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

---

Section 3.10 ~ Visitor Services (cont.)

3.10.3 ~ Lodging

1111. Public Concern: The National Park Service should maintain the current number of lodging units in Yosemite Valley.

"The Draft VIP calls for the reduction of housekeeping lodging units in order to improve/restore the natural beauty of the river banks. This improvement can be done within reason without reducing lodging units." (Individual, American Canyon, CA - #3126)

Response: With increasingly available regional transportation and the development of recreation, lodging, and camping facilities in gateway communities, a majority of visitors are no longer dependent on overnight accommodations within Yosemite Valley during their visit to Yosemite National Park. Nonetheless, the National Park Service recognizes that there is great value in being able to experience the Valley in the evening, night, and early morning, and overnight accommodations facilitate this special experience for park visitors. Determining the appropriate amount and types of overnight accommodations to provide a quality visitor experience remains a challenging issue.

Target numbers of lodging units were established through a public process in the 1980 General Management Plan. This number was further refined in the 1992 Concession Services Plan. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS also proposes to vary the number of lodging units in an effort to improve the quality of visitor experiences while protecting and preserving resources for future generations. Decisions on the number and type of visitor accommodations must be based on resource and site conditions. These conditions include floodplains and geological hazard areas (see Vol. Ia, Chapter 2, Developing a Range of Alternatives–Development Considerations), as well as the quality of the overnight experience and how closely it relates to the park and the immediate environment.

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

1112. Public Concern: The National Park Service should provide affordable lodging in Yosemite Valley.

"Lets have housing for students — housing for college students. People cannot afford these 175-dollar rooms. In the 1973 we started a plan in our school district where we took eighth grade students to Yosemite National Park. We’ve been doing that for 27 years, and we started out with paying just 67 dollars per person. Now we have to have almost 497 dollars just to go and take one student for one week up there. . . Lets have housing for the people who need to be informed and have interpretation for the Park. That’s the main reason for having Yosemite National Park is to have interpretation for students and for people who want to hear it." (Individual, Palo Alto, CA - #3088)

"When you do build new accommodation please think of the elementary, Jr. High, high school, college students and young parents with children. Keep the price under $100.00 per night per cabin." (Individual, Cupertino, CA - #146)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS has been amended in response to concerns that new lodgings would not provide quality, resource-related experiences and that mostly low-priced accommodations were being affected. The National Park Service is concerned about equitable access to Yosemite Valley and its facilities, programs, and attractions. The accommodations reservation systems do not discriminate on the basis of economic status, race, gender, religion, profession, culture, or sexual orientation, so each person has the same opportunity to secure lodging or camping facilities. The actions proposed in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS that reduce facilities in Yosemite Valley did call for the bulk of the reductions to come in the categories of camping and rustic level accommodations. The facilities most affected were those in the rockfall zones and the highly valued resource areas (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Developing a Range of Alternatives). The challenge has been to locate an appropriate mix of facilities in those few areas that are suited to development. In the Preferred Alternative, and compared with the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, campsites have been increased by about 8%, rustic accommodations by 35%, and economy level accommodations by 12%. In the Preferred Alternative, 81% of all overnight accommodations (camping and lodging) in the Valley would be priced at the economy level or below (compared to 78% of existing accommodations); 53% would be priced at the rustic level or below. The mix of accommodations proposed maintains a range of overnight opportunities, from camping to rustic Housekeeping units to economy, mid-range, and deluxe lodging facilities. The Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would establish several new campgrounds and the lodging facilities developed would emphasize connection to park resources, economy level cost, and year-round function. Overall, and outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan, the National Park Service is developing strategies for reaching and serving a more diverse constituency, particularly through the efforts of interpretive outreach services already underway (including a partnership with the University of California, Merced campus).

(Also see response to concerns # 21, # 70, # 73, and # 117.)

1113. Public Concern: The National Park Service should maintain Housekeeping Camp in Yosemite National Park.

"We object to the characterization (under the evaluation of Local Economy) of the Housekeeping Camp as a valuable resource primarily for its benefit to low-income visitors. We feel that the Housekeeping Camp is valuable to a wide range of visitors irrespective of income levels. This facility provides a unique ability to accommodate multi-generational families, some of who are elderly or handicapped and no longer able to tent-camp. It also allows for an appreciation of the park environment that is not provided by any other not-tent facilities in the Valley. While we understand that some units may be incompatible with protection of the river, we strongly encourage the retention of as many units as possible." (Individual, Pasadena, CA - #6063)

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

(Also see response to concerns # 21 and # 339.)

1114. Public Concern: The National Park Service should rebuild the Yosemite Lodge cabins.

"I am especially concerned that Yosemite Lodge be returned to its configuration in the years immediately prior to the January, 1997, flood. The removal of the cabins caused a great loss to the visitors who like to stay for a week in the park in one of the wonderful cabins at the lodge, which were affordable to middle class families and senior citizens. . . Not only is it now difficult to obtain accommodations at the lodge, but visitors can no longer experience the rustic ambiance associated with the Yosemite Lodge cabins." (Individual, Whittier, CA - #56)

Response: In response to public comments regarding both economically priced accommodations and the desire for a cabin experience at Yosemite Lodge, the proposed number of economy priced rooms at Yosemite Lodge has been increased in the Preferred Alternative from 90 units in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS to 117 units in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. New cabin units would be built.

(Also see response to concerns # 21, # 83, and #144.)

1115. Public Concern: The National Park Service should eliminate plans for additional lodging facilities in El Portal.

"All the new hotels that are slated to go into the El Portal area, those should be nixed. There is no reason why we need more hotels and more places for people to stay there." (Individual, Yosemite Valley, CA - #3226)

Response: While the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS calls for the relocation of employee housing from Yosemite Valley to El Portal, it does not propose locating lodging there. Existing lodging in El Portal is located on private property.

1116. Public Concern: The National Park Service should pursue conversion of Trailer Village into community open space.

"Of particular interest is the concept of converting the Trailer Village/Abbieville into community open space Developed Zone 3C in Alternative 5. Such a development would significantly mitigate the heavy use the Forest is currently experiencing on the limited facilities we have been able to develop along Incline Road. Please consider adopting the management zone designations in Alternatives 4 or 5 for Segment 4 in your final plan." (Sierra National Forest, Clovis, CA - #M-1598)

Response: This alternative was dismissed because it is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Yosemite Valley Plan to reduce building and facility related congestion in Yosemite Valley. Moreover, it would be inconsistent with the intent of the 1958 Act which established El Portal as an administrative site to support park operations and administration. See also Vol. Ia, Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered But Dismissed

---

Section 3.11 ~ Transportation

3.11.1 ~ Roads

1117. Public Concern: The National Park Service should reconsider improving roads to facilitate faster travel through the Park.

"There is discussion of improving roads to improve safety and facilitate movement. I’m for that. But I urge you not to make the roads too good; one will not see the River scene adequately at 60 miles an hour. And part of the exhilaration in visiting a new area comes in overcoming conveniences such as relatively primitive facilities, limited speed roads, and so on. It needs to be different from ‘at home.’" (Individual, San Francisco, CA - #45)

"I like driving on narrow roads and consider it part of the National Park experience. . . we have viewed winding through the huge rocks at the entrance station as a signature part of our trip to Yosemite. If we wanted to drive on a wide road, we would pick any of a couple of million miles of such roads in California." (Individual, Albany, NY - #235)

Response: The purpose of National Park roads are summarized in the Park Road Design Memorandum dated February 20, 1986. This memorandum states that park roads are intended to enhance visitor experience while providing for the safe and efficient accommodation of park visitors and to serve essential management access needs. The purpose of park roads remains in sharp contrast to that of the federal and state highway systems. Park roads, in general, are not intended to provide for fast and convenient transportation.

Specific road improvements recommended by the Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS (as described in Vol. Ia, Chapter 2, Alternatives) are recommended to address safety problems, improve the visitor experience by reducing conflicts with other users, and/or reduce impacts of roads on park resources. Road projects would continue to be designed in a way to maintain the "signature" park experience found in Yosemite characterized by more narrow and winding roads.

1118. Public Concern: The National Park Service should justify the Finding of No Significant Impact regarding the El Portal Road project.

"The wide swath of destruction and deep cuts into the embankments along the road from the Valley to El Portal is being done to expand the road for the purpose of accommodating buses. The contractor is performing heavy cuts, and trenching into the banks along the Merced River, while dynamiting the face of the mountain to make room. The environmental impact statement concluded that there would be ‘no significant impact.’ This conclusion is impossible and incorrect." (Individual, Malibu, CA - #6079)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. This issue has been addressed through litigation. The El Portal Road project between El Portal and the intersection with Big Oak Flat Road has been completed. Although the reconstruction of the El Portal Road between the intersection with the Big Oak Flat Road and Pohono Bridge is proposed in the Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, additional regulatory compliance, including public involvement, would be required before this project could be implemented.

(Also see response to concern #240.)

1119. Public Concern: The National Park Service should reconsider widening of the El Portal Road.

"The gorge is not protected from having a passing lane added in 2020 or 2030 . . . The new Hwy 140 has the capacity for today’s visitors but probably lacks the capacity for the 7 million visitors the park may get in 2020 or the larger buses of 2020. . . Narrow windy roads are the only present protection from huge numbers of visitors. This plan should state unequivocally that 140 can never be widened beyond the width . . . today. This would not need to stop the construction of section 1d." (Individual, Fresno, CA - #6083)

"The Merced floods frequently, and I believe any narrowing of the channel will only exacerbate the flooding as well as undercut the road. If the road is widened by cutting deeper into the valley wall on the roadside farthest from the river, it will make the valley wall more prone to landslides than it already is. I really think the practical long-term solution is to develop another entrance to Yosemite which is fed from another road." (Individual, San Francisco, CA — #611)

"This is a classic example of changing, modifying, manipulation, and destroying the natural environment to meet our needs, rather than changing our behavior to fit better with natural process. . . the simple answer is to have people drive slower and use smaller, narrower buses or better yet use bicycles." (Individual, Oakland, CA - #3112)

Response: The El Portal Road is being reconstructed between the Yosemite National Park boundary and the intersection with Big Oak Flat Road. The environmental impacts of the project were evaluated in an Environmental Assessment and the project included mitigation measures to ensure ecological integrity. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does not propose additional widening of this same portion of the road. The plan does include implementing a traveler information and traffic management system that would be used to manage the number of vehicles entering the park so as not to exceed the capacity of parking areas and roads such as the El Portal Road. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, however, does propose reconstructing the segment of El Portal Road from the Big Oak Flat Road intersection to Pohono Bridge to make the road less prone to damage from floods, to improve traffic safety, and to provide better protection to the riparian areas along the road. Additional regulatory compliance, including public involvement, would be required before this project could be implemented. Operating speed and size restrictions for vehicles using this road would be considered as part of the final design process.

Developing other routes into the park is beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

(Also see response to concern #240.)

1120. Public Concern: The National Park Service should impose a vehicle size limit in Yosemite National Park.

"If commercial buses or horse trailers or maintenance equipment get longer they should be forbidden from the gorge. Boldly state a vehicle size limit. Do not naively think that in the next 50 years vehicles are going to stay the same size." (Individual, Fresno, CA - #6083)

"I’ve recently been making the rounds of RV shows and dealers, and the trend there . . . is toward BIG. . . they’re huge, and there seem to be millions of them. . . I’m hoping that you . . . are not basing your planning assumptions on historical data, because if the RV industry has their way the number and size of the RV’s seeking to use Yosemite will be totally unlike anything we have seen before. . .if you are uncertain, and you have latitude for discretion . . . err in the direction of river protection, than to try to accommodate an increase in RV tourism that will quickly overwhelm any solution you implement now. I would truly hate to visit Yosemite two years from now and find it hopelessly clogged with tin and glass behemoths." (Individual, West Hartford, CT - #208)

Response: Vehicle size restrictions in Yosemite National Park are based upon safety considerations and this would continue under any alternative presented in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. An automatic and arbitrary limitation is not being considered.

1121. Public Concern: The National Park Service should provide mitigation for the El Portal Road construction along the Merced River.

"Road widening projects such as that of Highway 140 and other future developments should be properly analyzed so that the riparian ecosystem of the river is maintained." (Individual, Irvine, CA - #336)

elevated road

"My question is: Would it make sense for part of the El Portal Road to be reconstructed as an elevated road? The serious routing and environmental concerns of the Blue Ridge Parkway at Grandfather Mountain were solved only by making an elevated road at Linn Cove Viaduct." (Individual, Oberlin, OH - #93)

Response: The El Portal Road is being reconstructed between the Yosemite National Park boundary and the intersection with Big Oak Flat Road. The environmental impacts of the project were evaluated in an Environmental Assessment and the project included mitigation measures to ensure ecological integrity. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does not propose additional widening of this same portion of the road. The plan does include implementing a traveler information and traffic management system that would manage the number of vehicles entering the park so as not to exceed the capacity of parking areas and roads such as the El Portal Road. The Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, however, does include reconstructing the segment of El Portal Road from the Big Oak Flat Road intersection to Pohono Bridge to make the road less prone to damage from floods, to improve traffic safety, and to provide better protection to the riparian areas along the road. Operating speed and size restrictions for vehicles using this road would be considered as part of the final design process.

Developing other routes into the park is beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Mitigation measures to be employed during construction of the segment of the El Portal Road recommended by the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS are described in Vol. Ia, Chapter 2, Alternatives.

1122. Public Concern: The National Park Service should create a new road to the campgrounds in the East Valley.

"The final piece of the plan for resolving the traffic related problems in the Valley is to create a new road to campgrounds in the east end of the Valley, thereby allowing campers to completely bypass the Curry parking lot road system. This proposed road would be on an existing roadbed and reestablishes the road which was eliminated many years ago." (Individual, American Canyon, CA - #3126)

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

1123. Public Concern: The National Park Service should address the application of Revised Statute 2477 to roads inside National Parks.

"I have just read about a revised Statute 2477 which gives counties power to assert 17,000 road claims into national parks and forests, wildlife refuges, and tracts administered by Bureau of Land Management. This could change the appearance of the parks forever, bring more crowds, destroy delicate resources and interfere with the appreciation of beauty and interfere with visitor’s solitude. It needs to be stopped in all parks." (Individual, Sonoma, CA - #1436)

Response: Revised Section 2477 concerns rights-of-way established across public lands under the Mining Act of 1866. Although repealed by Congress in 1976 with enactment of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, valid rights-of-way for roads constructed on public lands before 1976 were not subject to the repeal. Determinations of Revised Section 2477 right-of-way assertions are not planning decisions and are not within the scope of this plan. In the event that a party successfully asserts a valid claim to a right-of-way across National Park Service land, the National Park Service retains the authority to regulate use of a Revised Section 2477 right-of-way. (See U.S. v. Vogler, 859 F.2d 638, 642 [9th Cir. 1988].)

3.11.2 ~ Bridges

1124. Public Concern: The National Park Service should maintain and restore bridges in Yosemite National Park.

"Any rational plan to allow access to both sides of the valley to accommodate park administration and visitors will require bridges. All bridges have finite life spans, and hence must be replaceable. The present bridge’s effect on the river except for persistence in one location may not be grossly different that that of large down woody debris. In addition, except during construction, a different type of bridge could minimize effects on the river and still allow access to both sides of the river. It is critical to any alternative chosen that tasteful and practical bridge maintenance, restoration and replacement be allowed." (Individual, Julian, CA - #37)

Response: The National Park Service agrees that proper maintenance of infrastructure and stewardship of cultural resources, such as historic bridges, is necessary. Most bridges would remain in the Valley under all alternatives. The historic bridges proposed for removal are those that have the most adverse impact on the natural flow of the Merced River and are not critical links in the traffic circulation system. The remaining bridges would receive the proper maintenance to maximize their useful lifespans and, when it becomes necessary, restoration would be considered as a viable option. In particular, all the historic bridges are considered culturally significant, and any maintenance, rehabilitation or restoration work would be performed in an appropriately sensitive manner in conformance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Archeology and Historic Preservation. Any new bridges constructed in Yosemite Valley would be designed to avoid impacts to the free-flowing condition of the Merced Wild and Scenic River and to the river’s Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

1125. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not remove bridges in Yosemite National Park.

"The matter of bridge removal is troubling. The present bridges could well qualify as historic, and many people find them aesthetically pleasing. Also, bridges are essential for reasonable circulation of shuttle buses, and for emergency vehicles. My suggestion is to leave the bridges alone, except for essential maintenance." (Individual, Woodland, CA - #2)

"Because I travel largely by foot within the Valley, I am concerned about plans to remove bridges. . . Bridges can be redesigned as well as removed." (Individual, San Francisco, CA - #248)

ensure Safety

"The park bridges and road systems provide access to scenic viewsheds and to less accessible park locations for the disabled, handicapped, elderly, less mobile and all park visitors. They also provide or emergency response and evacuation in case of fire, flood, avalanche, earthquake, or other natural or human-caused incident or disaster. Rather than removing . . . a better alternative might be to restrict their use to emergency and special vehicles only." (California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA - #591)

Response: The historic bridges are regarded by the National Park Service as important components of the cultural landscape. Eight of the bridges (those that embody a rustic, stone veneered appearance) are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service policy and federal preservation law require agencies to carefully consider the value of historic properties when undertaking planning that might adversely affect these resources. Hydrologic studies, available in the Yosemite Research Library, indicate that several bridges are having an adverse impact on the natural flow of the Merced River. While it may be feasible to retrofit some bridges to minimize the negative impacts on the river hydrology, in many cases these retrofits would likely destroy the historic and architectural integrity of the bridge, without fully accomplishing the goal of restoring natural processes. In order to meet goals of natural restoration and yet preserve a significant representation of this cultural resource, the Preferred Alternative proposes to remove bridges and adjacent human-made bank reinforcements (such as riprap) in a phased approach. The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes to initially remove one of the historic bridges, Sugar Pine Bridge, which is causing the most significant ecological degradation. Stoneman Bridge would be removed next, but only if monitoring indicates it continues to cause unacceptable impacts to the river’s natural hydrologic flow. When the difficult choice is made to remove a bridge, mitigating measures, as outlined in the 1999 Yosemite Programmatic Agreement, would be implemented. These measures include Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record documentation as a historical record of the resources, salvaging historic materials, and interpretation.
(Also see responses to concerns #11, #1054, and #1124.)

1126. Public Concern: The National Park Service should include a new bridge for emergency egress from Wawona.

"In order to provide an alternative egress (in case of an emergency), one of the projects identified by the [Wawona Advisory Committee] is the construction of a new bridge. The bridge would link the two dead end roads (at or near the ends of the roads) to give an alternative emergency egress route. Construction of the bridge would definitely be within the boundaries of the land governed by the River Plan, and the River Plan could impact this important project if it is not accommodated by the River Plan." (Mariposa County Board of Supervisors, Mariposa, CA - #1637)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Plans for emergency egress in Wawona are not part of the Yosemite Valley Plan, but would be part of specific planning for Wawona. Any bridge over the Merced River in Wawona would be designed to avoid impacts to the free-flowing condition of the Merced Wild and Scenic River and to the river’s Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Also, the area described may be in legislated wilderness which would prohibit the construction of a road or bridge.

1127. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not allow building of bridges across the South Fork of the Merced.

"Although the Bishop Creek Trail to the South Fork of the Merced should be maintained, the NPS should not support or endorse projects such as building of bridges across the South Fork. Any South Fork bridges would greatly alter current impacts in the Bishop Creek area." (Individual, Mariposa, CA - #1523)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

The Yosemite Valley Plan does not propose the building of any additional bridges on the South Fork of the Merced River. Any bridges constructed in the future within the Merced River corridor would be subject to the restrictions of the River Protection Overlay and a Section 7 determination process under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Both components of the Merced River Plan protect the river corridor from direct and adverse impacts to the Outstandingly Remarkable Values and the free-flowing condition of the river.

1128. Public Concern: The National Park Service should reclaim roadbeds if bridges are removed.

"If you insist on removing the two (Sugarpine and Ahwahnee) that are now oversized, be sure to delete the entire (elevated) roadbed they once served; it is scaled for driving, not walking or cycling." (Individual, Oakland, CA - #6276)55.

Response: The Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS identified three bridges (including Stoneman Bridge) for possible removal in the Preferred Alternative due to their severe impacts on Merced River hydrologic processes. In response to public comments, the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes, instead, a phased approach to bridge removal. Sugar Pine Bridge, which is causing the most significant ecological degradation, would be removed first. Stoneman Bridge would be removed only if the removal of Sugar Pine Bridge did not restore natural river dynamics to the river to a sufficient degree. If Stoneman Bridge remains, it would continue to provide a multi-use trail link between Curry Village and Yosemite Village. If Stoneman Bridge were removed, a multi-use trail would be developed from Yosemite Village to the Campground using the Ahwahnee Bridge. The specific routing of the trail and its design are beyond the scope of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. In areas where roads or trails would be removed, the area would be restored to natural conditions.

3.11.3 ~ Regional Transportation and YARTs

1129. Public Concern: The National Park Service should adopt a regional transportation system for Yosemite.

"Please register my interest in supporting a regional transportation system as an alternative to the private automobile in Yosemite Valley. However, it is inappropriate and counter to the ideals originally put forth in the 1980 concept, as well as counter to the preferred Yosemite experience, to put any auto parking at Taft Toe." (Individual, No Address - #6051)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The National Park Service is supportive of a regional transportation system that serves visitors and employees and provides an alternative to private vehicles but does not have the authority to create such a system or mandate its use. The implementation of a regional transportation system is being considered as part of the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS). The National Park Service is a partnering agency in YARTS, which also includes the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Forest Service, the California Department of Transportation, and Merced, Mariposa, and Mono Counties. However, YARTS is an independent action from the Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. The Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS can be implemented with or without a regional transit service by YARTS or other entities. In the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, YARTS is analyzed as a potential cumulative impact. A description of the YARTS program is located in Vol. II, Appendix H.

3.11.4 ~ Buses

1130. Public Concern: The National Park Service should promote public transportation in Yosemite National Park.

"With Yosemite, the Park Service has a unique opportunity to set an example of accommodating the public with public transportation, rather than continue letting private cars contribute to the decline of the Park. Glacier, Yellowstone, and other national parks all stand to benefit from Yosemite’s example of phasing out the private car. A propane shuttle would be an interim vehicle until restoring the Yosemite Valley Railroad, which should be electric in its new incarnation. In the meantime, we can farm out the shuttle to Greyhound which for years has been transporting people to out-of-the-way places at affordable prices, and at a profit." (Individual, Berkeley, CA #215)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes changes in modes of access to Yosemite Valley and travel within the Valley that greatly expand the role of public transportation. The number of vehicles entering the Valley would be managed so as to be consistent with the capacity of parking areas and roadways. Most day visitors in the peak season would travel to the Valley in shuttle buses from parking areas located on the approach routes to the Valley. Shuttles operating to and from the out-of-Valley parking areas and shuttles operating within Yosemite Valley would use the cleanest and quietest propulsions systems that are practical and affordable.

Transit access to Yosemite from surrounding areas is being planned through a separate planning process by the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS). Projects such as the restoration of the Yosemite Valley Railroad are outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan and would need to be considered in a separate planning process, perhaps involving YARTS.

1131. Public Concern: The National Park Service should consider providing shuttle service from El Portal.

"The Park service should look at the feasibility of setting up shuttle service to El Portal for use by staff. This might even be tied in with shuttling Park visitors who stay in lodging in El Portal, further reducing traffic into the Park. This scenario might even be seen as beneficial compared to the current situation in the Park — overcrowded with both buildings and vehicles. It might be seen as an economic benefit to the residents of El Portal to have more overnight visitors." (Individual, Florissant, CO - #142)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes shuttle service to Yosemite Valley for employees and visitors parking on public land in El Portal. In addition, the National Park Service supports the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) but does not have the authority to create such a system or mandate its use. The National Park Service is a partner in YARTS. YARTS is currently demonstrating employee and visitor transit service from El Portal and other locations on Highway 140. For more information on YARTS, see Vol. II, Appendix H.

1132. Public Concern: The National Park Service should restrict tour bus operations.

"The National Park Service should not be encouraging more tourism by widening roads for tour buses, which should be limited or banned from the Park instead." (Individual, La Habra Heights, CA - #3040)

"Parking of tour buses should be limited perhaps to only attractions and a few day use zones." (Individual, Berkeley, CA - #3130)

"Severely restrict tour buses. One tour bus causes more noise and pollution than 100 cars. . . Restrict tour bus parking to Attraction and a few Day Use Zones. Require buses to turn off engines when stationary." (Individual, Berkeley, CA - #615)

Response: The Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS assumes that commercial bus use would remain at current levels. The number of commercial buses that can be in Yosemite Valley at one time is determined by the availability of bus parking spaces in the shuttle bus storage area, and the use of the 16 bus bays (loading/unloading spaces) at the Transit Center. The Preferred Alternative calls for the development of a traveler information and traffic management system that would use available parking to control the number of vehicles in the Valley. (Also see response to concerns #36 and #305.) Commercial tour buses would be required to drop passengers off at either the Transit Center or at overnight accommodations. The buses would then park in a bus parking lot away from public areas. The Preferred Alternative calls for a section of El Portal Road between Pohono Bridge and the Big Oak Flat Road intersection to be reconstructed and slightly widened for safety reasons. (Also see response to concern #1119.) The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does not call for roads leading into the Valley to be widened. The size of buses allowed into the park is based on road characteristics (width, curve, etc.) and is outside the scope of this plan.

1133. Public Concern: The National Park Service should use buses that burn cleaner fuel.

"The widening of 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. If bus traffic is increased, then buses should use cleaner fuels. Furthermore, diesel shuttle buses within the Valley should be replaced by cleaner fuel alternatives." (Individual, Berkeley, CA - #138)

Response: The action alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS call for improvements to El Portal Road between Big Oak Flat Road and Pohono Bridge. Improvements would be designed to reduce the likelihood of damage to the road in the event of floods and to improve the safety of the road for existing traffic. Similar improvements on the portion of El Portal Road between the Yosemite National Park boundary and the Big Oak Flat Road are scheduled to be completed in 2001.

The number of tour buses traveling on El Portal Road would not change as a result of the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Tour buses access would provide for the same percentage of day visitors and overnight lodge guests as is provided under the No Action Alternative. The air emissions of the tour buses are not yet regulated by the National Park Service.

The Preferred Alternative includes additional bus travel on El Portal Road by shuttle buses from out-of-Valley parking in El Portal. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS seeks a balance in accommodating visitor travel needs, while protecting natural resources such as air quality and natural soundscapes. The availability of proven transit vehicle technology, supporting infrastructure (such as refueling and maintenance facilities), environmental characteristics (including air emissions and costs), are all major factors in decisions related to transit vehicle selections. The park has conducted a number of studies of transportation alternatives for travel to and in the Valley and continues to work with other federal agencies and transportation consultants to evaluate alternative transportation fuels and technology.

The National Park Service is actively moving toward using the cleanest and quietest transit vehicles in the Valley. The National Park Service makes the commitment in Vol. Ia, Chapter 1 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS to continue implementing technologies that reduce mobile sources of air pollution.

---

Section 3.12 ~ Vehicle Management

3.12.1 ~ Traffic Management

1134. Public Concern: The National Park Service should find ways to lessen the impact of peak season visitation in Yosemite National Park.

"We do not understand why such a drastic year-round fix is being considered when the problem exists during holidays and only a few months out of a year. It seems that many things could be done to limit the numbers that enter the park during peak times. . . encourage off-peak visits to the park by lowering the entrance fee. . . raise the entrance fee during really peak times . . . encourage and spread the visitation over an entire year. . . optional transit system from the gateway communities . . . day-use reservation system . . . and why not just close the doors when the daily limits have been reached?" (Individual, No Address - #593)

"Rather than trying to create a massive new infrastructure for replacing private autos with a public bus system in-and-out of the Park, I think we’d all be better served by a system of day-use ‘rationing’ during peak-season, June 15 to September 15, perhaps. This is environmentally more practical, inexpensive, and, in truth, impacts almost solely, the Central Valley towns near enough to use the valley as ‘their park.’" (Individual, Piedmont, CA - #151)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS provides day-visitor parking for private vehicles and tour buses sufficient to accommodate the visitor use levels prescribed in the 1980 General Management Plan. In the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, Vol. Ia, Chapter 2, Alternatives–Actions Common to All Action Alternatives, there is a reiteration of the Yosemite General Management Plan maximum use level of 18,241 visitors per day in Yosemite Valley. This number was calculated using the number of campsites, lodging units, and day-visitor parking places provided in the General Management Plan. The proposed action provides parking for day visitors in Yosemite Valley and in out-of-Valley parking areas along the approach routes to the Valley. During the peak season, shuttles would transport visitors from the out-of-Valley parking areas to the Valley. In addition to parking for day visitors, the Preferred Alternative would provide facilities for transit buses that could bring additional day visitors to the Valley from locations outside the park. The plan also proposes a traveler information and traffic management system that would manage the number of vehicles in the Valley to the number of parking spaces and the capacity of the roads. The traveler information and traffic management system may use a combination of methods to allocate visitor vehicles among the available parking areas. The system also may employ incentives for visitation during off-peak times or for travel to the park by means other than private automobiles. The incentive may include pricing and other strategies.

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

From November through March it is expected that the parking spaces provided for day visitors in the Valley would be sufficient to serve all day visitors. As a result, from November through March the out-of-Valley parking areas would be closed and no out-of-Valley shuttle service would operate. Because the number of parking spaces in the Valley would be adequate to serve all day visitors during the off-season, the traveler information and traffic management system proposed in the plan would use a different set of tools.

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.

1135. Public Concern: The National Park Service should retain existing traffic patterns in the Valley.

"Keep North and South Drives intact as is, 2 lanes, one way. N.B. single lane roads, or 2 way roads would slow traffic, cause horn honking (at slow or distracted drivers) and thus reduce the river experience significantly." (Individual, Berkeley, CA — #3130)

"Northside Drive and Southside Drive must remain open all year, as they are now: one way, two lanes each . . . Single lane roads or two-way roads would slow traffic, cause congestion, cause horn honking (noise pollution) and thus reduce the river experience. Safety would also be seriously compromised. . . Closing Northside Drive might be nice for Park employees who live in the area and thus have more time, but would seriously limit access to visitors who come for only a few days." (Individual, Berkeley, CA - #615)

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

The traffic management strategies and changes to overnight visitor capacity proposed in the plan would result in a decrease in traffic on Southside Drive east of El Capitan crossover and Sentinel Bridge, even with two-way traffic. The traffic volume on Southside Drive would be similar to or less than the volume of traffic using two-lane, two-way roads elsewhere in the park. By removing all of the vehicle trips from visitors exiting the park from Northside Drive at the Lodge, traffic congestion in that area would be reduced. Traffic congestion in Yosemite Village would also be reduced because visitors exiting the park from Curry Village and the campgrounds would travel along Southside Drive, rather than through Yosemite Village. Traffic flow would also be improved at the intersections of Sentinel Road with Northside Drive and Southside Drive. With lower volumes of traffic using Southside Drive and no traffic on Northside Drive, noise levels along the Merced River between Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) and El Capitan crossover would be reduced. Occasional horn honking could affect the sound environment, but the overall effect of the proposed traffic changes would be beneficial to visitor experience along the river.

Two-way traffic on similar two-lane roads occur on all other roads in the park and on roads leading into the park from gateway communities. Traffic accident rates on two-lane, two-way roads throughout the national park system are generally low. A detailed engineering study of Southside Drive would be performed to identify needed improvements to assure safe operation of the road considering the types of vehicles that will use the road.

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

1136. Public Concern: The National Park Service should gradually implement proposed traffic restrictions in Yosemite National Park.

"Provide for a phasing-in period gradually imposing limits. (Do not surprise the public; give highly publicized notice.) Trail periods shall be utilized, with adequate advance notice, to test the adequacy and/or utility of various traffic-limiting procedures." (Individual, Wimberley, TX - #16)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS includes a detailed Sequencing Plan (Vol. II, Appendix M) that describes the steps that would be taken to implement the actions incorporated into the final Preferred Alternative in the plan. The Sequencing Plan provides for a sequential series of changes to traffic and shuttles that would accommodate the possible need for refinements as the implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan progresses.

Traffic management measures would be determined through a separate planning process for the traveler information and traffic management system that is included in the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. That planning process would define implementation steps and timing for traffic management measures.

3.12.2 ~ Parking

1137. Public Concern: The National Park Service should increase available parking in Yosemite National Park.

"I have heard people who live in the Park say that over 2000 spaces have been removed from the most popular part of the Valley. If that is anywhere near correct, it is sure to be a big part of the traffic problem during the few crowded weekends of the summer. The only way for senior citizens and disabled people to see the Park is by private automobile. It is also the best way for people with children who have a lot of things to carry. . . It would be an important improvement to increase the parking . . ." (Individual, Fresno, CA - #6373)359.

"Mariposa Grove needs more parking! We were turned away last summer after taking two grandchildren to see the trees — very sad!" (Individual, Felton, CA - #206)

Response: The alternatives considered in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS were developed to implement the five goals of the General Management Plan, including the goal of reducing traffic and its related congestion. Since 1980, incremental steps have been taken to reduce congestion. Parking areas have been removed from Yosemite Valley to restore resources and to provide improved visitor experience. Parking was removed from the Happy Isles Loop area and Mirror Lake. The area was closed to vehicle traffic because the demand for parking was far higher than the number of parking spaces that could be provided. Shuttle service to the area resulted in greatly improved access for most visitors and less congestion.

The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes to increase the number of parking spaces that are dedicated for use by day visitors from 904 currently to a total of 2,120 spaces (550 spaces in Yosemite Valley and 1,570 in out-of-Valley parking areas). The parking would be in locations that could be easily found by visitors. Visitors would have convenient access to major destinations, including the visitor center.

Parking in Mariposa Grove is outside the scope of this planning effort.

1138. Public Concern: The National Park Service should allow road-side parking in Open Space and Discovery Zones.

"Open Space’ and ‘Discovery’ zones (see pp II-37 to II-40) should allow private cars to park alongside the road for a few hours to allow fishing, walking, butterfly and bird watching, etc." (Individual, Berkeley, CA - #3130)

"Page I-31. ‘Parking at turnouts . . . detracts from the outward views.’ However, these turnouts allow drivers to see the views without stopping traffic, take pictures, and create fewer accidents." (Individual, Fresno, CA - #6260)

"Visitor Experience Zones — all should allow a limited number of pull outs for cars." (Individual, Berkeley, CA - #3130)

Response: See response to concern #1139, following.

1139. Public Concern: The National Park Service should eliminate roadside parking in Yosemite National Park.

"I am against roadside parking which: causes congestion, is unnecessary, and should be prohibited. There are innumerable places outside of Yosemite to swim, fish and raft. Wherever swimming and fishing take place in the Park, such activities should be within walking distance to avoid too much stream side damage." (Individual, Paso Robles, CA - #28)

Response: For safety reasons, it is not possible to completely eliminate roadside parking in Yosemite National Park. Currently, many roadside parking locations throughout the Valley degrade natural resources, especially those located near meadows. In other areas, the presence of vehicles along scenic viewpoints, in open space, and in discovery areas detracts from the visitor experience. Additionally, there are other areas where roadside parking contributes to traffic congestion and presents safety hazards. There are limited areas in the Valley where roadside parking may be appropriate, and such roadside parking areas as Southside Drive in the Bridalveil Fall area would be retained for the most part. The National Park Service would retain other turnout areas as necessary for safety reasons or to provide access to some historic viewpoints. To accomplish the goals of the Yosemite Valley Plan, most roadside parking would be discouraged or prohibited and replaced with improved Valley-wide shuttle access in the Preferred Alternative.

1140. Public Concern: The National Park Service should provide reasonable parking for climbers and hikers.

"Provide reasonable access parking for climbing and trailheads." (Individual, Elk Grove, CA - #6091)

"The current parking arrangements for the Backpackers Campground, where campers are required to park their . . . a half-mile from their campsite and then walk or take the shuttle to the Backpackers Campground . . . is cumbersome and unworkable, especially for campers who plan to stay in the Valley. . .When users of developed lodgings, who typically have little gear and no food or cooking equipment, can park within easy walking distance of their rooms, it is not appropriate to require walk-in campers to lug all their food, cooking equipment, and day use gear a much greater distance." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #1599)

Response: Climbers and hikers as well as other Valley visitors will have access to parking as well as an expanded Valley-wide shuttle system. Backpackers as well as climbers will have access to the designated backpackers parking area. Besides the backpackers parking and day-visitor parking areas, there will be a spectrum of opportunities for overnight camping for climbers and hikers with a variety of parking options. These options include walk-to sites without parking, walk-in sites with adjacent but separate parking, and drive-in sites with parking spaces at the campsite location. These overnight and day-visitor parking options will provide a variety of choices for climbers and hikers.

1141. Public Concern: The National Park Service should pave the overflow parking lot in Yosemite Village.

"I would suggest paving the overflow parking lot in the village, but no new parking areas in the valley." (Public Hearing, Sacramento, CA - #3133)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes formalizing (including paving) the existing parking at Camp 6 (adjacent to Yosemite Village). The Preferred Alternative calls for consolidating all day-visitor parking in the Yosemite Village/Camp 6 Area.

1142. Public Concern: The National Park Service should build parking lots out of public view.

"Any parking areas remaining are to be for emergency and service vehicles only, be located underground with appropriate natural landscaping on top, or located out of sight in or under one of the very few remaining existing buildings." (Individual, Walnut Creek, CA - #264)

"If the impacts are comparable, I would go with Taft Toe because it would not be visible from the vista point at the Wawona Tunnel. This is one of the signature views of Yosemite National Park." (Individual, Menlo Park, CA - #262)

Response: Underground parking was considered but dismissed due to significant impacts associated with underground construction.

None of the day-visitor parking areas proposed in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS alternatives would be visible from the vista point at the east end of the Wawona Tunnel.

The construction of such facilities would significantly impact ground water movement, and would create significant volumes of soil that would require disposal. In addition, surface parking would be much easier to remove, should the need for parking be reduced because of increased use of transit to travel to the Valley in the future. For these reasons, underground parking facilities were not considered in the Draft or Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

1143. Public Concern: The National Park Service should eliminate day-visitor parking from the Valley.

"We feel eliminating day-use parking from the East Valley and giving people more opportunity to stay overnight in the Valley thus parking their vehicle for the duration of their stay will reduce noise levels and improve air quality." (Individual, Winnetka, CA - #6259)

"We . . . are strong supporters of a ‘Day Use Parking Area’ either outside the Park, or on the outskirts of the Valley. While camping in the Valley, we have often noticed the noise level and traffic volume suddenly drop in the evening when most Day Use Parking areas have cleared out and only overnight visitors remain. Mornings are also very quiet until the parking lots begin to fill at approximately 9:00 a.m." (Individual, Winnetka, CA - #6259)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS provides a combination of overnight and day-visitor use in Yosemite Valley. Areas proposed for parking in the Valley for day visitors would not necessarily be used for overnight lodging or campsites because of the different types of development and impacts associated with each type of use and the conflicts that would arise.

Providing all parking for day visitors to Yosemite Valley in locations outside the Valley was considered but dismissed in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS (see Vol. Ia, Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered but Dismissed). Serving all day visitors with shuttles from remote locations would require a very large fleet of buses, large parking areas outside the Valley, and year-round operation of the shuttle bus system. The roads leading to the Valley from the north and the south traverse high elevations that are subject to heavy snows in the winter. Operating shuttle buses on these routes in the winter and keeping parking areas cleared of snow would be difficult and expensive. Weather conditions in the winter would make waiting for shuttle buses uncomfortable. The number of parking spaces provided in the Valley for day visitors is adequate to serve all day visitors from November through March, when the heaviest snows occur. Day visitors in the peak season would use the parking provided in the Valley for day visitors in the winter, along with out-of-Valley parking. As a result, a balance of access by shuttle buses and by private vehicles would be provided for day visitors in the peak season.

3.12.3 ~ Transfer Facilities

1144. Public Concern: The National Park Service should reconsider construction of parking facilities in the Valley.

"I feel that Taft Toe parking is inconsistent with a ‘Discovery’ area which you characterize as relatively quiet natural area visitor encounters are low to moderate. I believe you could not contain the effects on the quiet and feeling of natural setting to just the area of parking itself. . . the development of parking at Taft Toe, as I imagine it, would have a major impact on the natural and unspoiled feeling of the West Valley which I associate with the undeveloped naturalness of the river corridor. It bothers me to oppose this because I was a strong supporter of eliminating day use vehicles in the Valley and still support limiting them as much as possible through good public transportation. But, since the cars will be coming in I think from the stand point of least impact on the river corridor/visitor experience, that Camp 6 in the higher use zone is a better option for expanding parking." (Individual, Snelling, CA - #946)

"I am very strongly opposed to any parking/transit center anywhere in the Valley. I am fully aware that the 1/4-mile river corridor, the lack of further Lodge development, and the absence of a transit center might reduce the number of visitors to the Valley and result in loss of revenue to the concession. We are concerned here with a natural place of great national significance to all Americans. The financial profits of Delaware North and the Valley-as-real-estate should not be more important to the National Park Service than the resources (flora, fauna, rivers, natural features) the Service was created to protect." (Individual, Santa Barbara, CA - #1437)

Yes to Taft Toe

"The likely selection of the Taft Toe O/T facility should be revisited. Taft Toe would be a substantial visual blight to the Valley. It would have hazard of rock-fall, and quite importantly would allow substantial amounts of exhaust gases and other pollution into the Valley. Its adequacy with future growth in visitation is doubtful. It would, in itself, limit the number of visitors permitted." (Individual, Pioneer, CA - #23)

"There must be parking and a check point for transfer of visitors to buses, certainly no closer to the main part of the valley than Taft Toe. At first we thought it would be better even further away but when we realized that Taft Toe is the first feasible location in which traffic from all three major access highways could be collected, we could see the reason for its selection. Any other spot would result in a lot of duplication and confusion." (Individual, Berkeley, CA - #936)

"The Taft Toe parking sounds good, it should help to control the traffic…" (Individual, Santa Clarita, CA — 230)

No to Taft Toe

"I’d like to refer specifically to the alternatives that allow for the possibility of parking at Taft Toe. I think that is a crime and I would hate to have that happen. I feel that the driving experience -- when people drive into Yosemite, if they are going to be allowed to bring in their cars, they shouldn’t have to see a lot of other cars from the road…." (Individual, Coarsegold, CA - #3232)

"I am vehemently opposed to the National Park Service proposal for a multi-story parking at …Taft Toe." (Individual, Napa, CA - #6047)

Response: The parking and transit facilities included in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would be provided to accommodate the level of visitor use prescribed in the 1980 General Management Plan. The size, location, and function of the facilities are intended to provide adequate accommodation for visitors while achieving the goals of the General Management Plan, which include reclaiming priceless beauty, allowing natural processes to prevail, reducing crowding and traffic congestion, and promoting visitor understanding and enjoyment. The purpose of the improvements is not to protect or increase the profits of the park concessioner.

(Also see response to concerns #31, #684, #158, #173, #709, and #515.)

1145. Public Concern: The National Park Service should build a parking facility in the Valley.

"I’m very much in favor of Taft Toe parking facility because I feel that it will actually reduce bus traffic coming in from outside the Park." (Public Hearing, Sacramento, CA - #3146)

"I believe that the best solution in this regard will entail the construction of a major parking area somewhere close to the Valley floor. . . I know that everyone finds the thought of a parking lot within Yosemite offensive but I have heard no other ideas which come close to practicality." (Individual, Costa Mesa, CA - #36)

"One solution would be a 3 to 4 level parking garage, landscaped and perhaps built upon to be as unobtrusive as a monstrosity can be made to be. A simple lot would be too expansive, too visible within walking distance of the heart of the transportation hub. Any city dweller knows this." (Individual, Oakland, CA -#6276)

"We support the 800 vehicle parking area and visitor contact station in Hazel Green Ranch, and the Taft Toe Day Use Parking for all visitors including those entering via Highway 41." (Individual, Winnetka, CA - #6259)

"A day use parking area at Taft Toe would be more desirable than at Camp 6, as Camp 6 requires vehicles to traverse the entire Valley to park and be in an already congested area." (Individual, Santa Barbara, CA - #6259)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes day-visitor parking in Yosemite Village area (potentially including a portion of the Camp 6 area). The Preferred Alternative also includes parking for day visitors at three out-of-Valley parking areas on the approach routes to the Valley. Locating day-visitor parking near Yosemite Village is proposed because it would result in much less development of facilities in currently undisturbed areas; it would also reduce the potential impacts associated with introducing intensive visitor use in a relatively lightly visited area and it would bring visitors parking in the Valley within walking distance of more popular destinations. The number of parking spaces provided in the Preferred Alternative was determined by analyzing parking needs in each month of the year. Adequate parking would be provided to eliminate the need for out-of-Valley parking for day visitors from November through March.

Underground structures were considered but dismissed because of the extent of impacts of underground construction, including interruption to ground water requires and the need to dispose of layer volumes of soil and the visual impact of above ground structures. Surface parking also was proposed because it could more easily be removed if the need for parking decreases in the future.

(Also see response to concerns #31, #684, #158, #173, #709, and #515.)

1146. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not use Categorical Exclusions to authorize construction in Yosemite Valley.

"A categorical exclusion is being used to create a large new parking area in the river corridor at Camp 6, even before completion the MRP, let alone the Valley Plan or a transportation plan. The Park Service has created new disturbances in multiple new and expanded staging areas for construction projects in the El Portal Administrative District and in Yosemite Valley, etc. These staging areas look to become de facto new or expanded parking areas. The use of such categorical exclusions and creation of new disturbances and de facto parking areas that circumvent public process and environmental compliance are both wrong and improper." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #1705)

Response: The issue of use of categorical exclusions for past or current construction projects in Yosemite Valley is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. However, a categorical exclusion was deemed appropriate for minor improvements to a temporary parking area and associated facilities at the Camp 6 location. This action was necessary to meet an immediate need for traffic management and visitor assistance actions separate from the long range planning of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The facilities were temporary, limited in scope, and sited in a previously disturbed area. Consequently, this action met the requirements of Categorical Exclusion 7.4 (c) 17 under Departmental Manual 516: "Construction of minor structures, including small improved parking lots, in previously disturbed or developed areas."

As stated in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the National Park Service is committed to conducting the appropriate level of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for all projects occurring in Yosemite Valley consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations and National Park Service NEPA Guidance (NPS-12). Categorical exclusions, environmental assessments, and environmental impact statements are all legally acceptable methods for documenting compliance with NEPA, depending upon the nature and potential impacts of the action under consideration. The National Park Service will carefully evaluate each project or action to determine the appropriate level of NEPA compliance and acknowledges public concern over their opportunities for involvement in the decision-making process.

1147. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not build parking structures in gateway communities.

"No destroying the Mother Lode by building parking garages in towns like Mariposa. Small-town city fathers may favor parking structures in order to receive kick-backs, but the vast majority of folks in the Gold Country live there to get away from the rat-race." (Individual, Berkeley, CA - #215)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does not propose any parking facilities in gateway communities. In the Preferred Alternative, parking is proposed inside the park at Badger Pass, outside the park, but on federal land, in El Portal, and outside the park on private land at Hazel Green. This last location is surrounded by federal land, but would require approval and a zoning ordinance amendment from Mariposa County.

1148. Public Concern: The National Park Service should address the loss of personal freedom in required use of mass transit in the Valley.

"My last reason for opposition to mandatory central transit is the issue of personal freedom. Yosemite already offers tram buses for people that want to visit the eastern portion of the Valley without having to walk. Mandating bulk transit through the rest of the park interior diminishes the whole notion of the open highway and the American dream. I am not an automotive aficionado . . . but a personal vehicle does have distinct advantages at certain times. As an avid backpacker, I would be greatly inconvenienced by having to compress all of my sightseeing and backpacking gear into a frame pack, only to jostle against other people on a mass transit system." (Individual, Los Angeles, CA - #6069)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does not propose mandatory mass transit for travel to the Valley. Visitors staying overnight, including backpackers with wilderness permits for areas accessible from the Valley, would be able to park in the Valley (except for visitors staying at walk-to campsites). A portion of visitors to the Valley also would be able to drive their personal vehicles to dedicated parking areas. Visitors for whom the personal freedom of private vehicle travel is of paramount importance could plan ahead. Travel by personal vehicle to locations outside Yosemite Valley would not be restricted or constrained by actions associated with the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

1149. Public Concern: The National Park Service should consider other locations for a transit center.

Camp 6

"CSERC [Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center] staff have visited the Camp 6 site and we believe it is an appropriate site for parking or for some kind of transit center. We would be supportive of a decision that allows further site-specific consideration of Camp 6 as a location for such a use." (Conservation Organization, Twain Harte, CA - #947)

foresta / el portal

"It appears that the Foresta area could be a reasonable parking area/orientation site for incoming vehicles from Highway 120 and perhaps from 140 if a new route above El Portal to Foresta is feasible. Otherwise, a visitor parking/orientation site at or near El Portal should be developed for 140." (Individual, Pioneer, CA - #23)

"I also feel that the day use parking should also be removed form the Valley to a peripheral site. The use of the el Portal area would not appear to be the logical site for relocation of those functions as it would significantly impact on the Wild and Scenic Merced River." (Individual, San Jose, CA - #154)

badger pass

"A third parking/orientation site could be developed for Highway 41 at Badger Ski Pass Area for non-ski season use." (Individual, Pioneer, CA - #23)

Lower River Campground

"The current practice of using the Curry parking lot as the primary day use parking lot has created a parking lot that is too crowded and congested, not only with cars and shuttle buses, but also with pedestrians. A simple resolution to this dilemma is to take all the day use parking areas for the entire Valley, and place them into the Lower River Campground, which is already in place level and under tree cover so as not to be visible from Glacier Point. This is a natural location as it is within walking distance to almost all of the east Valley areas of interest and would not require the creation of a new day use par king lot at either Taft Toe or Pohono Quarry. Restrooms are already on site." (Individual American Canyon, CA - #3126)

west of the valley

"Automobile parking for visitors should be west of the Valley at such location where parking is not injurious to the Valley proper or the Merced River. Not knowing the topography in the area 15 to 20 miles would seem logical. Persons with a reservation for the day or overnight would board a train or monorail that would take them to the Valley and perhaps smaller units to the scenic spots in a circle making regular stops to board or disembark tourists. Through traffic between Big Oak Flat and Wawona Road would be rerouted to the El Portal area over the top on a bridge without access to the Valley except that a connecting road would lead to the staging or parking area at the train terminal." (Individual, Petaluma, CA - #139)

crane flat / chinquapin

"I do not support a large centralized parking area for day use within the Valley, Rather, they should be located somewhere around Crane flat or Chinquapin." (Individual, Northridge, CA - #335)

outside yosemite Valley

"Yarts Buses and Day-use Parking in Wawona: On page II . . . These proposed zoning designations will permit the Park Service to relocate visitor parking from Yosemite Valley to Wawona, with out a public hearing process. This designation also permits the Park Service to locate and construct bus-transit staging areas in Wawona. The board of directors of the Wawona Area Property Owners Association voted unanimously to oppose YARTS bus-transit staging areas in Section 35. . . Permanent day-use parking and bus-transit staging areas should not be located anywhere in the Valley for the Park." (Individual, Malibu, CA - #6079)

sentinel parking lot

"In the 1970s there was a parking lot located at the Glacier Point Four-Mile trailhead, referred to as the Sentinel Parking lot. Campgrounds were located across the road. We suggest this previously impacted area be considered as an alternative to Taft Toe, for a staging area to move day visitors to the eastern end of the Valley. . . From this point, day visitors would be given the alternative to ride a bus, bike, or walk around the Valley." (Business, Yosemite National Park, CA - #1524)

Response: During the development of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the National Park Service considered numerous locations throughout Yosemite Valley for the location of a transit center. Locations were initially selected for consideration based on spatial requirement; the location of highly valued resources, rockfall and debris flow zones, and floodplain areas; River Protection Overlay; visibility; and transportation circulation. Explanations for those alternatives considered but dismissed can be found in Vol. Ia, Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered but Dismissed. Descriptions of the alternatives considered can be found in Chapter 2, Alternatives. Evaluations of these alternatives can be found in Vol. Ib, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences.

The location identified in the Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS was chosen because it is consistent with the park’s original design concept of locating visitor services in the east end of the Valley. Additionally the Yosemite Village area provides efficient road access, has existing utilities, and is in a previously disturbed area.

(Also see response to concerns #564 and #32.)

3.12.4 ~ Pedestrians and Bicycles

1150. Public Concern: The National Park Service should build a pedestrian underpass to alleviate congestion at the Yosemite Falls crosswalk.

"A solution for the traffic congestion occurring at the Yosemite Falls Crosswalk would be to construct a pedestrian underpass with a raised road bed." (Individual, Elk Grove, CA - #3151)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS alleviates congestion at the Yosemite Falls intersection by relocating Northside Drive development to the south side of Yosemite Lodge, the barrier formed by the road between Yosemite Lodge and the north wall of the Valley from Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campgrounds) to Yosemite Falls. Relocating the road would minimize conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians and allow pedestrian access to be dispersed among a variety of paths, rather than concentrated at one crossing. A grade-separated crossing would be expensive and could be considered restrictive and unattractive by visitors. Also an underpass would unnecessarily constrain hydrologic flows to the Merced River.

---

Section 3.13 ~ Noise

1151. Public Concern: The National Park Service should enforce existing rules and regulations to reduce noise.

"Regarding noise control, it is incumbent on all Superintendents . . . to enforce existing campground rules and regulations, the posted speed limit on the Valley Floor, the noise from the garbage trucks, the helicopter flight paths over the valley floor at extremely low altitudes, etc." (Individual, Santa Ana, CA - #321)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The enforcement of existing noise rules and regulations in Yosemite Valley would be an ongoing activity. Helicopter and other overflights performed by park rangers in Yosemite Valley are limited to emergencies only.

---

Section 3.14 ~ Socioeconomics

1152. Public Concern: The National Park Service should recognize El Portal as a town.

"There is no mention anywhere in any of the alternatives of El Portal being a town or a community, only an administrative site. This is very wrong. There was a town here long before the land was purchased as an administrative site and there has been a town since. There is also an active Town Planning Advisory Committee, of which no mention was made in any alternatives, although Wawona’s Town Planning Committee was mentioned. It is very hard to believe that this was an oversight! We demand to be recognized as a community. We are taxpayers and are Yosemite National Park’s main support. We should be considered and consulted." (Individual, El Portal, CA - #268)

Response: The National Park Service has recognized the El Portal town and community during the Yosemite Valley Plan process by actively informing and consulting with the town and community. In as much, many different National Park Service representatives have met with residents and officials of El Portal over time to discuss natural resource, social, historical, archeological, and land-use issues. The National Park Service has consistently given presentations to the El Portal Town Planning Advisory Committee and the Mariposa County Board of Supervisors to continually update the town and community about planning developments. In response, the National Park Service has incorporated many community values into both the Draft and Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Specifically, several actions proposed in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, such as the town square, expanded grocery store and deli, and the community multi-use pathway, plus additional recreational and swimming facilities adjacent to new housing were developed in direct response to the town and community input.

Moreover, the town and community are described in Vol. Ia, Chapter 3, Affected Environment–Social and Economic in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Statements added to this section more fully recognize the role of Mariposa County and the El Portal Town Planning Advisory Committee in officially representing the town and community during planning processes. Also included in this section are topics describing El Portal’s population, housing, commuting and traffic, and community life. Lastly, the analysis of impacts provided in Vol. Ib, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences discusses potential impacts to the El Portal Community and town. Specifically Chapter 4 discusses potential impacts to the school (including daycare), law enforcement (including employee and visitor health and safety, and emergency medical services), and other community services (including library and recreation facilities).

1153. Public Concern: The National Park Service should reconsider the Yosemite View land exchange.

"The ‘Parkline/Yosemite View’ land exchange is a disaster! Exchanging a heavily impacted parcel for a pristine riparian area right on the banks of the Merced is certainly a violation of both the spirit and laws of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act! The area in question, slated for massive commercial development, is a rare wetland in the Merced Canyon. In this exceptional spot can be found every single ‘Outstandingly Remarkable Value’ that are supposed to be protected when making management decisions." (Individual, El Portal, CA - #1636)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Even though the National Park Service has completed a preliminary review and legislation has authorized a potential exchange of the National Park Service Administrative Site lands, no final decision has been made to pursue a land exchange. If this proposal were to move forward, regulatory compliance would need to be completed, including public involvement. Since this project has been proposed, it is addressed as a potential cumulative impact.

(Also see Vol. Ib, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences and Vol. II, Appendix H.)

3.14.1 ~ Economic Impacts

1154. Public Concern: The National Park Service should ensure that the Yosemite National Park experience is affordable for individuals of diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.

"Yosemite is not a destination resort and it should not be set aside for the rich. Replacing campgrounds, where a modest tent can be pitched, with a hotel room may fill the pockets of a politically savvy corporation, but it does not serve the people, the park, or the future. It directly contradicts the purpose of the National Park Service and it is contrary to the spirit of stewardship that should govern your actions." (Individual, Coarsegold, CA - #128)

"My personal preference is that Yosemite remain accessible to day users and to low and middle income families who rely on affordable recreation in the park, specifically hiking, bicycling, and tent camping." (Individual, Livermore, CA - #6348)

ensure environmental justice

"You are creating a ‘Wilderness Club Med’ that is being designed, and catering to an affluent Anglo community and foreign visitors." (Non-Governmental Organization, La Habra, CA - #3069)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS provides a range of visitor accommodations specifically with the intent to accommodate visitors from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, visitors with different levels of ability to access lodging, and visitors with different preferences for low- or higher-cost accommodations. There is special concern for providing economical accommodations so that people are not excluded on the basis of affordability. In the more detailed planning that must be done for the out-of-Valley shuttle system and the traveler information and traffic management system, the cost to visitors and incentives for use of out-of-Valley parking and regional transportation options would be prominent considerations. Overall, and outside the scope this planning effort, the National Park Service is developing strategies for reaching and serving a more diverse constituency, particularly through the efforts of interpretive outreach services (including a partnership with the University of California — Merced) already underway.

(Also see response to concern # 652 and #234.)

1155. Public Concern: The National Park Service should re-evaluate the statistical information used to determine the average household income of park users.

"User Income. The divisions between visitor income groups is completely arbitrary, and an incorrect conclusion is drawn: ‘the highest proportion of visitors to Yosemite National Park . . .has an annual household income of greater than $100,000.’ (p III-127). In fact, if the $20 to 60K income levels were grouped together, the percentage would be 35% vs. 26% for over $100K. Table III-23 is plain bad math and bad statistics, and the conclusion means nothing. The EIS should be reviewed for similar problems." (Individual, Livermore, CA - #6348)

Response: A table in Vol. Ia, Chapter 3, Affected Environment of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS makes a comparison of household incomes between park visitors and state and regional residents. The division in income levels is intended to show representative income levels for the state and region. The table illustrates that a higher proportion of Yosemite visitors tend to fall into high-income brackets (such as an annual income of greater than $100,000) than is represented in the state or in the region. National Park Service concerns about under-representation of low-income populations among Yosemite visitors resulted in the analysis of impacts to low-income populations in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

---

Section 3.15 ~ Park Operations

3.15.1 ~ Park Entrance Stations

1156. Public Concern: The National Park Service should address the impacts of relocating the Arch Rock entrance station.

"If the park service removes the Arch Rock Entrance Station, where will it be located? The new motels and restaurant come close to the up-hill start of the road into Yosemite Valley. Where will the cars be stopped without causing a traffic jam going into the motels?" (Individual, Mariposa, CA - #948)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Should the Arch Rock Entrance Station be relocated or redesigned in its current location, regulatory compliance procedures would need to be completed. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS allows the entrance station to remain in its existing location. The relocation of the Arch Rock Entrance Station is connected to a proposed land exchange. No final decision has been made to pursue the land exchange. If this land exchange and associated relocation of the entrance station were to move forward, regulatory compliance, including public involvement, would need to be completed. Since relocation of Arch Rock Entrance Station is a foreseeable future project, it is addressed as a cumulative impact (see Vol. Ib, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences).

3.15.2 ~ Park Safety

1157. Public Concern: The National Park Service should improve law enforcement in Yosemite National Park.

"Any responsible plan for Yosemite should: Substantially increase enforcement and fines of critical park rules, particularly with regard to wildlife, litter, defacement, noise, responsible behavior, and parking." (Individual, Mammoth Lakes, CA - #145)

"Fine and cite (arrest) any degenerates in trucks and SUV’s who try to run down coyotes!!! I’ve witnessed cars and trucks deliberately veering toward coyotes that were on the shoulder of the Valley Road." (Individual, Pacific Grove, CA - #66)

increase law enforcement staff

"More Rangers are needed - to patrol the park - to reduce vandalism and abuse of facilities - to protect the wildlife and the visitors." (Individual, Pasedena, CA - #109)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Nonetheless, the National Park Service does address operational needs of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Yosemite National Park requests increases to its operating budget annually to address high-priority needs.

1158. Public Concern: The National Park Service should streamline Yosemite National Park rules.

"My concern is that there’s so many rules and constraints that those of us who are fortunate to get in will disobey the rules and basically say, ‘To hell with it.’ And so you may have more damage and noncompliance and disruptive visitor." (Individual, Santa Cruz, CA - #3043)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Park rules and regulations are put in place to protect park resources and visitors.

3.15.3 ~ Park Maintenance

1159. Public Concern: The National Park Service should improve the maintenance of the El Portal Administrative Site.

"The NPS displays a callus lack of regard for the aesthetics in the El Portal Administrative Site. The Maintenance Division in particular is guilty of treating the river bottom, river banks, and open spaces around the town and in Rancheria Flats as a gigantic garbage dump. . . The Maintenance Complex itself looks shoddy from Highway 140. the attitude conveyed is one of chronic disregard for our responsibility as the nation’s premier land management agency, and it is little wonder that the public disrespect for the NPS grows. The Park Service needs to take greater pride in El Portal, to restore the aesthetic value of the river canyon in the Administrative Site, and to project a more professional attitude to the public." (Individual, Yosemite National Park, CA - #1632)

Response: In 1958, Congress passed legislation for the Secretary of the Interior to provide an administrative site for Yosemite National Park in the El Portal area (16 USC 47-1). This land is under National Park Service jurisdiction, but is not included as part of Yosemite National Park. The purpose of this act is to: . . . "Set forth an administrative site in the El Portal area adjacent to Yosemite National Park, in order that utilities, facilities, and services required in the operation and administration of Yosemite National Park may be located on such site outside the park."

The management framework under the Preferred Alternative is designed to allow varying degrees of continued administrative use in El Portal while protecting and enhancing the values of the Merced Wild and Scenic River. An issue this specific would not fall under the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan, but may be proposed under one of the park’s implementation plans.

1160. Public Concern: The National Park Service should eliminate the use of the Middle Road in El Portal as a dump site.

haul waste to the county landfill

"It has only been within the last decade that this area has gone from a natural area to a dump. With the construction of maintenance facilities at Railroad Flat the old bone yard disappeared. With no environmental compliance, the middle road became the new Park Service dump for El Portal. The Park needs to include in its budget hauling fees to the county landfill for such materials." (Individual, El Portal, CA - #945)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS includes the Middle Road area within the El Portal Village Center. Potential activities called for at the Village Center include: a community center, post office, enlarged grocery store/deli, laundry, recreational facilities, office spaces, gas station, and visitor parking. Presently the equipment and materials stored at the Middle Road site are for future projects or repairs. The Middle Road site also contains a wood storage yard and a small area where residents store brush. As planning efforts are implemented, storage areas and other administrative functions could be consolidated or removed. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS calls for completion of a site plan for El Portal that would provide site-specific details of where facilities would be located. The public and community would be encouraged to participate in the site planning.

1161. Public Concern: The National Park Service should mitigate the impact of Park Service facilities at Railroad Flat.

"This area of Park Operations and Administration being on the river should have strict guidelines to keep it functioning consistently with the Wild and Scenic River Act. This facility must lay partly in the boundary. It is absurd that the maintenance and warehouse were removed from an area in Yosemite Valley that was well away from the river boundaries and then brought to El Portal and placed right on the river shore. What’s done is done. We now have the opportunity to reverse some of the damage that has been done. A place to start would be to greatly reduce the lighting which shines on the river all night. This is far from wild and scenic." (Individual, El Portal, CA - #268)

Response: The Merced River Plan/FEIS does propose management zoning that would allow for land-use designations in El Portal to support the placement of park operations and administration facilities (Zone 3C). The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS is consistent with the Merced River Plan/FEIS zoning prescriptions. Moreover, the proposed classification of the Merced River segment that runs through El Portal is "recreational", a classification that acknowledges that adjacent lands may have some development. The recreational classification is characterized in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as: "Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past." Finally, all decisions regarding land use and development within the river boundary in El Portal must protect and enhance the related Outstandingly Remarkable Values that have been established for the segment. The recreational classification, Outstandingly Remarkable Values, and related zoning would all serve to guide future and current land-use decisions and actions within the Merced River corridor.

3.15.4 ~ Housing

Note: One response is provided for Public Concerns #1162 and 1163, placed following concern #1163.

1162. Public Concern: The National Park Service should provide adequate housing for Yosemite National Park employees.

"One thing the Park Service needs to address in Employee Housing. Seasonal housing was taken out of Boys Town, part of Camp Curry on the Terrace, Yosemite Lodge Dorms, Ozone, cabins. The Flood of December 1990 damaged so much of this employee housing. Housing is needed for employees working for the concession in Yosemite Valley, better housing and not just tents! Where can they be built away from the river? Would the area where government maintenance is being removed be acceptable? This problem needs to be addressed now even as the River Plan is being made." (Individual, Mariposa, CA - #948)

compel concessioner to provide better housing

"I started looking around the Park here and what I found are some conditions that are intolerable. . . A hundred and seventy-six million dollars were allocated for flood damage control. Eight million of that, I understand, is allocated to build more lodging for Delaware North. . . But the employees working for the concessioner are living in third-world conditions. The bathrooms are falling apart. You can smell the sewage coming up through there. You should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing this concessioner to treat their employees like they have." (Public Hearing, Fish Camp, CA - #3239)

1163. Public Concern: The National Park Service should maintain employee housing in Yosemite Valley.

"Employee housing — Keep in the Valley. To have them commute every morning and evening would be too much like Los Angeles." (Individual, Pasadena, CA - #109)

"‘To protect the rights, safety and security of all visitors and employees’ (Draft VIP, pg. 3). Doesn’t this mean that YNP & Concessionaire employees are not second class citizens, to be moved about at will, with apparent little or no concern for their rights, safety and security? As stated above, employees have the same rights and privileges as any other Yosemite visitor, specifically to enjoy the beauty, grandeur and solitude of the Valley 24 hours a day, not just when they are at work. Most, if not all, who come to Yosemite seeking employment do so with but one thought in mind: to live and work in the Valley, and get away from the city. . . Just one of the many consequences of this proposed housing move may well be that qualified future employees may no longer be interested in a work situation which involves splitting their place of employment and housing. . . The personal safety of an employee must always be of prime importance to management. Willfully forcing employees to drive round trips daily many miles from El Portal to the Valley is putting these employees in harms way." (Individual, American Canyon, CA - #3126)

"You are asking for problems if you move all of the staff out of present areas. All of these employees need to be available in case of unforeseen problems, i.e. natural disasters, civil unrest, etc. Possible future increased seismic activity could mean more landslides, i.e. outlying areas of increased seismic activity." (Individual, Saint Johns, AZ - #3203)

"Employee housing is one of the biggest issues facing our members. The housing situation has only become worse in recent years due to the 97 flood and the rock slide at Curry. Hundreds of YCS housing units were wiped out and only some were replace with inadequate ‘temporary’ housing. We think it makes sense to have employees housed near their work and support zoning that would allow new employee housing to be built in the Valley. We don’t agree with relocating housing to El Portal and are concerned about the limited services that exist in El Portal and the impact new housing would bring." (Non-Governmental Organization, Fresno, CA - #1596)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(This response also applies to the previous concern, #1162.)

1164. Public Concern: The National Park Service should remove employee housing from Yosemite Valley.

"I believe that pursuant to the Valley Implementation Plan as well as the Wild and Scenic River Plan, as much employee housing as possible should be removed from the Valley." (Individual, San Jose, CA - #164)

relocate outside Yosemite National Park

"Move all non-essential employees including administration from the Valley out to gateway communities so that El Portal will not need any more development. Plan for the next thousand years and spend the additional money to provide housing and work spaces in the gateway." (Individual, El Portal, CA - #1691)

relocate to yosemite west

"My group has approximately 750 undeveloped acres at Yosemite West, just one mile west of Chiquopin, which we feel would be ideally suitable for the relocation of employee housing and day use parking. We are in the preliminary stages of subdividing approximately 700 acres of our land into 40 acre parcels for residential use. One or two of those parcels could be used by the Park for those relocation needs." (Individual, San Jose, CA - #164)

Response: This alternative was considered but dismissed (see Vol. Ia, Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered but Dismissed).

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

1165. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not relocate Yosemite Valley employee housing to El Portal.

"I believe that pursuant to the goal of the Valley Implementation Plan … as much or the employee housing as possible should be removed from the Valley. . . The use of the El Portal area would not appear to be the logical site for relocation of [employee housing] as it would significantly impact on the Wild and Scenic Merced River." (Individual, San Jose, CA - #164)

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

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

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

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

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

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

1166. Public Concern: The National Park Service should reconsider the removal of the Cascades housing units.

"We do not believe that the Cascades housing units should automatically be removed unless the total balance of relocation, disturbance at another site, and benefits to the existing site are shown to be superior to leaving them on their current site. We support a decision / alternative that allows for the removal of the housing units, but does not force such an action until site-specific analysis validates the benefits." (Conservation Organization, Twain Harte, CA - #947)

Response: The goals and objectives of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS call for the reduction of congestion in Yosemite Valley. Removal of the Cascades housing units allows for further reduction of congestion in the Cascades portion of Yosemite Valley by further reducing the number of facilities.

1167. Public Concern: The National Park Service should maintain The Ahwahnee employee housing units.

"[The Ahwahnee Hotel] housing is perhaps the most ‘unnoticed’ employee housing in the entire Valley, by any standard. Although no doubt it needs to be updated, along with many other Valley facilities, placing the employees at a remote sight, with all the related recurring costs, added traffic congestion, inconveniences, etc. is simply not a reasonable plan. The Ahwahnee Hotel’s employee housing should be rebuilt in place." (Individual, American Canyon, - #3126)

Response: In the Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS the employee dormitory at the Ahwahnee would be retained and remodeled to improve the living conditions. The tent cabins do not meet standards of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and would be replaced in a different location.

1168. Public Concern: The National Park Service should reconsider the zoning of the Ahwahnee Row employee housing.

"In the map for the Preferred Alternative in the Draft Valley Implementation Plan, the Ahwahnee Row housing was proposed for removal and restoration, while the Tecoya dormitories were to be retained. Would the zoning of this area as Park Operations and Administration in the MRP preclude consideration of its removal in the upcoming Valley Plan? Why isn’t this area given a mixed zoning designation of Park Operations and Administration-Day Use, like Camp Six, so that the removal of this housing, if mandated in the Valley Plan, would then be consistent with the MRP?" (Recreational Organization, San Francisco, CA - #1599)

Response: The zoning provided in the Merced River Plan/FEIS provides guidance for the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. While it is beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan to reconsider the zoning provided in the Merced River Plan/FEIS, a park operations and administration zoning designation in the Merced River Plan/FEIS does not preclude the restoration of the site or less intensive use of the site.

1169. Public Concern: The National Park Service should design Yosemite National Park employee housing to mitigate potential flood damage.

"With regard to the Yosemite Lodge Employee Housing Area, one idea might be to rebuild the Annex Dorms as rooms on the second floor, and car port parking for the ground floor. In the event of another significant flood, the cars could be easily moved, and the housing upstairs would be virtually unaffected. This would also result in a reduced parking footprint in the Valley, and utilization of an existing developed area - albeit within the 100 year floodplain - and it would make it unnecessary to have to find another location for employee housing at the Lodge." (Individual, Elk Grove, CA - #3151)

Response: In the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS the objective is to minimize the placement of structures in the floodplain. In the Yosemite Valley, no housing would be within the floodplain; in El Portal some housing would be in the floodplain and would have flood hazards mitigated. See the floodplains Statement of Findings in Appendix N for a full explanation of flood hazard mitigation. (Also see response to concern #1098.)

3.15.5 ~ National Park Service and Yosemite Concessions Headquarters

1170. Public Concern: The National Park Service should maintain Park Service headquarters in Yosemite Valley.

"Alternative 1. [VIP] labeled as a ‘no change’ alternative (a misnomer), calls for the eventual relocation of both headquarters out of the Valley to El Portal. From a corporate management standpoint, this move is unacceptable. In the operation of any business location, lower and middle management personnel can usually take care of routine problems on the spot as they occur daily. However, top level corporate management is required to make decisions involving critical actions, such as the 1997 flood, the Happy Isles rock slide, visitor rescues, loss of life, etc. Usually these extreme actions require on the spot decisions, with timing being a critical factor. This immediate critical response cannot be made effectively when corporate management is physically located at a remote location. Responsible corporate management demands a more appropriate physical presence as near to ‘where the action is’ as possible. A single human life which may be hanging in the balance is certainly worth more than a very small restored spot of natural terrain. This is a bad trade-off. Where is the common sense? These corporate headquarters must remain in the Valley." (Individual, American Canyon, CA - #3126)

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

3.15.6 ~ Concessions Management

1171. Public Concern: The National Park Service should eliminate concessions in Yosemite National Park.

"It is a shame to see private concessionaires operating for profit businesses in Yosemite while the Park Service faces continued funding struggles. Better yet, let the NPS run the food and lodging concessions, and all profits can stay in the park to fund sorely needed restoration projects." (Individual, No Address, CA - #6166)

"Buy out all the concessionaires, pay them their blood money and get them out of the Park now." (Individual, Santa Cruz, CA - #3087)

"The duty is not to fulfill the contract of the concessioner. We can get out of that contract. There’s more than enough money in Yosemite National Park to do that." (Individual, Cuppertino, CA - #3123)

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

1172. Public Concern: The National Park Service should limit concession operations in Yosemite National Park.

"Reducing concessions in Yosemite will also reduce crowds as well as the need for new employee housing. Joshua Tree National Park, for example, has no concessions, and does not have an overcrowding problem. Granted, there is no existing plan that calls for this, but halting further development is the first step in the right direction." (Individual, La Habra Heights, CA - #3040)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Concession operations levels are established to meet visitor accommodation needs and are approved by the National Park Service. (Also see response to concern #1171.)

3.15.7 ~ Other Park Buildings and Facilities

El Portal

1173. Public Concern: The National Park Service should reconsider the El Portal administrative site exchange.

"… it is imperative to retain this parcel in federal ownership. In the environmental consequences of the MRP the land exchange is stated as having potential adverse effects to wildlife; wetlands; cultural resources; rare, threatened, or endangered species; geology; geo-hazards; soils; ethnographic resources; historic resources; and hydrological processes. Missing was the potential adverse effects to scenic resources. Since the time the El Portal Administrative site was set aside by congress the Sierra Nevada has experienced a great loss of wetland and riparian areas. The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project listed riparian ecosystems at this elevation as some of the most threatened. The land exchange is inconsistent with the goals stated for the Merced River Plan." (Individual, El Portal, CA - #268)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Even though the National Park Service has completed a preliminary review and legislation has authorized a potential exchange of the National Park Service Administrative Site Lands, no final decision has been made to pursue a land exchange. If this proposal were to move forward, regulatory compliance (NEPA, WSRA, etc.) would need to be completed, including public involvement. Since this project has been proposed, it is addressed as a potential cumulative impact.
(Also see Vol. Ib, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences and Vol. II, Appendix H.)

1174. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not locate park operations and administration facilities in the Hillside East and West area of the El Portal Administrative Site.

"… new development should be minimal because slopes with drainages makes for radiating impacts which all flow down to the river. Also, any development should be done with taste and consistent to scenic values. Road construction for developments seem complicated and impacting and maybe unrealistic for emergency situations. This area offers a site for development without being on the river shore, but we would prefer this not to be zoned Park Administration and operations because we feel no new development is necessary in El Portal. We feel the Park has alternatives for development that have not been fully explored and should be. This narrow river canyon cannot hold the infrastructure necessary to increase the population of the town of El Portal. This area should be zoned 2C." (Individual, El Portal, CA - #268)

Response: The Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS calls for the placement of employee housing at the Hillside East and West sites. Even though this employee housing land assignment is broadly considered to be administrative, it does not include the offices and facilities that carry out daily operational and administrative functions. The land-use designation for employee housing is consistent with adjacent land uses and with provisions of the 1958 El Portal administrative Site Act.

Final determination of the location of these facilities will be made during the El Portal design process that would follow completion of this plan. Public participation in this process would be encouraged and that would be the place for this discussion.

1175. Public Concern: The National Park Service should relocate National Park Service administrative services to Mariposa.

"We would like to suggest that the NPS looks at Mariposa rather than El Portal as a possible site to relocate administrative services. Services and infrastructure already exist in Mariposa and a relocation to Mariposa would have less impacts on the Merced River and the community of El Portal." (Non-governmental Organization, Fresno, CA - #1596)

Response: The goals of the 1980 General Management Plan include removing nonessential facilities from Yosemite Valley. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes to "remove unnecessary facilities from and locate new facilities outside of highly valued resource areas unless there are no feasible alternatives." Additionally, it calls for removal of National Park Service headquarters and other functions not essential for Yosemite Valley operations from the Valley. National Park Service and concessioner administrative buildings, which serve personnel functions, were evaluated and found to be unessential to Valley operations. The impacts and benefits of relocating these functions were considered. (See Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS Vol. Ia, Chapter 1, Purpose of and Need for the Action.) Relocation of rank administrative services to Mariposa remains a future option, but the Yosemite Valley planning process must consider reasonable and feasible options that are within the jurisdiction of the National Park Service.

1176. Public Concern: The National Park Service should relocate Yosemite National Park administrative services to El Portal.

"We support the expansion of housing / facilities at El Portal as a preferable site for such administrative and operations facilities." (Conservation Organization, Twain Hart, CA - #947)

Response: The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes to relocate National Park Service and concessioner headquarters to El Portal. Specifics regarding this relocation can be found in Vol. Ia, Chapter 2, Alternatives.

1177. Public Concern: The National Park Service should remove the sewage treatment plant from Rancheria Flat.

"Remove the old sewage treatment plant from Rancheria Flat. It sits on the oldest known place of human habitation in the Yosemite region. Not only does it embarrass the Government, but it shows poor respect for the present Native people in the area." (Individual, Willcox, AZ - #853)

Response: With the exception of the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), all alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS call for removal of the abandoned sewage treatment plant at Rancheria Flat. The area would then be restored to a more natural condition to better preserve and protect the sensitive resources in that location.

Wawona

1178. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not relocate Yosemite National Park headquarters or maintenance facilities to Wawona.

"The Park Superintendent recently wrote the Mariposa Board of Supervisors that his mandate from Congress was to keep Wawona a small rural community. Any relocation of Park headquarters or maintenance to Wawona would not be consistent with this mandate. The same goes for re-locating campgrounds to Wawona." (Individual, Ridgecrest, CA - #1707)

Response: The Yosemite Valley Plan does not propose or consider relocating the park headquarters to Wawona.

In 1958, legislation was passed to establish the El Portal Administrative Site. Congress established the site in order to provide for the relocation of necessary facilities, utilities, and administrative services from Yosemite Valley to a location outside the boundary of the National Park. The Yosemite Valley Plan follows the intent of the 1958 legislation by proposing that headquarters be relocated to El Portal. Additionally, the Yosemite Valley Plan follows the lead of the 1980 General Management Plan that also calls for the relocation of the National Park Service and concessioner headquarters to El Portal.