Chapter VI: Consultation and Coordination

Consultation

Scoping History

The National Park Service published a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement on the Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS in the Federal Register on July 27, 2004. A series of public scoping meetings were held in mid-August in Oakland, Mariposa, Yosemite Valley, and El Portal, California. In response to public comment, the public scoping period was extended by two weeks and closed on September 10, 2004. All scoping comment letters, as well as a scoping report, are available for viewing on the park's web site (www.nps.gov/yose/planning/mrp/revision).

Public Review of Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS

The Draft Merced Wild and Scenic River Revised Comprehensive Management Plan and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement was released for public review in January 2005. The Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register on January 14, 2005 and the official review period continued through March 22, 2005. The National Park Service contacted local, regional, and national media outlets, issued press releases that were faxed and emailed to media outlets, and phone calls were made to newspaper and news reporters to generate interest in the plan. In addition, paid newspaper advertisements were placed in the Mariposa Gazette, the Sierra Star (Oakhurst, CA), the Union Democrat (Sonora, CA), the Merced Sun-Star, and the Mammoth Times. Paid public notices were placed in the San Francisco Chronicle, the L.A. Times, the Sacramento Bee, and the Fresno Bee. Numerous stories about the plan and the schedule of public meetings appeared in local and regional newspapers. In addition, the National Park Service posted several project fact sheets on the park's web site, posted fliers on community bulletin boards, post offices, and local businesses in communities where public meetings were hosted, and posted press release announcements in the park's Daily Report throughout the entire comment period on the plan. In addition, the planning update newsletter was mailed to over 8,000 subscribers, and notices regarding the plan were emailed via Yosemite's Electronic Newsletter to over 4,500 subscribers.

A series of public meetings were held throughout California in February and March 2005 to discuss the draft document. In addition to public testimony received at the public meetings, 147 comment letters were received during the public review period. The public comments received and transcripts from the public hearings are available for viewing on the park web site listed above. Public comments and responses for this project are included in Appendix F, Summary of Public Comments and Responses.

During the public comment period on the Draft SEIS, the National Park Service hosted eleven public meetings between February 22, 2005 and March 7, 2005 across California in Yosemite Valley, El Portal, San Francisco, Burbank, Oakhurst, Mammoth Lakes, Sacramento, Fresno, Merced, Mariposa, and Groveland. An additional National Park Service Open House was hosted in Yosemite Valley prior to the end of the public comment period.

Each public meeting was set up to allow for informal conversations between park staff (including consultants) and the public to discuss elements of the revised plan. The second portion of these public meetings was dedicated to a presentation by park staff on the plan, followed by formal public hearing recorded by a court reporter. Participants could address their comments on the plan either to members of Yosemite National Park's Management Team and the audience, or in a private session with the court reporter. Following the public hearing, open dialogue continued between the public and park staff in group or individual settings.

During the official comment period, the public was encouraged to submit written comments on the Draft Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS via letter, email, or fax. Written comments were also accepted at all public meetings.

The National Park Service specifically initiated dialogue with several interested local parties. These included National Park Service employees and their families, Delaware North Companies Parks and Resorts at Yosemite (primary concessioner) employees and residents, and park partner staff such as the Yosemite Institute, the Yosemite Association, and The Yosemite Fund. In addition, the National Park Service did extensive outreach within the local communities of El Portal and Wawona through participation at local Mariposa County Planning Town Advisory Committee meetings. The National Park Service also conducted a "walking tour" in El Portal to discuss the process for identifying Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the El Portal segment of the Merced River and the rationale for the various El Portal boundary alternatives. The National Park Service engaged Gateway communities throughout the process through personal communications and meetings between the park staff and gateway community members.

Results of Draft Review Comments

As a result of the public comment period, the park received comments from 114 individuals, 25 organizations, 6 government agencies, 2 tribes and 1 university, including public testimony given by individuals at public meetings. A total of over 900 separate comments were received. The analysis of these comments generated about 400 general concern statements, which were categorized and considered for incorporation in the planning process. Some of the main concerns raised during the public comment period and addressed in this Final Merced River Plan/SEIS include the following:

·       The relationship between the General Management Plan and the Merced River Plan in the context of proposed user capacity limits.

·       The process for ensuring that the Yosemite Valley Plan and projects associated with it are reviewed for compliance with this Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS.

·       The relationship between existing elements of Yosemite National Park's User Capacity Management Program, proposed visitor limits, and the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection component.

·       Criteria used for the selection of Visitor Experience and Resource Protection indicators and standards and suggestions for additional indicators and standards.

·       Clarification of what types of management actions would be implemented associated with the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection and what management actions would require further National Environmental Policy Act review and public involvement.

·       Clarification on how visitor use limits would be implemented.

·       Clarification regarding the interim facility limits and how the park would make a determination on maintaining or removing these limits.

·       Concerns from culturally associated American Indian groups relating to continued access within the river corridor for traditional practices, as well as protection and enhancement of important natural and cultural resources within the entire corridor.

·       Concerns from residents in local communities and American Indian groups regarding management zoning prescriptions that allow for placement of administrative facilities within El Portal and Wawona.

·       Specific and general desires relating to management of Yosemite National Park's natural, cultural, physical, and social resources.

·       Concerns regarding the complexity of the document and the user capacity program in particular.

The issues and concerns not addressed in this document include the desire to have the Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS address all elements of the existing Merced River Plan, the desire to have the document address specific projects, such as the types of campgrounds or road realignments, the desire for the National Park Service to commit to a day use reservation system or other specific management actions in this document, and support or opposition of numerous specific activities or park implementation projects. All comments received during the comment period have been duly considered and are now part of the administrative record for this project.

Comment Analysis and Response Process

Public comments received during the public comment period were reviewed and analyzed using the park's Comment Analysis and Response Database system. Analysis of public comment letters is comprised of a series of stages which require review by staff and members of the Management Team during review and processing. For example, each letter received is read to determine the discrete points the author is expressing. Each discrete sentence or paragraph is then "coded" in order to associate that "comment" with a particular resource topic or element of the plan (such as air quality or the plan's relationship to other projects).

Once all letters have been coded for individual comments, similar comments are grouped together and a "concern statement" is generated, which is intended to capture the main points of what the comments are addressing. Concern statements are worded in a way that affords the National Park Service the opportunity to respond to a requested action. Concern statements are then screened to determine whether or not further clarification needs to be made in the document or whether they call for a modification of the proposed action. In the case of the later, these types of concerns would be brought to park management for deliberation. Finally, the planning team prepares responses presenting the National Park Service's reasoning as to how and why public concerns will be incorporated into the planning process.

As a direct result of public input, all comments are made available for review on the park's web site. The posting of public comments is a result of requests made during the scoping process for this planning effort, and will continue for future planning efforts. The Summary of Public Comments and Responses generated through the comment analysis and response process is included as Appendix F.

Coordination

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 USC 1531 et seq.) requires all federal land agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by the agency does not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or critical habitat. The National Park Service initiated consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in August 2004. The species list for special-status species to be evaluated for this project was obtained from: http://sacramento.fws.gov/es/ssp_lists/auto_list_form.cfm on October 6, 2004 and was used as the basis for special-status analysis in this environmental assessment (see Appendix D, Special-Status Species Considered in this Analysis). Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will continue, as defined by Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as environmental compliance for the Final Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS is finalized.

California State Historic Preservation Officer

A Programmatic Agreement among the National Park Service at Yosemite, the California State Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding Planning, Design, Construction, Operation, and Maintenance (NPS 1999w) was developed in consultation with American Indian groups having cultural association with Yosemite National Park, and was executed in October 1999. Pursuant to Article VI of this Programmatic Agreement, the review process for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, is being conducted in conjunction with this National Environmental Policy Act review process. The National Park Service initiated consultation with the California State Historic Preservation Officer on September 29, 2004, regarding the development of the Draft Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS. On January 21, 2005 a letter was sent to the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the National Trust for Historic Preservation requesting for review and comments on the Draft Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS to be provided to the park by March 22, 2005. No comments were received from the three agencies.

U.S. Forest Service

National Park Service-administered lands are bounded by U.S. Forest Service lands to the north, south, and west of the El Portal Administrative Site, and the U.S. Forest Service administers the Merced Wild and Scenic River corridor to the west of the El Portal Administrative Site. The National Park Service initiated consultation with the U.S. Forest Service (Sierra and Stanislaus National Forests) regarding the Draft Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS in September 2004. The National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service will coordinate their planning efforts on the Merced Wild and Scenic River, particularly in areas where the agencies jurisdictions meet. Although the U.S. Forest Service's Merced River corridor boundary currently ends at the western end of the El Portal Administrative Site, the U.S. Forest Service has indicated that additional areas under its jurisdiction between the El Portal Administrative Site's western boundary and its eastern boundary at the Yosemite National Park boundary are likely to be included in the U.S. Forest Service Merced River corridor boundary in the next revision to their Merced River management plan (NPS 2004h).

California Department of Transportation

The National Park Service initiated consultation with the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) in order to discuss rights-of-way within the Merced River corridor. Sections of Highway 140 in the El Portal Administrative Site are either owned, leased, or maintained by CalTrans. The National Park Service has been in direct contact with CalTrans' survey and right-of-way departments. Consultation is currently ongoing.

Bureau of Land Management

An interagency agreement between the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management guides the policies and procedures for commercial whitewater river rafting within the Merced Wild and Scenic River corridor. According to the agreement, the Bureau of Land Management's Folsom Resource Area District is responsible for the permitting and regulation of commercial river guide companies who use the Red Bud Launch Site (at the west end of the El Portal Administrative Site). A dialogue was initiated with the Bureau of Land Management regarding the Draft Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS (NPS 2004i and 2004j). It is expected that the Bureau of Land Management will continue to manage whitewater river rafting on the river west of the El Portal Administrative Site under the existing permitting regulations. Any management actions dealing with use of the Red Bud Launch Site would be coordinated with the Bureau of Land Management.

American Indian Consultation

National Park Service consultation with American Indian groups occurred throughout the development of the original Merced River Plan. Yosemite National Park continues to consult with American Indian groups having a cultural association with the Merced River corridor, as well as those in the immediate vicinity. Information sharing and project planning has included face-to-face consultation sessions at the All Tribal meeting on August 24, 2004. The All Tribal meeting included the following groups: the American Indian Council of Mariposa County, Inc (AICMC); the Tuolumne Me-wuk Tribal Council; the North Fork Mono Rancheria; the Chukchansi Tribal Government (Yokuts); the Mono Lake Kutzadika; the Bridgeport Paiute Indian Colony; and the Bishop Paiute Tribal Council. The Draft Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS was mailed by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested on January 21, 2005, to the same tribes. Telephone follow-up with an offer to provide a face-to-face presentation similar to the public outreach occurred on February 15, 2005. Face-to-face consultation with a presentation to the AICMC occurred on January 27, 2005, and with the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk on January 25, 2005. Consultation and partnering will continue with the American Indian groups throughout the completion of the Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS.

Gateway Communities

Park management has coordinated with local communities through a series of presentations to local governments and civic organizations. All organizations requesting such presentations were accommodated.

List of Agencies, Organizations, and Businesses that Received the Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS

The names of individuals who received the document are available upon request.

Federal Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Public Health Service

Department of the Interior:

Bureau of Land Management, Folsom, California Office

Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento Office

National Park Service:

Air Resources Division

Alaska Regional Office

Denver Service Center

Geologic Resources Division

Intermountain Regional Support Office

Pacific West Regional Office

Water Resources Division

National Parks:

Big Cypress National Park

Canyonlands National Park

Channel Islands National Park

Crater Lake National Park

Death Valley National Park

Everglades National Park

Flagstaff Area National Monuments

Golden Gates National Recreation Area

Joshua Tree National Park

Lake Mead National Recreation Area

Lassen Volcanic National Park

Mount Rainier National Park

Point Reyes National Seashore

Sequoia and Kings National Parks

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service:

Angeles National Forest

Boise Interagency Fire Center

Coconino National Forest

Humboldt National Forest

Lassen National Forest

Inyo National Forest

Missoula Fire Science Lab

Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station

Sierra National Forest

Stanislaus National Forest

Tahoe National Forest

Toiyabe National Forest

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

U.S. Department of Insurance Office, Environmental Policy and Compliance

U.S. Department of Justice

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco Regional Office

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Regional Office

U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California Office

U.S. Postal Service, Yosemite National Park

United States Representatives

Senator Barbara Boxer

Senator Diane Feinstein

Congressman George Radanovich

Congressman John T. Doolittle

Congressman James Hansen

Congressman John Kasich

Congressman Ralph Regula

Congressman George Miller

Congressman Mark Souder

State Agencies

American Indian Heritage Commission

California Department of Fire

California Department of Fish and Game

California Department of Justice, Attorney General

California Office of Historic Preservation

California Department of Parks and Recreation

California Office of Planning and Research, State Clearing House

California Department of Transportation

California Regional Water Quality Control Board

Department of Forestry

Resources Agency of California

American Indian Tribes

American Indian Council Mariposa County Inc ( a.k.a. Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation)

Bishop Paiute Indian Colony

Coarsegold Chuckchansi

Mono Lake Kutzadika Paiute Indian Community

Mono County Bridgeport Paiute Indian Colony

North Fork Mono Indian Museum

North Fork Mono Rancheria

Tuolumne Me-wuk Rancheria

County and Local Governments

Fresno County:

Board of Supervisors

Chamber of Commerce

Planning and Resource Management

Inyo County:

Planning Department

Madera County:

Board of Supervisors

Oakhurst Chamber of Commerce

Planning Director

Mariposa County:

Air Pollution Control District

Board of Supervisors

Chamber of Commerce

Department of Public Works

Environmental Health Department

Planning Department

Sheriff

Unified School District

Merced County:

Association of Governments

Planning Commission

Planning Department

Visitor Bureau

Mono County:

Board of Supervisors

Mammoth Lakes Chamber of Commerce

Mammoth Lakes Visitor Bureau

Mono Lake Visitor Center

Planning Department

San Francisco County:

Planning Department

Public Utilities, Hetch Hetchy Water and Power

Stanislaus County:

Council of Government

Environmental Review Committee

Planning Department

Tuolumne County:

Air Pollution Control District

Alliance for Resources and Environment

Board of Supervisors

Chamber of Commerce

Community Development

Department of Public Works

Planning Commission

Sheriff

Visitor Bureau- Groveland

Organizations and Businesses

Access Fund

American Disability Act Compliance Service

All Seasons Groveland Inn

American Alpine Club

American Hiking Society

American Whitewater

Automobile Club of Southern California

Backcountry Horsemen of California

Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll

Bell Sports

Bettencourt & Associates

Biophilia Society

Brecher & Volker

Brooks Institute of Photography

Calabasas Historical Society

California Bus Association

California Cycle Magazine

California Preservation Foundation

California State Horsemen's Association

California Trout

California Wilderness Coalition

Care-ousel Therapeutic Riding

Central Coast Studios

Central Sierra Audubon Society

Comfort Inn

Cycle California

Dames & Moore

David Evans & Associates, Inc.

Delaware North Companies Parks and Resorts

Denali Productions, Studio One

Destination America, Inc

Destination Villages

Dornbusch & Co.

Drewe & Associates

Earth First, Santa Cruz

Earth Island Institute

East Bay Bicycle Coalition

El Portal Homeowners Association

El Portal Market

El Portal Town Planning Advisory Committee

Environmental Defense Fund

Environment Now

Environmental Science Associates

Fish Camp Advisory Council

Fish Camp Property Owners Association

Friends of the Earth

Friends of the Forest

Friends of the River

Friends of Yosemite

Future Forestry Products

Geographic Expeditions

Gill Associates

Global Environmental

Gold River Discovery Center

Greystone

Griffith & Farrace

Groveland Yosemite Gateway Museum

Halff Associates, Inc.

Havans Foundation

Heritage Trails

High Sierra Hikers Association

Highway 120 Association

Historic Trails Council

Jakes Associates

Law Office of J Wallace Oman

Law Office of Mark A. Kanai

Law Offices of Michael Wainman

Mammoth Mountain Ski Area

Manitoba Conservation

Margen & Associates

Marin Mammal Center

Mariposa County Visitors Bureau

Mariposa Horse Association

Mariposans for Environmentally Responsible Growth

MorComm Press

Mountain Defense League

National Parks and Conservation Association

National Trust for Historic Preservation, California Office

Southwest and California Region Offices

Natural Resources Defense Council

National Tour Association

Newfields

Northcoast Environmental Center

Nuemiller & Beardslee

Oakhurst Lodge

Ormsby & Thickstun Design

Pacific Bell

Pacific Gas & Electric, Public Affairs

Parmelee Art Company

Pinnacle Economics

Planning and Conservation League

Polar Equipment Incorporation

Provost & Pritchard Engineering Group

Ramada Limited, Oakhurst

Reed Construction Data

Regional Council of Rural Counties

Renewable Technologies Inc.

Royal Robbins Inc.

Salomon Smith Barney

Save-the-Redwoods League

Service Employee International Union, Local 535

Sierra Club:

Condor Group

Loma Prieta Chapter

Miami Group

National Office

Tuolumne Group

Yosemite Committee

Sierra Railroad Company

Sonoma County Horse Council

Sonora Community Hospital

Soroptomist International of Groveland

Sparks Studios

Sunset Magazine

The Ansel Adams Gallery

The Nature Conservancy

The Yosemite Fund

Theroux Environmental

Thurmond Law Offices

Timeless Technologies

Tioga Lodge

Tuolumne River Preservation Trust

Upper Merced River Watershed

Valley View Trail Riders Association

VIA Adventures

Wawona Area Properties Owners Association

Westar Associates

Whalen & Associates Inc

Wild Canid Research Group

The Wilderness Society:

California/Nevada Region

National Office

Wilderness Watch

Wimmer Yamada & Caughey

Yosemite Area Audubon

Yosemite Association

Yosemite Bug Hostel

Yosemite Campers Coalition

Yosemite Concession Services

Yosemite Guides

Yosemite Institute

Yosemite Motels

Yosemite Medical Group

Yosemite Pines

Yosemite Restoration Trust

Yosemite Sierra Visitors Bureau

Yosemite Sightseeing Tours

Yosemite West Group

Libraries

Alameda County, Main Brach

Bassett Memorial

Bioscience and Natural Resources Library

California State Library

California State University Fresno, Henry Madden Library

Columbia College Library

Contra Costa County, Concord Branch

Government Documents Library

Government Information, Shields Library

Groveland

Los Angeles City, Central Branch

Marin County, Main Branch

Mariposa, including El Portal Branch

Oakhurst Library

Robert Crown Law Library

Sacramento County, Central Branch

San Bernardino County, Main Branch

San Diego City, Main Branch

San Diego County Law Library

San Francisco City, Main Branch

San Jose City, Berryessa Branch

San Mateo County, Law Library

Sonoma County Library

Sonoma State University, Salazar Library

Santa Cruz County Library

Stanford University, Green Library

Stanislaus County Library

University of California at Berkeley, Bancroft Library

University of California at Berkeley, Main Library

University of California at Davis, Shields Library

University of California at Los Angeles, Maps and Government Information Library

University of California at Los Angeles, University Research Library

University of Minnesota, Forestry Library

United States Department of Insurance Library

Yosemite National Park Research Library

Newspapers

Antelope Valley Press

Associated Press

Bakersfield Californian

Contra Costa Times

Fresno Bee

Los Angeles Times

Mariposa Gazette

Mariposa Tribune

Merced Sun-Star

Mountain Democrat

Oakland Tribune

San Francisco Chronicle

San Francisco Examiner

San Jose Mercury News

Sierra Star

Sonora Union Democrat

Stockton Record

The Modesto Bee

The Sacramento Bee

Radio

KCBS AM - San Francisco

KFBK - Sacramento

KFIV - Modesto

KGO AM - San Francisco

KMJ - Fresno

KMPH - Fresno

KQED - San Francisco

Plus local radio stations

Television

KRON - San Francisco

KTVU - Oakland

KXTV - Sacramento

NBC Network News - Los Angeles

Colleges and Universities

Bakersfield College

California State University, Fresno

California State University, Humboldt

California State University, Long Beach

California State University, Northridge

California State University, Sacramento

California State University, San Diego

California State University, San Jose

California State University, Stanislaus

College of the Atlantic

Cuyamaca California College

Colorado School of Mines

Colorado State University

Consumnes River College

De Anza College of Environmental Studies

Diablo Valley College

Drexel University

East Carolina University

Florida Atlantic University

Fresno Pacific University

Grinnell College

Institute of the Rockies

Johnson State College

Long Beach City College

Modesto Junior College

North Carolina State University

Pasadena City College

San Joaquin Delta College

Slippery Rock University

Stanford University

University of California, Berkeley

University of California, Riverside

University of California, Santa Cruz

University of Florida

University of Minnesota

University of Montana

University of Tennessee

University of Vermont

University of Washington, School of Law

Utah State University

Vassar College

Woodbury University