in April, beginning with weekends. As visitation increased, the amount of service would be expanded, reaching a maximum level on weekends in the summer. Service would be reduced in the fall as the need decreased, with shuttles to out-of-Valley parking areas operating only on weekends in the last weeks of the season in October.

The shuttle bus systems proposed in the Preferred Alternative would be operated by an entity (private company or other organization) under contract with the National Park Service. The terms and conditions would include minimum levels of service to be provided for each shuttle route.

The operational details of scheduling shuttle bus use is beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. It is likely that routine preventative maintenance and major overhauls would be scheduled during the shoulder seasons and in the winter. Buses not undergoing maintenance or repair and not needed for daily operation during non-peak seasons would be stored at the maintenance facilities provided in the Preferred Alternative.

464. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should address the safety hazards of operating a shuttle bus system during the winter in Yosemite National Park.

"In the wintertime . . . people get concerned going up Badger Pass Road or Glacier Point Road . . . They have concern when the snowplow comes down. Can you imagine coming down with a bus coming around several of those turns? Even in the summertime it is not a good situation. We have concerns about the buses, where cars slow down, they swerve, you are enjoying the beautiful vistas going up and down Glacier Point Road, you cannot see it with the buses going past and pulling over and get out to see that." (Public Hearing, Fresno, CA - #20509)

Response: Shuttles from out-of-Valley parking sites to the Valley would not operate from November through March. Parking in Yosemite Valley would be sufficient to serve day visitors. Generally, the peak visitation season for Yosemite National Park occurs from mid-June through Labor Day weekend. April, May, September and October comprise the shoulder seasons, with intermediate levels of visitor use. Visitation is lowest from November through March.

Parking in the Valley would accommodate the lower visitation levels from November through March. Out-of-Valley shuttle service would start in April, beginning with the weekends. As visitation and the demand for parking increased, shuttle service would be expanded, reaching a maximum level on weekends during the summer.

594. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should maintain shuttle bus service on Northside Drive.

"Northside Drive should be closed to private vehicles and sightseeing tours but hourly shuttle service should be allowed." (Individual, Elk Grove, CA - #132)

Response: Northside Drive would be closed to all 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 free from the sights, sounds, and emissions of vehicles. The operation of shuttles along Northside Drive would defeat the purpose of establishing a vehicle-free area. In-Valley shuttle services would be available to take visitors to activity areas throughout the Valley and as far west on Northside Drive as Yosemite Lodge and as far west on Southside Drive as Bridalveil Fall.

379. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require that Valley shuttles stop at Tunnel View.

"Missing from the plan is mention as to whether the Valley Shuttle system will stop at Tunnel View. Nearly all Yosemite Visitors stop at this most historic and beautiful overlook. The Valley Shuttle System should also stop at this location or a great many of those required to ride by bus to Yosemite Valley will be greatly disappointed and will have missed seeing one of Yosemite’s greatest features. The omission of a Shuttle Bus stop at Tunnel View could be so great a loss that it would likely motivate people to find ways to avoid riding a bus to the Valley." (Business, Yosemite National Park, CA - #3962)

Response: This specific operational detail is beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. In planning schedules for out-of-Valley bus service from Badger Pass to the Valley and for west Valley shuttles, a stop at Tunnel View would be considered. Visitors who drive to the Valley and park would have the option of stopping at Tunnel View enroute to the Valley.

353. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require that West Valley buses operate on a random stop basis.

"We would prefer that the West Valley route buses operate on a random stop basis (a la Denali N.P.). Pull the cord to ring the bell to get off and flag down the bus to get on (where safe to do so) would be the idea. This would assist in meeting visitor’s goals as stated on page 3-19 of the Executive Summary. Of course, removing all the pull-outs (which we vehemently oppose) would make this approach impossible." (Individual, Oakhurst, CA - #3379)

Response: When the routes and schedules are planned for the west Valley shuttle service the idea of on-demand stops will be considered. Some areas may be determined inappropriate for stops because of resource protection or safety concerns. The specific routes and schedules for shuttle service are operational issues that are beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

216. Public Concern: The National Park Service should allow bicycles and wheelchairs on transit buses in Yosemite Valley.

"Allow the owners of bikes and wheelchairs to bring their own bikes on the shuttle bus to use within the Valley." (Public Hearing, San Jose, CA - #20529)

Response: All of the in-Valley and out-of-Valley shuttle buses that would operate as described under the Preferred Alternative would accommodate wheelchairs. Out-of-Valley shuttle buses would also accommodate bicycles. Vol. IA, Chapter 2 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS describes the operation of shuttle buses in detail.

414. Public Concern: The National Park Service should ensure school bus services for children attending Yosemite National Park schools.

"It should also be noted that the school buses, for the purpose of the education of District children, must have access at all times to the Park schools." (Mariposa County Unified School District, Mariposa, CA - #4498)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The Yosemite Valley Plan would not affect service by Mariposa County Unified School District buses.

759. Public Concern: The National Park Service should clarify how determinations to select shuttle bus fuels will be made.

"The SEIS includes a discussion of the use of alternative fuels in the park shuttle bus system and presents a range of fuel options and the emissions for those fuels (p. 4.2-43, 4.3-21, 4.4-23, 4.5-22). The fuel options include diesel, compressed natural gas, propane, and fuel cells. However, the SIES does not specify which fuel(s) will be used or how the determination will be made to select fuels." (Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA - #10295)

Response: The National Park Service is moving toward the use of the cleanest and quietest transit vehicles feasible in the Valley, and has committed in Vol. IA, Chapter 1 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS to continue strategies to implement technologies that reduce mobile sources of air pollution. The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS states that the National Park Service would consider low-noise, low-emissions, cost-effective, and best available technology as well as the use of clean fuels as primary criteria for acquiring in-Valley and out-of-Valley shuttle bus fleets.

In addition, the National Park Service is currently replacing its diesel in-Valley shuttle bus fleet. Low noise, low emissions, cost effectiveness, and the use of clean fuels are the criteria for purchasing these vehicles. Additionally, these buses must meet or exceed California Air Quality Standards. The air emissions analyses indicate that the use of diesel buses would have a beneficial impact on all emissions except nitrogen oxide emissions in the Preferred Alternative. The use of alternatively fueled buses would further reduce some emissions.

4.13.10.c ~ Commercial Tour Buses

Some respondents question how transportation changes will affect the use of commercial tour buses in Yosemite National Park. They call for restrictions on tour buses because they "belch out black foul-smelling diesel smoke that lingers in the air." They take up too much parking, other people claim, bring in more people and only stay a few hours. Any buses that are allowed in the park, many insist, should be required to "shut down their engines while parked, reducing noise and air pollution."

68. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should limit commercial tour bus operations in Yosemite Valley.

"The problem is not the cars, cars are regulated for pollution . . . however tour buses are not regulated. Tour buses are the pollution problem, I have photographed tour buses belching out black foul-smelling diesel smoke that lingers in the air. They require fourteen parking spaces per bus. I have documented and photographed this . . . Eliminate the tour buses from the valley." (Individual, Stratford, CA - #65)

"And what about restricting the tour buses - they bring more people into the valley in one swoop than do family campers. Of course Tour Buses bring in money to concessions - but to plead impact because of campers and ignore the stop and go buses that blight the landscape and dump people for a quick fix on Yosemite Falls seems a hypocrisy." (Individual, Saratoga, CA - #10)

"Allow four buses access to the Valley floor only if they stay for at least 6 hours. Otherwise turn them around at the Tunnel over-look where they can view everything except Yosemite Falls. We saw tour buses stop in front of the Lodge, their passengers getting off on the run with lunch in hand. They are not enjoying the beauty of the Valley." (Individual, Los Angeles, CA - #5528)

"Limit the number of tour buses that can enter the Valley per day and require all bus operators to shut down their engines while parked, reducing noise and air pollution." (Individual, Los Altos, CA - #2985)

Response: As with all vehicles, the number in Yosemite Valley would be limited by the amount of parking, and in the case of buses, by the number of bays at the proposed transit center. This would be managed as a part of the overall traveler information and traffic management system. A discussion of this system is presented in Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Actions Common to All Alternatives.

672. Public Concern: The National Park Service should address the environmental impacts of commercial tour buses in Yosemite National Park.

"Tour buses present a problem that is separate from shuttle buses. The rapid, recent increase . . . is not addressed in the draft plan adequately. . . There has been no environmental impact study process concerning the additional permission for so many of these buses. What limits . . . does the NPS support, and how will such limits be enforced?" (Individual, San Francisco, CA - #7154)

Response: The National Park Service does take into account the impacts of commercial buses, especially in the areas of air quality and traffic volume (see the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences¾ Transportation). The Yosemite Valley Plan would implement a de facto limit on the number of commercial tour buses in Yosemite Valley by providing a finite number of parking spaces for these buses.

4.13.11 ~ Regional Transportation

The role of the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan is not clear to many people. Some offer suggestions to incorporate YARTS in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan, while others call for additional analysis regarding the implementation of YARTS as part of the plan. "If YARTS is in operation, it makes little sense for the National Park Service to develop and fund its own transportation system," states one conservation organization. Additional discussion regarding the impacts of a regional transit system on circulation inside and outside the park would be helpful, the California Department of Transportation asserts, to provide a clear picture of regional transportation needs.

Comments about the role YARTS will play in the Yosemite Valley Plan reflect public uncertainty. One individual expresses concerns that YARTS buses and 45-foot motor coaches will continue to be allowed in the park. A request is made that YARTS and the Park Service share information so that both have the same answer to similar questions. The CALTRANS mandate on restricting tour buses over 40 feet in length, bears examination, the Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors asserts.

Employees should be encouraged to use YARTS, many claim. "If access is reduced for anyone, it should not be the visitor," remarks one U.S. Representative. Others request that YARTS only be used during peak periods. One citizen asks that the Park Service not incorporate YARTS as part of the transportation plan because of logistics. "The YARTS program is doomed to failure," this person predicts, "because it can only work for those who plan on entering and leaving the park by the same entrance."

Couched in comments about regional transportation issues are remarks about the traveler information and traffic management system. Supporters of the traveler information and traffic management system direct that the National Park Service to "begin designing the information and traffic management system as soon as possible." The system should address climbers’ numerous transportation needs, one respondent states, as well as climbing and camping information. A county organization demands that the information and traffic management system be established before the Record of Decision and include "all projects that could have a secondary influence on Valley traffic circulation." Reinforcing the link between traffic management and traveler information, an individual counters that information and traffic management system "would be unnecessary if visitation reservations were required."

719. Public Concern: The National Park Service should evaluate the benefits of implementing both YARTS and the Yosemite National Park transportation system.

"The Draft YVP does not discuss this possibility, but, if YARTS is in operation, it makes little sense for the NPS to develop and fund its own transportation system to move day use guests. If YARTS has the capacity and capability to handle the satellite lot traffic, we fully support using that system, rather than having the NPS purchase or lease enough vehicles for a truly workable system." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #4594)

"Additional discussion regarding the impacts of a regional transit system on circulation inside and outside the Park would be helpful in determining the benefits of providing such a service to the Park, the region, and to local communities." (California Department of Transportation, Stockton, CA - #30245)

Response: The National Park Service is supportive of a regional transportation system that serves visitors and employees and provides an alternative to the private automobile. The Yosemite Valley Plan allows access for Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) buses and larger motor coaches to the Yosemite Valley transit center where riders could access shuttle service throughout the Valley. The National Park Service recognizes the benefit of these transit systems working together. However, YARTS is an effort independent of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The Yosemite Valley Plan can be implemented with or without the implementation of regional transit service. This plan does not preclude YARTS from adding or improving service to out-of-Valley parking locations, or from operating under similar contracts to the out-of Valley transit service, or from increasing regional transit service to Yosemite Valley from locations outside the park. However, all of those details are beyond the scope of this plan because the National Park Service does not have the authority to create such a regional system or mandate its use. YARTS is presented in the Cumulative Impact Scenario (Vol. II, Appendix H) of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. The impacts of YARTS are included where relevant in the Cumulative Impact section of Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences.

524. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should maintain access for YARTS buses and large motor coaches to Yosemite Valley.

"Access for YARTS buses and for 45 foot motor coaches needs to be maintained. This will assure that visitors can conveniently use modes of transportation other than private vehicles to reach the Valley. The larger coaches are commonly used by tour operators providing services to foreign guests." (Town of Mammoth Lakes, Mammoth Lakes, CA - #7014)

Response: The National Park Service recognizes the importance of transit access to the Valley from outside the park, which would ensure that visitors could use modes of transportation other than private automobiles to reach the Valley. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would allow access for Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) buses and larger motor coaches to Yosemite Valley.

To support regional transit and commercial buses, a Yosemite Village visitor/transit center would be constructed where riders would arrive and depart and have the opportunity to access shuttle service for the Valley. Dimension details of the transit center bus bays would be determined in a more detailed subsequent site plan. The dimension of buses using Yosemite Valley roads is a function of road design throughout the park and on state roads outside of the park. The concern about dimension of buses is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan because the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does not propose change to road widths in the Valley.

The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS alternatives include shuttle bus service in Yosemite Valley and to the Valley from parking areas outside, including El Portal, but not from outside the park.

YARTS is operating a transit service to the park from locations in the surrounding region. Their planning efforts are separate but complementary to Yosemite Valley planning. The National Park Service is supportive of a regional transportation system but does not have the authority to create such a system.

(Also see response to public concern #719.)

591. Public Concern: The National Park Service should coordinate with YARTS to provide consistent responses to common transportation questions.

"YARTS still needs to be refined, you have a situation where you have contracted . . . for alternative traffic means into the Park but the only answers they give refer to their business only. The two of you together should at least have a consensus of some common questions you can both answer. For instance ‘is YARTS the only traffic access into the Park now?’ That question has been answered by a ‘no, you can still drive in’ from Park staff, and from YARTS we hear ‘we can’t answer for the Park, all we can tell you is our bus schedule.’ In my opinion YARTS should be capable of saying that private vehicles are still allowed until Park officials close it down." (Individual, Modesto, CA - #4372)

Response: The Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) is an independent regional provider of transit. Its operations are beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

Although ongoing planning efforts by YARTS are separate, they are complementary to Yosemite Valley planning efforts. As part of a two-year demonstration project, YARTS is providing regional transit service into Yosemite National Park and may operate future regional service based on the results of this program. Regional transit service into the park, however, will remain a voluntary alternative means of transportation to the park even during the peak season.

The Yosemite Valley Plan calls for the development of a traveler information and traffic management system. This system would be developed through subsequent planning that would include public involvement. A primary goal of this system would be to disseminate accurate and timely information about ways to get to Yosemite Valley.

429. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should address the CALTRANS-mandated tour bus length restrictions.

"The CALTRANS mandate on restricting tour buses in excess of 40 feet in length from traveling along State Route 120, between Groveland and Yosemite National Park, should be addressed in light of Tuolumne County’s non-participation in the YARTS process." (Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors, Sonora, CA - #4436)

Response: This comment is acknowledged; however, it is beyond the scope the Yosemite Valley Plan. State Route 120 outside the park and Caltrans are outside the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. Within Yosemite National Park, vehicle size restrictions are based on road design and safety considerations. These considerations will continue to govern vehicle sizes as the Yosemite Valley Plan is implemented.

388. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should include provisions that encourage Yosemite National Park employee use of YARTS.

"The plan works in conjunction with YARTS (if available) to reduce the employee use of limited parking. If access is being reduced for anyone, it should not be the visitor. Park and concession employees should be provided additional incentives to ensure that mass transit, rather than personal vehicles are the preferred mode of transport into the park. You have worked hard over the past year to ensure that employee transportation is made available through the YARTS process. The current YARTS demonstration project has shown an unexpected level of success in encouraging both employees and visitors to ride instead of drive into the park. We anticipate that your commitment to that project will continue." (U.S. Representative, Fresno, CA - #2951)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would allow access for Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) buses and larger motor coaches to the Yosemite Village transit center. The employee transportation system described in this document would be a component of the overall transportation system for the Valley. Specific operating characteristics of the employee transportation system, however, are beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan and would be addressed as part of an operational plan for service into the Valley. The National Park Service is supportive of a regional transportation system that serves visitors and employees but does not have the authority to create such a system outside park boundaries. The ongoing planning effort by YARTS is separate, but complementary to, the Yosemite Valley planning effort.

497. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should mandate the use of YARTS only during peak periods.

"YARTS should be offered as a voluntary alternative means to visit the Park except during peak times and holidays when people may be forced to take the bus because the parking capacity of the Park has been reached." (Individual, Mariposa, CA - #7080)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The National Park Service is supportive of a regional transportation system that serves visitors and employees and provides an alternative to the private automobile, however, the National Park Service does not have the authority to create such a system or mandate its use. The Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) under California law. The National Park Service has a cooperative agreement with the YARTS JPA to assist financially and through supportive policies and land use planning as long as the transit service is compatible with visitor-use goals and consistent with park plans and guidelines. Regional transit policies are approved by the JPA and land-use decisions continue to rest with the primary landholder or land-use agency (for example, Merced County, Mariposa County, Mono County, the U.S. Forest Service, Caltrans, or the National Park Service). The National Park Service has jurisdiction over bus stops and land use and all activities in Yosemite National Park and the El Portal administrative site.

Although ongoing planning efforts by YARTS are separate, they are complementary to Yosemite Valley planning efforts. Currently YARTS is demonstrating regional service into Yosemite National Park and may operate future regional service based on their findings. Using regional transit service into the park, however, would remain a voluntary alternative even during the peak season in accordance with the YARTS mission statement. For more detail on the YARTS project, see Vol. II, Appendix H.

Specifics about vehicle access to the park would be determined by the traveler information and traffic management system, which would be developed with extensive public involvement following the Record of Decision for the Yosemite Valley Plan.

114. Public Concern: The National Park Service should reconsider incorporating YARTS into the Yosemite Valley Plan.

"The YARTS program is doomed to failure, either by intent or ignorance. What is the incentive to use it? For people staying in . . . Oakhurst who plan on going to the Mariposa Grove, Glacier Point, the Valley and out over Tioga how can it work? It can only work for those who plan on entering and leaving the Park by the same entrance." (Individual, No Address - #408)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. The National Park Service is supportive of a regional transportation system that serves visitors and employees and provides an alternative to the private automobile, but the National Park Service does not have the authority to create such a system or mandate its use. The Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) under California law. The National Park Service has a cooperative agreement with the YARTS JPA to assist financially and through supportive policies and land use planning as long as the transit service is compatible with visitor use goals and consistent with park plans and guidelines. Regional transit policies are approved by the JPA and land use decisions continue to rest with the primary land holder or land use agency (for example Merced County, Mariposa County, Mono County, the U.S. Forest Service, Caltrans, or the National Park Service).

The National Park Service does not have the authority to implement a regional transit system on its own outside of park boundaries. Madera County, which includes the community of Oakhurst, chose not to participate in YARTS service. As a result, people staying in Oakhurst cannot use YARTS to access any part of Yosemite. Visitors traveling to the park from Merced, Mariposa, and Mono Counties can access Yosemite Valley using YARTS service during the peak season. Although YARTS ongoing planning efforts are separate, they are complementary to Yosemite Valley Plan efforts. YARTS is operating a demonstration of regional service into Yosemite National Park and may operate future regional service based upon its findings. Regional transit service into the park, however, will remain a voluntary alternative even during the peak season in accordance with the YARTS mission statement.

The Yosemite Valley Plan calls for the development of a traveler information and traffic management system. This system will be developed through a later planning process that will include public involvement.

176. Public Concern: The National Park Service should implement a traveler information and traffic management system in Yosemite National Park.

"Action: Implement a traveler information and traffic management system. Result: Any such system should be an integral part of a vehicle permit system of traffic management." (Individual, Los Angeles, CA - #470)

"Development of this system [Traveler Information and Traffic Management System] should address climbers’ needs for roads, parking, and shuttle bus routes, after hours schedules, flexible and numerous stops, as well as climbing and camping information." (Individual, Adelphi, MD - #6959)

"We additionally support the NPS’s plans to establish a detailed Traveler Information and Traffic Management System (TMS) immediately upon the issuance of a record of decisions on the YVP, expected in November 2000. Through the use of dashboard parking tags, gated and properly-signed parking lots, and well-trained, patient parking lot attendants, the Service must ensure that Alternative 2’s new transportation and parking system works as smoothly as possible and facilitates the public acceptance of change. We believe that the NPS should begin designing the TMS as soon as possible and develop a system of reservations for overnight and day-use visitors." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #4594)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS includes a traveler information and traffic management system that would manage the number of vehicles in Yosemite Valley and, potentially, the park so as not to exceed the capacity of parking areas and roads. On days when the number of vehicles is equal to or less than the capacity of the parking areas and roads, one set of management tools would be used to guide people to parking. During the period from November through March, parking for day visitors to Yosemite Valley is expected to be adequate to meet the demand. During the months with higher visitation, different management tools would be needed to guide people to available parking. The operational details of the tools in the traveler information and traffic management system are beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The traveler information and traffic management system would be defined during a subsequent planning process, which would include opportunities for public involvement. However, the National Park Service would make every effort to design the system to accommodate the needs of all user groups.

354. Public Concern: The National Park Service should complete the design of the Traveler Information and Traffic Management System and the Accessibility Plan prior to a Yosemite Valley Plan decision.

"Complete the design of the ‘Traveler Information and Traffic Management System’ and ‘Accessibility Plan’ first, in preparation for planning - not within five years after a Record of Decision. All projects that could have a secondary influence on Valley traffic circulation (e.g., out- of-Valley parking areas, visitor centers at the gates, etc.) should also be included." (Madera County Board of Supervisors, Madera, CA - #4284)

Response: The Yosemite Valley Plan action alternatives include the implementation of a traveler information and traffic management system. Planning necessary for the detailed operations of this system is at a level of complexity and detail that is inconsistent with the Yosemite Valley Plan. Consequently, the traveler information and traffic management system would be implemented after a separate planning and environmental compliance process that would include extensive opportunities for public involvement. A plan indicating the sequence and probable timing of general improvements in the Valley, including elements of the traveler information and traffic management system, is presented in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, Vol. II, Appendix M. (Also see response to concern #55.)

Because specific area and facility design is left to subsequent planning efforts and because implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan would be phased in over a period of years, it is appropriate that specific accessibility needs and plans be developed in concert with them, particularly since natural area recreation accessibility standards have not yet been fully developed. Although it is not possible in the Yosemite Valley Plan to develop specific elements of an accessibility plan, the Yosemite Valley Plan does include a commitment to meeting accessibility guidelines and providing the most feasible access for visitors with disabilities to structures, features, and programs. The plan also proposes that until buses are fully accessible, access for people with mobility impairments would temporarily remain similar to present conditions.
(Also see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Visitor Experience–Access to Visitors with Disabilities.)

596. Public Concern: The National Park Service should consider replacing the traveler information and traffic management system with a visitation reservation system.

"Traveler Information and Traffic Management. This would largely be unnecessary if visitation reservations were required." (Individual, San Marcos, CA - #4584)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS includes a traveler information and traffic management system that would manage the number of vehicles in Yosemite Valley and, potentially, the park so as not to exceed the capacity of parking areas and roads. On days when the number of vehicles is equal to or less than the capacity of the parking areas and roads, one set of management tools would be used to guide people to parking. During the period from November through March, parking for day visitors to Yosemite Valley is expected to be adequate to meet the demand. During the months with higher visitation, different management tools would be needed to guide people to available parking. The operational details of the tools in the traveler information and traffic management system are beyond the scope of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. The traveler information and traffic management system would be defined during a subsequent planning process, which would include opportunities for public input. However, the National Park Service would make every effort to design the system to accommodate the needs of all user groups.

A visitation or day-use reservation system could be one of the tools used in the traffic management system. However, the National Park Service would consider a variety of methods to manage vehicle use in the traveler information and traffic management system.

760. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should include a focused description and discussion of YARTS.

"The implementation of the Yosemite Regional Transportation System (YARTS) has the potential to significantly impact traffic flows, parking demand, and air quality in and around Yosemite National Park. Mention is made of YARTS in Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences and other section of the document. However, a focused description of YARTS, its relationship to Yosemite National Park, and the pilot project is not provided. Recommendation: Include a detailed description of the Yosemite Regional Transportation System (YARTS), its relationship to Yosemite National Park, and the pilot project under "Transportation" in Chapter 3: Affected Environment of the SEIS. Recommendation: Provide a more detailed discussion of the cumulative impacts of YARTS on transportation and air quality of the five Alternatives." (Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA - #10295)

Response: As a separate project that would require independent National Environmental Policy Act and California Environmental Quality Act process, the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) has been generally described in the Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS as a project with potential cumulative relationships (see Appendix H). Specific actions and potential impact associated with YARTS would be fully disclosed and evaluated in a forthcoming environmental compliance document.

Section 4.14 ~ Noise

Natural quiet is a quality of the Yosemite National Park experience valued by many respondents. "The land in the national parks was there before humans, and the parks should reflect nature before humans," writes one person. To this end, not only should the Final Yosemite Valley Plan emphasize natural quiet, but, according to many, the National Park Service should develop a detailed noise abatement plan for the park. Such a plan might include additional restrictions on aircraft, vehicles, and equipment in Yosemite Valley.

Other people move beyond generalities to address specific sources of noise in Yosemite Valley–primarily being diesel buses and aircraft. First, according to some, part of the Park Service’s commitment to addressing and reducing noise would entail requiring noise abatement devices on all buses (see Section 4.13.10 for related comments on buses and noise). Second, some mention the noise created by military aircraft as a source of extreme irritation. One person suggests that the National Park Service coordinate with the National Guard to eliminate overflights of Yosemite Valley.

407. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should emphasize natural quiet in Yosemite Valley

"Just as a man’s home is his castle, a woman’s home is her refuge. This difference in philosophies can be experienced in any large department store. It is right in the center of a floor. Note the bright lights, hard surfaces, broad open spaces where the activities of a playing fields can be simulated. Loud sounds from the audio entertainment next door. Next, check out ladies intimate apparel, over in a corner, away from traffic. Note the fragrance, the muted, expectant hush, the plush surfaces, the feeling of privacy. With even more private booths to safeguard this reality, which of these feels more like a refuge? Yosemite Valley is in a quiet, out of the way place. In its undisturbed state it is soft, hushed, fragrant. Clearly, Mother Nature means it to be a refuge. The din and drone of commercial exploiters fills most of our lives most of the time. Visitors to Yosemite Valley need to be protected from such interference before they can begin to listen to the soft, still voices of the Valley spirits. To this end, I recommend that the Draft plan be revised with a strong commitment to ensuring the preservation of the natural absence of noise." (Individual, No Address - #3837)

"The Land in the national parks was there before humans, and the parks should reflect Nature before humans. Nature is usually quiet except for short interruptions caused by storms, avalanches, etc. Therefore natural areas should be quiet. National parks should allow people to see a different life than their normal daily life." (Individual, Wooster, OH - #314)

Response: Noise is defined as human-caused sound. The act of permitting visitors into Yosemite Valley to enjoy this natural resource results in varying degrees of noise. The control of human-caused noise was one of the considerations during the development and analysis of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Noise control measures considered included the concentration noise sources, the elimination of old buses and their replacement with newer and quieter buses, and the minimization of vehicle access.

577. Public Concern: The National Park Service should develop a noise abatement plan for Yosemite National Park.

"The Yosemite experience is as driven by sound as much as by sight. I encourage you to construct an extremely strict noise abatement plan that is as hard on you as it is on the public. Here is my short list for consideration.

-Prohibit the hours for garbage pick up and delivery of heavy goods, etc. to mid-day, mid-week.
-Curtail helicopter flights in and out of Yosemite Valley for anything but truly life-threatening situations. Stabilized patients can be transported to Foresta by ambulance for evacuation.
-Prohibit rangers from using sirens to pull over offenders unless all other methods fail.
-Do not use industrial vacuums to recycle road gravel.
-Purchase electric vehicles for all light maintenance work.
-Restrict deliveries of freight by vendors to dead of night or mid-day as appropriate.
-Use, or encourage use of, proven alternative technology vehicles to not only reduce emissions, but noise as well.
-Establish and enforce strict noise pollution standards on the public and concessionaire as far as possible. Quiet hours in campgrounds, noise level restrictions for engines–including RVs, motorcycles, hot rods, etc., can and need to be enforced." (Individual, Lafayette, CA - #4499)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, a noise abatement plan is outside of the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The control of human-caused noise was one consideration during development and analysis of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Noise control measures considered include the concentration of noise sources, the elimination of old buses and their replacement with newer and quieter buses, and traffic reduction.

273. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should address the noise pollution effects of diesel buses in Yosemite Valley.

"If one climbs the Valley walls the noise impact that hits one’s ears is not automobiles but buses, trucks and construction equipment. Try it if you don’t believe me. The noise impact of replacing cars with many more diesel buses is going to be quite negative, even if total traffic is cut down. I didn’t see this addressed but didn’t read all the details." (Individual, No Address - #6763)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does address noise-related effects in Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS seeks to accommodate visitor travel needs while protecting natural resources such as air quality and natural soundscapes. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS is committed to selecting buses that would minimize noise emissions. The availability of proven transit vehicle technology, supporting infrastructure (such as refueling and maintenance facilities), environmental characteristics (including air emissions and noise levels), and costs would be major factors in decisions related to transit vehicle selections.
(Also see response to concern #407 addressing noise, and concerns #1045, #1046, and #1047 addressing air quality.)

236. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require noise abatement devices on all buses in Yosemite Valley.

"My experience in hiking out of the valley is that once you are more than one quarter mile from a road, the vehicles you can hear the most are the booming buses, and once in a while a motorcycle or truck. The same noise will annoy users of a new Southside trail, not far from Southside Drive. There should be a noise limit on each bus that enters the main part of the valley, forcing them to build a better muffler, including commercial tour buses. Buses will be running from early in the morning to very late at night, a peak rate of one every 1.3 minutes at the transit center. It only takes one loud bus to disturb sleeping campers. Urban bus drivers typically floor the throttle after most stops. One cruising diesel bus genially puts out 82 dBA at 50’ whereas a typical car is about 70 dBA. Since each additional 3 dB means the sound has doubled, that means that one bus is equivalent to 16 simultaneous cars (12 dBA difference equates to 4 doublings and 2 to the fourth power is 16). However, at most times in the valley, cars are spread out enough that you aren’t close to 16 revving cars at the same time. So each new bus will cause a new loud noise surge whenever it goes by." (Individual, San Diego, CA - #3479)

Response: Shuttle bus operating details, vehicle characteristics, and management of noise from commercial tour buses are outside the scope of this planning effort. The noise impacts associated with each alternative are documented in Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS seeks to accommodate visitor travel needs while protecting natural resources such as air quality and natural soundscapes. The availability of proven transit vehicle technology, supporting infrastructure (such as refueling and maintenance facilities), environmental characteristics (including air emissions), and costs are all major factors in decisions related to transit vehicle selections for in-Valley and out-of-Valley shuttles that would be implemented under the Preferred Alternative.
(Also see response to concern #407.)

444. Public Concern: The National Park Service should reduce military aircraft noise in Yosemite Valley.

"You need a plan to reduce military practice runs close to the Valley. On my last visit, Friday, May 12, I was disturbed by loud fighter aircraft noise at about 12:30 p.m. As I remember from 20 years ago, the Fresno Air National Guard pilots fly on Friday afternoon. You need to reason with them or whatever military pilots fly low over the Park about the impacts on them that irate visitors can have on their Congressionally provided budget." (Individual, Twain Harte, CA - #7633)

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

Section 4.15 ~ Social and Economic Environments

This section includes a discussion of the comments that were made regarding the relationship of the Yosemite Valley Plan and local community stability, visitor population characteristics, and regional economic conditions.

4.15.1 ~ Local Communities

The potential effects of the Yosemite Valley Plan on communities outside Yosemite Valley concern many respondents. These people generally feel that the National Park Service needs to improve its socioeconomic analysis in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. This analysis, they argue, must detail how specific employee housing and transportation proposals may affect the demand and funding for services in surrounding communities such as El Portal, Wawona, and Fish Camp. Charging the National Park Service with an "inadequate understanding of the nature of the communities and how services are delivered," the Mariposa County Board of Supervisors requests that the plan analyze how relocating employees to El Portal will impact library services provided by the School District and the County of Mariposa.

Several people question the National Park Service’s methodology for the socioeconomic analysis in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. For some respondents, it is not clear whether interviews conducted for this analysis exclusively focused on National Park Service and concessioner employees who live in local communities. They believe that the National Park Service should analyze the impacts of the plan on local residents who are not park employees, particularly Wawona residents. Addressing another concern related to the Wawona community, one person suggests that the park service not include hotel guests when calculating the population of Wawona.

The effects of the plan on day-use visitation in Yosemite Valley also elicited some comments. Claiming that implementation of the plan will increase the number of overnight visitors in the Valley, one person suggests that the National Park Service conduct a more thorough analysis of the social impacts resulting from increased visitation. Additionally, one business representative asserts that the potential for increased day-use visitation resulting from population growth in California’s Central Valley should be addressed in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

The Mariposa County Unified School District expresses several concerns regarding the effects of employee housing proposals on area school facilities. In particular, the District asserts, "State funding mechanisms do not provide adequately for the changes in student population and location that will occur during the implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan." The National Park Service, the District further suggests, must not only reimburse the District for the funds used to accommodate increased numbers of students but also build additional school facilities where population growth occurs.

192. Public Concern: The National Park Service should improve its analysis of the impacts of the Yosemite Valley Plan on communities outside Yosemite Valley.

"One separate aspect of the EIS, as summarized, also bothers us. The EIS apparently does not study the environmental and socio-economic impacts on the neighboring communities of adopting any of the ‘action alternatives,’ which involve pushing a great deal of housing, parking, and demand for other services outside the Park’s boundaries. We do not believe that it is legally or socially/politically acceptable to ignore those rather obvious, substantial, consequential off-Park impacts, before the decision authority makes his final decision on the Plan. The EIS should be supplemented to adequately cover these impacts." (Individual, Alexandria, VA - #1276)

"The Valley Plan lacks a complete analysis of the socioeconomic impacts of relocation of personnel to Foresta, El Portal, Wawona and surrounding communities. Additionally, there is a lack of analysis and a failure to recognize that some of those relocated employees will impact other communities. It is not enough to say for example, that law enforcement needs will increase, the Valley Plan should also analyze the way in which the Park Service and the affected local entity acting together can provide the funding needed for additional services. The failure to properly analyze the effects of relocation on surrounding communities indicates a lack of understanding of the services provided to County residents. We believe that while some of the impacts are addressed, the conclusions contained in the Valley Plan relative to the socioeconomic impacts of relocation are minimized due to the inadequate understanding of the nature of the communities and how services are delivered. By way of example, relocating a significant number of individuals to the El Portal community will significantly impact library services provided by the School District and the County of Mariposa. The library is currently located in school facilities, and any significant increase in use will create conflicts between library users and school operations." (Mariposa County Board of Supervisors, Mariposa, CA - #6060)

"The plan does not address the ‘necklacing effect’ of the new developments at Fish Camp, El Portal, Hazel Green, Rush Creek, Lee Vining, and June Lake. What kinds of pressures will these put on the Park and on the gateway communities?" (Conservation Organization, Mariposa, CA - #6108)

Response: The Draft and Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS evaluated the socioeconomic impacts of each alternative on communities outside Yosemite National Park in two ways. First, impacts on local community services and infrastructure were evaluated, as were impacts on regional economies. Second, impacts to communities were considered in the cumulative impact analysis. The cumulative impact analyses evaluated combined impacts of other expected development projects (located both in and outside of Yosemite National Park) and impacts of an alternative to evaluate whether they have any additive effects on the resource. Vol. II, Appendix J of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS also discusses the difficulties associated with projecting future visitor demand and visitation for the proposed alternatives.

630. Public Concern: The National Park Service should conduct an analysis of the social impacts of the Yosemite Valley Plan on local community members other than NPS and concessioner employees.

"Local communities were supposedly studied by gathering ‘descriptive information on the social environment of Yosemite Valley, El Portal, and Foresta and on residents’ perceptions of the social impacts of the proposed relocation of housing out of Yosemite Valley. Because mostly primary concessioner employees would be affected, interviews focused on these employees.’ If I read this correctly, the residents of these towns, whose perceptions you are gauging, are all employees of the park (NPS and concessionaires). Is this true? Why didn’t you survey any of the residents of these towns who don’t work for the park? The exclusion of Wawona in your process is another glaring deficiency. As far as I have heard, current residents of Wawona are almost unanimously opposed to the location of employee housing in their town. The National Park Service needs to conduct a social analysis of the impacts of the Yosemite Valley Plan on non-park employees and the town of Wawona." (Individual, No Address - #7401)

Response: For an understanding on the potential impacts to the social environment of Wawona related to the development of employee housing, the National Park Service evaluated the Wawona Town Planning Area Specific Plan/Final Environmental Impact Report. This document clearly states that Wawona would be used for "expanded use" for employee housing. The document also fully acknowledges that there would be "substantial growth" in employee housing if housing was not available outside the park. Notwithstanding, the Wawona Town Planning Area Specific Plan/FEIR makes no mention of or reference to the community opposing the development of employee housing.

484. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not include hotel guests when calculating the population of Wawona.

"The NPS estimates that the population in summer and winter in Wawona is approximately 1,130 and 420, respectively (including hotel guests). According to census takers: hotel guests are never considered to be part of a community’s population. Furthermore, note that the number of full-time residents along Forest Drive is probable only 10 to 15." (Non-Governmental Organization, Wawona, CA - #7882)

Response: The National Park Service has changed its calculation to reflect just the residents of Wawona in the impact analyses conducted for the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

609. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should include a thorough analysis of the social impacts resulting from increased visitation.

"Regarding visitor populations, the Executive Summary states, ‘The equivalent of a 2.6% decrease to 1998 overnight visitation would be expected, representing a long-term, moderate adverse impact.’ (page 4-62 ES) Under Alternative 5, it states, ‘The equivalent of a 20.8% increase to 1998 overnight visitation would be expected, representing a long-term, major beneficial impact.’ (page 4-62 ES) How does the increase of overnight visitation ‘improve the existing environment’ of visitor populations? Does it not just add to the crowding and congestion that this plan is ostensibly designed to decrease? Again, it appears as if the NPS is only concerned with the number of visitors when determining social impacts, totally disregarding the increased strain on resources, overcrowding, and environmental degradation that accompany people and their vehicles into the park. The NPS needs to do a much more thorough analysis of the social impacts that increased visitation creates." (Individual, No Address - #7401)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS evaluates in two ways the socioeconomic impacts of each alternative on the communities outside Yosemite National Park. First, the impacts on local community services and infrastructure are evaluated as are the impacts on the regional economies. Second, the impacts to the communities are also considered in the cumulative impact analyses. The cumulative impact analyses evaluate the combined impacts of other expected development projects (both in and outside of Yosemite National Park) and the impacts of an action alternative to determine if they have any additive effects on the resource.

367. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should account for the impacts of Central Valley population growth on day-use visitation in Yosemite Valley.

"Residential growth within California’s Central Valley was not addressed in the Plan, nor was the placement of a University of California campus at Merced. These changes will surely increase day-use visitation to Yosemite from SR 140." (Business, Yosemite National Park, CA - #3962)

Response: The social and economic affected environment considered in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS included the five counties surrounding Yosemite National Park. These counties were selected because of their direct relationship to the park and the potential that they could be affected by actions of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Additionally, the cumulative impact scenario in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS did consider potential impacts in eight surrounding counties, four national forests and five cities (see Vol.II, Appendix H). Many projects considered in the cumulative scenario related to future population growth of the region. Growth in the community of Merced and the development of University of California, Merced were also considered.

412. Public Concern: The National Park Service should ensure adequate funding for Yosemite National Park schools during implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

"The District’s primary concern is how the three park schools, El Portal, Yosemite Valley and Wawona, will be impacted. MCUSD is committed to providing the best possible education for all of its students, and the Park Service and Concessionaire have acknowledged the need for quality educational services to attract quality employees. State funding mechanisms do not provide adequately for the changes in student population and location that will occur during the implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Therefore, the National Park Service through the Secretary of Interior must reimburse the District for encroachments during this lengthy process." (Mariposa County Unified School District, Mariposa, CA - #4498)

Response: According to the evaluation in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS the potential economic impacts to the Yosemite Valley, Wawona, and El Portal Schools, would be based upon future school enrollments that may change as a result of actions of the Yosemite Valley Plan. It is expected that enrollment would be accommodated with existing school facilities. Therefore, additional funding is not expected to be needed for improvements or operational changes associated with actions under the Yosemite Valley Plan (see Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences).

413. Public Concern: The National Park Service should build additional school facilities in areas where growth occurs.

"MCUSD has, in previous responses to prior plans, noted that the National Park Service must be prepared to build additional school facilities where growth occurs. State law establishes the right of parents to have their K-3 students educated at the facility closest to their place of daily employment." (Mariposa County Unified School District, Mariposa, CA - #4498)

Response: The evaluation of potential economic impacts to the Yosemite Valley, Wawona, and El Portal Schools has projected that future school enrollments that may result from the direct actions of the Yosemite Valley Plan would be accommodated with the existing school facilities. Therefore, it is not projected that additional funding would be needed for improvements or operational changes in association with actions of the Yosemite Valley Plan. This analysis can be found in Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences.

Should other events occur or conditions change as a result of actions not related to the Yosemite Valley Plan, and thereby cause an impact to the economic condition of the Yosemite Valley or El Portal schools, then those issues would be addressed at that time in accordance with Mariposa County Unified School District or National Park Service policy.

4.15.2 ~ Visitor Population

Several people who commented on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS question specific planning assumptions and conclusions in the visitor population analysis. In particular, one person believes that the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS creates the "false impression that low-income people tend to be the prime users of facilities such as Housekeeping Camp and Camp Curry." This assumption is incorrect–use patterns actually reflect that low-income visitors typically camp or take day trips to Yosemite Valley, this person argues. Offering a different critique, the Madera County Board of Supervisors recommends that the National Park Service complete all visitor use and demographic studies before implementing an alternative from the plan.

The need to ensure environmental justice in Yosemite Valley planning efforts also was reflected in some respondents’ comments. Several people call attention to a perceived lack of emphasis on providing opportunities for low-income and minority people to visit the Valley. The National Park Service, they assert, is discriminating against these groups through its proposals to increase expensive lodging accommodations and decrease low-cost camping sites. In the vehement words of one respondent, "The Park Service’s total disregard for Executive Order 12898 is, by far, the most egregious error in Yosemite Valley Plan’s socioeconomic analysis of the preferred alternative." In order to address the under representation of low-income and minority people in the park, one person exhorts the National Park Service to establish programs that strive to increase visitation from these groups.

607. Public Concern: The National Park Service should reevaluate its conclusion in the Yosemite Valley Plan that low-income people are the primary users of Housekeeping Camp and Camp Curry.

"This and other similar reports have painted the false impression that low-income people tend to be the prime users of facilities such as Housekeeping Camp and Camp Curry. That is not so. I was Vice President of Communications (marketing) for the Yosemite Park and Curry Co. during the ‘80s and ‘90s and know from first-hand analysis that while some visitors to these camps . . . are of low income, most are of moderate to affluent means. People of low income do not tend to stay at either Housekeeping Camp or Camp Curry, they camp, take day trips or do not visit at all. That they do not visit is more a matter of cultural pattern than it is of the price of theses camps. . . The suggestion that the low price helps people of low income is absolutely specious and is clearly discredited by the fact that to reserve a space at highly popular Housekeeping Camp, you must provide a deposit for one night’s stay a year and a day in advance of visit. And, reservations for these sites sell out almost immediately. Few people of low income can place that kind of deposit a year in advance of visit." (Individual, No Address - #7215)

Response: The National Park Service has received a number of comments from members of the public who relate the retention of affordable rustic lodging at Curry Village and Housekeeping Camp to park visitors with lower incomes. The Draft and Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS evaluate potential impacts to minority and low-income visitors in Vol.IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences.

356. Public Concern: The National Park Service should complete all sociological studies necessary to support planning assumptions prior to a Yosemite Valley Plan decision.

"Complete any and all sociological studies that will scientifically support visitor use planning assumptions including recreational patterns of low income and non-Anglo populations, visitor demand and attitudes, etc. Such studies should be part of a comprehensive Visitor Experience and Resource Protection study conducted first, in preparation for planning–not within five years after a Record of Decision." (Madera County Board of Supervisors, Madera, CA - #4284)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS identifies areas of sociological research that the National Park Service would like to pursue in the future, both as part of the ongoing effort to better understand the dynamic character of park visitation and as part of the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection process (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Actions Common to All Action Alternatives — Visitor Use in Yosemite Valley, and Visitor Experience — Orientation and Interpretation). Data collection for visitor statistics, preferences, and background, as well as resource protection studies, must be ongoing. However, it is neither prudent nor sensible to wait until the National Park Service has additional data before proceeding with Yosemite Valley planning because both visitor experience and the integrity of ecological and cultural resources would suffer. While there would certainly be value in having the next 5 years of results from this research, current data is sufficient for the level of actions proposed by the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, which is also driven by concern for highly valued resources and impacts to those areas are already well documented.
(Also see response to comment #472.)

652. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should comply with Executive Order 12898.

"The Park Service’s total disregard for Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice) is, by far, the most egregious error in YVP’s socioeconomic analysis of the preferred alternative. Economic Justice, Minority and Low Income Visitors warrants a whopping three paragraphs in your entire four volume plan. The study you cite points out the dearth of non-Anglo and poor visitor (3.6 and 5% respectively), despite the large number of these demographics in the surrounding region and state. ‘The data illustrate that people from low income households are largely under-represented in the population of visitors to Yosemite National Park.’ Your cited study suggested that the lack of ethnic diversity in Yosemite visitation ‘was probably the result of a ‘combination of economic restraints among ethnic minorities. . .’ (page 3-117, Volume 1A) You know that the park is an expensive vacation for most, you know that the lack of poor and minority populations is due to economic constraints, but you provide no analysis of what the NPS is doing to rectify this situation. In fact, you chose a preferred alternative that increases overnight, expensive lodging, and decreases low cost camping options. Such a move adversely impacts indigenous and minority populations, in direct violation of EO 12898. Three paragraphs stating the obvious is hardly an analysis of environmental justice. Low income and minority populations are being discriminated against by your alternative and no analysis, acknowledgement, or mitigation is offered. This is definitely a litigable offense." (Individual, No Address - #7401)

Response: As discussed in the "Minority and Low Income/Environmental Justice" section of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, impacts are presented in accordance with EO 12898. However, to some degree data limitations on minority and low-income populations constrain the extent that future impacts on these populations can be assessed.

Although some adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations are expected, these impacts do not represent environmental justice impacts since no aspect of any action alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS is expected to result in a "disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects" (EO 12898. Sec 1-101) on minority or low-income populations. Any restrictions on travel, lodging accommodations, or access to any area of the park that might result from the Yosemite Valley Plan would be equally applied to all visitors, regardless of race or economic standing.

In response to public concerns about possible adverse effects on minority and low-income populations, the total number of rustic and economy in-Valley lodging and camping facilities have been increased in the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. This increase would improve the availability of overnight accommodations within the Valley for minorities and low-income visitors, thereby lessening adverse impacts to these visitors.

420. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should include provisions designed to increase Yosemite National Park use by minorities, low-income people, and troubled youth.

"Increase use of the park by minorities and low-income people. This is somewhat counter to your need to decrease use, but, the United States will never become fully integrated until all of our major institutions and resources are integrated. Racism is alive and well in the United States, and while I expected Yosemite to be mostly white, I was stunned to see only 7 African-Americans in six days there, and one of them was my neighbor who I brought. He is a good kid, and does well in all-white situations, but was sad to realize that 10% of the US population is so disenfranchised that they don’t even know about Yosemite. Also, Park use by low-income people is a problem you mention lightly, but don’t address. It is also critical that we protect the rights of the poor to enjoy all of the benefits of being a citizen. So reaching out to some groups like Outward Bound etc . . . who help low-income kids improve their life by learning about and enjoying nature is a great idea. And, of course, if you could do some environmental education so they will return to the urban inner city ready to contribute to a healthy environment, so much the better. Programs like these could be targeted to low-use times of the year, and you could rely more heavily on non-valley locations for their implementation. Get a lot of help on this - working with troubled youth is a challenge not to be undertaken lightly." (Individual, Washington, DC - #4853)

Response: In response to public concerns about possible adverse effects on minority and low-income populations, the total number of less expensive in-Valley lodging and camping facilities has been increased in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS to improve the availability of rustic and economy overnight accommodations within the Valley.

4.15.3 ~ Regional Economies

The relationship between the Yosemite Valley Plan and gateway communities’ economic stability is a key theme expressed in public comments. Several respondents view proposals to reduce overnight accommodations and automobile traffic in the Valley as disincentives for people to visit this area. Declaring that gateway communities are often dependent on tourist dollars from Yosemite visitors, one U.S. Representative asserts, "As the Park Service implements plans that discourage rather than encourage visitation, the gateway communities are the most directly impacted." The National Park Service, some respondents contend, must analyze the economic effects of limiting auto touring along traditional travel routes on gateway communities.

368. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should address the economic effects of decreased lodging on gateway communities.

"The Valley Plan calls for a 38% reduction in overnight lodging from the pre-flood levels, resulting in 981 lodging units and 465 campsites permitted in the plan. In addition, employee housing is not adequately addressed in the alternatives. The elimination of so many lodging units will have a significant negative effect on the local economy in the long term. As people find out that it is increasingly difficult to obtain lodging in Yosemite Valley, the number of visitors will continue to be reduced. The economy in the gateway communities is largely dependent on tourism, and Yosemite is certainly the major attraction. As the Park Service implements plans that discourage, rather than encourage visitation, the gateway communities are the most directly impacted." (U.S. Representative, Fresno, CA - #2951)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS evaluates the expected economic effects of each of the proposed alternatives on the region’s economy. The socioeconomic impact analyses and conclusions are presented in the visitor populations and regional economies sections of Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. The impact analysis evaluates the effect that changes in visitor spending is expected to have on the economies of each of the five counties in the Yosemite region. This analysis and its results are presented in the visitor spending section in Chapter 4.

428. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should address the economic effects of limiting auto touring on gateway communities.

"Economic impact on gateway communities should be studied. The NPS proposes to limit the preferred mode of access, ‘auto touring’ without studying the cumulative impacts of such a policy on gateway communities who rely on tourist dollars for economic viability. The YVP fails to address the potential adverse economic impacts on Groveland and the State Route 120 corridor from reduced tourist traffic to and from Yosemite along this traditional travel route. . . These omissions, which address the inevitability of other Sierra Nevada tourist locations that don’t restrict auto access becoming recipients of displaced and inconvenienced auto tourists at the expense of Yosemite’s gateway communities, should be investigated." (Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors, Sonora, CA - #4436)

"I am very concerned that the gateway community of Groveland will suffer unduly from the existing plan for Yosemite. It looks like the drive-through traffic that sustains this special community will be lost under the proposed plan. That would be a devastating economic blow for Groveland/Pine Mountain Lake where the community depends on the Yosemite business. The economic impact would be severe. These are not businesses owned by chains. Why give a monopoly to a few or even one bus line, over the economic impact to the entire area around Groveland?" (Individual, No Address - #3363)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS evaluates the expected economic effects of each of the proposed alternatives on the region’s economy. The socioeconomic impact analyses and their conclusions are presented in the visitor populations and regional economies sections of Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.