Yosemite Valley Plan SEIS, Volume III, Chapter 5: Part 2

Chapter 5 ~ Public Concerns from the Draft Merced Wild and Scenic River Plan/EIS Process and Responses Relating to Yosemite Valley Planning (cont.)

Section 3.5 ~ Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species

Section 3.6 ~ Air Quality

1041. Public Concern: The National Park Service should take all possible measures to reduce local air pollution In Yosemite Valley.

"While Yosemite Valley exceeds the state standard for ozone and particulates, the Park is not required by law to act on its non-attainment, because of loopholes in the California Clean Air Act which forgives the Park its high ozone concentrations due to upwind sources and — as of now — does not impose requirements on PM10 non-attainment areas . . . despite legal loopholes which allow the Park to ignore air quality regulations, the Park should take every measure to curb local pollution sources in the Valley for the health of the visitors that come to enjoy the pristine nature of the Park, for the diversity of sensitive plants and animals which live in the Park." (Individual, Berkeley, CA - #138)

"Steps should be taken to reduce traffic problems and improve air quality in the Valley." (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Moffet Field, CA - #6231)

"Of concern are two major pollutants, ozone and particulates. Since 1993, ozone levels in Yosemite Valley have at some point in the year always failed to meet state human health standards." (University of California, Department of Environmental Science/Policy and Management, Berkeley, CA - #138)

Response: Yosemite National Park’s mandate is one of environmental protection, and the park’s goal is to limit impacts on resources, including air quality, from internal park operations and visitor use. For example, Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS propose measures to reduce visitor vehicle traffic and associated air emissions in the Valley relative to existing conditions. Park staff monitors particulate matter at the headquarters near the Valley Visitor Center; they also monitor ozone at Turtleback Dome. Yosemite National Park is using sustainable design and development techniques for future buildings and operations in the park where feasible to achieve reductions in park emissions and energy consumption.

Both the Merced River Plan/FEIS and the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS meet National Environmental Policy Act requirements by fully disclosing the current air quality conditions in the park and identifying potential air quality impacts of each alternative (see Air Quality in Vol. Ia, Chapter 3 and Vol. Ib, Chapter 4). The inclusion of air quality in these two documents does not give the National Park Service authority to impose its mandate on sources of air pollution outside the park. The Federal Clean Air Act and its amendments and the California Clean Air act provide legal guidance to control air pollution sources inside and outside the park. However, as a Class I airshed, Yosemite National Park has an important mandate to participate in decision making on new or modified plans for air pollution sources in the vicinity of the park.

1042. Public Concern: The National Park Service should evaluate air quality impacts from highway expansion projects within the Park.

"The widening route 140 to accommodate more tour buses would increase bus traffic, which would contribute to the particulate and ozone concentrations in the Valley, as well as the Merced River corridor." (Individual, Snelling, CA - #946)

Pg. IV-92, Alt. One, Doc. Two, Air Quality: What rationale supports the identification of the Highway 41 extension as having a no-net adverse impact on El Portal (River Gorge) air quality? (Mariposa County Board of Supervisors, Mariposa, CA - #1637)

Response: Although the El Portal Road Reconstruction Project from the park boundary to Big Oak Flat Road (National Park Service) is outside the scope of this planning effort, an environmental assessment completed in 1997 concluded that the project would have minor, temporary increases in fugitive dust and volatile organics from construction activities. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS includes the El Portal Road Reconstruction Project and Highway 41 Extension as part of its cumulative impacts assessment. Reconstructing El Portal Road from Big Oak Flat Road to Pohono Bridge is induced as an action in all action alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. The impacts of this action are documented in Vol. Ib, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. This action, by itself, would not result in an increase in bus traffic.

1043. Public Concern: The National Park Service should consider the effects of external sources of pollution on air quality in Yosemite National Park.

"Until the entire state is considered an airshed, the airshed divisions can only try to mitigate problems within their areas. If no campfires were allowed in the valley, no cars were allowed in the valley, the valley would still have air pollution. As the west wind blows it will continue to bring with it smog from the San Joaquin Valley. Until an airshed that meets air quality standards files a lawsuit against those that do not, there will be no change in the states overall air quality." (Individual, Quincy CA - #264)

"I recognize that many air quality issues in the Park are due to air pollution blown down wind from the Central Valley. But just as sedimentation problems of the Merced River need to address land management practices upstream, so do air quality issues need to address air pollution sources upwind outside the planned boundary." (University of California, Department of Environmental Science, Berkeley, CA - #138)

Response: The California Air Resources Board and local air districts are responsible for developing clean air plans or State Implementation Plans to demonstrate how and when California will attain air quality standards established under both the Federal and California Clean Air Acts. For the areas within California that have not attained air quality standards, the Air Resources Board works with air districts to develop and implement state and local attainment plans. In general, attainment plans contain a discussion of ambient air quality data and trends; a baseline emissions inventory; future year projections of emissions, which account for growth projections and already adopted control measures; a comprehensive control strategy of additional measures needed to reach attainment; an attainment demonstration, which generally involves complex modeling; and contingency measures. Many of California's State Implementation Plans rely on the same core set of control strategies, including emission standards for cars and heavy trucks, and fuel regulations and limits on emissions from consumer products. State law makes the Air Resources Board the lead agency for all purposes related to the State Implementation Plan. Local air districts and other agencies prepare State Implementation Plan elements and submit them to the Air Resources Board for review and approval, and the Air Resources Board forwards State Implementation Plan revisions to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for approval.

The National Park Service is active in its role as federal land manager and makes recommendations to the Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board regarding protection of air quality and related values in Yosemite National Park, which is a Class I area. The National Park Service also works with the local air quality districts during the State Implementation Plan process and in the review of New Source Review applications. When the counties adjacent to Yosemite National Park achieve nonattainment status, the National Park Service would be involved in conformity determinations as well.

1044. Public Concern: The National Park Service should ensure that all vehicles entering Yosemite National Park comply with state air quality standards.

"… put emissions monitoring stations at the entrances. There are now infrared systems that can measure emissions on vehicles passing by the station. Any vehicle that does not meet California emissions standards should be turned back. Large warning signs could be posted at remote locations leading to park entrances." (Individual, Harbor City, CA - #3075)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The National Park Service has no statutory authority to implement an emission inspection program for private vehicles.

1045. Public Concern: The National Park Service should analyze the air quality impact of replacing private automobiles with diesel buses.

"The Park Service recognizes that: ‘Reality is that buses for the next 10-15 years will be limited to diesel fuel . . .’ The lack of any comparative analysis between the pollution added by these diesel buses and private vehicles — accommodating the same number of visitors — appears to be a deliberate attempt to avoid addressing the problem." (Conservation Organization, Berkley, CA - #3129)

"Diesel buses are substantially more polluting than cars. They run continuously, meaning that when riders disembark in the winter, engines are left running so the bus stays warm. In the summer, the engines are left running so the buses stay cool. With the increase in buses, the total experience of the valley will be changed substantially for the worse." (Individual, Malibu, CA - #3077)

Response: Emissions associated with diesel buses were analyzed for each of the alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. The analysis included diesel bus emissions from additional buses that would displace some private visitor vehicles. For all the action alternatives, emissions associated with alternative fuel buses, including compressed natural gas, propane, and fuel cells, were also analyzed. The results of these analyses are presented in Vol. Ib, Chapter 4, Air Quality, of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

1046. Public Concern: The National Park Service should halt plans to proceed with or expand diesel transit and tour bus activity in Yosemite National Park.

"The . . . air quality mandate coupled with the February 24^th ruling of the California Air Resources Board with respect to diesel transit should result in an immediate halt to any plans to proceed with or expand diesel transit and tour bus activity in Yosemite National Park." (County Board of Supervisors, Madera, CA - #603)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS states that the National Park Service would consider low noise, low emissions, cost-effective, and best available technology as well as the use of alternative fuels as primary criteria for acquiring in-Valley and out-of-Valley shuttle bus fleets. In addition, the National Park Service is currently replacing its diesel in-Valley shuttle bus fleet. Low noise, low emissions, cost effectiveness, and use of alternative fuels are the criteria for purchasing these vehicles. Additionally, these buses must meet or exceed California air Quality Standards. The air emissions analyses indicate that the use of diesel buses would have a beneficial impact on all emissions except nitrogen oxide emissions in the Preferred Alternative. The use of alternatively-fueled buses would further reduce emissions.

1047. Public Concern: The National Park Service should explore the use of alternative fuels in the Valley.

"YARTS plans should be supported. Currently YARTS is implementing a demonstration project in May 2000 and hopefully it will be successful enough to expand . . . but the buses designed to run (on alternative fuel) are still in the prototype stage. Bringing them on-line and developing the infrastructure to fuel them will apparently take some time. This should be supported as it will eventually reduce particulate loads along the Merced corridor and in the Valley." (Individual, Berkeley, CA - #138)

"An effective tram system using natural gas or solar electric vehicles would serve everyone better." (Individual, Northampton, MA — #8)

Response: Each of the alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS evaluates and analyzes emissions impacts for various transit propulsion and fuel systems: diesel internal combustion engine, compressed natural gas internal combustion engine, propane internal combustion engine, and fuel cell with electric motors. Other propulsion technologies, such as hybrids with internal combustion engines and electric motors, may also be appropriate for use in Yosemite National Park.

The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS states that the National Park Service would consider quiet, cost-effective, available technology as well as the use of alternative fuels as primary criteria for acquiring in-Valley and out-of-Valley shuttle bus fleets.

The National Park Service is moving toward the use of the cleanest and quietest transit vehicles feasible in the Valley, and has committed in Vol. Ia, Chapter 1 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS to continue strategies to implement technologies that reduce mobile sources of air pollution.

Note: One response is provided for concerns #1048, #1049, and #1050, placed following #1050.

1048. Public Concern: The National Park Service should consider restrictions on personal campfires.

"The use of group campfires, for example ranger campfires, instead of individual fires would increase air quality in the Valley substantially. This would allow the reinstatement of the campsites damaged by the 1997 flood without adverse air quality effects." (Individual, Berkeley, CA - #138)

1049. Public Concern: The National Park Service should ban campfires in the Valley.

"How about a plan to ban campfires in the valley entirely? This is especially important to me in the summer, when the burning of wood only serves to pollute the valley’s air while only providing visitors with a smores experience . . . Every morning you wake up in the valley it smells like smoke and for what reason?" (Individual, Santa Barbara, CA - #6074)

"… you don’t have to remove campgrounds to reduce campfire emissions — just ban campfires! There should be no preference given to Alternatives 3 and 4 on the basis of air quality." (University of California, Department of Environmental Science, Berkeley, CA - #138)

1050. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not ban campfires in the Valley.

"Campfires are a part of camping. The burning of natural wood produces a smoke that nature can deal with." (Individual, Quincy, CA - #6257)

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

(This response also applies to the two previous concerns, #1048 and #1049.)

1051. Public Concern: The National Park Service should monitor the effect of vehicle travel on air quality in Yosemite Valley.

"The effect on air quality from vehicular travel in the confines of the Valley should be continuously monitored with study of the effects on vegetation and wildlife in the river corridor." (Individual, Snelling, CA - #946)

Response: There are numerous air quality monitoring stations in and near the park that analyze both gaseous and particulate pollutants. For example, monitors in the park include an ozone monitor along with an Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments site at Turtleback Dome, and a particulate monitor at the park headquarters near the visitor center in Yosemite Valley. However, these monitors cannot distinguish pollution levels attributed to vehicle traffic only. The park has also been involved in biological effects research and monitoring related to air pollution for many years. Research has determined that Ponderosa and Jeffrey pine trees, two key species in Yosemite National Park, are highly sensitive to tropospheric ozone. The park currently monitors both species for early detection of change.

The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS also acknowledges that the California Environmental Protection Agency concluded that the ozone exceedances in 1995 in the southern portion of the Mountain Counties air Basin, which includes Mariposa County, were caused by transport of ozone and ozone precursors from the San Joaquin Air Basin.

1052. Public Concern: The National Park Service should emphasize the ecological need for prescribed fire over its effects on air quality.

"Prescribed burns are extremely important to healthy ecosystems and should take precedence over other causes of particulate matter being added to the air." (Individual, Columbia, CA - #1521)

"Prescribed burns and prescribed natural fires must be allowed to continue as long as they meet criteria that takes into account a natural fuel loading….This natural smoke is again allowable." (Individual, Quincy, CA - #6528)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Yosemite National Park would continue to use prescribed fire where it is determined to be feasible and effective as a means to achieve site-specific restoration and habitat management goals. These activities would be conducted in accordance with the National Park Service 1990 Fire Management Plan.

Section 3.7 ~ Scenic Resources

1053. Public Concern: The National Park Service should consider the impacts of development on scenic resources.

"Just make sure that whatever happens enhances the beauty of the Park and doesn’t destroy it by adding buildings or parking lots where they are easily visible." (Individual, Fish Camp, CA - #3233)

"Whenever there was a spot where we could see a view of the valley, I saw way too many buildings. I mean, people are here to enjoy nature, not architecture! Please try to at least make these buildings less visible, or take some out." (Individual, CA - #1695)

"No new buildings are to be built in the park and as many existing buildings as possible must be eliminated. What visitor coming to the valley’s edge wants to look down on acres and acres of building roofs and parking lots? It scenery. Think about it." (Individual, Walnut Creek, CA - #264)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does consider potential impacts to scenic resources. The analysis is located in Vol. Ib, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences.

1054. Public Concern: The National Park Service should consider the scenic value of the historic bridges in Yosemite Valley.

"From the perspective of the quality of visitor experience, these structures [historic bridges] have clear scenic value." (Individual, Berkeley, CA - #6112)

Response: There is agreement by many that the historic bridges in Yosemite Valley are aesthetically pleasing and contribute to the scenic value of the Valley. However, the 1980 General Management Plan specifically describes and emphasizes the protection of the exquisite natural beauty as a major goal; the beauty of human-made structures is not mentioned as a criterion for evaluation. Protection of the Valley’s natural beauty is one of the major criteria of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Because of their cultural significance and rustic appearance, eight of the stone veneered bridges have been listed on the National Register of Historic Places. To different degrees six of those have an impact on the natural flow of the Merced River. They were evaluated based upon the extent to which they each are causing significant and detrimental changes to the Merced River fluvial system, and their importance and continuing use as a structure in the historically-significant traffic circulation system. In order to meet the General Management Plan goals of "Reclaim priceless natural beauty" and "Allow natural processes to prevail" and yet preserve a significant representation of this cultural resource, the Preferred Alternative proposes to strategically remove bridges and adjacent reinforcement of the banks in a phased approach. The National Park Service would then evaluate the resulting changes to the river hydrology and ecosystem before any other bridges were removed downstream. The Preferred Alternative proposes to initially remove Sugar Pine Bridge, which is the bridge causing the most significant ecological degradation. If, based on monitoring, Stoneman Bridge continues to cause unacceptable degradation of the river’s natural hydrologic flow, it would then also be removed.

1055. Public Concern: The National Park Service should consider alternative access for viewing Yosemite Valley.

"It is my opinion that a road should be constructed from highway 120 to a viewpoint on the north side of the valley, above Yosemite Falls perhaps. This look out would serve some of the needs of the private automobile and tour bus visitors. An example of what I have in mind can be seen at Canyon de Chelly Arizona, where access to the valley floors is severely restricted. Recompense comes from good auto access to view points on the rims." (Individual, Sonoma, CA - #166)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Providing additional points from which to view Yosemite Valley would result in impacts to other areas of the park, most of which are designated Wilderness areas. Wilderness areas allow for the development and maintenance of trails, but not for roads and access by motorized vehicles. The Yosemite Valley Plan would not alter the existing trails above the Valley floor, allowing for their continued use to access the many views of Yosemite Valley available from these wilderness areas, however the Yosemite Valley Plan would not prescribe additional viewpoints accessible by vehicle.

Section 3.8 ~ Cultural Resources

1056. Public Concern: The National Park Service should account for human activities in Yosemite Valley.

"I feel the protection of the park as a whole and the Merced River, and in particular the valley, must take into account man’s presence and activities. To me, man’s activities must include what the Native Americans did to live in the valley, what early settlers did to live in the valley, what modern man has done to vacation in the valley." (Individual, No Address - #6004)

Response: Human activity is reflected in the landscape and built environment of Yosemite Valley in many ways. The presence of pre-contact American Indians and evidence of other settlers is reflected in the ephemeral archeological sites. The managed vegetation from pre-contact times and the period of early Euro-American settlement, plus continuing National Park Service and concessioner manipulation is evident in open meadows, black oak woodlands, orchards, and formally landscaped areas. The historic structural systems are still in use today in the historic developed areas and in the networks of roads, trails, and bridges. These are described in Vol. Ia, Chapter 3, Affected Environment, in the section on cultural resources. In preparing alternatives for the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, all these cultural resources have been considered in keeping with National Park Service policy and the National Historic Preservation Act. The alternatives preserve and protect these to different degrees. In all cases, however, the trade-offs of losing these valuable resources are acknowledged in the cultural resources impact analysis section of Vol. Ib, Chapter 4.

1057. Public Concern: Yosemite National Park land exchanges with the National Park Service should contain protective measures for cultural and archaeological sites.

"Land exchanges can sometimes work out very well for both parties concerned. My only concern here is that Park lands proposed for exchange that contain an archaeological site contain a clause ‘grandfathering’ protection for the site." (Individual, Paso Robles, CA - #28)

Response: The proposed Yosemite View Parcel Land Exchange is not an action proposed in the Draft or Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. However, it is addressed as an element of the cumulative impacts scenario because it is a reasonably foreseeable future action. Protective measures for cultural resources would be considered as part of the detailed planning and compliance for this potential future action. (Refer to Vol. II, Appendix H.)

1058. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not remove any historic structures from Yosemite National Park.

"I would suggest removing no historic buildings or historic bridges." (Individual, Sacramento, CA - #3133)

Response: All historic structures are an important component of the cultural resources managed by the National Park Service. Indeed, National Park Service policy and federal preservation law require agencies to manage these as important aspects of the heritage of the American people, and to consider the value of historic properties when undertaking planning that might adversely affect these resources. However, the National Park Service must make difficult choices in order to achieve some of the goals and objectives of the 1980 General Management Plan. In considering actions proposed in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, all historic buildings and bridges were evaluated first for protection and preservation, and then rehabilitation and adaptive reuse. In cases where historic properties must be removed in order to achieve other objectives, these structures would be assessed for feasibility of relocation and adaptive reuse. The National Park Service would demolish a historic structure only when these options have been considered and have been found to be not feasible or practical. Mitigating measures, as outlined in the 1999 Yosemite Programmatic Agreement, would be implemented in situations where historic structures would be relocated or demolished.

(Also see response to concern #528.)

1059. Public Concern: The National Park Service should preserve the Yosemite Pioneer Museum at Wawona.

"I think the Pioneer Yosemite History Center at Wawona has special value, both historically and educationally. To move portions of it might be necessary under this Alternative 3 but it should not be ‘phased out.’" (Individual, El Cerrito, CA - #6150)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does not propose any changes to the Pioneer Yosemite History Center.

1060. Public Concern: The National Park Service should preserve the Lamon Orchard.

"To locate a campground in the Lamon Apple Orchard, however, does not fit into the historical and logical site location parameters. To make matters worse, to eliminate the Lamon Apple Orchard just to make room for campers is the worst possible tradeoff and makes absolutely no sense. As this orchard has historical significance, it should not be uprooted, just to be replanted with another type of apple tree. By eliminating the apples which animals eat each year, ‘civilization provided’ though they may be, their removal may cause the bears to be more aggressive regarding the food in cars, tents and elsewhere. This is a bad trade-off." (Individual, American Canyon, CA - #3126)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does not propose establishing a campground in the location of Lamon Orchard, nor is replacing the existing apple trees with nonfruiting varieties called for. The earlier Draft Valley Implementation Plan/SEIS, however, did propose constructing a campground in the orchard. The action alternatives of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes different treatments for each of the three historic orchards in Yosemite Valley: removal and restoration of Curry Orchard, neither removal nor cultivation of Hutchings Orchard, and retention and management of Lamon Orchard.

(Also see response to concern #46.)

Section 3.9 ~ Visitor Experience

1061. Public Concern: The National Park Service should define visitor experience and its relationship to other core values of Yosemite National Park.

"The visitor experience and its intrinsic relationship to the esthetic, scenic, historic, archaeological, and scientific features or ‘core values’ of Yosemite National Park must be clearly defined. Resource-focused opportunities unique to a national park setting, based on resource preservation as opposed to resource exploitation, provide the framework for such a definition (e.g., camping as a resource-based activity that requires minimal permanent infrastructure vs. lodging replete with buildings, paved parking, and a host of guest services)." (Madera County Board of Supervisors, Madera, CA - #603)

"One ‘undefined’ point is the realm of ‘visitor experience.’ In the General Management Plan Goal, it is loosely associated with visitor understanding and enjoyment with interpretive and educational programs. This is fulfilled in the Merced River Plan Goal of providing diverse recreational and educational experiences that .’..provide opportunities for enjoyable and educational experiences with the river’s natural and cultural landscapes.’ This definition of experience has much potential to degrade the whole experience of Yosemite park over the long term because it caters to the individual’s preference and predilections and not to an understanding of the park as system. The experiences defined in the plan are an open-ended proposal where much leeway is given to park and ecosystem modification for the sake of voluminous visitors and their particular interests and desires of how they see the park as satisfying their needs. The use of the term ‘visitor experience’ thus can be defined from one emphasizing an individual-benefiting experience to one tied up in a process of natural system understanding and respect. A different sort of philosophy is especially relevant in this day and age of ecosystem destruction and other environmental blight." (Individual, Washington, DC - #281)

Response: The definition of visitor experience, including its relationship to other park values, is found in the goals and criteria sections of Vol. Ia, Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. The visitor experience goals and criteria also need to be read in the context of the resource management goals and criteria. A fully described "desired visitor experience" cannot be formulated for Yosemite’s visitors, because the experience is highly individualized for the several million visitors to the park each year. But the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does work toward an appropriate balance of preservation, development, and use that would prevent the park’s natural wonders from being overshadowed by the intrusions of the human environment. In addition, educational programs would seek to instill in visitors a sense of resource stewardship and an understanding of natural processes.

3.9.1 ~ Visitor Use Levels

1062. Public Concern: The National Park Service should ensure access to Yosemite National Park for all people.

"We have to make this an open place where people with disabilities and people who are older can come and enjoy the Park, not just people that can hike in, and people that can walk in or bike in. It has to be open for everybody." (Individual, Yosemite National Park, ca - #3226)

"Restricting our national park access runs in conflict with why our elected leaders established the creation of national parks and other protected land. All Americans should be welcome in our parks whether a fisherman, camper or just a nature lover." (Business, Fresno, CA - #606)

Response: Visitor accommodations are provided within the larger context of the National Park Service mission and within the particular limiting characteristics of Yosemite Valley (see Vol. Ia, Chapter 2, Developing a Range of Alternatives–Development Considerations, and Resource Stewardship–Highly Valued Resources). It is clear that Yosemite Valley cannot accommodate a limitless number of people. But the Preferred Alternative in the Yosemite Valley Plan would accommodate in the Valley’s overnight facilities and day-visitor parking facilities the maximum daily visitation level specified in the 1980 General Management Plan (18,241). Additional visitors would be able to enter the park via public transit. The Yosemite Valley Plan would enhance Valley access in other ways: improved information available in advance of a visit; better visitor orientation and information when in the park; and improved access to larger areas of Yosemite Valley by bicycle, walking trails, and shuttle bus.

The National Park Service will comply with the Architectural Barriers Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act in facilities and programs. To this end, the Yosemite Valley Plan would require that shuttle buses and other facilities be accessible for visitors with disabilities. Overnight lodging in the Valley would continue to be accessible by personal vehicles or transit buses. Analysis of and planning for accessibility would be conducted throughout the implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The phasing schedule for the Yosemite Valley Plan would also stipulate that until transit vehicles and facilities are accessible, access for visitors with disabilities would continue essentially the same as now, by the use of personal vehicle placards for access to parking spaces at principal Valley destinations.

1063. Public Concern: The National Park Service should establish a visitor carrying capacity in Yosemite National Park.

"I would suggest that the Park Service has never thoroughly considered the possibility for the carrying capacity of anything in the Park including humans. I guess that’s one of the most important things that should be done; it should be done soon." (Public Hearing, Merced, CA - #3160)

"The appendices refer to a ‘carrying capacity’ study by the University of Vermont; however, Superintendent Mihalic is on record as stating that this is a ‘preference study,’ not a carrying capacity study. Where are the carrying capacity studies that would enable the public to differentiate between the ‘kinds and amounts of public use which the river area can sustain’ without degradation. We hear the yet-to-be-released Valley Plan contains a section calling for carrying capacity studies - but according to the Federal Register guidelines, such studies need to be in place right now as an integral part of this plan." (Individual, Oakhurst, CA - #6082)

Disregard impact on concessionaires

"The capacity of the valley is a serious issue. It has not been addressed by the NPS which has lead to many of the problems. It is equally important to mention that the concessionaire would prefer to not have a limit placed on the number of daily users. The pressure from them upon the NPS must be monumental. However, it must occur. The potential to make profits by the concessionaire will not be reduced significantly. . . Eliminating some of the concessionaire accommodations should take place. Reducing the density of the total consumer will relieve pressure upon the systems at work in the valley." (Individual, Quincy, CA - #6258)

Response: In Vol. Ia, Chapter 2, Actions Common to All Action Alternatives–Visitor Use, the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS discusses the concept of carrying capacity. The Yosemite Valley Plan and the Merced River Plan/FEIS have both called for more rigorous implementation of the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection process, which addresses the issue of visitor use levels by identifying indicators of critical conditions, the standards for those indicators, and a constant monitoring process. If the results of the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection study indicate the need for establishment of a maximum visitation level for Yosemite Valley, supplemental environmental compliance and public involvement would be conducted prior to establishing the use levels.

1064. Public Concern: The National Park Service should encourage off-peak season use of Yosemite National Park.

"Visitors who utilize the park during off-peak times and use the less traveled areas of the park should be rewarded and encouraged, not hampered by policies directed toward users congregating in the most popular areas." (Individual, Livermore, CA - #6348)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS calls for a system of out-of-Valley parking and shuttle buses to handle demand during periods of peak visitation. The level of parking facilities in the Valley is designed to accommodate present off-peak season use without the need for out-of-Valley parking and shuttle system. Thus, off-peak visitors should not be greatly affected by the provisions made for out-of-Valley parking. The Preferred Alternative also proposes the development and implementation of a traveler information and traffic management system. This system planning effort would include public participation and compliance activities and would be based on the provisions outlined in the Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS and the Record of Decision. A purpose of the system would be to inform visitors of the park's lodging, camping, and day-visitor facilities and the necessity of advance planning if one desires accommodations in Yosemite Valley during the periods of peak demand. The system would also point out the benefits derived from off-peak season visitation.

(Also see response to concerns #605 and #36.)

1065. Public Concern: The National Park Service should emphasize use of accommodations and services provided outside of the park.

"To the maximum extent possible, we should be relying on accommodations and other services provided by the private sector outside the park rather than facilities (NPS or otherwise) in the park, especially in Yosemite Valley itself." (Individual, Indianapolis, IN - #7)

Response: This concern statement is consistent with direction of Congress, National Park Service Management Policies, and the broad goals of the 1980 General Management Plan and as such is being implemented in the action alternatives. In this age of increasingly available rapid transportation and development of recreation, lodging, and camping facilities in gateway communities, visitors are no longer dependent on overnight accommodations (camping and lodging) within Yosemite Valley to facilitate a visit to Yosemite National Park. Nonetheless, it is recognized that there is great value in being able to experience Yosemite Valley in the evening, night, and early morning, and overnight accommodations facilitate this special experience for park visitors. Determining the appropriate amount and types of overnight accommodations to provide a quality visitor experience remains the difficult question which this plan addresses.

(Also see response to concerns # 21, 69 and 213.)

1066. Public Concern: The National Park Service should rotate land use in Yosemite National Park.

"Ranchers have learned over the years that if they rotate their animals so that they spend some time not near the rivers, but the rivers near their land are better protected. So why aren’t we doing this at Yosemite? Why aren’t we rotating where the people are so that the land has time to recover? If they have to be on the north side of the River for a while, then they’re there; move them over to the south side, give the other side a chance to rest." (Individual, North Hollywood, CA - #3061)

Response: Land use such as campgrounds, picnic areas, and other facilities generally involves the installation of permanent infrastructure including restrooms and asphalt (to prevent development of rutted roads and high levels of dust), and temporary features such as grills and tables that negate the potential for ecological restoration of a site. High levels of human use of these areas results in a variety of long-term impacts that will not recover during short "rest" periods. These include soil compaction, loss of nutrients through removal of woody debris, loss of soil infiltration capabilities, and alterations in hydrology from these surface impacts as well as impacts to subsurface flows from the damming effects of utilities and road base. There are permanent impacts to overstory tree species because of these soil and hydrologic changes resulting in loss of overstory vigor. Other impacts include loss of seed-producing vegetation; lack of regeneration of slow-growing shrub and tree species with eventual loss of mid- and upper-level canopies over time; and encroachment by non-native species due to lack of natural ground cover.

Loss of natural hydrology, fire patterns, and other natural processes also negate the possibility of an impacted area providing habitat for wildlife species. It generally takes years for a site to recover to the point where it does provide habitat and functions naturally. This recovery process is generally assisted through soil decompaction, weeding, revegetation, and the removal of structures and facilities. Rotational use and restoration would not achieve the goals of the General Management Plan and would result in larger areas of impact and development than currently exist in Yosemite Valley.

3.9.2 ~ Access Quotas

1067. Public Concern: The National Park Service should restrict the number of visitors entering Yosemite National Park.

"I feel that it is inevitable that more people in the future will visit Yosemite. Nevertheless the park should restrict the number of people who visit the park. The park should reserve space on a first come first served basis. There should definitely be limits to the number of people allowed to visit Yosemite." (Individual, No address - #3165)

"… controls should be placed on the number of visitors to Yosemite Valley in order to protect this resource for future generations." (Individual, Granada Hills, CA - #125)

"Many parts of the Sierra wilderness areas require a permit to enter and many trails have quotas to prevent further degradation and to restore affected ecosystem areas. Why shouldn’t the Park Service put Yosemite Valley on a similar quota system to protect and restore the natural ecosystems?" (Individual, Redding, CA - #130)

restrict access during peak periods

"Limiting the number of visitors coming into the park during the summer months would help solve over crowding." (Individual, Bell, CA - #963)

"There is no question that daily visitation into the park needs to be controlled during peak periods and holidays. No one likes crowded situations particularly in a place where personal experiences related to nature are what one leaves with." (Individual, Stockton, CA - #591)

"There is no debate that there is a level of use of the valley that is excessive. The issue then is determining when that threshold has been reached. It is time that the public and the NPS recognize that that level is already being reached during peak days and that access to Yosemite must, at times, be restricted. It is also time to recognize that restricting access at times is not a bad thing." (Individual, Berkeley, CA - #6098)

establish a reservation system

"I am not able to understand why a reservation format is not used to control the number of visitors in the park. Visitors would pay a fee and receive a ticket for a prescribed period of time." (Individual, Catheys Valley, CA - #960)

"… the Park cannot even comfortably accommodate the current population; even if new parking and facilities were installed all over the park, it would not even begin to accommodate the projected increased population. . . It will probably be necessary to implement a more comprehensive reservation system and quota plan. Given time, I feel that visitors will be able to adapt to this system. Reservations and advance planning are not difficult, and most people already do this for their vacations. After all, what family would pack up and fly off to Orlando for a vacation without a hotel reservation? The Park Service can help to alleviate the annoyance by making sure that publicity is sent out well in advance of the changes." (Individual, Portola Valley, CA - #1532)

"You must find ways to keep people from loving the valley and river to death. ONLY by limiting the number of people and the duration they stay in the valley can you protect the river. Until the Park Service really forces people to make reservations to the valley and have their stay limited will the natural ecosystem of the valley be protected as it was meant to be under the law." (Individual, Redding, CA - #130)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does not propose specific limits on visitation. While the 1980 General Management Plan prescribed a maximum daily use (i.e., day and overnight use) level for Yosemite Valley, its analysis was facility- and vehicle-based with no criteria for protection of resources or visitor experience. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes to complete a Visitor Experience and Resource Protection study within five years of the Record of Decision for the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. For further information, see Vol. Ia, Chapter 2, Visitor Use in Yosemite and Land Management Zoning.

1068. Public Concern: The National Park Service should avoid limits on the number of visitors to Yosemite National Park.

"I’m starting to figure out that in a few cases it’s more important to sacrifice a little serenity, (maybe even sanity), in a beautiful natural setting by exposing it to a lot of folks, (of course, in as compatible way as possible), than it is to guard it ‘to death’ by limiting visitation opportunities, thus denying folks the chance to begin having good preservation ethics. And so, allowing numerous compatible recreational activities, such as swimming, rafting, sight-seeing on foot, etc., so that people, especially young people, will associate pleasant memories with such incredible natural beauty, actually is a good thing." (Individual, Salt Lake City, UT - #29)

"The park and river offer grand experiences which should be available and convenient to as many as possible. Thus we are opposed to any plans that place restrictions on public access to Yosemite and the river." (Individual, Tucson, AZ - #6019)

Response: No criteria have been developed to establish limits on visitor use to protect resources and visitor experience values. The Yosemite Valley Plan does not propose specific limits on visitation to the Valley. The plan proposes to complete a Visitor Experience and Resource Protection study within five years of a Record of Decision. If the results of that study indicate a need to establish maximum visitation levels for Yosemite Valley, supplemental environmental compliance would be conducted as required.

In Vol. Ia, Chapter 2, Actions Common to All Action Alternatives–Visitor Use, the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS discusses the concept of carrying capacity. The Yosemite Valley Plan and the Merced River Plan/FEIS have both called for more rigorous implementation of the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection process, which addresses the issue of carrying capacity by identifying indicators of critical conditions, the standards for those indicators, and a constant monitoring process. If the results of the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection study indicate the need for establishment of a maximum visitation level for Yosemite Valley, supplemental environmental compliance and public involvement would be conducted prior to establishing the use levels.

3.9.3 ~ Access for Visitors with Disabilities

1069. Public Concern: Yosemite National Park planning should emphasize the need for access to Yosemite National Park for people with special needs.

"What are we doing for the disabled people? I don’t see any disabled access to the River being listed." (Individual, North Hollywood, CA - #3061)

"There must be a policy of commitment to provide access for persons with disabilities, as the Americans with Disabilities Act requires. I did not see that commitment in the Draft." (Individual, San Francisco, CA - #45)

"Those fit enough to seek out the untouched beauty of the park can do so by hiking on one of the many trails around the park. Those unable to physically move about this way, should have the opportunit for as much access as the park can provide without damage to the environment…" (Individual, No Address, #3165)

" We do not believe that the Plan places adequate emphasis on providing valuable park experiences for the elderly and handicapped. We hope that the Yosemite Valley Plan will address these needs." (Individual, Pasadena, CA - #6063)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS provides a range of facilities to accommodate people with special needs. It is the National Park Service’s intention to provide access to the extent possible, reasonable, and consistent with its mission. The National Park Service would comply with the Architectural Barriers Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act in park facilities and programs. To this end, the Preferred Alternative calls for shuttle buses and other facilities to be accessible for visitors with disabilities. Overnight lodging in the Valley would continue to be accessible via personal vehicles or by transit buses. Analysis of and planning for accessibility would be conducted throughout the implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The Sequencing Plan schedule for the Preferred Alternative also stipulates that until transit vehicles and facilities are accessible, access for visitors with disabilities would continue essentially the same as now, by the use of personal vehicle placards for access to parking spaces at principal Valley destinations.

3.9.4 ~ Park Entrance Fees

Note: One response is provided for concerns #1070, #1071, and #1073, placed following #1071.

1070. Public Concern: The National Park Service should re-evaluate the entrance fee system at Yosemite National Park.

"Entering the park and being in the park should be free to US citizens. Public land is not owned by the government for its use. It is owned by the people for their uses. NPS needs more money? Tell it to the people instead of sticking it to us. As much as having different prices for park use as a tool for guiding park use sounds appealing, all fees are the government ripping the people off." (Individual, Austin, TX - #6038)

"I think the Golden Age Passport, allowing free admission for people 62 and over should be done away with. Seniors who use our National Parks should pay an entrance fee. Maybe for 70 and over it could be half price." (Individual, La Jolla, CA - #3034)

1071. Public Concern: The National Park Service should reduce entrance fees to Yosemite National Park.

"The $20 entry fee is much too steep." (Individual, San Jose, CA - #3101)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Fee policy (amount of fees, through-park fees, etc.) for Yosemite National Park is set by National Park Service headquarters in Washington, D.C., in consultation with the Secretary of Interior, and in accordance with laws and direction from Congress. Yosemite National Park recognizes that fee policy could be considered and evaluated as an incentive to manage traffic and parking. Incentives would be explored in the planning of the traveler information and traffic management system, proposed in each of the action alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

1072. Public Concern: The National Park Service should eliminate the Golden Age Pass for Yosemite National Park.

"I think the ‘Golden Age Passport’ allowing free admission for people 62 and over should be done away with. Seniors who use our National Parks should pay an entrance fee. Maybe for 70 and over it could be half price." (Individual, La Jolla, CA - #3034)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Free admission to federal areas for those over 62 is considered an appropriate allowance made for those who may be living on fixed incomes. There are no feasible means of determining income or ability-to-pay that the National Park Service could implement. Park entrance fees are determined by congressional action.

1073. Public Concern: The National Park Service should eliminate entrance fees to Yosemite National Park.

Response: See response to concern # 1071.

3.9.5 ~ Orientation and Interpretation

1074. Public Concern: The National Park Service should expand interpretive and educational services in Yosemite National Park.

"Expansion of interpretive programs and promotion of increased visitor understanding and enjoyment of natural values should be essential goals." (Individual, Monte Sereno, CA - #50)

"I would advance the idea of a stepped up interpretive services effort. One in which there is much increased park ranger contacts, more guided hikes and educational programs altogether. I see this as a means to increase visitor enjoyment, provide a greater sense of community, promote greater appreciation for the new direction taken by park management and to lessen adverse visitor impacts." (Individual, Walnut Creek, CA - #195)

"I learned so much about the preservation and protection of the park on Ranger-led hikes, as well as a great deal about the trees, flowers, birds, and wildlife. . . After the briefing, I spoke with one of the presenters and expressed my concern about fewer ranger-led hikes and lectures. I was told that the reason was that 80% of the visitors come for one day only. . . I’m sure if people could find somewhere to camp there would be a much greater demand for ranger-led hikes." (Individual, Portola Valley, CA - #873)

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

1075. Public Concern: The National Park Service should use fee demonstration money to fund interpretive and educational programs and facilities.

"I do encourage the park to use some of the fee demonstration money to improve the visitor educational outreach and visitor centers." (Individual, El Portal, CA - #1646)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Congress and the Secretary of Interior have provided specific direction on what fee revenue can be used for (e.g., repairing facilities), and what it cannot be used for (e.g., permanent staff salaries). To implement the Yosemite Valley Plan, the National Park Service would use some of the Fee Demonstration money to rehabilitate facilities that support visitor education and enjoyment.

1076. Public Concern: The National Park Service should consider using volunteers to enforce park rules during the peak-season.

"Could volunteers or docents be trained to help at different locations at least during peak seasons? The reason for this is I have observed in the redwoods area of the park that says please stay on path but people walk inside the fences to get photos anyway. Another popular concept is campground hosts to help in campgrounds in exchange for a campsite during peak periods." (Individual, Clovis, CA - #152)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. All park employees, including volunteers, are familiar with park rules and regulations. However, only a commissioned law enforcement ranger can enforce rules and regulations. The park does have an active volunteer program, including working as campground hosts and as interpreters (or docents).

1077. Public Concern: The National Park Service should emphasize the connections between people and their environment in Yosemite National Park.

"It is vital that consideration be given to experience process rather than a (visitor) experience based merely on recreation, geographic location and grand vistas. This process has much potential and in many ways to be wrapped up into an educational framework which automatically lends respect for others, human and non-human. . . it is important that people be reconnected back to natural systems . . . a management plan should focus on directions that emphasize process as part of experience and education and not rely so much on immediate visual sights and recreational opportunities for the visitor. These rewards should only be by-products . . . A plan thus drafted may result in positive educational visitor experiences: vistas associated not with auto noise (a pollution that can be completely eliminated); temperatures associated with elevation, seasons or global climate change; landscape vistas associated with physical effort; modes of travel associated with organization/coordination for the greater good." (Individual, Washington, DC - #281)

Response: A goal of the Yosemite Valley planning process has been to accommodate the diverse means through which visitors enjoy Yosemite Valley where those means do not degrade either resources or the experience of most other visitors. While some visitors simply wish to enjoy the grand scenery for which Yosemite was set aside as a national park, others take advantage of the opportunity to know the park more intimately. The expanded orientation, interpretation, and education programs proposed in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would be designed to meet this diversity of visitor desires, and would be designed to facilitate connections between visitors and Yosemite’s natural and cultural environment.

1078. Public Concern: The National Park Service should allow the Yosemite Institute to continue operating in the park.

"I ask you please, allow the Yosemite Institute to continue their work here. I spent a week in this park under the guidance of the institute with my class, I had the most memory packed week . . ." (Individual, Santa Rosa, CA -

Response: The National Park Service continues to support providing educational programs to children through the Yosemite Institute. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does not preclude Yosemite Institute from operating in the Valley. The Preferred Alternative calls for more economic and rustic lodging accommodations that may serve the needs of Yosemite Institute better.

1079. Public Concern: The National Park Service should reinstate the Firefall in Yosemite Valley.

"I have so many memories including the Firefalls. I’m positive that they cannot be reinstated, although I would love that. That was the main point of the week when we would watch the Firefalls. And if there were a way of reinstating them, it would be wonderful. These kids are missing out on a lot." (Individual, Palo Alto, CA - #3100)

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

3.9.6 ~ Recreation

3.9.6.a ~ General Management Direction

1080. Public Concern: The National Park Service should limit recreational activities within Yosemite National Park.

"Yosemite should be designated as an area for the enjoyment of the scenery, a wilderness experience and an escape from city life not as a recreational area. For those who want recreation, swimming, boating, etc., there are numerous areas for such, as lakes, rivers, the coast, etc." (Individual, Roseville, CA - #5)

"Recreational and other visitor supplies shall meet criteria assuring respect for and non-degradational use of the corridor." (Individual, Wimberley, TX - #16)

"The National Park Service's enabling legislation includes two purposes: to preserve Yosemite's unique natural resources and scenic beauty and to make these resources available to visitors for study, enjoyment and recreation. These purposes do not require that all sorts of recreation be permitted. Nor do the goals of the General Managmeent Plan. It appears obvious that only recreational activity which is compatible with preservation of resources and scenic beauty should be permitted." (Individual, Pioneer, CA - #23)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS has been developed with the intent of maintaining opportunities for a diversity of resource-based visitor experiences and recreational activities in Yosemite Valley. Although actions are proposed that would affect recreational activities, the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does not propose to eliminate any, except where actions proposed for other reasons substantially alter the availability of a particular recreational activity (e.g., the proposal to remove the concessioner stable would eliminate commercial trail rides in Yosemite Valley). However, in the future, management zoning and the results of the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection study proposed in the Preferred Alternative may lead to additional management of some recreational activities when necessary to protect resources or the quality of other visitor experiences. This zoning and the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection study are described in Vol. Ia, Chapter 2, Actions Common to All Action Alternatives of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

(Also see response to concern #1061.)

3.9.6.b ~ Climbing

1081. Public Concern: The National Park Service should provide adequate access to climbing routes in Yosemite Valley.

"As a climber, the current lack of access to Arch Rock and the Cookie Cliff, two of the best climbing areas in the park is frustrating. Please restore access to these crags as soon as possible." (Individual, CA - #6166)

Response: Access for climbing is described in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS (Vol. Ia, Chapter 2 Visitor Experience–Recreation). Access to Yosemite Valley would be the same as for other visitors, except that overnight parking would be provided for climbers with wilderness permits.

1082. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not allow rock climbing in Yosemite National Park.

"No more rock climbing . . . in the park. . . can be done elsewhere. All they do is cause damage to the rock facing, rock slides and a major distraction from the natural scenic beauty. Next we will have graffitti on the face of our mountains." (Individual, Walnut Creek, CA - #264)

Response: Specific actions to manage rock climbing are outside the scope of this planning effort. Rock climbing and other forms of mountaineering are historical uses in Yosemite and other national parks. When properly managed, the National Park Service believes these are important and valued forms of recreation that allow people to enjoy unique park environments.

3.9.6.c ~ Water Recreation

1083. Public Concern: The National Park Service should stock trout in the Merced River.

"How about planting fingerling brown trout, and rainbow trout. It might make-up for having to accept the ditch Yosemite creek runs in, and saving a few scenic bridges (if they can be altered to not affect the river). Trout are natural to Yosemite. Nobody keeps fingerling sized trout. The fishing pressure on the Merced is merciless! I fly cast, but for what?" (Individual, Los Angeles, CA - #135)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Trout stocking in Yosemite Valley ended in 1978, after it was realized that introduced fish were having an adverse effect on native species and aquatic ecosystems. Non-native brown trout prey on and compete with the native rainbow trout, and introductions of rainbow trout from other areas have altered the native strain of this species. Fish planting also carries the risk of introducing diseases (e.g., "whirling" disease), which could decimate the Merced River fishery. The restoration of riparian and meadow areas, and the restoration of natural river hydrology in Yosemite Valley should provide great benefits to fish. A recent study found higher populations of rainbow trout in areas of the Merced River that are adjacent to restored riparian habitats. Such habitat improvement proposed under the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS is expected to provide a high-quality fishery in Yosemite Valley for truly wild trout. Fisheries management issues are addressed in the 1993 Resources Management Plan.

3.9.6.d ~ Trail Uses

1084. Public Concern: The National Park Service should prohibit stock use in Yosemite National Park.

"In view of the undesirable impacts of stock use in the park, it should be phased out, and not included in the acceptable uses listed in any of the five alternatives. The benefits that horse riding as an activity confers on a small minority of Yosemite visitors do not justify its deleterious effects on the majority. Dispensations can be made in cases of physical disability and advanced age." (Individual, Watsonville, CA - #6041)

Response: The Preferred Alternative removes the stable operations and guided trail rides from Yosemite Valley. It has been recognized that extensive stock use on trails in Yosemite Valley has impacts on resources and on the quality of experiences of other visitors that outweigh the benefits enjoyed by the relatively few people who participate in those guided rides. The stable operation in Yosemite Valley has also had impacts on the highly valued resource area intended for restoration in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Provisions may still be made for use of stock for those with disabilities, as part of overall accessibility planning proposed in this plan. Use of stock in the Valley is at a very low level at present, and continued use would be allowed in all but Alternative 3, subject to findings of the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection program outlined in Vol. Ia, Chapter 2, Actions Common to All Alternatives—Visitor Use in Yosemite Valley. Horse use in Yosemite National Park is recognized as a historical and popular activity. It is only within the narrow confines of Yosemite Valley that horse use is being addressed in this plan.

(Also see response provided for concern statement #23.)

1085. Public Concern: The National Park Service should maintain hiking trails in Yosemite Valley.

"I have been visiting the Yosemite Valley for a week through the Yosemite Institute. When we were hiking around, we noticed that there were many rocks in trails. Therefore, the trails were closed. I think you should move these rocks out of the way." (Individual, CA - #1695)

wilderness trails

"Maintain trails in wilderness areas." (Individual, Red Bluff, CA - #34)

Response: Maintenance of trails is an operational issue outside the scope of this planning effort. The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would provide for both improved and additional trails in Yosemite Valley; and some trails would be realigned to complement site designs for some areas. A discussion of trail locations is found in Vol. Ia, Chapter 2 (Visitor Experience–Recreation).

3.9.6.e ~ Other Recreation

1086. Public Concern: The National Park Service should increase and improve picnic facilities in Yosemite Valley.

"To encourage short term and day use we believe that picnic areas need to be improved and increased. A portion of the abandoned River Campgrounds furthest from the River could be developed as a day use picnic area. This might allow other picnic areas within the floodplain to be abandoned. There should be a net increase in picnic sites to encourage day use. We believe that picnic areas near Wawona should be greatly enhanced and moved further from the River. The picnic facilities are particularly inadequate and intrusive. Again, these facilities should be improved to encourage short-term use. Those near the Pioneer Village are in a very unattractive (and smelly) location." (Individual, Stockton, CA - #331)

"Two new picnic areas could be established. One would be located in the Upper River Campground, so as to be immediately accessible from the new proposed day use parking lot in the Lower River Campground. Portable toilets and picnic tables could be temporarily placed during the peak summer season, and then removed during the winter. The other location would be in the Curry Orchard area which would be blocked off from any vehicular use. Again, portable toilets and picnic tables could be brought in during the summer peak months and removed during the winter." (Individual, American Canyon, CA - #3126)

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

1087. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not permit hang gliding in Yosemite Valley.

"I see no need to permit hang gliding in the Valley. Yes, the hang gliders would be thrilled and many people would watch them but another non-related activity, in terms of enjoying the total magnificence of the area is not needed. . . Is there not an area outside of the crowded Valley that would provide good take-off and landing spots that would not add to the environmental concerns and people management problems in Yosemite Valley." (Individual, Menlo Park, CA - #262)

1088. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not allow parachute jumping in Yosemite National Park.

"No more . . . parachute jumping . . . in the park. . . can be done elsewhere. All they do is cause damage to the rock facing, rock slides and a major distraction from the natural scenic beauty. Next we will have graffitti on the face of our mountains." (Individual, Walnut Creek, CA - #264)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Parachute jumping is prohibited within Yosemite National Park.

1089. Public Concern: The National Park Service should remove the Wawona golf course.

"Yosemite should be regarded as a National Park Treasure — not as an amusement park for golfers. Eliminate the golf course near Wawona. California has more than enough golf courses — and playing golf is not a reason to be in this wonderful National Park!" (Individual, Pacific Grove, CA - #66)

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

1090. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not remove or modify the Wawona golf course.

"Don’t touch the golf course or hotel…" (Individual, Felton, CA - #206)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. (Also see response to concern # 1089.)

1091. Public Concern: The National Park Service should reassess current management practices for the Wawona golf course.

"Is Wawona golf course locked into the National Heritage designation? At the presently small amount of recreational use, the 82 years old golf course should have a more natural management. Camping, picnic, etc." (Individual, Orinda, CA - #3127)

Response: See comment #1089.

1092. Public Concern: The National Park Service should restrict irrigation of the Wawona golf course.

"Water for the Wawona Golf Course should not come at the expense of this protected habitat, and deliveries of this water should be halted immediately. Golf courses lower the water table, add fertilizers and pesticides to the watershed, and unnaturally alter the landscape. Golf courses do not have a role in or adjacent to National Parks and Wild and Scenic River corridors." (Individual, CA - #6166)

Response: The specific purpose of the Yosemite Valley Plan is to provide direction and guidance on how best to manage visitor use, development of lands and facilities, and resource protection within Yosemite Valley and other park areas. As a result, the Yosemite Valley Plan provides general direction and guidance for future management decisions.

Reclaimed water from the Wawona Wastewater Treatment Plant and, on occasion, river water is used for irrigating the Wawona Golf Course. The application of the reclaimed water is strictly regulated and in compliance with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board through a National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System permit. The permit regulates how the water is applied, time of day it can be applied, and in general terms, how much can be applied. Water can be taken from the river to supplement the reclaimed water when there is sufficient flow that withdrawals would not adversely impact resources.

Section 3.10 ~ Visitor Services

3.10.1 ~ Physical Development

1093. Public Concern: The National Park Service should manage heavily used portions of the park explicitly for visitor activities.

"Manage the east end of Yosemite Valley as an urban park, which it has almost been for about the last 75 years. This will affect only a very small percentage of the length of the Merced River. . . This is a small concession to make to allow for public enjoyment by the majority of park visitors. These areas should be under the current levels of management and conservation such as riverbank protection, boardwalks, revegetation and fencing. I would suggest similar management to be followed in the Wawona area from Pioneer village through the Wawona campground, the little Yosemite Valley campground area, the Merced Lake camp areas and the trails from Happy Isles to the tops of Vernal and Nevada falls." (Individual, Terrance, CA - #224)

Response: The Merced River Plan zones several areas that are currently heavily used for continued intensive visitor use (see Vol. II, Appendix B, and Vol. Ic, plates F-1, F-2, F-3). For example, there are significant areas of 2C Day Use zoning as well as camping and lodging zones (3A & 3B) in the Yosemite Valley and Wawona. However, the river plan also protects sensitive resources such as meadows and wetlands with more restrictive zoning (e.g., 2B Discovery). The National Park Service recognizes that visitor accommodations may best be situated in previously impacted areas, rather than moving them to areas that have no existing development. However both the Merced River Plan and the Preferred Alternative in the Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS recognize that there are areas of critical importance to natural, cultural, and historical preservation (many of which need to be restored) that exist within those previously developed areas.

With the mission of the National Park Service being to provide for visitor accommodation, experience, and education within the context of its preservation objective, even those areas in which visitor accommodations are provided should evidence a concern for natural processes and objects of cultural and historical significance. Although eastern Yosemite Valley would exhibit some urban characteristics (e.g., higher densities of people, transportation systems), those should exist within a landscape that still allows natural processes to prevail and emphasizes quality visitor experiences and understanding of those processes as well as historical and cultural legacies.
(Also see the response to concern #204.)

1094. Public Concern: The National Park Service should remove all unnecessary facilities from Yosemite Valley.

"I have a rather radical perspective of what should happen in Yosemite. I take the position that Yosemite historically has had concessions almost since its first explorations. I believe that all facilities should be removed from the valley except for restrooms, shuttle transfers, and a world class visitor center. Without concessions, there is no need for parking lots, lodging, food facilities or housing. No concession employees, only NPS employees to educate, protect, and work on resource issues. No campgrounds or amphitheaters, no bikes, rafts or horses. Visitors would come in on buses and lodge in the gateway communities. There would be hiking but no tours. Like Canyon de Chelly, the visitor experience would be very different than it is currently. I think the perspective would be one of a sacred destination. Haul out the asphalt, pull up the wiring, and truck out the building materials and restore the ecological processes in their entirety." (Individual, El Portal, CA - #1646)

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

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

The removal and/or retention of structures was determined after full review of these criteria.

1095. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not allow the construction of any new facilities in Yosemite Valley.

"No other new lodging in the Valley…. No new food/ dining areas…." (Individual, Folsum, CA - #3150)

Response: See response to concern #1094.

1096. Public Concern: The National Park Service should construct visitor services facilities near the eastern boundary of Yosemite National Park.

"New development of services and accommodations must be encouraged and, where possible, located to the eastern side of the park toward Lee Vining and to the south. This area along the desert floor is below the elevation of the park and is also downwind. Remember how irreparable smog accumulation has become in Altadena-Pasadena, Lake Tahoe and also Berkeley-Oakland." (Individual, Walnut Creek, CA - #264)

would be allowed. I would like to see a definition or better description of what are meant by ‘facilities.’" (Individual, Snelling, CA - #946)

Response: Planning for visitor accommodations along the Tioga Road near the park’s eastern boundary or beyond the park boundary is outside the scope of this planning effort. The 1980 General Management Plan originally established the location and number of lodging units for Yosemite National Park and the 1992 Concession Services Plan further defined them. The Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS calls for expanding or locating visitor centers near each park entrance in order to reduce the dependence on the Yosemite Valley Visitor Center as the principal park information center. The center for visitors arriving from the east side could potentially be located in a jointly operated facility outside the park.

1097. Public Concern: The National Park Service should locate a new visitor center in Yosemite Village.

"I wholeheartedly support the redevelopment of the current Yosemite Village to include a new Visitor Center." (Individual, Yosemite National Park, CA - #1632)

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

(Also see response to concern #110 for a discussion of entrance station visitor centers.)

1098. Public Concern: The National Park Service should construct flood-proof buildings in Yosemite Valley.

"I now work for the corps of engineers. One of the techniques to deal with flood plains that I think is a little under rated in this plan, and hopefully you’ll incorporate this idea into the Valley Implementation Plan, is this flood-proofing buildings. It’s nice to stay out of floodplains, but considering your squeeze between a rock fall zone and the river, there may be some better land-use sites in the floodplain. So by either raising buildings or building them out of, you know, more flood-proof materials can allow a lot more flexibility for design." (Individual, Sacramento, CA - #3145)

Response: Yosemite National Park currently operates under Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, and the NPS Floodplain Management Guideline (1993) which provide guidance for the minimization of hazard to life and property and protection of natural floodplain values in the National Park System. One of the goals of the 1980 General Management Plan is to allow natural processes, such as flooding, to prevail in the park. In addition, an active flood regime is a component of the hydrologic process Outstandingly Remarkable Value of the Merced Wild and Scenic River within Yosemite Valley.

In accordance with the Executive Order, National Park Service guidelines, the General Management Plan, and the Merced River Plan/FEIS, the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes the removal of a number of facilities from the 100-year floodplain of the Merced River in Yosemite Valley to reduce hazards to life and property and to restore floodplain values. Existing facilities within the floodplain could be flood-proofed to reduce hazard to life and property, but the adverse impacts of the structures to floodplain values would continue.

The El Portal Administrative Site was established by Congress in 1958 (P.L. 85-922). The act specifically set aside the administrative site for operational and administrative purposes, and stated that the site would "not become part of Yosemite National Park, nor be subject to the same laws and regulations governing said park." As a result, there are fewer floodplain development constraints at El Portal.

Existing facilities in Yosemite Valley, El Portal, and Wawona that are within the 100-year floodplain of the Merced River are listed in the Floodplains Affected Environment section (Vol. Ia, Chapter 3) of this document. NPS Floodplain Management Guideline and Executive Order 11988 apply to these developments. A floodplain assessment, known as a statement of finding, has been prepared by the National Park Service Water Resources Division and is included in Vol. II, Appendix N.

1099. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not winterize the Happy Isles Nature Center.

"The idea of winterizing the nature center, apparently with the idea that winter visitors to the Valley would be so interested in the nature center, they would walk and sloshing through the snow just to get there, however, is unrealistic. In reality, the majority of winter visitors are more interested in winter/snow activities. As there are other nature center areas that are probably more easily accessible in the winter than Happy Isles, this winterizing plan would appear to be less than cost effective, and therefore should be omitted." (Individual, American Canyon, CA - #3126)

Response: The non-peak season months see the highest visitation to Yosemite National Park by educational groups, and there is already a demand for use of the Nature Center during the winter by these groups. In the winter, particularly during inclement weather, educational groups seek interpretive opportunities indoors, in addition to outdoor activities. Yosemite National Park’s draft Long-Range Interpretive Plan proposes expanding use of the Nature Center at Happy Isles by children with adult facilitators, and anticipates training educators to use the Nature Center’s resources in the winter without the need for additional park staff, and/or expanding partnerships for the building’s operation. Because the road to the Nature Center is routinely cleared of snow for access to nearby utility facilities, winter conditions would have a minimal effect on its use.

1100. Public Concern: The National Park Service should maintain current management practices for Wawona visitor facilities.

"The proper selection for the Wawona Campground is Alternative 1: the No Action Alternative. It is important that while we are saving the river for future generations, we still continue to enjoy it now. After much more than one hundred years of sensible use the river is as clean and beautiful as it always has been. In short, the Park Service has, through its careful management, kept Wawona campground a natural experience. In addition, the entire Wawona area including the Pioneer History Center, the Wawona Hotel, and the beautiful Wawona Golf Course should also be treated with Alternative 1: the No Action Alternative. The Wawona area around the South Fork of the Merced River has changed very little over the years, but it still remains one of the nicest places on earth. It has just the right mix of tourist support and does not impact the river in any way adversely." (Fresno County Home Rule Advisory Committee, Fresno, CA - #6374)

Response: Although the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes locating employee housing in Wawona, if alternative locations cannot be found outside of Yosemite National Park, this would be in an area presently receiving only minimal visitation. The retention, removal, or location of other facilities within Wawona is outside the scope of this planning effort.

3.10.2 ~ Camping

3.10.2.a Number of Campsites and Location

1101. The National Park Service should not remove campgrounds from Yosemite National Park.

"I wouldn’t want to see the campgrounds eliminated or become a first come first serve basis. Our annual family camp out is something that my parents were brought up doing and is something that I in turn would like to share with my children in the future. Keep the campgrounds and restore the lost ones is what I think a lot of people would like to see happen. The fight for an operator to make your summer reservation is tough, especially with the elimination of 2 and a partial campground. If it’s tough now, think of how bad it will be if the park is reduced in reserved camp grounds." (Individual, No Address - #10)

"In the discussion of Little Yosemite and Merced Lake areas, you’ve mentioned (gently) possible changes in use of the Merced Lake camp, and elsewhere you mention possible removal of the entire string of High Camps. I’ve used them to introduce many young and middle-aged persons to the joys of the non-Valley park and believe at least some camps should be retained as part of that educational experience." (Individual, San Francisco, CA - #45)

high sierra camps

"People who want to go into the wilderness but who are too old, too infirm, or too young have very few options across the nation, and the High Sierra Camps are one of the best of those limited options. Backpackers rearing small children can use the Camps to get a curative dose of wilderness that their families might otherwise preclude. The High Sierra Camps represent only four roadless locations within a wilderness almost as large as a small Eastern state. There are plenty of pristine places for backpackers like myself to go, but there are so very few wilderness places for the infirm to go. We should not shut them down to suit ourselves." (Individual, Oberlin, OH - #6039)

Wawona campground

"The Wawona campground should stay right were it is." (Individual, Ridgecrest, CA - #1707)

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

Campgrounds outside of Yosemite Valley are outside the scope of this planning effort. The 1980 General Management Plan identifies camping as an appropriate resource-based activity and commits to providing a wide range of camping opportunities throughout the park, while relocating some campsites to zones more suitable for this type of development. Meeting the other goals of the General Management Plan, particularly that of protecting sensitive resources, has led to reductions of the number of campsites prescribed by the General Management Plan for Yosemite Valley. Wilderness camping is managed by the park’s Wilderness Management Plan, which currently provides for the retention of all existing wilderness campsites.

(Also see response to concern #13.)

1102. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not reduce the number of campsites from Yosemite National Park.

"In the Valley, the GMP calls for removing 116 campground units adjacent to the Merced River, and retaining 684 drive-in campsites . . . However, based on the 1997 flood results, the Park Service removed all of the upper and lower river campgrounds. The public announcement that followed this action was that the campsites would be relocated in the Valley to higher ground on a one-for-one basis. In the Merced River Plan, the Park Service proposes to remove additional campsites from the river corridor. This is a modification to the General Management Plan. . . Campgrounds can withstand flooding with no permanent damage. During heavy rainfalls or snowmelt, campgrounds can be, and have been, vacated easily within an hour or less, with no loss of life. Therefore, these campsites should be replaced in the Valley to meet the requirements of the GMP." (Individual, Malibu, CA - #6079)

Response: The Merced River Plan concluded that facilities in river-related habitat, particularly those within 150 feet of the bed and banks of the river, were impediments to the natural processes and highly valued resources that contribute so greatly to the value of the river and Yosemite Valley. (See Vol. Ia, Chapter 2, Developing a Range of Alternatives, and Chapter 3, Merced Wild and Scenic River.) Thus, many of these areas were protected from facility development by zoning and the River Protection Overlay. While reducing the amount of acreage available for campsite placement and the potential number of campsites in Yosemite Valley, the Merced River Plan and the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS have set in place steps to restore to natural conditions important areas and systems adjacent to the Merced River for the benefit of all visitors, today and in the future. An analysis of other locations suitable for camping facilities was also conducted, and some campsites have been relocated to these areas.

(Also see the response to concerns #13 and 1101.)

1103. Public Concern: The National Park Service should eliminate camping within Yosemite Valley.

"Camping should be eliminated in the valley. We enjoyed camping there years ago and gave it up over 40 years ago as it was no longer an enjoyable experience with tent ropes crossing each other, dust and noise." (Individual, Petaluma, CA - #139)

Response: The 1980 General Management Plan identifies camping as an appropriate resource-based activity and commits to providing a wide range of camping opportunities parkwide, while relocating some campsites to zones more suitable for this type of development. Meeting the other goals of the General Management Plan, particularly protecting sensitive resources, has led to reductions in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS from the number of campsites prescribed by the General Management Plan for Yosemite Valley.

1104. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not develop the Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) area.

"The area known as Sunnyside/Camp 4 should be protected from any future development or destruction. This area is of great importance to rock climbers around the world." (Individual, No Address - #6035)

Response: In the Preferred Alternative, the National Park Service would retain and preserve the core of the Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) Historic Site. Five existing campsites would be relocated from the west end of Camp 4 in order to provide a buffer for the new Indian Cultural Center. These five campsites, as well as 28 additional new campsites, would be placed in the location of the former service station and adjacent to the east end of Camp 4. In this way, the National Park Service would continue and expand the use of Camp 4.

1105. Public Concern: The National Park Service should develop the Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) area.

"My strong wish is to have the 4-plexes, as previously planned recently, proceed to be built — precisely around the Sunny Side Campground areas." (Individual, San Diego, CA - #3038)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS calls for an addition of 28 campsites (for a total of 65) at Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground). No employee housing is called for at Yosemite Lodge in the Preferred Alternative; six additional visitor lodging units would be placed at Yosemite Lodge. Because of impacts of the January 1997 flood and other resource preservation actions called for in the Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the percentage decrease in campsites has, and would be, larger than that of lodging. Use of this currently undeveloped area for campsites rather than lodging would help mitigate this greater loss of campsites.

3.10.2.b ~ Campground Type and Design

1106. Public Concern: The National Park Service should provide recreational vehicle access to all drive-in campgrounds in Yosemite National Park.

"I urge that RV hookups not be provided, because I believe this would merely exacerbate the high level of demand for access to the Valley. Also, it is expensive. However, RVs should be permitted in all campgrounds (except Camp 4), and treated on an even basis with tent campers. Each site should be reasonably accessible to RVs of, say, 25’ length, but should also be accessible for tents." (Individual, Woodland, CA - #2)

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

1107. Public Concern: The National Park Service should reassess vehicle size limits for Yosemite National Park campsites.

"I have a 22 ft 5th wheeler and my rig will fit in a lot more spaces than whoever measured the sites and decided that my 5th wheeler was too big for the site. Someone needs to remeasure the sites and allow at least a little larger trailers and 5th wheelers to use more of the sites." (Individual, No Address - #6094)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. As campgrounds are redesigned or built vehicle size will be determined by standards covering space-on-site, room for manipulation during entry and exit, and possible driver error to prevent damage to either the vehicle or the site.

1108. Public Concern: The National Park Service should limit the size of recreational vehicles allowed in Yosemite National Park campgrounds.

"I am happy to see the types of campsites segregated. I would hope that the number of cars per campsite will be limited. Also, I think that there should be a limit on the size of RV’s permitted in a site. I don’t think we can afford to pave the area needed for those big drive-through vehicles, in terms of space, water runoff and soil compaction." (Individual, Menlo Park, CA - #262)

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

1109. Public Concern: The National Park Service should provide separate camping facilities for recreational vehicles.

"Put motor homes in big parking lots together. They are allowed to run their generators all at one time at least two times a day. Put them near bike rentals and a store or restaurant, like Camp Curry." (Individual, Los Angeles, CA - #968)

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

1110. Public Concern: The National Park Service should improve campground amenities in Yosemite National Park.

"More water spigots along campsites, like it was in the 50’s and 60’s. Campers don’t have to hurt themselves carrying big igloos. Maybe add electricity to every campsite for safety." (Individual, Los Angeles, CA - #968)

"Camping in Yosemite has been very primitive. There is never enough work to improve the facilities. Many places you camp in the United States have water access to your camp spots; they have sewer access to your camp spots. We’re not asking for beautiful facilities, but we feel over the years that a lot of these places should have been improved. There used to be water spigots through the campgrounds." (Individual, San Mateo, CA - #3090)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes to improve camping in several ways (see Vol. Ia, Chapter 2, Visitor Services–Camping): different camping modes (e.g., RV campers, car campers, and backpackers) would be separated to a larger extent than they are now. Some of the sites may have electrical hookups added to them to reduce the use of gas-powered generators, and showers may be added at some campgrounds. Consideration of specific amenity, hook-up, and other design details would take place in site-specific planning for each campground.