Yosemite Valley Plan SEIS, Volume III, Chapter 6

Chapter 6 ~ Response Demographics

Introduction

Demographic coding allows managers to form an overall picture of who is submitting comments, where they live, their general affiliation with various organizations or government agencies, and the manner in which they respond. The database created during content analysis could also be used to produce reports focused on specific areas of concern linked to respondent categories, geographic areas, and response types. This was not done as part of the review of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

A total of 10,240 separate responses–in the form of letters, faxes, petitions, comment forms, and emails–were received on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS during the public comment period. Responses represent a total of 17,498 signatures (because some people sent in more than one comment letter, this does not equate to the number of people commenting). Although these numbers give a general picture of the commenting public, they should be interpreted with caution–those who responded do not constitute a valid random or representative sample of the general public. This information can provide insight into the perspectives and values of respondents; however, it does not necessarily reveal the desires of the larger society.

The consideration of public comment is not a vote-counting process. Every comment and suggestion has value, whether expressed by one or a thousand respondents. All input was considered, and the analysis team attempted to capture all relevant public concerns in the analysis process. For more information on the process used to tabulate the following demographic information, readers are directed to Volume III, Chapter 8, The Content Analysis Process, which includes a description of each stage of the process used to analyze and account for public comment on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

Geographic Representation of Response

Geographic information was tabulated for each letter, email, fax, petition or comment form during the course of content analysis. Letters and emails on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS were received from 48 states, the District of Columbia, the territory of Puerto Rico, and 13 foreign countries. A total of 7,789 responses, or 76 %, were received from California. The place of origin was unidentifiable for 1,455 responses (14 %), which were received in a format that did not reveal geographic origin. There were 968 responses from other states (9.6 %) and 38 from foreign countries (0.4 %). Each tally of responses reflects the number of respondents from a given location. However, if more than one person, each from different locations, submitted a one piece of correspondence, that piece of correspondence was included in the total for each location. For example, if two people submitted one letter, one person from California and one person from Alaska, the letter would be included in both the California and the Alaska total number of responses. Hence, the total number of responses submitted in the draft plan given in Table III.1.1 (10,240) is slightly lower than that included in Table III.6.1 (10,265).

Table III.6.1 - Geographic Representation of Response by Country and/or State
Summary of Public Comment, Yosemite Valley Plan

Country	State	Number of Responses
United States	Alaska	2
	Alabama	7
	Arkansas	7
	Arizona	49
	California	7,789
	Colorado	35
	Connecticut	13
	District Of Columbia	8
	Delaware	2
	Florida	49
	Georgia	24
	Hawaii	9
	Idaho	11
	Illinois	43
	Indiana	7
	Iowa	8
	Kansas	7
	Kentucky	4
	Louisiana	7
	Maine	10
	Maryland	22
	Massachusetts	28
	Michigan	26
	Minnesota	20
	Missouri	16
	Mississippi	4
	Montana	6
	Nebraska	4
	New Jersey	33
	New Hampshire	16
	New Mexico	14
	New York	67
	Nevada	46
	North Carolina	26
	North Dakota	0
	Ohio	38
	Oklahoma	5
	Oregon	44
	Pennsylvania	65
	Puerto Rico	1
	Rhode Island	7
	South Carolina	3
	South Dakota	0
	Tennessee	8
	Texas	52
	Utah	9
	Virginia	29
	Vermont	4
	Washington	59
	Wisconsin	26
	West Virginia	1
	Wyoming	2
Australia		4
Austria		1
Canada		6
Denmark		1
Finland		1
France		2
Germany		1
Japan		2
Netherlands		1
Philippines		1
Singapore		2
Sweden		1
United Kingdom		15
Unknown Geographic Location		1,455
Total		10,265

Regional Representation of Response

Within California, regional distribution of the comment responses was determined using the address zip code for each piece of correspondence received during the comment period. Of California responses, 5,237 (68 %) were received from just three regions of the State: the San Francisco Bay area (28 %), the Sacramento Valley (21 %), and the Greater Los Angeles area (19 %). There were 889 comments (11.4 %) from the San Joaquin Valley (northern and southern). Response from Yosemite National Park and the immediately surrounding regions generated 667 comments, 8.6 % of the California total.

Table III.6.2 — Geographic Representation of California Respondents by Region
Summary of Public Comment, Yosemite Valley Plan

State	Region	Zip Codes	Number of Responses
California	Northern California	95500-95599, 96000-96299	95
	Sacramento Valley	94200-94299, 95600-95999	1,644
	Northern San Joaquin	95200-95399 (excluding Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties, Yosemite, and El Portal)	385
	Southern San Joaquin	93200-93399, 93600-93899 (excluding Eastern Madera County)	504
	San Francisco Bay	94000-94199, 94300-95199, 95400-95499	2,188
	South Coast	93400-93499, 93900-93999	203
	Greater LA	90000-91899, 92600-92899, 93000-93199	1,472
	San Diego	91900-92199	323
	Desert South	92200-92599, 93500-93599 (excluding Mono County and �Eastern Sierra�)	172
	Eastern Sierra	93512, 93513, 93514, 93515, 93526, 93527, 93539, 93545, 93549, 93555, 93556	18
	Mariposa County	95306, 95311, 95325, 95338, 95345	81
	Eastern Madera County	93601, 93604, 93614, 93623, 93642, 93643, 93644, 93645	342
	Tuolumne County	95309, 95310, 95314, 95321, 95327, 95335, 95346, 95347, 95364, 95370, 95375, 95379, 95383	52
	Mono County	93517, 93529, 93541, 93546	13
	Yosemite	95389	142
	El Portal	95318	19
	California - no zip code		136
Total			7,789

Organizational Representation

Responses were received from unaffiliated individuals, government representatives, and various organizations, including environmental, recreational, and church groups. Unaffiliated individuals accounted for 97 % (9,928 comments) of the total responses. Organization types were tracked for each letter, email, fax, or comment form encountered in the course of the content analysis.

Table III.6.3 - Number of Responses by Organizational Affiliation
Summary of Public Comment, Yosemite Valley Plan

Organization Field	Organization Type	Number of Responses
A	University or Professional Society	4
B	Business (speaking for or as the owner of a business)	46
C	County Government Agencies or Officials	14
E	National Park Service Employees	10
G	Federal Government Agencies or Officials	6
H	Recreational Groups (hikers, horse riders, bikers, etc.)	37
I	Individuals (no specific or identified affiliation)	9,928
K	All non-NPS Employees in Yosemite National Park (concessioner, etc.)	76
L	Other Non-Governmental Organizations (other than conservation)	41
N	International Agencies or Officials	0
O	Civic Groups (Kiwanis, Elks, Community Councils, etc.)	13
P	Conservation/Preservation Organizations	46
Q	Tribal Agencies or Officials	0
R	Religious Groups and Organizations (churches, etc.)	6
S	State Agencies or Officials	10
T	Town and City Agencies or Officials	3
Null	Unknown	0
Total		10,240

User Type

Responses were also categorized by user type based on how respondents identified themselves (e.g., "I am a rock climber"). The user type category includes fields for area residents, employees of particular businesses, and recreational users. Most comments (7,927 or 77 %) came from individuals who did not identify themselves as a particular type of user. Of the 23 % (2,313 comments) that came from respondents who self-identified, the largest groupings were as follows: long-time users (9 %); area residents residing in or adjacent to the Park (5 %); educational groups and students (3 %); and stock users (2 %). The following user types were tracked for each letter, fax, email, or comment form processed in the course of the content analysis.

Table III.6.4 - Number of Responses by User Type (Self-Identified Only)
Summary of Public Comment, Yosemite Valley Plan

User Field	User Type	Number of Responses
A0	Area Residents Nonspecific (residents of Yosemite National Park, Yosemite West, or El Portal)	106
A1	Area Resident, employed by NPS	15
A2	Area Resident, employed by Yosemite Concession Services	95
A3	Area Resident, employed by Yosemite Institute	0
A4	Area Resident, employed by Yosemite Association	1
A5	Area Resident, employed by Pacific Bell	0
A6	Area Resident, employed by Medical Clinic	0
A7	Area Resident, Mariposa County	163
A8	Area Resident, Madera County	65
A9	Area Resident, Tuolumne County	20
A10	Area Resident, Mono County	2
A11	Area Resident, Merced County	3
B	Bikers	48
C	Campers	142
D	Educational Groups/Students	329
E	Businesses (economic/ entrepreneur)	36
F	Anglers	0
G	Winter Users (skiing, skating, etc.)	2
H	Hikers/other Foot Users	49
I	Photographers	8
K	Boaters (includes rafters & kayakers)	3
L	Lodge Users (e.g., Ahwahnee)	72
R	Rock Climbers	26
S	Stock Users (horses, goats, etc.)	224
T	Long-time Users/Multi-generational Users	895
V	Artists	8
W	Other Water Users (e.g. swimmers, snorkelers)	1
X	No Identified Type/Not Applicable	7,927
Null	Unknown	0
Total		10,240

Response Format

The final demographic summary presented here is a tabulation of response type. Table III.6.5 displays the number of public responses received in a specific format. A total of 56 % of responses came in the form of letters. Email was also widely used (30 %).

Table III.6.5 - Number of Responses and Signatures by Response Format
Summary of Public Comment, Yosemite Valley Plan

Response Format Number	Response Format	Number of Responses	Number of Signatures
1	Letter (mail or fax)	5,739	11,581
2	Email	3,045	4,348
3	Petition	3	93
4	Comment Form from Public Meetings	1,090	1,113
5	Public Meeting Transcripts	359	359
8	Telephone Transcripts	4	4
Total		10,240	17,498