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

---

Section 4.16 ~ Park Operations, Facilities, and Housing

Section 4.16.1 includes comments on the location of National Park Service facilities, maintenance of facilities, and park administration. Concerns regarding the location and condition of employee housing are detailed in Section 4.16.2.

4.16.1 ~ Operations and Facilities

The location and upkeep of National Park Service and concessioner facilities are of primary importance to numerous respondents who are concerned about the management of Yosemite National Park. Members of the public differ on whether they believe it would be most advantageous to relocate facilities and personnel stationed in the park or leave staff and support complexes where they are. Respondents in favor of the status quo argue that it is more effective to keep administrative personnel, managers, maintenance facilities, and other buildings close to the people and sites they support. Others maintain that for symbolic reasons the park headquarters and superintendent’s home should remain in the Valley. Those in favor of reducing the ‘human footprint’ in the Valley assert that removing staff and associated developments will allow, "what development must occur . . . to concentrate on serving the visiting public." One person encourages the Park Service to include an explicit strategy in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan to relocate Park Service and concessioner headquarters. Stationing park and concessions maintenance facilities in the area currently used to store wood, suggests another, would go a long way toward concentrating facilities in one area.

The placement of maintenance facilities engenders strong feelings among respondents. Several people call for the removal of the old sewer plant. The Wawona maintenance yard, another person points out, may have cumulative effects on other resources, especially if the yard will be used to store vehicles more often in the future. One person urges the Park Service to make use of formerly privately owned land and cabins that are now federal property; perhaps these sites could be used for facilities that are not desired in other locations.

Visitors would like to find clean, well-maintained facilities when they visit a national park. Many respondents request that the Park Service invest more time in the upkeep of roads, trails, and buildings. The El Capitan picnic area dumpsite, one person insinuates, is a problem and should be cleaned up. In apparent recognition of the Park Service’s limited resources, one respondent recommends that a volunteer trash collection program be established. Hazardous waste sites weigh heavily on the mind of one respondent who would like the Park Service to address cleanup of these sites and allocate funds for cleanup.

Numerous individuals express their perception that there are not enough rangers working in Yosemite National Park. These respondents imply that increases in ranger staffing levels would lead to decreased violations and an improved visitor experience. Offering another service-related suggestion, one respondent asks the Park Service to make more information available over the telephone and Internet so that it will be easier to plan ahead for trips.

The relationship between the concessioner and the National Park Service elicits many responses. People worry that the Park Service is serving the concessioner by supporting additional developments and generally helping to ensure that the concessioner makes a profit. A number of individuals wonder if accommodation of the concessioner is consistent with the Park Service’s mission. One person asks, "How does this fit into the National Park Service mission to preserve and protect the park or is this a plan to preserve and protect the concessioner?" According to another respondent, "You are quickly becoming the servants of your concessioners and we, the taxpayers of this nation, deserve better." Another person observes that, "In 1998 the gross revenues of the Yosemite Concession Service Company, were $87.8 million" and wonders how many "public dollars go to this business to provide improvements and other projects . . . all at the taxpayer’s expense?" Visitors express a dim view of the behavior and quality of Yosemite Concession Service employees. Patrons of Yosemite would like YCS to use more discretion when hiring and overseeing their employees.

53. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain Yosemite National Park Headquarters in Yosemite Valley.

"I think it would be wise to keep the NPS headquarters in the Valley, if only for symbolic reasons. For the same reason, the Superintendent should also continue living there." (Individual, Penngrove, CA - #95)

Response: Although leaving Yosemite National Park headquarters in Yosemite Valley would indeed retain an important symbol in the Valley, it is not necessary or essential for it to be located in the Valley (see Vol. IA, Chapter 1, Goals and Criteria). Furthermore, Congress passed a law in 1958 establishing the El Portal administrative site (see Vol. II, Appendix A) for the purpose of moving park administrative facilities outside Yosemite Valley.

727. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should not require the removal of National Park Service or concessioner administrative buildings and personnel from Yosemite Valley.

"The draft YVP/SEIS calls for the eventual relocation of both headquarters out of the Valley to El Portal. From a logical corporate management standpoint, this move is unacceptable. In the operation of any business location, lower and middle management personnel can usually take care of routine problems on the spot as they occur daily. However, top level corporate management is required to make decisions involving critical actions. . . Usually these extreme actions require on the spot decisions, with timing often being a critical factor. This immediate critical response cannot be made effectively when corporate management is physically located at a remote location." (Individual, American Canyon, CA - #907)

"Concession headquarters needs to remain in valley; not necessarily in the village. . . Personnel, training, and payroll issues need to be handled conveniently, not via a bus ride out of valley. Out of the valley makes no sense!" (Individual, Yosemite, CA - #201)

MAINTENANCE AREA

"NPS Maintenance area. Keep the snow plows and the ability to fix them in the valley… also the sandbags and materials to handle emergencies when the El Portal road is closed. It makes no sense to have sandbags stored in El Portal when there’s a flood and high water on the roads already! Keep all garage and maintenance activities in one place; it makes no sense to have two facilities duplicating operations. Also, if a vehicle is broken, you don’t want to try to drive it to El Portal! Put a garage complex in NPS’ area." (Individual, Yosemite, CA - #201)

Response: The goals of the 1980 General Management Plan include removing nonessential facilities from Yosemite Valley. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes to "remove unnecessary facilities from and locate new facilities outside of highly valued resource areas unless there are no feasible alternatives." Additionally, it calls for removal of National Park Service headquarters and other functions not essential for Yosemite Valley operations from the Valley. National Park Service and concessioner administrative buildings and personnel functions were evaluated and not found to be essential to Valley operations. The impacts and benefits of relocating these functions were considered. (See Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, Vol. IA, Chapter 1, Purpose of and Need for the Action.)

340. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the removal of National Park Service and concessioner administrative buildings and personnel from Yosemite Valley.

"There are some good options for the park that are not considered in any of the plans. . . Removal of National Park Service administrative buildings and personnel as well as concession administration buildings and personnel to Wawona." (Individual, Coulterville, CA - #3724)

"I want to see the park headquarters, concessionaire’s headquarters, hospital, maintenance facility, automotive garage next to Yosemite Village, and much of the employee housing moved out of the valley. This will open up much needed space for park visitors." (Individual, El Dorado, CA - # 243)

"Relocating administrative personnel outside of Yosemite Valley makes sense if they have no need to be within the Valley." (Individual, Arroyo Grande, CA - #3555)

"I agree with efforts to reduce the presence of staff and concessionaires in the Valley itself. . . As the Draft YVP SEIS notes, it is not feasible to host all employees and staff outside of the Park or the Valley — but certainly every effort should be made to reduce such a footprint to the smallest possible area. This will in turn allow what development must occur (or remain) to concentrate on serving the visiting public." (Individual, Mill Valley, CA - #223)

Response: Goals of the 1980 General Management Plan included removing nonessential facilities from Yosemite Valley. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes to "remove unnecessary facilities from and locate new facilities outside of highly valued resource areas unless there are no feasible alternatives." Additionally, the plan calls for removal of National Park Service headquarters and other functions not essential for Yosemite Valley operations from the Valley. The National Park Service and concessioner administrative buildings and personnel functions were evaluated and not deemed to be essential to Valley operations. The impacts and benefits of relocating these functions were considered.
(Also see Vol. IA, Chapter 1, Purpose of and Need for the Action.)

396. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should include an explicit plan for relocation of National Park Service and concessioner headquarters.

"A precise plan for relocation of NPS and Concessionaire headquarters is not detailed within the Plan. Private investors could be motivated to construct attractive and adequate office building in Mariposa, Midpines, the Merced River corridor or El Portal that could accommodate NPS and Concessionaire headquarters, if the NPS would define its needs/desires more adequately." (Business, Yosemite National Park, CA - #3962)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS indicates that the general location for these facilities would be in El Portal. Appendix M of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS provides information on the sequencing plan for the relocation of various facilities. Specific site design would be accomplished at a later date and through another process that would include public involvement.

338. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the establishment of the National Park Service and concessioner maintenance facilities in the wood yard area.

"There are some good options for the park that are not considered in any of the plans. . . The establishment of Valley maintenance facilities for the National Park Service and concessionaire in the wood yard area." (Individual, Coulterville, CA - #3724)

Response: Goals of the 1980 General Management Plan included removing nonessential facilities from Yosemite Valley. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes to "remove unnecessary facilities from and locate new facilities outside of highly valued resource areas unless there are no feasible alternatives." Additionally, the plan calls for removal of National Park Service headquarters and other functions not essential for Yosemite Valley operations from the Valley. These functions were evaluated and not deemed to be essential to Valley operations. The impacts and benefits of relocating the function were considered.
(Also see Vol. Ia, Chapter 1, Purpose of and Need for the Action)

729. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the removal of the old sewer plant.

"Removal of the old sewer plant: This is hardly a new [idea] of course. All four of the action alternatives call for its removal, as did the 1980 GMP. Assuming removal remains in Phase 1 of the implementation plan and funding continues, we look forward to showing our children and grandchildren where the old sewer plant used to sit." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #4594)

"Remove the sewer plant if not properly functional and consider hauling the sewage out." (Individual, No Address - #7305)

Response: All action alternatives for the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would require the removal of the old wastewater treatment plant in El Portal. The removal of the old wastewater treatment plant would allow for the protection of a sensitive cultural resources site. The wastewater treatment plant that was constructed in the late 1970s would continue to be used for treatment of wastewater from Yosemite Valley and El Portal.
(Also see response to concern # 478)

463. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should address the cumulative impacts of the Wawona maintenance yard on other resources.

"The Wawona maintenance yard and facility serves as a location for a small number of buses during the off-season, as well as road maintenance equipment. While the maintenance yard and facility expansion is not specifically addressed in the Valley Plan, if this area will be used for increased bus and road maintenance vehicles, and equipment storage, then the cumulative impacts must be addressed in detail." (Individual, Malibu, CA - #7483)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. No actions are proposed in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS to add facilities in the Wawona maintenance yard.

332. Public Concern: The National Park Service should utilize the land and cabins transferred to them from private ownership.

"Utilize the land and cabins that private parties like my family have ‘given’ to the Park. There must be over 20 that have had their leases come up in the last few years. We did not sell our land to the Park because we needed the money. We did it as conscientious citizens for the good of the National Park." (Individual, Loomis, CA - #3387)

Response: Land and cabins transferred to the National Park Service have been and would continue to be evaluated to determine if continued use is feasible.

728. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should ensure that existing facilities and areas are properly maintained.

"On a recent trip to Yosemite, we were appalled by the lack of proper maintenance and reduced accessibility of many areas already. The need to walk 2 miles one way to see Mirror Lake, the long hike to Thousand Isles, and the lack of repair to roads and bridges three years after the flood is not acceptable." (Individual, Anaheim, CA - #269)

CABINS

"The second concern that we have is the maintenance and upkeep of the government-owned cabins. . . I have had government employees complain to me that they can’t get maintenance and repairs done on their cabins. . . It’s a concern to me that the government is talking about building additional housing when employees that are now in the government maintained, or government-owned, houses are not being maintained." (Public Hearing, Los Angeles, CA - #20338)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The repair, replacement, or relocation of many facilities following the 1997 flood has been delayed, awaiting the completion of this planning effort. A result of this plan would be construction of quality housing for employees by replacing temporary or below-standard units. Day-to-day maintenance of facilities is an operational issue and is subject to priorities and annual funding.

461. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should address the management of the El Capitan picnic area dumpsite.

"The Park Service’s Preferred Alternative 2 does not address the El Capitan Picnic Area Dumpsite, commonly referred to as ‘Devil’s Elbow’ on the Merced River. Yet, Devil’s Elbow is a significantly large, documented dumpsite that is located along a wide bend of the Merced River in Yosemite Valley. The Merced River directly and continuously impacts the site, and as the river continues to change course, it will continue to erode this site. This is evidenced by the document submitted on April 30, 1992 by Sue Fritzke, Louise Johnson, and Tim Kennedy titled, ‘El Capitan Picnic Area Dumpsite Status Report.’" (Individual, Malibu, CA - #7483)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The El Capitan dumpsite is located east of Devil’s Elbow in Yosemite Valley. A major portion of this dumpsite was removed in 1991 as part of the Merced River ecosystem restoration program. Under the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection program of monitoring and actions common to all alternatives, this area would be monitored for resource or visitor experience degradation. If conditions indicate a degradation of either visitor enjoyment or resource conditions, mitigative actions would be undertaken. These could include archeological data recovery excavation, natural area rehabilitation, and visitor activity reduction. Any decision regarding actions for this area would be made considering natural, cultural, and visitor experience resource values.

251. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should establish a trash collection program for all visitors in Yosemite National Park.

"Set up a program for all people, not just children, to pick up trash." (Individual, No Address - #3066)

Response: All trash is collected. Any specific collection plans are beyond the scope of this plan.

457. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should address remediation plans for hazardous sites in Yosemite Valley.

"Where in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan . . . are the plans to inspect and remediate these sites? If additional federal funding is needed, where are the plans to request and commit enough dollars to do the job right, once and for all? Is there any reason why these sites cannot be cleaned up now--before new construction begins and many of these sites are developed for visitor use?" (Individual, Malibu, CA - #7483)

Response: Remediation of hazardous waste and distribution of funding are outside the scope of this planning effort. Yosemite National Park has a comprehensive hazardous waste remediation program.

460. Public Concern: The National Park Service should dedicate a portion of funding to remediation of hazardous materials.

"Given the enormous amount of money to be committed to construction activities as proposed in the draft Yosemite Valley Plan, critical funding should be dedicated to the proposed investigation and cleanup of hazardous materials inside park boundaries." (Individual, Malibu, CA - #7483)

Response: Remediation of hazardous waste and distribution of funding are outside the scope of this planning effort. Yosemite National Park currently has a comprehensive hazardous waste remediation program.

315. Public Concern: The National Park Service should increase the number of rangers in Yosemite National Park.

"Over the years visitor numbers have increased, and the number of Rangers has decreased. This is nonsense. We need, respect and enjoy their presence. Double the number of Rangers!" (Individual, Walnut Creek, CA - #3386)

"In the old days, there was a lot more ranger presence in the campgrounds. I always looked forward to their rounds, and learned a lot from their wisdom. I know that I am a better person and camper from these frequent ranger visits. Now days, the only time that you see a ranger is in the visitor center and they act like tourist guides. I believe it would be much better to have a full time ranger in each of the several campgrounds, where they would act as wildlife and nature specialists and camping guides." (Public Hearing, Costa Mesa, CA - #4584)

"It used to be that there were more rangers patrolling the camp sites (and probably parking lots) to make sure that food was properly stored. The kids absolutely loved the rangers on horses. Is there less funding for rangers now? Whereas we once received a warning for leaving a jug of water out . . . we now notice fellow campers leaving a lot more than that out and never receiving a warning." (Individual, San Diego, CA - #7309)

Response: This concern is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan; however, the National Park Service does recognize the need to staff and fund all aspects of operations. The National Park Service makes annual requests for base budget increases. Operational costs associated with the alternatives can be found in Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives.

307. Public Concern: The National Park Service should ensure that adequate information about Yosemite National Park is available via the telephone or the Internet.

"Improved phone service and more internet information is key to trip planning. I hope those two items are improved in the near future." (Individual, No Address - #3127)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. While these two subjects are mostly operational in nature, the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS Preferred Alternative recognizes the need for enhanced pre-visit orientation opportunities. In the Preferred Alternative, Visitor Experience–Orientation and Interpretation, improved visit planning resources are proposed as part of an improved visitor orientation sequence.

310. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should clarify how increases in concessioner services comply with the National Park Service’s mandate to preserve and protect Yosemite National Park.

"There is to be an increase in commercial ventures inside the Park. How does this fit into the National Park Service mission to preserve and protect the Park, or is this a plan to preserve and protect the concessionaire? David Brower said it very well, ‘Yosemite should be a nature center, not a profit center.’" (Public Hearing, Fresno, CA - #20481)

"Your management of the National Park System and of Yosemite in particular, does not serve the American people well. You are quickly becoming the servants of your concessionaires and we, the tax payers of this nation deserve better." (Conservation Organization, Bend, OR - #7320)

"If concern for the environment were truly a mainstay of the Yosemite Valley Plan, there would be a decrease in commercialization and no reason to note that ‘. . . proposed changes to visitor services are projected to have a long-term major beneficial net impact on the concessionaire’s gross revenues.’ We fully support the foundational roots of the National Park Service as articulated in the Organic Act of 1916 which calls for protection of the natural and cultural resources while enhancing visitor experience. Consequently, we urge that the expansion of the development ‘footprint’ in the Valley be stopped and only those services determined by careful study as critical to the visitor be retained." (Conservation Organization, Oakhurst, CA - #4276)

Response: There is no increase in commercial services proposed in the Yosemite Valley Plan. In fact, there are significant decreases in lodging facilities and other commercial ventures.
(Also see response to concern # 1171.)

395. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should note whether concessioner profits are reinvested into Yosemite National Park.

"In 1998 the gross revenues of the Yosemite Concession Service Company, a Delaware Corporation, were $87.8 million dollars! . . . How much of these profits actually return to Yosemite National Park? How much of Yosemite National Park public dollars go to this business to provide improvements and other projects like the Ahwahnee restoration--all at the taxpayer’s expense? Did the Concession Company pay any amount of this restoration, which will serve to richly benefit their company? How much taxpayer’s money is the concession company using to run its business?" (Conservation Organization, Camarillo, CA - #2627)

Response: The level of concessioner profits is an operational issue beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Nonetheless, the benefit returned to the park from the primary concessioner was approximately 22% of gross receipts before the January 1997 flood and has been approximately 18% since the flood. The actual percentage of profit retained by the concessioner is a small fraction of the benefit to the park. However, the benefits to the park from the primary concessioner will drop dramatically because of reduced operations and increased costs outlined in various alternatives of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

311. Public Concern: The National Park Service should require Yosemite Concessions Services to adequately monitor and police its own staff.

"The NPS is spending an inordinate amount of time monitoring, policing, and responding to YCS employee incidents versus other types of incidents. Given the increased workload created by YCS employee incidents and given that ranger workload is very high during the peak visitation, not enough rangers are available to provide common public services and perform basic job functions. YCS is not doing enough to monitor, police, and control their own staff." (Public Hearing, Costa Mesa, CA - #20303)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, the management of park employees is an operational issue that is beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The National Park Service acknowledges that all employers in the park have a responsibility to monitor employee behavior and take effective action regarding inappropriate behavior. Some of the problems that develop relate directly to inadequate employee housing. The Yosemite Valley Plan would set the stage for resolving many of those issues.

406. Public Concern: The National Park Service should require more stringent hiring practices for Yosemite Concession Services employees.

"I was disgusted when I learned of the hiring practices of the agency contracted by the NPS. Manned by a boatload of temporary employees with nothing to lose, this historic park was filled with repeat felons. In a park that is so inviting for the peaceful naturalist, or a family gathering, how can one company employ such violent criminals? My history has taught me that temporary or seasonal employees are the quick fix for a busy time and should not be relied upon to act on the company’s best interests. These employees will be gone soon, they have nothing to lose. Hiring people with a history of bad behavior is an open invitation for trouble in a place where people let their guard down and seek refuge from the violent city. I only ask that you put in a place a responsible party whose hiring practices are safer for park patrons as well as the local residents of the Yosemite Valley than the current reckless alternative." (Individual, San Jose, CA - #3648)

Response: The hiring practices of concessioners are operational issues beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Currently the primary concessioner conducts both pre-employment drug testing and a limited background check; these practices are more extensive than most of the hospitality industry. The National Park Service and the concessioner continue to work together in an effort to help ensure a high quality workforce in Yosemite.

4.16.2 ~ Employee Housing

A wide array of individuals, organizations, and government entities presented concerns regarding the accommodation of employees in Yosemite Valley. To address the breadth of public comments regarding employee housing, concerns in this subsection are separated into four categories: general management direction, housing in Yosemite Valley, housing outside the Valley but inside Yosemite National Park, and housing outside the Park.

4.16.2.a ~ General Management Direction

Many people submitting comments on the employee housing proposals in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS address the general direction they believe the Park Service should pursue in dealing with this matter. Several respondents urge the National Park Service to specify in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan those park employers who will be allocated housing and how many beds each will receive. In addition to detailed information on employee housing allotments, one nongovernmental organization requests a protocol on how allocation decisions will be made. The Mariposa County Unified School District chastises Yosemite National Park leadership for failing to formulate a master housing plan that addresses the needs of park employees with school-aged children and allows these families to plan where they will reside. Another nongovernmental organization insists that the National Park Service must notify all park employers of housing allocations prior to the Yosemite Valley Plan’s implementation. Further, this organization states that the Yosemite Association must be allocated sufficient employee housing in Wawona in order to fulfill its purpose.

Other respondents exhort park leadership to seek assistance from organizations outside of the National Park Service when addressing employee housing needs. The Mariposa County Board of Supervisors suggests that the use of private facilities for employee housing will decrease park expenditures as well as ease impacts on communities in Yosemite National Park. More adamantly, a conservation organization declares, "The Park Service should stay out of the housing business unless absolutely necessary." A Yosemite area resident proclaims that park planners lack the experience and objectivity necessary to make housing decisions that will remain viable in the future for Yosemite National Park. This individual urges the National Park Service to consult with independent community planners when designing employee housing developments. Expressing a related concern, one person admonishes the Park Service to improve maintenance procedures before building new structures.

250. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should clarify which employees will be provided housing in Yosemite National Park.

"And I just ask, there are over 700 employees that will be allowed to maintain their housing in the Park, who are these employees? Who decides who stays and who goes?" (Non-Governmental Organization, Oakland, CA - #20030)

Response: The National Park Service has criteria for the assignment of employee housing in Yosemite Valley. Factors include the roles and responsibilities that housing occupants would have if there were an emergency situation. Because these individuals are generally expected to assist with emergencies, residents are required occupants. It is expected that this housing policy would continue as elements of the Yosemite Valley Plan are implemented.

The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS (Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives) would extend this principle to the concessioner by establishing criteria for the number of employee beds in Yosemite Valley. This would provide consistency when assigning employee housing.

411. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should include a comprehensive housing plan for Yosemite National Park employees with school-aged children.

"In reviewing the latest draft of the Yosemite Valley Plan and the accompanying documents, it is obvious to the Mariposa County Unified School District that there is still no comprehensive housing plan for employees with school-age children. There is still uncertainty as to where employees of the National Park Service and Yosemite Concession Services will live as well as to where the headquarters and many working facilities will be located." (Mariposa County Unified School District, Mariposa, CA - #4498)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS considers the demographic characteristics and needs of employees with school-aged children who could be affected by the relocation of employee housing and presents a range of alternatives to address the school-related needs of park employees. Additionally, the plan evaluates the potential impacts to the Mariposa County Unified School District that would occur related to the relocation of employee housing (see Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences).

487. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should provide housing for Yosemite Association employees.

"We believe that the Yosemite Association should be identified as an employer to whom beds are to be assigned, and that it is imperative that housing needs be determined and beds designated for each of the other employers in advance as part of the plan. At Wawona, there is no provision for any beds for the Yosemite Association. If we are to continue to operate effectively and increase our coverage of public facilities, beds need to be designated in Wawona for the association as well." (Non-Governmental Organization, El Portal, CA - #9476)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Since this housing would not be related to housing relocated from Yosemite Valley, the provision of housing for these employees should be coordinated through a separate process.

749. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should establish guidelines for private sector involvement in employee housing development.

"The relocations [of housing] as proposed appear to place the burden on the National Park Service and the federal government for establishment of additional housing outside the Valley. We believe that every opportunity should be taken to provide employees with an opportunity to choose private housing outside the Valley and outside the communities of Foresta, El Portal and Wawona and to allow the private sector to respond to the demand, as is conventional in local economies. Private housing would remove the burden of providing costly housing by the Park Service and would additionally help mediate impacts on the Park communities." (Mariposa County Board of Supervisors, Mariposa, CA - #6060)

"We understand the Park Service’s desire to guarantee affordable employee housing, and we support this effort to push lodging to the perimeter of the Park. We believe, however, that the construction of out-of-valley employee housing should proceed in a staged and deliberate manner, to maximize the opportunity for the private sector to provide housing for employees. The NPS should also develop and employ new housing guidelines to facilitate private sector involvement in housing employees. The bottom line is that the Park Service should stay out of the housing business unless absolutely necessary." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #4594)

Response: The National Park Service is committed to participating in processes that would encourage and develop joint development authorities, joint housing agreements, and joint public-private sector housing programs. The National Park Service does have the administrative authority to consider options for developing partnerships for the purpose of providing employee housing. These options include joint development authorities, joint housing agreements, and joint public-private sector housing programs. These options, however, first require the interest and involvement of local government and private parties who have jurisdictional authority and who can provide park employee housing that is affordable, suitable, and within a reasonable commuting distance. In remote areas like Yosemite National Park, there are generally few options for private individuals to provide cost-effective employee housing, particularly for seasonal employees. For example, current land zoning in Midpines and Fish Camp would not allow for the development of high-density employee housing. The National Park Service recognizes that conditions may change over time. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS acknowledges that conditions in the local communities may change and private parties may become interested in providing housing for park employees (see Chapter 2, Alternatives–Housing).

636. Public Concern: The National Park Service should consult with independent planners when developing employee housing proposals for Yosemite National Park.

"I recommend that the National Park Service seek the independent expertise of community planners to develop recommendations, including cost estimates, for the creation of employee housing and related community amenities to support the park workforce. I do not believe the planners within the National Park Service possess the depth of experience/expertise, nor the neutral viewpoint, to make operationally or financially sound recommendations that can be carried forward in the future." (Individual, Yosemite National Park, CA - #7020)

Response: The National Park Service typically contracts planning and design services in accordance with guidelines from the National Academy of Public Administration. For example, the National Park Service has used nine independent consulting firms in preparing the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

257. Public Concern: The National Park Service should improve maintenance and upkeep of employee housing.

"The second concern that we have is the maintenance and upkeep of the government-owned cabins. As I understand it, approximately 20 years ago in the Wawona area and perhaps other areas, some of the cabins were purchased by the government and the owners were allowed to live in them. And then just recently after 20-year period, the government took possession of the cabins and put their employees in them. I have had government employees complain to me that they can’t get maintenance and repairs done on their cabins. These are not seasonal employees they’re long-term employees with families, and it’s a concern to me that the government is talking about building additional housing when employees that are now in the government-maintained or government-owned houses are not being maintained." (Public Hearing, Los Angeles, CA - #20338)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Maintenance and upkeep of housing units are operational issues.

4.16.2.b ~ Employee Housing In Yosemite Valley

The accommodation of employees within Yosemite Valley generates a wide range of opinions from respondents. Among the respondents arguing for removal or reduction of employee housing in the Valley, one individual asserts that the Park Service has not provided sound reasons why spaces should remain and, therefore, all such accommodations should be removed. Others admonish the Park Service to reduce the number of spaces reserved for employees rather than remove all housing. "683 seems an outrageous number of employees spending the night in the Valley. Why can’t employees take a shuttle in from outside the Valley?" proclaims one person. Some people suggest that the Yosemite Valley Plan should limit housing to essential employees only.

Conversely, several respondents declare that living in the Valley is an integral aspect of the Yosemite employee experience and helps draw staff to work in the park. These individuals warn that many concession and National Park Service employees will quit rather than accept relocation. Others highlight the potentially negative impacts on employee lifestyles incurred by moving housing outside the Valley. A Yosemite area resident proffers, "The simple lack of affordable, suitable housing, combined with extended commute times, will provide a significant economic and lifestyle disincentive to workers."

Numerous individuals and organizations provide other justifications for retaining staff accommodations in Yosemite Valley. Emphasizing increased traffic flow from commuting employees, several people conclude that housing relocation will lead to greater pollution problems and vehicle safety concerns. Several individuals and businesses contend that the proposed transfer of employees out-of-Valley will inhibit a viable level of visitor services. Further, many argue that employees form a vital element of the Yosemite Valley community. "Employees who reside permanently in the Valley form a community that has a vested interest in the Valley and that a mercenary transported work force would not have," one person advises.

In addition to encouraging the National Park Service to retain employee spaces in the Valley, several people provide suggestions to ameliorate problems with employee housing conditions. Consolidation of existing housing units as well as the use of historic buildings as staff accommodations are two proposals. Alleging the National Park Service has been fiscally negligent, a Yosemite area resident declares that federal emergency recovery funds should be used to rebuild housing units lost during the 1997 flood. A well-concealed employee dormitory at Camp Curry, another person suggests, would have minimal impact on the landscape and attract employees. A Torrance resident asks that the Yosemite National Park Superintendent live in the Superintendent’s residence.

With regard to employee housing near The Ahwahnee and Yosemite Lodge, several individuals and organizations express opinions. "Rather than removing the concession executive housing that faces the Ahwahnee Meadow," one person asserts, "these houses should be converted to employee housing for concessions employees." Conversely, a Yosemite area business contends that these row houses "urbanize the meadow," and retention would be counterproductive to the Yosemite Valley Plan’s ecosystem restoration goals. In recognition of their potential historic value, this business suggests the Ahwahnee row houses could be moved to Wawona and used as employee housing. Also concerned with potentially negative impacts to a sensitive area, a few respondents propose building staff dormitories near Yosemite Lodge. Noting the existing level of development at Yosemite Lodge and proximity to guests, a nongovernmental organization concludes that the lodge area is better suited than Curry Village to accommodate two new housing facilities. However, one individual expresses relief that Alternative 2 of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan does not require construction of employee housing near Yosemite Lodge.

Note: One response is provided for concerns #170, #641, and #748, and is placed following concern #748.

170. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the removal of all employee housing in Yosemite Valley.

"All employee housing should be removed from Yosemite Valley. There is no sound reason to retain any employee housing in Yosemite Valley." (Individual, Madera, CA - #55)

Response: See response following concern #748 below.

641. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require a further reduction in the proposed number of employee beds in Yosemite Valley.

"I was shocked at the number of beds dedicated for Park Service and concessionaire housing. I think it is great that this is being reduced, but it does not go far enough. 683 seems an outrageous number of employees spending the night in the Valley. Why can’t employees take a shuttle in from outside the Valley? I believe this number should be reduced by half!" (Individual, Fort Bragg, CA - #7304)

Response: See response following concern #748 below.

748. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require that housing for non-essential employees be removed from Yosemite Valley.

"Remove some employees and their residences, especially those which are not essential to daily operations of the Park. This includes the Superintendent and all administrative people who perform functions which do not require hands-on presence in the Valley. It should not include the day workers who support the food concessions, the constabulary, and the hotel/campground facilities. Most of these are young people who are willing to work for less than average compensation and should not be required to be bussed to work." (Individual, San Marcos, CA - #4584)

"I am in favor of removing all non-essential employees from living in the Valley and removing their living quarters at least on a trial basis." (Individual, San Marcos, CA - #4584)

Response: This alternative has been considered but dismissed (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered but Dismissed).

Moreover, the National Park Service has considered a range of alternatives for employee housing to be removed from or remain in Yosemite Valley (see Chapter 2, Alternatives) or to be relocated to such places as Wawona, Foresta, and El Portal. In each alternative the number of employee beds located in Yosemite Valley would be based on a variety of factors, including the roles and responsibilities that housing occupants would have if there were an emergency. Also, for the concessioner, the number of employees beds in Yosemite Valley would be determined in relation to (1) the area that would be available to accommodate employee housing when considering highly valued resources, (2) Wild and Scenic River protection values, and other natural, cultural, and social impacts, (3) the services that would be available in the Valley, and (4) the service level criteria for staffing those services.

This response also applies to concerns #170 and #178.

201. Public Concern: The National Park Service should consider the effects of locating employee housing outside Yosemite Valley on employee recruitment and retention.

"Forget relocating employees unless there is a big financial incentive for employees to relocate. My son is now working in the Valley. His weekly take home pay is only a little over $120 per week. He has not come to the Valley for the money. He and most of his fellow workers would quit if forced into commuting." (Individual, Mountain View, CA - #103)

"I do not believe that either the National Park Service, the primary concessionaire or other Park partners will be even marginally successful in recruiting or retaining an adequate workforce at any level (to include managerial) if the bulk of all employee housing is located outside Yosemite Valley. I base this observation on both my professionalism and personal knowledge of the living/working/housing dynamics associated with the Park. The simple lack of affordable, suitable housing, combined with extended commute times will provide a significant economic and lifestyle disincentive to workers of all skills, interests and qualifications to seek and maintain employment in support of the Park." (Individual, Yosemite National Park, CA - #7020)

"Lack of in-valley housing will seriously impact ability to hire and maintain workers, especially seasonals." (Individual, Yosemite National Park, CA - #201)

Response: The National Park Service has evaluated the impacts of relocating housing out of Yosemite Valley (see Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences). The National Park Service conducted a housing study to determine what level of housing is needed to meet essential operations.

42. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should not eliminate employee housing units from Yosemite Valley.

"We can support Alternative 2, but only if the following changes and clarifications are made to that alternative. We seriously question the Transportation assumption that the number of employee commuter trips will remain the same if 600 plus housing units are removed from the Valley. Even with some use of employee shuttle buses, the amount of employee vehicle traffic into the Valley will necessarily increase from what it is today. That result would be inconsistent with one of the primary goals of the Valley Plan. The N.P.S. should therefore rethink the number of employee housing units being reduced." (Individual, Santa Barbara, CA - #109)

"I ask you to oppose the funding of moving the park staff out of the park, which would only increase their commute and thereby increase polluting car usage. Moving someone from point A to point B just costs money. It would increase safety and security cost and complicate communications, since it would limit the number of staff in the park at any one time." (Individual, Jamestown, CA - #226)

"According to the Draft Yosemite Plan, the most dangerous and over-used access to the Park is in El Portal and yet this route will engender bumper to bumper uses. By cutting employee housing in the park by one-half you are condemning the employees to tedious daily journeys and reducing efficiency of their time. Why not use temporary summer housing in tent units to eliminate one source of congestion on the road?" (Individual, Sunnyvale, CA - #23)

"People have always lived in the Valley. I see no need to change that. I think that people who provide necessary services, park employees and many others, should live in the valley as unobtrusively as they can, and I see no problem with the new cottages and present housing." (Individual, Saratoga, CA - #331)

"There are advantages to retaining a certain level of employee housing in the Valley. These include: Employees who reside permanently in the Valley form a community which has a vested interest in the valley that a mercenary transported work force would not have. There is bound to be a reduction in the level of services available to visitors if the core of the current community is moved out of the Valley. The employees contribute to the culture of the park." (Individual, Whittier, CA - #196)

"Removing and relocating housing for the sake of reducing beds seems to me to be unwise. Visitors require service employees, and moving employees out of the Valley means increasing transportation requirements, which seems to be a big reason for all this change. Removing housing will also have the impact of making it more difficult to hire and retain highly qualified personnel. Living in Yosemite Valley is an important incentive to many people, and also allows those who have close contact with the visitor to be that much more familiar and knowledgeable about the Valley and the Park. . . Existing in-Valley housing, while not politically correct, is the best all around solution to transportation and visitor service pressures." (Business, Yosemite National Park, CA - #385)

"It is recommended that employee housing for both the NPS and concessionaire be retained in the Valley and upgraded. . . Employees have the same rights and privileges as any other Yosemite visitor, specifically to enjoy the beauty, grandeur and solitude of the Valley 24 hours a day, not just when they are at work. Most, if not all, who come to Yosemite seeking employment do so with but one thought in mind: to live and work in the Valley, and get away from the city. These same people could probably find better paying jobs, better housing, and other perks in any big city. . . So coming to seek employment in Yosemite must be for some other reason than pure materialism; simply stated, it is to enjoy being in the Valley on a full time, permanent basis." (Individual, American Canyon, CA - #907)

CONSOLIDATE EXISTING EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNITS

"Removal of 600+ employee housing units from the Valley seems very shortsighted as we are sure that employee commutes will increase due to the many different shift schedules that must be kept. Consolidation of existing employee housing may be a better solution. It seems it would be much better for the Park (and its air quality) if the employees could walk or ride a bike to work rather than rely on a motor vehicle trip 30 minutes or more each way." (Individual, Santa Barbara, CA - #202)

RETAIN CASCADE RESIDENCES

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

REBUILD EMPLOYEE HOUSING IN YOSEMITE VALLEY

"The employee housing presently located in the Valley should be upgraded, not relocated. Additional employee housing should be rebuilt to accommodate the housing lost after the 1997 flood. This housing should be built without further delay. It has been over three years since the flood, and the government granted over 170 million dollars to the Park for restoration." (Public Hearing, Mariposa, CA - #20247)

Response: In the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the National Park Service has considered a range of alternatives that would allow a number of employees to remain housed in Yosemite Valley. To accommodate those employees who are relocated outside Yosemite Valley, an employee transportation system would be developed. Most employees commuting to work in Yosemite Valley would be required to use the employee transportation system.

In Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences to Social Environment, the analysis found that there would be an increase in the number of employee commuters traveling to Yosemite Valley. However, even with this increase in daily commuters, it is projected that the number of trips per day would remain relatively constant because there would be a reduction in personal vehicle trips that would offset the increase in the number of employee shuttle trips.

The National Park Service has not considered the elimination of all employee beds from the Valley. Instead, the number of employee beds in Yosemite Valley would be consolidated into a few areas to allow for efficient land use and resources restoration and would be based on a number of primary visitor service factors, including the:

1. Type, position, and responsibility of employee
2. Disabilities of the employee that could prevent commuting
3. Areas that would be available to accommodate employee housing when comprehensively considering highly valued resources, Wild and Scenic River values, and other natural, cultural, and social impacts
4. Specific level of visitor services that would be available in the Valley
5. Level of staffing required to provide acceptable levels of service during emergencies

Additionally, based on an analysis of the job location and duty station, current and projected staffing levels, and the feasibility and operational requirements of an employee transportation system, it has been concluded that it is reasonable, feasible, and safe to consider the relocation of employees outside Yosemite Valley. These impacts are assessed in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, in the sections describing transportation and social impacts.

Currently, housing conditions in Yosemite Valley need improvement. It is recognized that the quality and type of employee housing (in addition to its location) plays an important role in the success in the hiring and retention of employees. By improving the quality of new housing, it is anticipated that housing outside Yosemite Valley would become more desirable.

Removal of housing from Yosemite Valley has not been proposed for the "sake of removing beds." In the Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the location of housing has been influenced by the following goals and objectives:

• To reduce congestion
• To remove unnecessary facilities
• To retain in the Valley the number of employees required to provide a moderate level of visitor service during emergencies

The location of housing was also influenced by the land available to accommodate employee housing when considering competing land values and uses.

761. Public Concern: The National Park Service should integrate Park and concession employee housing.

"Any new housing should be integrated, without "Government," "Company," and "others" all separated, and without discrimination as to employment. As an independent contractor Best’s Studio employs spouses of NPS, Yosemite Concessions Service, and other operators in the Park. But certainly, all new housing needs to be designed with integration in mind to encourage community." (Business, Yosemite National Park, CA - #10365)

Response: In the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the National Park Service has considered a range of alternatives that would allow a number of National Park Service and concessioner employees to remain housed in adjacent housing units and co-located in the same housing areas. In fact, employee beds for all employers would in general need to be consolidated into a few areas to allow for efficient land use and resources restoration.

Even though it is not within the scope of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS to provide a housing award policy, it is projected that assignment of housing would be based upon a number of primary visitor service factors, including the:

1. Type, position, and responsibility of the employee;
2. Physical and mental capacities of the employee;
3. Roles and responsibilities that housing occupants (employees) would have if there were a situation requiring an emergency response.
4. Area that would be available to accommodate employee housing when comprehensively considering highly values resources, Wild and Scenic river protection values, and other natural, cultural, and social impacts;
5. Specific level of visitor service that would be available in the Valley;
6. Related level of visitor service criteria for staffing those specified levels of service.

Other probable factors that could be considered in housing assignments could be:

1. Job location and duty station,
2. Current and projected staffing levels
3. Feasibility and operational requirements of an employee transportation system

488. Public Concern: The National Park Service should build an employee dormitory at Camp Curry.

"Build a two-story dormitory, hidden among the trees at Camp Curry. Such a structure will provide a smaller footprint/employee - for year-round shelter; which permits retention of trained individuals who are more likely to contribute positively to the visitors’ experience. Such accommodations will have similar advantages to Hostel Style accommodations." (Individual, Merced, CA - #9329)

Response: The Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS calls for high density housing at the Huff House area of Camp Curry (Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternative 2).

314. Public Concern: The National Park Service should require that the Yosemite National Park Superintendent live in the Superintendent’s residence.

"I would like to see a Park Superintendent that would live in that attractively located residence." (Individual, Torrance, CA - #4227)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does not assign specific individual housing. Under the Preferred Alternative, the Superintendent’s House (Residence 1) is to be relocated to the Yosemite Valley Historic Housing District.

Note: One response is provided for concerns #589 and #394, and is placed following concern #394.

589. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should retain the Ahwahnee Row houses for concession employee housing.

"Rather than removing the concession executive housing that faces the Ahwahnee Meadow, these houses should be converted to employee housing for concessions employees who will hold jobs in Yosemite Valley. This will enable the concessionaire to inexpensively provide for more concession employee housing, and will have the added benefit of attracting better employees." (Individual, Coulterville, CA - #3724)

Response: See response following concern #394 below.

394. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the removal of the Ahwahnee Row houses.

"There is no explanation as to why the Ahwahnee Row houses would be retained in Alternative 2, but eliminated in Alternative 3. They urbanize the meadow and as restoration of Ahwahnee Meadow is an important consideration, why not remove them in all alternatives? If historic character is the reason for their retention in Alternative 2, perhaps they could be moved to Wawona for continued use as employee housing or as exhibits at the Pioneer Yosemite History Center? Only a few of the Ahwahnee Row houses truly qualify as historic structures." (Business, Yosemite National Park, CA - #3962)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes a range of alternatives, and actions vary within each of those alternatives. In the Preferred Alternative, the Ahwahnee Row houses would be retained as employee housing and contributing historic structures in the Yosemite Valley cultural landscape. While the National Park Service would consider relocating historic structures as an alternative to complete demolition, relocation often destroys the integrity of historic structures. Their removal would achieve only minor beneficial impacts for vegetation communities because of the small size of the potential restoration area.

This response also applies to concern #589.

750. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should establish employee housing in the Yosemite Lodge area.

"I believe we should build concession employee housing in the Lodge area as was previously planned. There is too much housing in the Curry Village area. Building nice concession employee housing in the Lodge area would attract excellent employees to work in Yosemite." (Individual, Coulterville, CA - #3724)

"Some employee housing is obviously necessary in the Valley, and the Park Service has correctly identified a need to replace the without-bath cabins and other scattered lodging facilities with two or three larger structures. The Service has failed, however, to articulate any justification for siting these structures in the middle of highly valued resources in Curry Village. Placing two to three multi-story dormitories in the proposed HVR area appears to us to be unjustifiable from a resource-management perspective, especially given the fact that there are already more than enough impacted and/or less-valued resource areas within the Valley that are potentially available for these structures, including the developed areas of Yosemite Village, Curry Village, and particularly Yosemite Lodge. Yosemite Lodge is the most obvious location since it is located close to guests and Park administration facilities, already impacted, and has large enough open areas to accommodate two large dorms and associated parking. Moreover, the removal of the existing employee trailers and other scattered dwellings will open even more space for redevelopment. Siting employee housing at Yosemite Lodge could be an ideal solution; NPS and YCS will fulfill their housing needs, lodging goals will be met through additional accommodations at Curry Village (see Section VII, SUPRA), and no highly valued resources would be affected." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #4594)

Response: The National Park Service has considered a range of alternatives to house employees at a variety of locations in Yosemite Valley (see Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives) and at Wawona, Foresta, and El Portal. However, the Preferred Alternative does not call for employee housing adjacent to Yosemite Lodge. Instead, it calls for increasing the number of campsites at Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) and for additional open space.

165. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should eliminate employee housing in the Yosemite Lodge area.

"We thought it important to identify the aspects of Alternative 2 that impress us lest those good aspects be lost in the criticism sure to come. All employee housing in the Yosemite Lodge area is gone. Every Plan issued since the 1980 GMP proposed to put some form of employee housing in the area of the Yosemite Lodge. Even before the 1997 proposal to put up dormitories for 336 employees in this area, facilities existed for 226 employees. In Alternative 2, there will be no dormitories or permanent housing for any employee. None. Needless to say, this decision significantly helps open up the space around Camp 4." (Individual, Berkeley, CA - #529)

Response: The National Park Service has considered a range of alternatives for employee housing at a variety of locations in Yosemite Valley (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives), at Wawona, Foresta, and El Portal. The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does not call for employee housing adjacent to Yosemite Lodge. Instead, the Preferred Alternative calls for the area near Yosemite Lodge to be used to increase the number of campsites at Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) and for additional open space.

4.16.2.c ~ Employee Housing Outside Yosemite Valley but Inside the Park

Much like the proposed in-Valley housing projects, the Yosemite Valley Plan strategies regarding accommodation of employees at other locations in Yosemite National Park generates a wide range of opinions from respondents. One person recommends the Crane Flat area as an alternative with good potential. However, most responses to the Yosemite Valley Plan’s proposed facilities at Foresta and Wawona are contradictory. For example, the reconstruction of 14 homes in Foresta for the purpose of housing employees draws contrasting interpretations from the public. A Yosemite area resident claims that reconstruction of the Foresta homes will violate existing management plans. However, another individual supports the proposed action as long as construction follows strict guidelines.

The impacts precipitated by constructing employee housing units in Wawona are of great concern to a significant portion of the people commenting on the Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Some respondents support the proposed action but the majority of public comments regarding the Wawona project offer either tentative acceptance within strict parameters or direct opposition. A few individuals advocate rebuilding an employee dormitory behind the Wawona Hotel. Another requests that any new construction be restricted to the north side of the Merced River. Several people advocate limitations on the type of employees assigned to Wawona facilities. "If a move of concessioner employees to Wawona is unavoidable, move managers and their families to Wawona," one individual counsels. Similarly, some respondents suggest Wawona housing should be reserved for staff working in the southern portion of Yosemite National Park.

Opposition to the proposed action in Wawona emanates from a wide array of individuals and organizations. Construction of a large employee housing facility in Wawona, some individuals contend, would violate provisions of the Wild and Scenic River Act by impinging upon the community’s Outstandingly Remarkable Values. "The Yosemite Valley Plan admits that relocation of employees to Wawona will result in adverse effects to the environmental, cultural, wildlife, and visitor experience values — all Outstandingly Remarkable Values. These adverse effects are precisely the kind that the NPS is obligated to prevent," a Wawona resident charges.

Many people identify environmental concerns as justification to remove proposed Wawona facilities from the Yosemite Valley Plan. Some of these environmental concerns include perceived inadequacies of environmental impact analyses as well as potentially immediate adverse impacts on wildlife and bird habitat. Further, numerous respondents opposing the Wawona proposal underscore possible adverse impacts on the cultural integrity and infrastructure of the community. Social and cultural concerns that respondents cite are the quality of life for area residents, including employees; visitor experience; public safety, with particular attention to Camp Wawona participants; and construction costs. Water supply, sewer treatment, and transportation are the primary infrastructure concerns expressed by respondents.

588. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should establish employee housing in the Crane Flat area.

"Let’s locate them [employees] near Crane Flat, let’s consider that. What’s to be lost? . . . That area could be developed as a resource." (Public Hearing, Los Angeles, CA - #20343)

Response: Crane Flat was considered and rejected as an alternative for employee housing. It was also dismissed as an alternative in the Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan. Although the Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan dismissed Crane Flat as an alternative for employee housing, the planning team evaluated the site for this planning effort. It was determined that Crane Flat was not needed to support housing needs for the following reasons:

• There is no community in the area, so placing a new community in the area would change its characteristics and impacts would be unacceptable.
• Housing needs could be accommodated in other locations where communities already exist and have support facilities to serve the needs of the employees (e.g., Wawona , El Portal).

646. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should not allow NPS-owned homes in Foresta to be rebuilt.

"Most alternatives specify rebuilding 14 homes in Foresta that were destroyed by the A-Rock fire ten years ago this August. Doing this would be in violation of the Mission 66 Plan which mandated that homes, sold to the government through a willing seller/willing buyer purchase agreement, upon destruction by fire, would be returned to a natural state. The rebuilding of these homes further violates the 1980 General Management Plan which specifically states there would be no further ‘development’ in Foresta." (Individual, Yosemite National Park, CA - #7030)

Response: The 1980 General Management Plan prescription for housing in Foresta is to: "Provide essential employee housing based upon the determination of a housing study, retain housing for a limited number of employees." Housing in Foresta is intended to serve those employees who are essential to providing effective district operations.

52. Public Concern: The National Park Service should ensure that employee housing in Foresta meets specific construction and design criteria.

"We are in support of the 14 units of employee housing being located in Foresta, provided that: (1) The housing is on the east side of Crane Creek. (2) The housing is aesthetically compatible with the area and the other ‘cabin’ housing in Foresta. The housing should have wood construction and siding, colored metal roofs, and not be like a suburban tract house. (3) The housing have septic tanks, underground utilities, and a water supply. (4) We prefer the housing be limited to rangers and N.P.S. employees, rather than concessionaire employees, who tend to be more transient." (Individual, Santa Barbara, CA - #109)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Nonetheless, before undertaking development of new employee housing units, the National Park Service will identify and evaluate alternatives for housing opportunities outside of Yosemite National Park. The identification and evaluation of housing alternatives would be collaborative, with participation by appropriate county officials and representatives of affected communities. Decisions regarding the location of new employee housing will be in accordance with the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Act of 1996 and applicable National Park Service policies. It is the intent of the National Park Service to locate additional housing outside the park where possible.

186. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should establish employee housing in Wawona.

"Things I especially like: The location of employee housing in Wawona is all right." (Individual, Pacific Grove, CA - #156)

Response: In the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the National Park Service considers a range of alternatives that include locating employee housing in Wawona (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives). Locating housing in Wawona is consistent with provisions of both the 1980 General Management Plan and the 1987 Wawona Planning Area Specific Plan. The Wawona Specific Plan was jointly approved by both the National Park Service and Mariposa County Board of Supervisors. The housing considered in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would be on federal land administered by the National Park Service and would not be subject to county zoning ordinances. However, the Merced River Plan Record of Decision states:

"Before undertaking development of new employee housing units in Section 35, the National Park Service will identify and evaluate alternatives for housing opportunities outside of Yosemite National Park. The identification and evaluation of housing alternatives would be collaborative, with participation by appropriate county officials and representatives of affected communities. Decisions regarding the location of new employee housing will be in accordance with the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Act of 1996 and applicable National Park Service policies. With regards to Wawona, it is the intent of the National Park Service to locate additional housing outside the park where possible."

The analysis and investigation documenting the environmental consequences of relocating housing to Wawona are in Vol. IB, Chapter 4. The analysis covers a variety of impact topics, including water resources and supply, the social environment (i.e., school, fire, law enforcement, emergency, and recreational requirements), transportation and roads, noise, soil, vegetation, wildlife, and the Wild and Scenic Merced River classification, zoning, and Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

330. Public Concern: The National Park Service should rebuild a dormitory behind the Wawona Hotel.

"Build a dorm behind the Wawona hotel like we used to have before it burned." (Individual, Loomis, CA - #3387)

"For the single employees needed to staff the Wawona Hotel, rebuild the dorm behind the hotel, an approach that the hotel manager favors." (Individual, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA - #3563)

Response: One of the components of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS is to provide housing for those employees who are to be relocated out of Yosemite Valley. To address this, the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS calls for the placement of employee housing in Wawona. Additionally, the plan acknowledges that there is an inadequate supply of housing for employees who are currently stationed in Wawona. The total number of employee beds to be placed in Wawona recognizes this inadequacy, and calls for additional beds for employees stationed in Wawona, along with the new beds intended to serve employees stationed in Yosemite Valley. This action would not preclude consideration of rebuilding the dorm that was once located behind the Wawona Hotel.

328. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require that dorms in Wawona be constructed on the north side of the river.

"If we must build dorms, build them on the other side of the river [in Wawona] where the Park has plenty of land and where the Park already has several facilities." (Individual, Loomis, CA - #3387)

Response: The Merced River Plan/FEIS Record of Decision makes this commitment:

"The management zoning adopted in this alternative only applies to federal lands. With regard to Section 35 in Wawona (though zoned primarily as 3C, Park Operations and Administration), it is the intent of the National Park Service that any other development for administration or operations in Section 35 north of the South Fork of the Merced River would be compatible in character, density, and scale to existing residential and commercial development in Section 35.

"For the area zoned jointly 3A/3C on the south side of the South Fork of the Merced River in Section 35, should the National Park Service determine that new, high-density housing is not required to be located in this zone, it is the intent of the National Park Service that any development for administration or operations in this zone would be compatible in character, density, and scale to existing residential and commercial development in Section 35. The potential use of this zone (as described under management zone 3A) would not change."

597. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should restrict the types of concessions employees who live in Wawona.

"If a move of concessionaire employees to Wawona is unavoidable, move managers and their families to Wawona." (Individual, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA - #3563)

ESTABLISH ONLY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING IN WAWONA

"Relocate only single family residential Park employees to Wawona. Wawona is a residential community, not a community of single young adults. Consider the human impact as well as the environmental impact." (Individual, Loomis, CA - #3387)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Both the National Park Service and the concessioner currently have housing occupancy criteria. It is expected that these criteria would continue to influence housing assignments.

175. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should establish housing in Wawona only for those employees who work in the southern portion of Yosemite National Park.

"NPS employee housing in Wawona should be limited to the employees which serve the southern portion of the park. More emphasis should be given to house Valley employees outside of the park boundaries. Let’s do all we can to preserve and maintain all of Yosemite National Park for its visitors and not overcrowd desirable destinations inside the park but outside the Valley with housing facilities." (Individual, Eugene, OR - #326)

Response: The Yosemite Valley Plan does call for a number of employee bed spaces in Wawona to meet the housing needs of employees stationed in Wawona. However, the plan also calls for implementing provisions of the 1980 General Management Plan and the 1987 Wawona Town Planning Area Specific Plan, which both specify that employee housing units should be located in Wawona.

The National Park Service does have the administrative authority to consider options for developing partnerships for the purpose of providing employee housing. These options include joint development authorities, joint housing agreements, and joint public-private sector housing programs. These options, however, first require the interest and involvement of local government and private parties who have jurisdictional authority and who can provide park employee housing that is affordable, suitable, and within a reasonable commuting distance. In remote areas like Yosemite National Park, there are generally few options for private individuals to provide cost-effective employee housing, particularly for seasonal employees. For example, current land zoning in Midpines and Fish Camp would not allow for the development of high-density employee housing. The National Park Service recognizes that conditions may change over time. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS acknowledges that conditions in local communities may change and private parties may become interested in providing housing for park employees (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives–Housing). The National Park Service is committed to participating in processes that would encourage and could develop joint development authorities, joint housing agreements, and joint public-private sector housing programs.

200. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should not establish employee housing in Wawona.

"The YVP admits that relocation of employees to Wawona will result in adverse effects to the environmental, cultural, wildlife, and visitor experience — all ORVs. These adverse effects are precisely the kind that the NPS is obligated to prevent. They matter most on the scale of values identified in the YVP and WSRA. The Wawona site should be eliminated as an option for employee housing." (Individual, Fresno, CA - #736)

"Unfortunately this plan tries to solve problems in the Valley by sacrificing Wawona. In Wawona the Plan does not reclaim priceless natural beauty; instead it erects a 200 resident Yosemite Concession Services (YCS) barracks on 8 acres of pristine forest land. Nor does the Plan let natural processes prevail; instead the new facility will include a 200+ parking lot, a health care center, recreation facilities, and a hair care shop. And it does not promote visitor understanding and enjoyment; rather it will convert the present one-lane access road past the Pioneer History Center to a commuter highway. It does not reduce traffic congestion; South Wawona will experience a twice a day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year rush hour. And it does not reduce crowding in Wawona, where the permanent population will be more than doubled." (Individual, Wawona, CA - #20197)

ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT

"The volumes of documentation and comments presented are filled with assumptions, inaccuracies, and at times outright false statements. Nowhere is this more true than the current administration’s decision to relocate hundreds of Park concession employees to a new facility to be constructed in the Wawona area. Any plan which needlessly and pointlessly destroys many acres of pristine and virgin forests, including a number of majestic 500-year old Redwoods, is suspect, questionable, and in my opinion untenable. In place of this mile-long sylvan glen along Forest Drive, the Park Service will spend millions to pave it over, construct multi-unit housing, and build a number of additional structures as support facilities for concession employees. It is claimed such a desecration is a small and mandatory price to be paid to accomplish the objectives of the Valley Plan. Please don’t destroy Wawona." (Public Hearing, San Jose, CA - #20524)

INADEQUATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

"No additional employees should be moved to Wawona. Resource stewardship: the evidence of adequate investigation and documentation of environmental impact assessments that are required to justify the selection of the site is incomplete or lacking. Important factors include water resources, fire and emergency requirements, localized environmental impact from building construction, housing structures, habitation, recreation, parking, transportation, as these relate to soil, trees, fauna, as well as run off into the Merced River and river overlay area. There are serious questions related to each of these factors. References in the YVP document to research information that would demonstrate the acceptability of the housing proposal are either very vague or do not appear as part of the record." (Individual, Fresno, CA - #736)

ADVERSE EFFECTS ON WILDLIFE HABITAT

"If housing for the 200 concessionaire employees is built on this road, the added traffic will destroy the pristine forest along this road. Wildlife habitats will be lost when trees and ground cover are removed to develop the housing. There will be high impact on the river used by employees who have no vested interest in the area. Beautiful, winding Forest Drive, which leads to the housing, would have to be widened, redesigned and patrolled constantly. To alleviate this problem, we strongly recommend selecting a better location." (Individual, Carson City, NV - #3203)

ADVERSE EFFECTS ON BIRDS

"Recently I have had the opportunity to review the Biological Assessment Draft for the YVP. I was particularly surprised by what I feel is an inadequate evaluation of the dramatic effects that the YVP could have upon avian species in Wawona. Surely you are aware of the population studies done by Point Reyes that indicate that Wawona Meadow is among those few meadows identified in the Sierra with such a variety of avian species. To propose the building and housing of 198 employees and all that come with them in Wawona shows serious disregard for the wildlife the NPS is obligated to protect." (Individual, Wrightwood, CA - #4239)

ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE COMMUNITY

"Wawona has a year-round population of maybe 50 to 75 individuals composed of many retired people, families and some Park personnel. The plan proposes to relocate about 300 Park employees into apartments to be built for single employees on the south side of the Merced River. This proposed 350 to 500 percent increase in the year-round population would negatively affect this community. A recent poll found over 90 percent of the homeowners were opposed to the plan to relocate additional employees to Wawona. We do not want the extra infrastructure that would be necessary to house the additional personnel. The lifestyle of the community is not capable of assembling this type of influx of individuals." (Public Hearing, Fresno, CA - #20490)

ADVERSE VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND QUALITY OF LIFE IMPACTS

"No additional employees should be moved to Wawona. Visitors, primarily families, in Wawona during the summer make use of a limited number of areas along the river for leisure and recreation. Increasing the employee population will increase competition for such river usage. Increased competition will result in conflicts for space as well as conflicts in the sorts of ‘acceptable activities’ that can be expected from young adults utilizing their leisure time in the Wawona area. This will in turn have an adverse effect upon visitor experience in Wawona generally. Wawona functions as a high quality scenic and recreational experience for visitors. Not only will day use visitors be affected, it is reasonable to expect that the services and accommodations available in Wawona that are of value to YNP will be adversely affected as well. According to the Valley Plan, the number of employees will be more than the number of permanent residents in Wawona. This involves a serious disregard for the quality of services, accommodations, and visitor experiences that have long been the primary attractions of Wawona. There is a serious incompatibility between the historical, social, and environmental quality of life in Wawona and the styles of life characteristic of temporary employees. YNP has an obligation to sustain and enhance this quality of life inherent in Wawona rather than threaten it for what amounts to be questionable utilitarian purposes." (Individual, Fresno, CA - #736)

"It is disturbing to read one plan on page 4.1-15 of Vol. 1B that a proposed development for employee housing is being considered on the last remaining stretch along the South Fork through Wawona. This has been a nice peaceful and quiet area. Senior citizens have enjoyed the tranquility there for many years and this would certainly turn the area into a slum with hundreds of extra cars and people trampling through the forest to reach the shore and other facilities . . . Please rethink your plan and let’s keep one area like Wawona as natural as it is at the present time." (Individual, Long Beach, CA - #482)

ADVERSE IMPACTS TO COMMUNITY SAFETY

"No additional employees should be moved to Wawona. Based upon the evidence, it is reasonable to expect an increase in criminal activity and deviate behavior of various sorts to occur in Wawona. The annual safety records of YNP reveal a significant level of problems caused or violations committed by employees. The Plan states that these problems/violations can be expected to be transferred to Wawona. The resulting social environment will contrast markedly with the past history of a relatively low level of such occurrences in the Wawona community. The NPS should be committed to protecting Wawona from this." (Individual, Fresno, CA - #736)

"I am writing to express my disapproval of the changes the NPS has proposed, or implemented, for Yosemite Valley, such as the plan to move 198 Yosemite Concessionaire/NPS employees to Wawona. . . Fire safety would be a problem given the narrow, dead end road leading to the proposed location." (Individual, Dos Palos, CA - #1224)

ADVERSE EFFECTS ON CAMP WAWONA PARTICIPANTS

"The proposed employee housing site in Wawona is immediately adjacent to Camp Wawona, which has been operated for decades by the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Camp Wawona is home to hundreds of children (including minorities and handicapped) in the summer. Are the NPS and YCS prepared to guarantee the safety of these children from drug dealers and sexual predators by screening all residents at the proposed site? . . . A single incident perpetrated by a resident or visitor at the proposed housing site will cost the government (and we taxpayers) millions of dollars. It would make a lurid story for 60 minutes, 20-20, or some other TV news magazine and would be a publicity nightmare for everyone from local Park supervisors to senior policy administrators at the NPS and Department of Interior. Yosemite Valley planners would be accused of incredible negligence and stupidity for citing YCS housing next to a church summer camp. Is this an idle fear? No. Long time visitors and residents in Yosemite (names available if required) have witnessed public nudity and masturbation in the presence of children along the river. Arrest records will verify that YCS employees have committed numerous drug and sex offenses in the past. It is inevitable that a degenerate resident or visitor at the proposed site will exploit a gullible and/or disabled minor at Camp Wawona. Posting signs, as suggested in the Draft Plan, is not a credible deterrent. An alternate, less risky site should be selected for YCS employee housing." (Individual, Palos Verdes Estates, CA - #354)

"The purpose of this letter is to express my disagreement with the proposed plan to house 200 concessionaire employees on the south side of Wawona. . . The proposed plan situates the employee living arrangements near the Seventh Day Adventist Camp. Over decades I have observed the Camp in operation and participated to a certain extent. Not only does it serve the average child but also gives both minorities and disabled children the opportunity to experience nature in a safe environment. I believe that the plan will endanger all of the children the Camp serves." (Individual, Wawona, CA - #474)

ADVERSE EFFECTS ON PARK EMPLOYEES

"I am here today to raise my voice in protest over the plan to move concessionaire employees out of the Valley and into the very small communities of El Portal and Wawona. Have we forgotten that these employees truly are part of that Yosemite experience? It is their hard and dedicated service that makes this an enjoyable experience with less hassle for many visitors each day. Most of these employees don’t make a lot of money and many don’t own a car. Their main modes of transportation are by foot or by bike, and that would be impossible from El Portal. So transportation costs go up. And right now they pay a much smaller rent in company provided housing then they will if forced to move to a site outside of the Park. Housing costs go up. So effectively this plan, on top of all the other injustices and hardships for visitors, also drastically cuts the real spendable income of nearly a thousand hardworking Americans." (Public Hearing, Fresno, CA - #20491)

EXORBITANT HOUSING CONSTRUCTION COSTS

"We need to examine some of the costs using your figures: From Volume 1a, Chapter 2, Table A, Alternative 2 proposes to construct a total of 898 employee beds of which 198 are allocated to Wawona. From Appendix M - Phasing, you have a figure of $145,907,000 for employee housing park wide. The arithmetic yields a minimum cost per bed (initial capital outlay only) of $162,500 per employee. Now for a slightly more realistic cost analysis specific to Wawona, since the proposed site is on completely undeveloped forest land and on a hillside, it would not be unreasonable to assume that approximately a third to one-half of your housing budget is used to develop the proposed site in Wawona. . . The arithmetic then shows a cost per bed ranging from $245,600 to $368,500. These figures apparently do not include the proposed housing support facilities (laundry, recreational facilities, wellness center, hair care, and office spaces) because (‘The size and exact location of the support facilities . . . are beyond the scope of this report.’ - from volume 1A 2-55). Keep in mind that these figures are only one time development costs; there would be ongoing costs of transportation, maintenance, support facilities, law enforcement, and other costs resulting from this development only. These costs are astonishing, more than likely are underestimated, and they come directly from the National Park Service Draft Yosemite Valley Plan. You ask of us to ‘consider the public good’ in examining your plan. Volume 1A, Table 2-26 shows ‘Restoration (natural and cultural resources)’ receiving less than 5% of the one-time development budget for the park under Alternative 2, and ‘Employee Housing’ receiving 43%, or 145.9 million dollars. Looking at these figures I have to ask, are you considering the public good?" (Individual, Wawona, CA - #357)

"As owners of a home in the historic town of Wawona, we are opposed to . . . the proposed housing area for 198 employees . . . The grounds for our opposition include the following: . . . The required public funding for these elements will be substantial and should be spent elsewhere on more significant matters." (Individual, Los Angeles, CA - #3175)

ADVERSE IMPACTS TO WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES

"I am writing to express my disapproval of the changes the NPS has proposed, or implemented, for Yosemite Valley, such as the plan to move 198 Yosemite Concessionaire/NPS employees to Wawona. . . Wawona’s water and sewer facilities would surely be strained with the addition of 200 or more people and it might be too costly to remedy the situation." (Individual, Dos Palos, CA - #1224)

"[Wawona] Sewage treatment is another key issue with the additional 198 people. What sewage treatment system is going to handle the additional load? And who pays for the processing? As the recipient of the overflow raw sewage on my property just below the Wawona School when the lift pumps fail, I am not in favor of adding more users to the system." (Individual, Fairfax Station, VA - #4768)

"The Draft Yosemite Valley Plan intends to locate employee housing in the small historic town of Wawona. However this is in conflict with the data prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey Report prepared specifically for the National Park Service. As with other critical issues, the Planning Office chooses to ignore its own data. The Draft Plan states: ‘The water supply system in Wawona is marginal as is the capacity of the Wawona Wastewater Treatment Plant’ [Volume 1A, 3-124]. Furthermore: ‘The NPS is considering other options to increase the reliability of the water system at Wawona including bringing water into Wawona via a seven mile pipeline from beyond the Mariposa Grove and/or drilling deep wells.’ [Volume 1A, 3-125] The ‘seven mile pipeline’ refers to Biledo Spring, which is located outside the southern boundary of the national Park, in Sierra National Forest. However, according to the NPS-commissioned USGS report [Ground-Water Resources and Water Supply Alternatives in the Wawona Area of Yosemite National Park, California, Report No. 95-4229, 1996] ‘Continuous monitoring of the flow of Biledo Spring and sampling for chemical and isotopic analysis would be needed for several years before the long-term variability in flow and quality could be assessed.’ [Page 54] This monitoring of Biledo Spring has never been done, and the USGS report states very clearly that such monitoring must be done before the spring can even be considered as a reliable source of water for Wawona. Furthermore, several public and private entities (including the Madera Irrigation District) have appropriated rights superseding NPS to water in Big Creek . . . into which Biledo Spring supplies water. Drilling deep wells is not a solution either. According to the USGS report: ‘Additional development of ground water in the South Fork Merced River valley could result in the degradation in the quality of ground water in deep fractures and allow saline water to flow up well bores and mix with the shallow fresh water. The use of deep wells during the summer and autumn dry seasons could exacerbate the water quality problem.’" (Non-Governmental Organization, Wawona, CA - #7882)

ADVERSE TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS

"No additional employees should be moved to Wawona. Local transportation management and parking will be a major problem. The site is located about 1/8 mile from the end of an approximately 1 1/2 mile paved one-lane road. Employees will have to be shuttled back and forth by some means from the housing site to the transportation transfer point to the valley. This will result in a massive impact on the south side of the river. Traffic is already increased during the summer of the SDA Camp programs, day use of Upper River area by visitors, as well as high visitor usage along Highway 41 from the hotel and golf course to the stables. The transportation of employees on a daily basis to and from Yosemite Valley on Highway 41 will be significant for employees as well as all other traffic to and from the Valley. The logistics related to time schedules and other requirements for employment will be difficult and costly. The actual time required to travel from Wawona to the Valley is over 50 minutes each way ‘under ideal weather conditions and when there is little traffic.’ How many employee hours will the daily, weekly, monthly travel require? At what cost? With what kind of transportation, increased accidents, noise, and air pollution? These factors must be compared with sites that are closer and more easily accessible to Yosemite Valley." (Individual, Fresno, CA - #736)

"I am writing to express my disapproval of the changes the NPS has proposed, or implemented, for Yosemite Valley, such as the plan to move 198 Yosemite Concessionaire/NPS employees to Wawona. . . The traffic of buses and the cars of the NPS and concessionaire employees on the narrow and twisting roads would impact the community with noise and disturbance. In addition, the daily bussing of employees between the Valley and Wawona would be time-consuming and hazardous, especially in wintertime conditions." (Individual, Dos Palos, CA - #1224)

"The transportation of the employees twice daily between Yosemite Valley to housing at Wawona will only add to the vehicle pollution that all the plans are trying to eliminate. Also, many days during the winter the road from Wawona to Yosemite Valley is closed due to icy conditions. . . The planned site for the housing facility at Wawona on Forest Drive would cause added use of this narrow, low speed road that it could not accommodate and should not be widened in any fashion." (Individual, Cupertino, CA - #133)

Response: In the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the National Park Service considers a range of alternatives that include locating employee housing in Wawona (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives). Locating housing in Wawona is consistent with provisions of both the 1980 General Management Plan and the 1987 Wawona Planning Area Specific Plan. The Wawona Specific Plan was jointly approved by the National Park Service and the Mariposa County Board of Supervisors. The housing considered in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would be on federal land administered by the National Park Service and would not be subject to county zoning ordinances.

However, the Merced River Plan Record of Decision states:

"Before undertaking development of new employee housing units in Section 35, the National Park Service will identify and evaluate alternatives for housing opportunities outside of Yosemite National Park. The identification and evaluation of housing alternatives would be collaborative, with participation by appropriate county officials and representatives of affected communities. Decisions regarding the location of new employee housing will be in accordance with the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Act of 1996 and applicable National Park Service policies. With regards to Wawona, it is the intent of the National Park Service to locate additional housing outside the park where possible."

The analysis and investigation of the environmental consequences of relocating housing to Wawona are in Vol. IB, Chapter 4. The analysis covers a variety of impact topics, including water resources and supply, the social environment (i.e., school, fire, law enforcement, emergency, and recreational requirements), transportation and roads, noise, soil, vegetation, wildlife, and the Wild and Scenic Merced River classification, zoning, and Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

4.16.2.d ~ Employee Housing Outside Yosemite National Park

Scores of people responding to the Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS expressed concerns regarding the relocation of staff accommodations outside of the Valley and outside Yosemite National Park. Citing the National Park Service’s standing commitment to redirect development away from the park’s core, some individuals identify out-of-park communities they believe are appropriate for employee housing facilities. The list of communities includes Yosemite West, Oakhurst, Midpines, Mariposa, and Fish Camp. In addition, several respondents espousing relocation accuse the National Park Service of failure to document that sites outside the park were sufficiently evaluated for housing suitability. "If the National Park Service cannot establish that it has fulfilled this stipulation, that will be a basis for a legal challenge to the implementation of its preferred alternative," warns one individual.

Potentially negative impacts on the community of El Portal from an increase in housing and population elicits responses from a variety of sources. Public safety is a particular concern for many respondents. One El Portal resident offers a list of emergency medical care scenarios as support for reconsideration of the project. One person notes that the proposed Hennessey Ranch (also known as the El Portal Trailer Court) facilities are in the Merced River floodplain. This person believes the planned floodwall will not adequately protect new facilities from catastrophic flooding and questions whether the National Park Service has accurately calculated mitigation costs. Another individual who opposes the proposed action points out that the development will displace existing low-cost family housing.

Another reason people cite when opposing the proposed El Portal housing project is the potential danger for park employees. According to an American Canyon resident, the Park Service should not require employees to traverse Highway 140 on a daily basis. To do so would be negligent because the road is often treacherous in winter, this individual asserts. A representative of the U.S. Forest Service challenges the "minor, long term, and beneficial" assessment of the El Portal project cited on page 4-50 of the Executive Summary. Emphasizing possible effects on the recreational ORVs of the Merced River corridor, this Forest Service employee proclaims, "Failure to adequately mitigate the natural resource and social aspects of this dramatic increase in population will significantly reduce the quality of the recreational experience for the visiting public, employees, and reassignments located at El Portal…" Regardless of potential impacts from the El Portal development, a conservation organization encourages the Park Service to build a community center for the benefit of park staff and local citizens.

Note: One response is provided for concerns #280 and #155, and is placed following concern #155.

280. Public Concern: The National Park Service should consider employee housing sites outside of Yosemite National Park.

"The NPS should explore other potentially appropriate employee housing sites such as Yosemite West, Oakhurst, Midpines and Mariposa, all of which lie outside the Park boundaries and which would seem to accomplish the NPS’s stated intent ‘to redirect development to the periphery of the Park and beyond.’" (Individual, Wawona, CA - #3799)

FISH CAMP

"Please consider relocating employee housing to areas outside of the National Park. Fish Camp, for example, is by the South Entrance and is on the way to Oakhurst, where employees will travel anyway for goods and services." (Individual, No Address - #1840)

YOSEMITE WEST

"I believe that you have overlooked the value of the areas known as Yosemite West in the Draft of the Valley Implementation Plan, and, I would like once again to offer the values of this strategically located, privately owned, and undeveloped 752 acres of land for your consideration before your final acceptance of the Yosemite Valley Plan. We have the potential to provide a site for relocation of NPS and concessionaire employee housing." (Individual, San Jose, CA - #5604)

Response: See response following concern #155 below.

155. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should provide sufficient evidence that no suitable employee housing sites are available outside of Yosemite National Park.

"The NPS is required to demonstrate that no suitable options for employee housing are available other than Wawona. Specifically, the NPS must show that sites for accommodations are not available in the local communities or areas outside the Park. Since Alternative #2 is preferred by the NPS, one assumes that there was a good faith effort to find available sites. Where does the evidence of this effort appear in the plan? Evidence to the contrary appears to be present in Mariposa County and the Midpines area. The 1980 General Management Plan for the Valley included this ‘outside the Park’ provision. If the NPS cannot establish that it has fulfilled this stipulation, that will be a basis for a legal challenge to the implementation of its preferred alternative." (Individual, Fresno, CA - #736)

"The Park has said that they would not build in Wawona unless there was nothing outside the Park. And yet your studies have not demonstrated any valid documented evidence that other places, Mariposa, Chinquapin, and other places . . . outside of the Park aren’t available." (Public Hearing, Los Angeles, CA - #20362)

Response: The National Park Service is committed to participating in processes that would encourage and potentially develop joint development authorities, joint housing agreements, and joint public-private sector housing programs. The National Park Service does have the administrative authority to consider options for developing partnerships for the purpose of providing employee housing. These options include joint development authorities, joint housing agreements, and joint public-private sector housing programs. These options, however, first require the interest and involvement of local government and private parties who have jurisdictional authority and who can provide park employee housing that is affordable, suitable, and within a reasonable commuting distance. In remote areas like Yosemite National Park, there are generally few options for private individuals to provide cost-effective employee housing, particularly for seasonal employees. For example, current land zoning in Midpines and Fish Camp would not allow for the development of high-density employee housing units. Regardless of these current obstacles, the National Park Service recognizes that conditions may change over time. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS acknowledges that conditions in the local communities may change and private parties may become interested in providing housing options for park employees (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Housing).

This response also applies to concern #280.

177. Public Concern: The National Park Service should examine the effects of locating employee housing in El Portal on the community and its infrastructure.

"And while it seems logical to relocate some employee housing to El Portal, it seems that the amount of additional residents to be relocated to El Portal needs to be examined very carefully by the Park, the public, and current residents. How would this influx of employees change the current community and its infrastructure? For example: What about medical care? Right now, El Portal residents are faced with a 30+ minute drive to Yosemite Valley for minimal medical care at an unsatisfactory urgent care clinic, or they must drive 45+ minutes to a slightly more well equipped clinic (also not a hospital) in Mariposa. What about police/ranger protection, especially for nighttime emergencies and disturbances? It is my understanding that currently none of the El Portal NPS rangers are on duty at night. How will these important components to a safe community improve when the population increases in El Portal? And how much would the population actually increase? Would young seasonal employees be willing to live in an isolated town so far removed from Yosemite National Park?" (Individual, El Portal, CA - #456)

Response: The National Park Service has prepared a social environment impact analysis for all of the communities, including El Portal (see Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences).

366. Public Concern: The National Park Service should assess the cost of locating housing in Hennessey’s Ranch.

"A lot of housing has been proposed for Hennessey Ranch. That is a floodplain. And the mitigation is to put a floodwall there. I am not sure that you have thought of how much that’s going to cost because the bridge is going to have to be raised and the road is going to have to be raised, otherwise the water will flow through there. If the river shifts, as it did in ‘97, and hits the wall head-on, I don’t think the wall will stand up to that sort of force. We could build it because we built Hoover Dam, but I don’t know if the Park wants to pay for it." (Public Hearing, Fresno, CA - #20489)

Response: Cost estimates for building housing at the Hennessey’s Ranch site are provided in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. During the design phase, the National Park Service would take all flood mitigations into consideration. Cost estimates for building housing, as well as other cost estimates, are provided in Vol. II, Appendix M, Sequencing.

276. Public Concern: The National Park Service should reconsider closing the El Portal Trailer Court.

"I want to address the El Portal Trailer Court. We’re very concerned about closing that down, as well. As you know, the concession employees are not allowed to have families in company housing. If you decide to have a family, you have to relocate someplace else, and the El Portal Trailer Park is the only close, affordable family housing that exists right now. And if you eliminate that and turn that into high-density housing, there’s going to be no place for the working families to afford to live. So we ask that you really consider that and create some other options. We think that the trailer court is a viable place to raise children. It’s a safe community. It’s pretty enclosed there, and there’s flat roads for children to be able to ride their bikes, and we think that that should continue." (Public Hearing, Mariposa, CA - #20258)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The trailer court in El Portal is in the process of being closed as stipulated by the 1980 General Management Plan. As a result of this action, owners of trailers located in the trailer village are eligible to apply to the National Park Service for relocation benefits pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Act of 1970.

164. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should not establish employee housing in El Portal.

"Forcing employees to live in El Portal and drive, or be driven, to work over a long, two way icy, snowy road, where accidents will occur, is unconscionable. To purposefully place these people daily in ‘harms way’ is near criminal, certainly stupid. In addition, as El Portal is certainly not the ‘garden spot of the Sierras,’ what family in their right mind would want to live there year around? An unintended consequence of this proposal will be that few, if any prospective employees will ever accept employment to work in the Valley. So where will the work force come from? Again, where is the common sense, responsibility and integrity in planning? This proposed change must not occur!" (Individual, American Canyon, CA - #907)

OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE VALUES

"The relocation of approximately 700 employee beds to El Portal will roughly double the population of this small community which lacks sufficient infrastructure to meet the needs of its existing population. The pressure on the Recreation Outstanding Remarkable Value within the Merced River Wild and Scenic Corridor on both El Portal Administrative Unit and National Forest System lands will be major, long term, and adverse, as opposed to minor, long term, and beneficial as identified on page 4-50 of the Executive Summary. Failure to adequately mitigate the natural resource and social aspects of this dramatic increase in population will significantly reduce the quality of the recreational experience for the visiting public, employees and reassignments located at El Portal and may result in the need to vastly increase the cost of management of this area and or result in the reduction of dispersed recreational opportunities within the Merced River Wild and Scenic River Corridor on National Forest System lands." (USDA Forest Service, Clovis, CA - #8900)

Response: During several previous planning processes, the National Park Service has considered several locations for relocating housing outside Yosemite Valley. In the 1980 General Management Plan, along with providing general guidance for considering opportunities for housing in the region, it was proposed that housing be located at El Portal. In 1992, the National Park Service deviated from this General Management Plan element by proposing to place employee housing in Foresta. Placing housing in Foresta was widely opposed by the public; comment response to the plan overwhelmingly called for the placement of housing in El Portal.

Moreover, in 1958 Congress passed the El Portal Administrative Site Act, which allowed for the National Park Service acquisition of land in El Portal for an administrative site.

To accommodate employees who would be relocated outside Yosemite Valley, an employee transportation system would be developed. It is projected that most employees commuting to work in Yosemite Valley would use the employee transportation system.

In Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, Social Environment, the analysis found that there would be an increase in the number of employee commuters traveling into Yosemite Valley. However, even though there would be an increase in the number of commuters per day, it is projected that the number of trips per day would remain relatively constant because there would be a reduction in personal vehicle trips, offsetting the increase in the number of employee shuttle trips

Employee housing in El Portal is consistent with the provisions of the Merced, River Plan/FEIS. The potential impacts to wild and scenic river values are described in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences.

For these reasons, it is reasonable and feasible to consider El Portal as a location for employee housing.

476. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the construction of a community center in El Portal.

"We support the following proposition: creation of a community center at El Portal. The area just east of the post office appears to provide an ideal location for a village green, an open area that could play host to local gatherings and help create a real sense of community. We do believe, however, that housing in that area should be retained (although the existing recreation center and other decaying buildings south of the open area represent prime candidates for replacement)." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #4594)

Response: The Yosemite Valley Plan calls for many amenities to meet the needs of the El Portal community, including a community center and possibly a town square (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives).