Yosemite Valley Plan SEIS, Volume III, Chapter 2: Part 1

Chapter 2 ~ Purpose and Need

The public comment covered in this chapter captures the general themes regarding the future management of Yosemite Valley. These broad concern areas are divided into seven sections: Purpose, Planning Process, Relationship to Other Planning Efforts, Applicable Laws, Implementation, Funding, and Public Participation and Coordination.

Section 2.1 ~ Purpose

Alternative views of how best to protect the natural splendor of Yosemite Valley while providing opportunities for people to enjoy that very beauty are presented in this section. Borrowing words from the National Park Service, many respondents feel that the Yosemite Valley Plan should promote the needs of future generations. "Many of us old timers will yearn for events and places that were never appropriate. But you must move past those things and conceive of a Yosemite Valley for our great-grandchildren," encourages one person.

Numerous individuals believe that the Yosemite Valley Plan should emphasize resource protection over visitor experience. "Stand firm against the big money interests that are waiting outside the park with blueprints, machines, and cement trucks poised to decimate this natural wonder," exhorts one respondent. "It is much more important to protect the quality of the park, and its wildlife, than to make it easier for tourists to park," offers another person. "To say otherwise is laughable." One citizen believes that resource preservation is so important as to warrant a change in the priorities of the Yosemite Valley Plan: "I think the plan’s mission should be the following priority: first, to preserve the natural habitat, wildlife and scenery; second, to educate visitors so they understand the details in the balance of nature so they will help preserve the park for future generations."

Reducing development in Yosemite Valley is closely related to resource protection in many respondents’ minds. "YNP is not a resort. It is a park. If people want TV, computer hook ups, swimming pools, tennis courts, hair dryers and golf courses they should go to a resort. Visiting a national park is about the scenery at the park," claims one person. "The Yosemite Valley as a whole, but especially the Merced River, needs to be protected from further destruction by the current philosophy of the NPS that more development is good for the future of our parks," avows another. Development is an impediment to the enjoyment of the Valley for many of these respondents.

Other people insist that balancing conservation with visitor enjoyment, rather than emphasizing resource protection, is the essence of the Park Service’s mission. Accordingly, they remark that the Yosemite Valley Plan should reflect that balance. "The National Park Service has the dual responsibilities to ‘conserve’ and ‘provide for the enjoyment.’ It seems that the second part of the commission is being de-emphasized in these proposals," offers one constituent. Several respondents believe the preservation mandate is superseding the visitor enjoyment directive in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Within this group, some individuals exhort the National Park Service to place more emphasis on visitor enjoyment in the plan. "Humans come first," asserts one person. Believing that the National Park Service has skewed its original priorities, another individual feels that the park service should be relieved of its authority to run Yosemite National Park. "Return ownership and stewardship of Yosemite Valley to the State of California," this person advocates.

47. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should promote the needs of future generations.

"I have discussed the various alternative plans with pals, and have been shocked at how deep some emotional attachments are to Housekeeping Camp or Lower Pines, or any of the many others for which fond memories remain. If we cave in to that kind of thinking, we’ll have the Firefall back . . . Many of us old timers–including me, I’m sure–will yearn for events and places that were never appropriate. But you must move past those things and conceive of a Yosemite Valley for our great-grandchildren." (Individual, Penngrove, CA - #95)

"The Park System, as I understand it, was not created for entrepreneurs, nor specifically for the deification of an ever expanding number of visitors–it begins with the entitlement of Yosemite and the wildlife within to something resembling a life on their own terms, which will insure their existence for generations of Americans to come." (Individual, San Diego, CA - #316)

Response: The changes proposed in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS are based upon a better understanding of ecological processes, cultural and historical treasures, visitation trends, and related issues. The mission of the National Park Service is, "…to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." The National Park Service must examine the ways in which the public has used Yosemite Valley in the past and modify those practices where necessary.

95. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should emphasize resource protection.

"I feel that the plans that you have set forth are reasonable. In fact, they may be too lenient. Nevertheless, the minor inconveniences that will befall travelers as a result of these plans are worth it. It is much more important to protect the quality of the park, and its wildlife, than to make it easier for tourists to park. To say otherwise is laughable." (Individual, Arlington, VA - #318)

"As an ecologist, veteran of many Yosemite Association seminars, and author of a technical flora, I am gratified that your current plan emphasizes the protection and restoration of natural communities within the Valley. I would particularly urge attention to degraded riparian areas, wetlands, and meadows." (Individual, Carmel Valley, CA - #200)

"Please, in planning for the valley, please protect the river and the natural values of the valley, not the concessionaires and the auto industry." (Individual, San Anselmo, CA - #386)

"Please keep in mind the original intent of this and other National Parks, and that is to preserve the natural beauty and wonder of the area. John Muir, Secretary Pinchot and Teddy Roosevelt would turn over in their graves if Yosemite were turned into a commercial amusement park. Stand firm against the big money interests that are waiting outside the park with blueprints, machines and cement trucks poised to decimate this natural wonder. The country, indeed the world is watching how you shoulder this awesome responsibility. The appreciation of a grateful nation await your positive environmentally friendly decisions." (Individual, Peoria, AZ - #100)

Response: The National Park Service takes all aspects of its mission very seriously, especially its responsibilities "to conserve…" and to provide for the enjoyment" as articulated in the Organic Act of 1916. The public has offered a wide range of opinions regarding the need to protect natural and cultural resources in Yosemite Valley, as well as provide for visitor access and use. As indicated in Chapter 1, Purpose of and Need For the Action, of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the National Park Service seeks to achieve the five goals of the General Management Plan, "to ensure both the long-term preservation and public enjoyment of Yosemite Valley."

Consequently, resource protection is a key element of the action alternatives presented in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. For example, protection of the Merced River and associated resources such as riparian zones, meadows, and wetlands is emphasized throughout the plan, including the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2). Refer to Chapter 2, which describes highly valued resources and a description of Alternative 2, for information regarding the measures proposed to protect the Merced River ecosystem and other important park resources.

305. Public Concern: The National Park Service should change the priorities of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

"I think the Plan’s Mission should be the following priority: First, to preserve the natural habitat, wildlife and scenery. Second, to educate visitors so they understand the details in the balance of nature so they will help preserve the Park for future generations. Third, to preserve historic objects." (Individual, Orange, CA - #2255)

Response: To change the priorities of the Yosemite Valley Plan as suggested would be inconsistent with the park’s establishing legislation, the mission of the National Park Service, and the guidance set forth in the 1980 General Management Plan. The two primary purposes for Yosemite National Park, as established in the Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Big Tree Grove federal grant of 1864, and subsequent legislation, consist of preserving the resources that contribute to Yosemite’s splendor and uniqueness, and making the varied resources of Yosemite available to people for their enjoyment.

The Organic Act of 1916 requires the National Park Service "to conserve…" and "to provide for the enjoyment." Providing for and promoting visitor use, understanding, and enjoyment of Yosemite Valley and its resources is a key component of the agency’s mission, as well as one of the five goals for the park articulated in the General Management Plan. Refer to Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, for additional information regarding laws and previous planning that guide the direction of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

49. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require decreased development in Yosemite Valley.

"I welcome and strongly support the Park Service’s proposal to cut private automobile traffic in the Valley by 60 percent. Since all of us are the main threat to the Park, I also welcome and support the proposals to remove parking spaces, buildings and unnecessary development from the Valley and to restore its natural systems. These proposals–if carried forward and implemented–will create a better experience for visitors to this great place now and in the future. In fact, I support even stronger steps than now proposed. I’d like to see any new lodging in the gateway cities rather than in the park." (Individual, Altadena, CA - #30086)

"The purpose of this letter is to demand that you stop development in our national parks and preserve them for future generations in a state that approximates wild and natural, not a state that approximates theme park with paved parking lots, nature exhibits, and inadequately small pockets of natural beauty. The Yosemite Valley as a whole, but especially the Merced river, needs to be protected from further destruction by the current philosophy of the NPS that more development is good for the future of our parks." (Individual, Oakland, CA - #119)

"YNP is not a resort. It is a park. If people want TV, computer hook ups, swimming pools, tennis courts, hair dryers and golf courses they should go to a resort. Visiting a national park is about the scenery at the park. A National Park should not be made into a resort or a convention center or anything other that what it is." (Individual, Porterville, CA - #3141)

Response: As described in Chapter 1 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the National Park Service is seeking to achieve the five broad goals of the 1980 General Management Plan: (1) reclaim priceless natural beauty, (2) allow natural processes to prevail, (3) promote visitor understanding and enjoyment, (4) markedly reduce traffic congestion, and (5) reduce crowding. A range of alternatives has been developed to meet these goals as they relate to Yosemite Valley. Each of the action alternatives provides a different approach to providing needed visitor accommodation while protecting resources in the Valley and each reduces development in some aspects in the Valley. Alternative 2 achieves a reasonable balance between resource protection and the provision of facilities and services to enhance visitor enjoyment and understanding.

In addition, protection of the Merced River and associated resources such as riparian zones, meadows, and wetlands is a key element of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, particularly the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2). Please refer to Vol. Ia, Chapter 2, Alternatives, describing highly valued resources and Alternative 2, for information regarding the measures proposed to protect the Merced River ecosystem.

With respect to keeping all new lodging outside the Valley, Alternative 2 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would reduce overall lodging in the Valley by 24%. Although new lodging would be constructed at Yosemite Lodge to replace some of the flood-damaged units, the total number of units in Alternative 2 (251 units) would remain less than that recommended in the 1992 Concession Services Plan (440 units) and less than proposed in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS (386 units). Lodging at Curry Village would be increased from what was proposed in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS to 487 units under the Preferred Alternative, but still a reduction from the existing 628 units.

48. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should balance conservation with visitor enjoyment.

"I do not believe that most visitors to Yosemite would consider the proposed changes to be beneficial. Perhaps a poll of park visitors should be commissioned. It seems that a vocal minority continues a push to further reduce services within the Park every several years, this time taking advantage of the recent floods. The National Park Service has the dual responsibilities to ‘conserve’ and ‘provide for the enjoyment.’ It seems that the second part of the commission is being de-emphasized in these proposals." (Individual, Tucson, AZ - #30183)

"In response to your call for dialogue on the new plan for visitor utilization of the Yosemite Valley, it seems the National Park Service plans to continually make our national treasures and in particular Yosemite Valley less accessible and less user friendly. This is intolerable! Instead of trying to accommodate the greater number of expected visitors, you attempt to reduce by half the present access. . . It is the responsibility of the Park Service to not only preserve our National Parks but also provide for our citizens ability to enjoy the preserved beauty." (Individual, Anaheim, CA - #269)

Response: The National Park Service takes all aspects of its mission very seriously, including both the responsibilities "to conserve… and to provide for the enjoyment" as articulated in the Organic Act of 1916. The public has offered a wide range of opinions, regarding the appropriate level of development in Yosemite Valley as well as the need to protect natural and cultural resources. As indicated in Vol. Ia, Chapter 1 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the National Park Service seeks to achieve the five goals of the General Management Plan to ensure both the long-term preservation and public enjoyment of Yosemite Valley.

The action alternatives presented in Vol. Ia, Chapter 2 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS provide a range of approaches to improve visitor use and resource protection. Management deliberation included all aspects of the plan and all issues raised by public concerns. It also included input from consultation between park staff, government, agencies, and Native American Tribes. In many cases, staff was asked to undertake additional analysis to support these management discussions. There were a number of important changes made to the Preferred and other action alternatives presented in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS in preparing the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. These changes are discussed at the beginning of Volume Ia, Chapter 2.

Please refer to Vol. Ia, Chapter 1 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS for additional information regarding the National Park Service’s planning philosophy and goals for achieving visitor enjoyment and resource protection in Yosemite Valley.
(Also see response to concern #55.)

335. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should emphasize visitor enjoyment.

"The primary focus of Yosemite as a national park should be for the human experience. We’re not only a national park, we’re a world treasure. I have experienced some of the exclusionary attitudes waiting to get into the park. I’m not in favor of reducing campgrounds or beds. I’m in favor of managing the use better. Humans come first. This is a national park for human enjoyment, for all of our enjoyment, not just the few, but all of our enjoyment." (Public Hearing, Sonora, CA - #20285)

"This is a public park, not a wilderness area. The emphasis should be on effective use by people, not on returning the area to pristine, wild use." (Individual, Boca Raton, FL - #1174)

Response: One of the goals of the Yosemite Valley Plan (see Vol. IA, Chapter 1, Direction for this Planning Effort—Goals) is to promote visitor understanding and enjoyment. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes many actions to continue and to protect the diversity of visitor opportunities and experiences in Yosemite Valley. Other goals would also contribute to visitor enjoyment: reclaiming priceless natural beauty, allowing the natural processes that created Yosemite Valley to prevail, reducing traffic congestion, and reducing crowding. By identifying, protecting, and restoring Yosemite Valley’s characteristic features and providing only such development that complements the natural resources and related experiences, visitors would be able to enjoy a Yosemite Valley substantially closer in character to that first set aside for public protection and enjoyment in 1864.
(Also see responses to concerns #1061 and #55.)

283. Public Concern: The National Park Service should return ownership and stewardship of Yosemite Valley to the State of California.

"I advocate a sixth alternative. Return ownership and stewardship of Yosemite Valley to the State of California." (Public Hearing, Sonora, CA - #20287)

Response: Returning ownership and stewardship of Yosemite Valley to the State of California is an alternative outside the scope of the Draft and Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Such an action would require new legislation and is not a reasonable alternative that would meet the purpose and need for the plan. No information currently exists that would indicate a transfer of ownership to the state would, in and of itself, aid in the achievement of the purpose and need for the plan.

Section 2.2 ~ Planning Process

The process used in creating the Yosemite Valley Plan is central to many of the public’s concerns. Numerous suggestions for improvement are offered to assist the Park Service in the preparation of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. One conservation organization believes the National Park Service should clarify the nature of the decisions that are to be made based on the Plan. "We believe the Park Service should state that the YVP sets only maximum limits and boundaries on major development projects (such as Yosemite Lodge) and that less-intensive development options will be considered in further project planning documents," this group suggests. One citizen feels the current document is unclear as to when the alternatives in the plan would be implemented. This respondent believes the National Park Service should explicitly state in its final plan whether the requirements contained within will be applied seasonally or perennially.

Some respondents believe that the Park Service "superficially addressed" the cost benefit analyses required for the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. The economic practicality of various options within the plan should be given greater weight, according to these respondents. Others feel that the National Park Service should establish goals and objectives to guide the restoration programs contained within the Yosemite Valley Plan. Doing so would "capture the public’s attention and keep it focused on the benefits of restoration," according to one conservation group.

Although many respondents praise the layout and clarity of the maps contained in Volume Ic of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, an equal number of citizens offer suggestions for improvement. "The bubble maps which the NPS presents in the Valley plan are completely inaccurate and misleading," laments one person. "About half of the (very large) area depicted as restoration at Yosemite Lodge never had development." Another individual notes that the Yosemite View area is slated for a land exchange with a motel developer who plans on building on the site. "This development should be depicted in purple on the maps, as NPS is fully aware that it is proposing to exchange the federal parcel for development. The site north of Yosemite View on the hillside should also be depicted in purple. The radiating impacts of adding hundreds of employees in sensitive resource areas should be shown," according to this person.

Other respondents observe that facilities they wish to locate on the maps are either difficult to distinguish or missing entirely. Several people believe that the Yosemite Valley Plan should include graphic representations showing the development to be removed, replaced, or built in Yosemite Valley. Others feel that Yosemite Valley Plan maps should more clearly identify the cultural resources of Yosemite Valley. One historical preservation society mentions, "The plates for the action alternatives illustrate areas for redevelopment and natural resource restoration, but do not indicate what cultural resources would be lost."

In addition to the aforementioned suggestions, some respondents offer diverse concerns on various planning topics. One individual believes the National Park Service should conduct an evaluation of the entire Yosemite Valley planning process. Another individual requests that the National Park Service assess the potential impact of the Yosemite Valley Plan’s reduction of visitors on the environmental movement. "Where do we think the next generation of our environmentalists are going to come from?" questions this respondent. "It’s not going to be Harvard and Yale, it’s going to be the people that have had the opportunity to get into the wilderness." Any curtailment on visitor access, may, in the long run, have deleterious effects on the environmental movement, according to this speaker.

468. Public Concern: The National Park Service should clarify the nature of Yosemite Valley Plan decisions.

"Clarify the nature of YVP decisions. We believe the Park Service should state that the YVP sets only maximum limits and boundaries on major development projects (such as Yosemite Lodge) and that less-intensive development options will be considered in further project planning documents." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #4594)

Response: To fully understand and evaluate potential impacts to the environment as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS identified, for each action in an alternative, the land area needed, then evaluated impacts assuming the action would fully encompass the area. Future land use could include restoration, redevelopment, or new development. It is anticipated that these areas would be the maximum land needed. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS also identifies general land use capacities of these areas; as site designs proceed, the exact footprint and relationship would be confirmed for the function density and mix of development identified. Additional National Environmental Policy Act compliance and public involvement may be necessary for actions if:

The proposed actions extend beyond the land areas identified and analyzed in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.
The proposed actions involve a substantive change in location, function, and capacity from that discussed in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.
A previously unknown resource is discovered, such as an archeological site or a threatened or endangered plant or animal species.

178. Public Concern: The National Park Service should clarify whether the Yosemite Valley Plan will be applied seasonally or perennially.

"Our environment and Yosemite must be preserved, but I don’t feel the proposed plan is the answer. One question is never addressed or answered . . . Does this plan pertain only to the peak summer season or all year?" (Individual, North Fork, CA - #18)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS Preferred Alternative calls for land-use changes, such as the location and number of lodging units, the location and number of campsites, employee housing, day-visitor parking, and visitor service facilities in Yosemite Valley. The land-use changes in the plan would remain in effect on a year-round basis. The number of parking spaces provided for day visitors to Yosemite Valley also would remain constant during the year.

From November through March it is expected that the day-visitor parking spaces provided in the Valley would be sufficient to serve all day visitors. As a result, from November through March the out-of-Valley day-visitor parking areas would be closed and no out-of-Valley shuttle service would operate.

363. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should include an improved cost-benefit analysis.

"Cost/benefit analyses are superficially addressed in the Plan. The practicality of various options should be given greater weight within the Plan. This is particularly relevant to the Out-of-Valley shuttle bus transit system." (Business, Yosemite National Park, CA - #3962)

Response: Although it would be possible to perform a cost-benefit analysis specific to individual actions within an alternative, such as the out-of-Valley bus transit system, the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does present the total estimated costs for capital and operating costs for each of the action alternatives in Vol.IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives. The out-of-Valley bus transit system is only one of many actions that have been combined to formulate each of the action alternatives evaluated and analyzed in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. The National Park Service considers understanding the total costs of implementing each of the action alternatives in a holistic manner is more important, as it provides the best opportunity to compare the overall costs between each of the alternatives.

It is recognized, however, that overall costs are but one of many comparisons between each alternative used to help identify which would be most successful at accomplishing the purpose and need for the Yosemite Valley Plan: to restore, protect and enhance natural and cultural resources, including the Merced River’s Outstandingly Remarkable Values; reduce automobile congestion; provide opportunities for enhanced, high-quality resource-based visitor experience; and provide effective park operations. The National Park Service uses several tools to assist in the decision-making process to develop alternatives and identify a Preferred Alternative. These include Value Analysis and Choosing By Advantage. Additional text has been added in Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, that describes how the National Park Service applied the Choosing By Advantage process in development of the alternatives for the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

509. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should include goals and objectives for restoration planning.

"To capture the public’s attention and keep it focused on the benefits of restoration, we recommend that the Service establish goals and objectives to guide its restoration planning, and paint a clear, direct, and compelling picture of what the restored Yosemite Valley will look like after the full implementation of this plan." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #4594)

Response: The action alternatives of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS call for a variety of restoration activities. Vol. IA, Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, mentions that, "The alternatives being considered ... seek to restore significantly altered natural systems and protect unaltered systems" to allow natural processes to prevail–one of the five General Management Plan goals. All restoration actions are intended to meet the goals of the General Management Plan, but specific objectives vary from site to site depending on the site characteristics. Some site restoration objectives are also guided by cultural landscape and ethnographic resource values, as well as by constraints created by retention of infrastructure and uses that make complete restoration impractical or infeasible. Also, "some design-level details for specific elements of the action alternatives are not fully developed in the Yosemite Valley Plan. This is because additional planning and analysis would be necessary before these projects could be implemented." These include restoration projects. However, general objectives are noted in the text at the beginning of each action alternative.

552. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should include accurate maps of management areas in Yosemite Valley.

"The bubble maps which the NPS presents in the Valley Plan are completely inaccurate and misleading. Though readers cannot locate existing buildings as points of reference, we have strained to analyze these maps based on our prior analysis, other large scale maps, cross-reference to the earlier VIP, and on-the-ground knowledge of Yosemite. When using colored areas to indicate restoration versus new development or redevelopment, the maps greatly over-represent ‘restoration’ areas. For instance at the Lodge Area, NPS represents many acres of restoration in a shade of dark green (see Vol. 1C, Plate 2-1). Large areas of ‘restoration’ at Yosemite Lodge are shown. In fact these areas cannot be restored, as there is no development in these areas (south of Yosemite Lodge). The description under ‘No Action’ bears this out. About half of the (very large) area depicted as restoration at Yosemite Lodge never had development." (Conservation Organization, Yosemite, CA - #7883)

Response: Plates in Volume Ic illustrate the location and extent of the actions in Yosemite Valley for each alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. The land areas displayed depict existing development, redevelopment, new development, and natural resource restoration. Each area was carefully located using the best and most accurate information available for Yosemite Valley, including 1"=200’ survey-grade engineering drawings, field surveys throughout the Valley, and digital orthophotos (large-scale aerial photos) provided by the U.S. Geologic Survey. In addition to the location of the actions, the land areas accurately depict the largest possible extent of actions in an area.

Existing development areas were delineated by evaluating the extent of current development areas. These determinations did not necessarily include adjacent areas that could experience related radiating resource impacts. In the action alternatives, (Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5) existing development represents no change from current conditions. Redevelopment land areas show the largest possible extent of existing development that could be modified by actions, including the elimination or construction of structures, reconstruction or realignment of transportation corridors, and even small, localized areas of restoration. The new development category indicates that a development footprint has been designated for an area that is currently undeveloped. As with existing development and redevelopment, the maximum extent of this new development is depicted on the plates.

Likewise, the maximum extent of restoration actions is shown, including some areas where restoration could occur outside of existing development boundaries. Restoration could occur in areas between existing development and the Merced River, where human intervention has altered floodplain and riparian characteristics through overuse. One area, between the existing development at Yosemite Lodge and the Merced River, was substantially altered by cutting off and filling in natural drainage channels in an effort to protect Yosemite Lodge from flooding (Milestone 1978). Restoration of developed land at Yosemite Lodge would likely extend to the river in order to fully restore the hydrology of the area.

Other locations with a restoration land area encompassing land outside of existing development boundaries include the area between the river and existing campsites at North Pines and Lower Pines Campgrounds, as well as riparian areas along the edges of Backpackers Campground and the former Group Campground. These sections, in particular, are in the River Protection Overlay and are considered impacted by the development adjacent to the watercourses.

553. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan maps should identify planned land exchange parcels that are designated for development.

"The Draft River Plan and the DVP propose to hand off the publicly owned, valuable, and sensitive site at Yosemite View to Fischer Motels (for development as a hotel, which would destroy the ecology of the area). This development should be depicted in purple on the maps, as NPS is fully aware that it is proposing to exchange the federal parcel for development. The site north of Yosemite View on the hillside should also be depicted in purple. The radiating impacts of adding hundreds of employees in sensitive resource areas should be shown." (Conservation Organization, Yosemite, CA - #7883)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. A land exchange in El Portal has not been approved, nor is it a proposed action in any of the alternatives included in the Draft or Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. However, the potential cumulative impacts of a land exchange in El Portal, if it were to occur, are considered in Vol IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences.

499. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should include graphic representations showing the development to be removed, replaced, or built in Yosemite Valley.

"The Park Service must include a table or other graphic representation quantifying the development the Park Service intends to remove, together with the new or replacement development that will be allowed under the plan." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #4594)

Response: Volume Ic, of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS contains a series of 45 plates illustrating the study area, alternative development considerations, and the proposed actions for each alternative. At a minimum, each of the five alternatives has seven individual graphics depicting the type and location of actions considered in Yosemite Valley, El Portal, and Wawona. The actions are represented by "bubbles," which define the maximum extent of an action as well as the type of action proposed for that area. Actions addressed in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS are divided into four development categories on the plates, each represented by a different color: (1) Existing Development/No Change, (2) Redevelopment, (3) New Development, and (4) Natural Resource Restoration. (For definitions of these action types, see Volume Ic.) In addition to showing the location of existing, new, changed, and removed development in Yosemite Valley, El Portal, and Wawona, the plates in Volume Ic also indicate the most likely location of new or altered transportation corridors.

Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, contains several sections that provide tables showing acres of impact for actions evaluated in each alternative. The acres of disturbance in these sections are based on the same information used to develop the graphics in Volume Ic. The spatial extent and type of proposed actions described above were analyzed with resource data in the park’s geographic information system (see Vol. IB, Glossary) in order to generate these acres of disturbance. See Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, Methodologies and Assumptions, for more information on how areas of impact were quantified for different topic areas in each alternative.

705. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should adequately identify and map the cultural resources of Yosemite Valley.

"We continue to be frustrated by the organization and graphic layout of Yosemite National Park planning documents. As was the case with the VIP and the Wild and Scenic River Plan, cultural resources affected under one or more of the various alternatives have not been adequately identified and mapped. For example, the Cultural Resources section of Table A in the Executive Summary makes mention of only a fraction of the historic resources which would be lost under the various alternatives. Likewise, while plates for Alternative 1 clearly illustrate the existing conditions, including what appear to be all existing buildings, but no attempt is made to identify historic structures. The plates for the action alternatives illustrate areas for redevelopment and natural resource restoration, but do not indicate what cultural resources would be lost." (Non-Governmental Organization, San Francisco, CA - #7885)

Response: The revised plates in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS (Volume 1c) distinguish historic structures from modern facilities. By comparing plates for each action alternative with the plates for Alternative 1, one can see which historic structures would be lost. While there are no graphics dedicated to displaying cultural resources information, the Highly Valued Resources plate depicts both natural and cultural resources.

184. Public Concern: The National Park Service should conduct an evaluation of the Yosemite Valley planning process.

"The National Park Service should conduct a post-evaluation of the Yosemite Valley planning process, with a view to devising and seeking constructive changes in its own planning study guidelines that will allow provision of more useful information for readers in the summary section of the finished document." (Individual, Berkeley, CA - #1158)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The National Park Service appreciates the suggestion that a post-project evaluation of the planning process be conducted. It is the goal of park staff to continue to improve the planning process, including communication and public involvement.

343. Public Concern: The National Park Service should assess the potential impact of the Yosemite Valley Plan’s reduction of visitors on the environmental movement.

"Now, I hear a lot of rhetoric about planning that we want to keep Yosemite for the future generations. I believe the children are the future generations. And this idea–well, the one question is, where do we think the next generation of our environmentalists are going to come from. It’s not going to be Harvard and Yale, it’s going to be the people that have had the opportunity to get into the wilderness. All of the future environmentalists are going to be either the children that are now experiencing the wilderness or people that come in and see Yosemite and get inspired by it. The idea that we could sacrifice the children’s Yosemite experience so that some adults can have a better Yosemite experience, I really have a problem with. I feel that, you know, from an environmental standpoint we need to give the children an opportunity, and I think by denying them an opportunity we are doing a disfavor to the environment–the environmental process." (Public Hearing, Santa Clara, CA - #20464)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS places a strong emphasis on visitor experience, which is enhanced by greater emphasis on restoring and preserving highly valued resource areas; by recognizing the importance of natural processes and cultural values; and by understanding and respecting river system and oak woodland ecology. The Yosemite Valley Plan would enhance visitor understanding and experience through its restoration of highly valued resources and natural processes as well as through its enhanced educational facilities and programs. Overnight accommodations would continue to be composed of a range of options including camping, rustic lodging, and economy-level lodging. Visitor experience of the north side of Yosemite Valley would be greatly improved by the closure of Northside Drive to vehicle traffic from Yosemite Lodge to the El Capitan crossover. Visitor centers at park entrances would help people plan their visits and know what experiential opportunities exist, including the vast opportunities available outside of the Valley, that still can be part of an essentially Yosemite National Park experience. Possibly no better lesson can be learned by children and future environmentalists than by seeing actions taken to correct past habits based on respect, new understanding, and a willingness to change habits for a greater good rather than on individual desires.

Section 2.3 ~ Relationship to Other Planning Efforts

Several individuals are concerned with the Yosemite Valley Plan’s compliance with current planning efforts, namely the General Management Plan, the Merced River Plan, the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection Plan, and the Wawona Town Plan. Comments regarding these plans, as well as past and future Yosemite Valley projects, are covered in this section.

2.3.1 ~ The 1980 General Management Plan

The goals of the General Management Plan (GMP) are positive and worthwhile objectives, according to many respondents. In particular, an individual suggests that, "The 1980 GMP goal of eliminating all private vehicles should be kept uppermost toward the time when, as technology advances, it will become feasible." Numerous people believe that the National Park Service should not only adopt actions that best achieve the goals of the General Management Plan but also include specific guidelines in the Yosemite Valley Plan outlining how to do so.

On the contrary, some respondents are not certain that the goals of the General Management Plan, now twenty years old, are still valid today. "Yosemite’s GMP was developed in 1980 and states right in this preface that it is valid for 10 years–consequently, it is out-of-date. However, the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan disagrees, stating the objective of the Valley plan is to provide ‘more specific detail’ in carrying out the goals and actions of the GMP," observes one individual. Therefore, the National Park Service should revise the 1980 General Management Plan, according to this respondent.

50. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should adhere to the principles contained in the 1980 General Management Plan.

"I urge you to adhere to the principles in the General Management Plan, especially regarding regional transportation and parking and shuttle connection options outside Yosemite Valley." (Individual, Modesto, CA - #123)

ELIMINATE ALL PRIVATE VEHICLES

"The 1980 GMP goal of eliminating all private vehicles should be kept uppermost toward the time when, as technology advances, it will become feasible. Even now, mandatory use of electric vehicles ought to be considered, if only to specify where design improvements are required. This would go a long way toward reducing the impact of private automobiles in the valley. Planning should not only allow for but also be directed toward this eventuality." (Individual, Laguna Beach, CA - #350)

Response: As indicated in Vol. IA, Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS takes its basic direction from the 1980 General Management Plan for Yosemite National Park, including the five broad goals. In some instances the actions described in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS alternatives include some provisions of the General Management Plan that are based upon new or more current information. However, the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, specifically Alternative 2, the National Park Service’s Preferred Alternative, is consistent with the overall direction and guidance of the General Management Plan, including the goal of reducing traffic congestion. Alternative 2 would reduce traffic congestion through establishment of a centralized parking facility at Yosemite Village, which would operate in conjunction with a shuttle system involving three out-of-Valley parking areas.

In developing alternatives for the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the National Park Service was diligent in considering the overall guidance presented in the General Management Plan, including the ultimate goal of removing private vehicles from Yosemite Valley. However, as indicated in Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered But Dismissed, removing all private vehicles from Yosemite Valley is technically and economically infeasible at this time. However, both the mass transit elements of the Preferred Alternative and collaboration to develop a regional transportation system provide initial and important steps to achieving this ultimate goal.

In addition, the National Park Service is committed to the use of alternative transportation technologies such as electric hybrid or other alternatively fueled vehicles as they become available and technically and economically feasible.

The availability of proven transit vehicle technology, supporting infrastructure such as fueling and maintenance facilities, environmental effects (including air emissions), and cost are factors in decisions relating to transit vehicles.

298. Public Concern: The National Park Service should adopt actions that best achieve the 1980 General Management Plan resource protection and restoration goals for Yosemite Valley.

"The National Park Service should adopt actions that best achieve the resource protection and restoration goals for Yosemite Valley. Although our comments on the Plan are primarily directed to compliance with NEPA and therefore focus on the procedural requirements of the environmental review process, we do support the NPS’ approach to focus on and further the goals articulated in the 1980 GMP. Toward that end, the NPS, in adopting its Record of Decision, should adopt the combination of actions outlined in the Plan that accomplish the greatest amount of restoration of natural processes, and that make the most rapid progress feasible toward removing private automobiles from Yosemite Valley." (California Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA - #5430)

Response: As described in, Vol. IA, Chapter 1 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the National Park Service is seeking to achieve the five broad goals of the 1980 General Management Plan: (1) reclaim priceless natural beauty, (2) allow natural processes to prevail, (3) promote visitor understanding and enjoyment, (4) markedly reduce traffic congestion, and (5) reduce crowding. The range of alternatives has been developed to meet these goals as they relate to Yosemite Valley. Each of the action alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5) provides a different approach to achieving resource protection while providing for visitor experience in the Valley. Each of the action alternatives reduces development to some extent in Yosemite Valley.

Resource protection and restoration are key elements of all of the action alternatives presented in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. For example, protection and restoration of the Merced River and associated resources such as riparian zones, meadows, and wetlands is emphasized throughout the document, including the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2).

562. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should include guidelines to achieve the five goals of the 1980 General Management Plan.

"The Sierra Club believes that the goals set forth in the 1980 General Management Plan for Yosemite National Park should guide planning within Yosemite Valley (together with a final valid plan for the Merced River under the WSRA). . . Experience in the ensuing years, as well as changing conditions, suggests the need for guidelines to indicate how these goals may be best achieved. These are the ones that the Sierra Club believes would help shape an appropriate plan for Yosemite Valley. Contain Development: No new sites should be developed or impacted. No new development should take place. This is the equivalent to the admonition to doctors to ‘do no harm’ in seeking remedies; Reduce Impacts: To restore habitat and to better allow natural processes to prevail, the total space occupied by development (i.e., its footprint) should be reduced steadily over time; Establish Limits: As an exceedingly popular park, Yosemite Valley is now drawing too many pressures that place stress upon its environment (i.e., ‘stressors’) . . . Plans must be laid to reduce them to levels that are no longer problematic. These stressors include vehicles, emissions, roads, parking places, facilities, and visitors; Prioritize Restoration Goals; Accommodate Visitors Responsibly; Visitors’ Experience: Efforts should be made to allow visitors the freedom to seek their own preferred types of experience, particularly at seasons when stresses on the environment are not great. Visitors should not all be forced into a single mold." (Conservation Organization, Fresno, CA - #7881)

Response: The National Park Service agrees that the five broad goals in the 1980 General Management Plan should guide planning in Yosemite Valley, as these goals are as valid today as they were in 1980. As described in Vol. IA, Chapter 1 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, these goals provide the fundamental direction for Valley planning. The planning effort also follows numerous criteria to guide the achievement of the General Management Plan’s five goals, organized under protection of natural and cultural resources, visitor experience, and park operations. Please refer to Vol. IA, Chapter 1 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS for a presentation of these criteria.

323. Public Concern: The National Park Service should revise the 1980 General Management Plan for Yosemite National Park.

"Let’s talk about goals. The Park Service Director’s Order #2 on Park Planning states that ‘the National Park Service will maintain an up-to-date general management plan (GMP) for each unit of the national park system.’ Yosemite’s GMP was developed in 1980 and states right in this preface that it is valid for 10 years–consequently, it is out-of-date. However, the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan disagrees, stating the objective of the Valley Plan is to provide ‘more specific detail’ in carrying out the goals and actions of the GMP." (Public Hearing, Oakhurst, CA - #20517)

Response: The General Management Plan is now 20 years old, and some members of the public have requested preparation of a new General Management Plan. However, many others have voiced their desire to see the 1980 General Management Plan more fully implemented.

The National Park Service has assessed whether to prepare a new general management plan. It has concluded that the guidance contained in the 1980 General Management Plan, as articulated in the plan’s five main goals, is still valid today. In addition, the National Park Service recognizes that this "exceedingly special Valley" deserves and requires a consistent, comprehensive management approach. Therefore, the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS provides specific detail in carrying out the goals of the General Management Plan as they relate to Yosemite Valley, updating specific actions as necessary based upon new information or changing conditions.

2.3.2 ~ The Merced River Plan

Proceeding with the Yosemite Valley planning process before completing the Merced River Plan (MRP) conflicts with statutory requirements and invalidates the public participation process, according to numerous respondents. "The Park Service’s superimposition of its proposed Valley Plan in the midst of the public and agency review and adoption process for the Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan frustrates informed public review and shortcuts essential environmental protections," maintains one civic organization. For these reasons, numerous individuals, organizations, and government agencies urge the park service to stop work on the Valley Plan until a final decision is made on the Merced River Plan.

The establishment of Outstandingly Remarkable Values (Outstandingly Remarkable Values) and the River Protection Overlay (RPO) is another area of potential conflict between the Yosemite Valley and Merced River Plans, according to some citizens. One person asserts that the National Park Service should substantiate the linkage between the ORVs in both plans. Similarly, a U.S. Representative wishes to know what development is to be removed from the River Protection Overlay pursuant to the Merced River Plan. "I could not find in any of the documents a comprehensive listing of what exactly that removal entails, and request that such a summary document be developed and forwarded as soon as possible," submits the elected official.

A National Park Service employee believes the Merced River Plan should be modified to permit camping in various areas of Yosemite Valley. "I ask that you consider altering the MRP before the Record of Decision to permit camping as needed in these three locations [Taft Toe, Sentinel/Yellow Pine, and El Capitan] to meet the GMP goal for number of campsites in Yosemite Valley," this person recommends.

16. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not proceed with the Yosemite Valley Plan until the Merced River Plan is completed.

"I think the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan must wait until the Merced River plan is finalized. The Valley Plan acts like the segments proposed in the MRP are now policy instead of simply part of a proposal. The Valley Plan presumes much in regards to what the MRP will actually become. I think this is a serious flaw: serious enough to make it respond to the River plan, not vice versa. I am disappointed to see the Valley Plan continuing without resolving the river issues." (Individual, Livermore, CA - #34)

"Stop work on the Valley Plan until the Merced River Plan is completed. Prepare a river plan that protects and restores the river and environs. Produce a Valley Plan based on a protective river plan with no more development in Yosemite Valley. . . Please do all you can to ensure the future health and beauty of the valley." (Individual, No Address - #228)

"The Park Service’s superimposition of its proposed Valley Plan in the midst of the public and agency review and adoption process for the Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan (‘Merced River Plan’ or ‘MRP’) frustrates informed public review and shortcuts essential environmental protections. By law, the Valley Plan must be consistent with and implement the Merced River Plan. Section 12(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (‘WSRA’), 16 U.S.C. section 1283(a), directs that the National Park Service ‘shall take such action respecting management . . . plans affecting . . . lands [adjacent to National Wild and Scenic Rivers] as may be necessary to protect such rivers in accordance with the purposes of the WSRA. The comprehensive management plans that federal agencies must adopt for rivers designated under the WSRA set forth these necessary protections. 16 U.S.C. 1274(d) and 1281(a). As Judge Ishii forcefully ruled in overturning the Park Service’s approval of the El Portal Road Improvement Project (‘Yosemite Road Project’) last July, ‘the persistent and protracted failure of NPS to complete the required [Merced River Plan] removes the basis for the [Park Service’s] conclusion that [the effects of a proposed project] are . . . allowable within the amount of protection that is required under the WSRA.’ Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 69 F. Supp.2d 1202, 1257 (E.D. Cal/ 1999) Because the Park Service had not adopted the long-overdue Merced River Plan before approving the Yosemite Road Project, Judge Ishii ruled that the Park Service’s ‘actions with respect to the planning and execution of the Project are arbitrary and capricious and therefore violate the substantive provisions of 16 U.S.C. 1281 [WSRA 10].’ Likewise here, it would be ‘arbitrary and capricious,’ and violative of the ‘substantive provisions’ of the WSRA, for the Park Service to plan and adopt the Valley Plan in the ‘absence of [the required Merced River Plan] that sets forth the allowable degrees of intrusion upon the [Merced] River’s [outstandingly remarkable values].’ Sierra Club v. Babbitt, supra, 69 F.Supp.2d at 1256. Because the required MRP has not yet been adopted, and will not be adopted until late July at the earliest, neither the Park Service, nor the public, can evaluate the proposed Valley Plan in accordance with the procedure mandated by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Instead, the public–and presumably the Park Service–are left to speculate as to which of the five alternative versions of the MRP will be adopted. This profound uncertainty completely forecloses informed review of the Draft Valley Plan. The Park Service’s decision to close the public comment period on the Draft Valley Plan before adoption of the MRP plainly violates the clear mandate of the WSRA, in direct defiance of Judge Ishii’s final judgment on this point." (Civic Organization, Oakland, CA - #7549)

Response: The National Park Service has closely coordinated the preparation of the Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS with the Merced Wild and Scenic Comprehensive Management Plan/FEIS. Throughout the planning process the Merced River Plan has provided a template against which actions in the Yosemite Valley Plan were designed. As the Merced River Plan progressed, the Yosemite Valley Plan was continually evaluated and adjusted accordingly to ensure consistency with the provisions of Merced River Plan. For example, the management zoning and River Protection Overlay created by the Merced River Plan/DEIS guided the development of alternatives for the Yosemite Valley Plan. Changes made in the Preferred Alternative for the Merced River Plan/FEIS, and reflected in the Record of Decision, were evaluated by members of the Yosemite Valley Plan team. As appropriate, changes were made to alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley/SEIS to ensure their consistency with the final Merced River Plan. While a series of revisions were made to Alternative 5 in the Yosemite Valley Plan to conform to the final Merced River Plan, only minor adjustments were made to Alternative 2 and the other action alternatives to conform them to the final direction established by the Merced River Plan. In Alternative 2 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the Sandpit area in El Portal was designated for restoration instead of park operations, and slight adjustments in the configuration of road segments and lodging units at Yosemite Lodge were made to account for changes in the extent of the River Protection Overlay in that area. Each of the four action alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS is consistent with the guidance and direction outlined in the final Merced River Plan. As detailed in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, each of these alternatives would be fully protective of the river corridor and river values.

Coordination between these plans is also appropriate because they both concern many of the same areas, Yosemite Valley and El Portal in particular, and because much of the same scientific information was used in the decision-making process for each plan. The General Management Plan also provides a common framework for both plans.

The National Park Service believes that adequate opportunity for public evaluation and involvement has been provided. The impacts of the alternatives of both plans have been fully disclosed, consistent with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.

198. Public Concern: The National Park Service should clarify how Outstandingly Remarkable Values were established for Yosemite Valley and Merced River planning efforts.

"Please supply the data, including any studies that were performed, that establish the Outstandingly Remarkable Values as referenced in the Valley Plan, or in the unapproved and unrecorded Merced River Plan, or in the unapproved and unrecorded 1996 Draft Addendum Yosemite Valley Housing Plan, and substantiate this linkage between these plans. Please demonstrate how this linkage meets the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act." (Individual, Malibu, CA - #1164)

Response: The Merced River has been the subject of protection efforts since the early 1980s when it was studied as part of the National Rivers Inventory. The National Rivers Inventory was published in 1982 and identified in very general terms the scenic, recreational, geologic, wildlife, historic, and cultural Outstandingly Remarkable Values for the Merced River. Based on these findings, the study recommended the inclusion of the Merced River in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

In 1986, the Sierra National Forest issued a Draft Forest Lands and Resource Management Plan, which served as a follow-up to the National Rivers Inventory, undertaken jointly by the USDA Forest Service, the National Park Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. This study proposed that the Merced be designated a Wild and Scenic River and provided a more detailed analysis of the Outstandingly Remarkable Value of the main stem and South Fork Merced River. The study also listed the values in several sections as common and not an Outstandingly Remarkable Value.

Upon passage of the bill establishing the Merced as a Wild and Scenic River in 1987 (P.L. 100-149), there was no formalized list of the river’s Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Congress left it up to the land-managing agencies to further develop the Outstandingly Remarkable Values for the river. In the process of doing so, the National Park Service has refined and elaborated on those values.

In 1993, 1995, and 1996, the National Park Service conducted three internal river management planning workshops to study the Merced Wild and Scenic River’s Outstandingly Remarkable Values and to develop Merced River management and restoration strategies. These workshops were conducted in association with general land-use planning for the 1996 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan/Addendum. Segments of both the main stem and South Fork of the Merced River were evaluated for the purpose of developing Outstandingly Remarkable Values. These Outstandingly Remarkable Values were published in the 1996 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan.

The Outstandingly Remarkable Values were subsequently refined in the Draft Merced River Plan/EIS, which was published in January 2000. The Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan/FEIS, which was published in June 2000, made a few additional refinements to the Outstandingly Remarkable Values. The refinements to the Outstandingly Remarkable Values, as a result of the Merced River Plan planning process, were based on the application of new scientific information, changed conditions in the river corridor, and an accurate reflection of the Outstandingly Remarkable Value criteria included in the Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council guideline for implementation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Two criteria are set forth by the Council for selection of Outstandingly Remarkable Values:

Is the value river-related or river-dependent?
Is the value rare, unique, or exemplary in a regional or national context?

The Outstandingly Remarkable Values, as published in the Merced River Plan/FEIS, and adopted in the Record of Decision, are the official Outstandingly Remarkable Values for National Park Service-administered segments of the river. Because the Merced River Plan is a guiding document for the Yosemite Valley Plan, Yosemite Valley Plan actions were designed to protect and enhance these Outstandingly Remarkable Values. The Yosemite Valley Plan also addresses situations where there is a conflict among Outstandingly Remarkable Values. See the "Merced Wild and Scenic River" impact topic in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, for impacts to Outstandingly Remarkable Values of each alternative.

The Merced River Plan/FEIS complied with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act by soliciting and responding to public comments gathered during scoping and formal comment periods. The Final Merced River Plan established the Merced River Outstandingly Remarkable Values that the Yosemite Valley Plan seeks to protect and enhance. During the Yosemite Valley Plan comment process, the public was able to provide feedback on the impacts of Yosemite Valley Plan actions on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values. These comments were considered by the National Park Service in developing the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/FEIS.

384. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should clarify what development is to be removed from the River Protection Overlay pursuant to the Merced River Plan.

"The public should know and be informed that the River Plan guides decisions in the Valley Plan to a significant degree. However, in reviewing the Valley Plan, the only substantive comment concerning actions resulting from the River Plan is simply noted as ‘Remove development from the River Protection Overlay.’ I could not find in any of the documents a comprehensive listing of what exactly that removal entails, and request that such a summary document be developed and forwarded as soon as possible." (U.S. Representative, Fresno, CA - #2951)

Response: As stated in the Introduction to Chapter 2, Vol. IA, Implementation of the River Protection Overlay in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS:

"Development within the River Protection Overlay in Yosemite Valley would be removed, except when it is required for access to or across the river, for health and safety, for the maintenance of historic properties, and where it is impractical to locate facilities outside the River Protection Overlay."

Table A, Summary of Alternatives, at the end of Vol. IA, Chapter 2, provides a list of the actions proposed under each of the alternatives of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, including identification of the developments proposed for removal from the River Protection Overlay. For example, this table states that Alternative 2 would, "Remove all Housekeeping Camp units from the River Protection Overlay and highly valued resources, and restore area." Also slated for removal would be Upper and Lower River Campgrounds, portions of Lower Pines and North Pines Campgrounds, a portion of Camp 6, a portion of Yosemite Lodge, and Sugar Pine Bridge and possibly Stoneman Bridge.

474. Public Concern: The National Park Service should modify the Merced River Plan to permit camping in various areas of Yosemite Valley.

"Taft Toe, Sentinel/Yellow Pine and El Capitan Picnic areas are all examples of areas without sensitive resources that could have been proposed for development. Of these, Yellow Pine was proposed in the GMP for camping. What study indicates that a change from the GMP proposal is needed in the Yellow Pine area? The Development Constraints map shows these areas affected by flooding or the rockfall shadow. Since many developed areas are in the rockfall shadow but are not proposed to be relocated, I assume rockfall shadows are not a constraint. I know it is possible to construct campgrounds in floodplains even under the guidelines presented by Executive Order, so this cannot be a constraint. The Scenic Analysis map shows the Taft Toe and Yellow Pine areas as B scenic and part of the El Capitan Picnic Area as A scenic. This should not constrain the development of campgrounds in these areas. It is only on the MRP Management Zone map that I find any substantial constraint to proposing any of these three areas as a campground. I ask that you consider altering the MRP before the Record of Decision to permit camping as needed in these three locations to meet the GMP goal for number of campsites in Yosemite Valley. These zoning alterations would be similar to those made to accommodate proposed parking in the areas of Taft Toe and Camp 6. Another area that could accommodate camping but is not proposed in the preferred alternative is the former Upper and Lower Rivers Campgrounds. The plan states that this area should be returned to its natural state, which was a mixed meadow and forest area. The restrooms in these campgrounds are some of the oldest in the Park so I suspect that this area has been in its altered state for many years. When I looked at the constraints presented to determine why the Park proposed to restore this area to its natural state instead of returning it to a campground, I found the following: This is a highly valued resource area, but so is Yosemite Village, Camp 6 and Housekeeping Camp and all are proposed for development. The Development Considerations map shows Rivers Camp is not even with the rockfall shadow; however it is within the floodplain. As stated previously, the floodplain should not constrain campground development. The scenic analysis map splits this area between A and B scenic which should not be a constraint since Yosemite Lodge is development within a scenic area. It is only when I look at the MRP maps that I find any type of constraint. As I requested above, I do so again at this time. Alter the MRP before the Record of Decision to permit the redevelopment of Rivers Campground that has long been used for visitor enjoyment." (National Park Service Employee, Mariposa, CA - #6240)

Response: The Merced River Plan was developed to comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and National Park Service concerns regarding the restoration of the Merced River ecosystem. It is the intention of the National Park Service to use the Merced River Plan as a template against which future implementation plans such as the Yosemite Valley Plan will be judged to ensure that such plans protect and enhance the river’s Outstandingly Remarkable Values. The Merced River Plan provided general direction and guidance for actions proposed in the Yosemite Valley Plan. Because the Merced River Plan is a guiding document for the Yosemite Valley Plan, it would be inconsistent for the Yosemite Valley Plan to amend the Merced River Plan.

2.3.3 ~ Visitor Experience and Resource Protection Study

Although not commonly mentioned in respondents’ concerns, the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection Study (VERP) elicits a few comments, mostly from federal employees. The National Park Service should not reduce any aspect of visitor enjoyment below General Management Plan levels until the VERP is complete, according to one National Park Service employee. "To do so is premature in that it lacks supporting studies," this person states. "Some studies were completed that do support changes but they are not adequate to support the degree of change proposed in these plans," this individual concludes. A Forest Service employee believes the Park Service should expand the scope of the VERP study. "The proposed visitor experience and resource protection study should include the entire Park, portions of adjacent National Forests, and gateway communities," according to this federal employee.

472. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not reduce any aspect of visitor enjoyment below General Management Plan levels until the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection Study is complete.

"The MRP and YVP make a promise to complete a Visitor Enjoyment / Resource Protection Study (VERP) in the years to come. I would be more accepting of these plans if this study had been completed beforehand. I feel the Park should not propose to reduce, below the GMP, any aspect of visitor enjoyment until the VERP is complete. To do so is premature in that it lacks supporting studies. Some studies were completed that do support changes but they are not adequate to support the degree of change proposed in these plans. The VERP study is needed to substantiate changes in facilities that support visitor enjoyment to levels below those presented in the GMP." (National Park Service Employee, Mariposa, CA - #6240)

Response: Some actions in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would alter aspects of visitor enjoyment. However, these actions are not dependent on the completion of a Visitor Experience and Resource Protection study. For example, the 1980 General Management Plan prescribes a maximum daily use level (18,241 visitors) for Yosemite Valley, based on the number of day-visitor parking spaces, lodging units, and campsites. But, actions in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, while providing facilities to accommodate this number of visitors, would result in a redistribution of visitation between overnight and day visitors (see table 2-1). In each alternative, the number of campsites and overnight accommodations would be below the level proposed in the General Management Plan. The General Management Plan’s maximum daily use level was facility-and vehicle-based, not resource-based. At the same time, that plan proposed reductions in accommodations and camping and the removal of facilities from the most significant natural resources, the floodplain, the rockfall zone, and the riverbank. Studies identifying these areas and present impacts on them, along with other studies, have been utilized in the development of alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. These resource-based studies have resulted in the changes to the number of overnight accommodations. Another example of an action that could affect visitor enjoyment would be the change in access for some visitors to Yosemite Valley. Requiring that some day visitors in the busiest months of the year ride a shuttle bus to Yosemite Valley from an out-of-Valley parking area could alter visitor enjoyment. However, studies have identified this change in access as an effective way to reduce congestion, a principal goal of the General Management Plan, and have shown that a majority of park users would support such a measure.

While Visitor Experience and Resource Protection establishes standards for highly valued and other resources (including the quality of the visitor experience within those resources), and measures deviation from these standards, the actions proposed in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS are in response to the already recognized existing loss of highly valued resources and functioning of natural systems (see Chapter 2, Developing a Range of Alternatives–Resource Stewardship). These actions are based on existing analyses and studies and the prescriptions of the Merced River Plan/FEIS. Since publication of the 1980 General Management Plan, the National Park Service has collected extensive data on resource conditions in the park such as river processes; wetland, meadow, and oak woodland ecology; geologic processes and hazards; hydrology; fire ecology; cultural landscape and historic properties surveys; archeology; visitor use patterns and preferences; air quality; traffic patterns; and rare, threatened, and endangered species. From these data, it is clear that adverse impacts to highly valued resources result from the present siting of some facilities. For those who associate visitor experience mostly with using a traditionally used campsite, lodging unit, strolling across a specific historic bridge, or the unfettered use of a private vehicle, there would be some diminution of visitor experience. For others who wish to find Yosemite’s natural environment and spectacular beauty in a more natural state and with fewer urban distractions, the visitor experience would certainly be enhanced.

It should be noted, however, that through implementation of Visitor Experience and Resource Protection, further restrictions on visitor use could occur. The Visitor Experience and Resource Protection process is designed to be ongoing in recognition of the dynamic character of natural processes and impacts of visitation. The Visitor Experience and Resource Protection process addresses user capacities by establishing indicators of desired conditions for both visitor experience and resource condition (natural, cultural, and historical), which are regularly monitored to ensure that they are maintained at or above a specified standard. If deviation from the standard occurs, more restrictive management practices would be implemented.
(See also the response to concern #356.)

483. Public Concern: The National Park Service should expand the scope of the proposed Visitor Experience and Resource Protection Study.

"The proposed visitor experience and resource protection study should include the entire Park, portions of adjacent National Forests, and gateway communities." (USDA Forest Service, Sonora, CA - #9221)

Response: It is beyond the scope of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS to prescribe a Visitor Experience and Resource Protection process for the entire park and beyond. While there is interest in using the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection process on a wider scale to help the National Park Service address the issue of user capacities as mandated in the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, currently Visitor Experience and Resource Protection standards and indicators are being developed for areas that would be affected by implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The Merced River Plan/FEIS also calls for the implementation of a Visitor Experience and Resource Protection process throughout the Merced River corridor (standards and indicators are being developed for this area as well), along both the main stem and south forks of the river.

2.3.4 ~ Wawona Town Plan

Many citizens express concern about a possible conflict between the Yosemite Valley Plan and the Wawona Town Plan. "The National Park Service should address whether the proposed housing development intended to house 198 entry-level concessioner employees complies with the existing Wawona Town Plan," suggests a resident of that locale. Such a housing development will conflict, this person asserts, with Wawona’s plan to maintain its small community atmosphere. Another contends, "To remain consistent with the NPS mission, the zoning overlay in the River Plan as well as the provision for employee housing in Section 35 as set forth in Alternative 2, to the extent that it is inconsistent with the Wawona Area Specific Plan, must be deleted from their respective documents."

721. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should comply with the existing Wawona Town Plan.

"The National Park Service should address whether the proposed housing development intended to house 198 entry-level concessionaire employees complies with the existing Wawona Town Plan. I believe the assumption of compliance in the YVP is problematic for the following reasons: A primary Planning Goal of the Wawona Specific Plan is ‘to maintain the mountain, small community atmosphere of Wawona for the benefit of present and future residents of the community.’ (Land Use Policies and Standards Element, p.5) The Wawona Specific Plan further proposes a one and one-half acre minimum lot size on all private residential uses, including the pristine, forested site on which the YVP proposes building dormitory or apartment housing for nearly 200 employees." (Individual, Wawona, CA - #3799)

"Land use issues for private property in Section 35 are subject to joint jurisdiction between the NPS and Mariposa County. On February 17, 2000 Superintendent Mihalic wrote a letter to Bob Pickard, Mariposa County Supervisor, regarding proposed amendments to the Wawona Area Specific Plan. In his letter Mr. Mihalic stated, ‘The National Park Service is not opposed to amendments to the Town Plan to facilitate such things as land exchanges or to clarify specific issues. However, the mission of the NPS is ‘. . . to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of future generations.’ Based on the congressionally mandated mission, the NPS cannot agree to any amendments to the town plan which change the small mountain community atmosphere of Wawona or which allow for more intensive development of the area.’ On February 17, 2000 the congressionally mandated mission of the NPS would not allow for more intensive development of the Wawona area. A consideration posed by the River Plan (should an ROD be signed) would provide a zoning overlay on NPS property in Section 35 that would allow the high density housing proposed in Alternative 2 of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan. On the basis of Superintendent Mihalic’s letter to Supervisor Pickard, the provisions of both plans are in violation of the congressionally mandated mission of the NPS. While it is recognized that the NPS is under direction by the current administration to expedite processing of these plans, there is no evidence that the administration’s direction is also to violate a congressional mandate. To remain consistent with the NPS mission, the zoning overlay in the River Plan as well as the provision for employee housing in Section 35 as set forth in Alternative 2, to the extent that it is inconsistent with the Wawona Area Specific Plan, must be deleted from their respective documents." (Individual, Mission Viejo, CA - #4640)

Response: The National Park Service has made modifications to the Final Yosemite Valley Plan regarding the circumstances under which employee housing would be constructed in Wawona and in other areas of Yosemite National Park. These changes are found in Alternative 2 and are also described in response to Public Concern 456. With regards to Wawona, it is the intent of the National Park Service to locate additional housing outside the park where possible in accordance with National Park Service housing policies.

The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS Preferred Alternative does comply with the Land Use Policies and Standards of the Wawona Town Plan. Should housing be constructed in Wawona, the exact location and configuration of housing, as further developed through the site design process, would (1) consider and address potential conflicts between land uses by situating the housing so that non-compatible land uses are mostly buffered by physical terrain and open space, (2) provide housing in an orderly and limited way, (3) preserve historical sites and surroundings, (4) provide a cost-effective way of supplying utilities, (5) protect and enhance ecological and river values, and (6) retain the residential atmosphere of Wawona.

Finally, the National Park Service will continue to participate in a collaborative planning process for the community of Wawona with the Wawona Town Planning Advisory Committee, the Mariposa County Planning Commission, and the Mariposa County Board of Supervisors. Although ultimate responsibility for regulating land uses in federal and private lands in Wawona will remain with the National Park Service and Mariposa County, respectively, the National Park Service will strive, to the maximum extent possible, to coordinate land use planning in Wawona with Mariposa County and the Wawona Town Planning Advisory Committee.

2.3.5 ~ Past, Present, and Future Yosemite Projects

One conservation organization believes the Yosemite Valley Plan should account for the cumulative impacts of the proposed action in relation to past and ongoing projects. "Page 4.1-35 in Vol. 1b references twelve current or reasonably foreseeable design and construction projects that could impact archaeological resources. They are not identified. At 4.1-36 eight other projects are referenced which are similarly not identified or analyzed. These are two simple examples. More serious examples include the lack of evaluation of impacts which have already occurred from the widening of the El Portal Road project." Such omissions, this group feels, should be corrected in the final document.

Another in-Valley project mentioned by many respondents is the Yosemite Falls Project that now has been incorporated into the Yosemite Valley Plan. According to some, the Yosemite Valley Plan should require the implementation of the Yosemite Falls Project. Redesigning and relandscaping the area at the base of the falls would greatly enhance the beauty of the site, they say. On the contrary, some contest the need for the project unless it is supported by clear ecological reasons.

550. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should account for the cumulative impacts of the proposed action in relation to past and ongoing projects.

"While it provides an appendix of potential future projects, it provides little in the way of identification or evaluation of ongoing or past projects and impacts. For example, on page 4.1-35 in Vol. 1B references twelve current or reasonably foreseeable design and construction projects that could impact archaeological resources. They are not identified. At 4.1-36 eight other projects are referenced which are similarly not identified or analyzed. These are two simple examples. More serious examples include the lack of evaluation of impacts which have already occurred from the widening of the El Portal Road project. As you are fully aware, the federal court found that the NPS was in substantive violation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for harming the ORVs." (Conservation Organization, Yosemite, CA - #7883)

Response: In the Cumulative Impact Analysis in Vol. IB, Chapter 4 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, examples of these twelve and eight projects, respectively, that could impact archeological resources are presented. These project examples were selected from Appendix H, Cumulative Impact Scenario. Appendix H is included to provide the reader with a compilation and brief description of other ongoing or foreseeable future actions that could have impacts relating to those of the Valley Plan alternatives, thereby avoiding repetition in the Chapter 4 discussions of cumulative impacts.

Impacts of past projects are presented in a qualitative fashion in the cumulative impact analyses where relevant. For example, the cumulative impacts analysis for wildlife under Alternative 2 discusses the basic effects of past actions on wildlife habitat and populations both regionally and locally within the Valley and park from actions such as logging, mining, grazing, visitor-related development, and dam construction.

There are almost 50 ongoing and future projects presented in Vol. II, Appendix H, Cumulative Impact Scenario, of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, and approximately 70 projects in the cumulative scenario for the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS (Vol. II, Appendix H). It is impractical to present in detail the impacts of every relevant project in the cumulative impact analysis. Consequently, the National Park Service has combined projects with similar impacts in the cumulative impacts analysis for purposes of presentation. For example, in the cumulative impacts analysis for wildlife under Alternative 2 (see Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS), several projects are identified as occurring in previously disturbed areas, including the Mariposa Creek Pedestrian/Bike Path, Repair and Rehabilitation of the Yosemite Valley Sewer Line, Highway 140 (El Portal Road) Improvements, YARTS, Mariposa Grove Roadway Improvement and Giant Sequoia Restoration, and O’Shaughnessy Compound Water System Improvements. Because these actions are occurring or would occur primarily in disturbed areas, they would have similar impacts on wildlife such as short-term disturbance and dispersal resulting from noise and human activity, and are therefore presented together rather than individually. However, the potential impacts of each of the relevant projects in the cumulative impact scenario were considered and assessed, and their contribution included in the impacts disclosed.

Cumulative impacts of other past projects are discussed where relevant in the various impact topics in Vol. IB, Chapter 4. The El Portal Road Improvement Project, an ongoing action, is included in the cumulative scenario (Appendix H) and addressed in cumulative impact analyses for many topics. For example, under Alternative 2, this project is highlighted in the cumulative impact analyses for water resources, wildlife, special status species, cultural resources, floodplains, Merced Wild and Scenic River, special-status species, transportation, scenic resources, and other impact topics.

90. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should require the implementation of the Yosemite Falls Project.

"The project to redesign and re-landscape the visitor access areas at the base of Yosemite Falls which has been under development for the past three years should be completed as soon as possible. I would love to be able to take my grandchildren and great grandchildren to the base of the Falls and share with them the breathtaking beauty and thrill which I remember enjoying some sixty-plus years ago." (Individual, Mountain View, CA - #399)

"Yosemite Falls is one of the most beloved and awe-inspiring landmarks of Yosemite. I am writing to express support for the portion of Alternative 2 of the draft Plan that addresses the area at the base of Yosemite Falls. Currently, the visitor experience at Yosemite Falls is impaired because surrounding development intrudes on the natural setting, degrading both the beauty of the Falls and the environment. I support the project which will improve the approach to Yosemite Falls by providing better access and restoring degraded areas to more natural conditions." (Individual, Ojai, CA - #464)

"Relandscape and restore the Lower Yosemite Falls area as described in Alternative 2 according to the detailed Design Consensus Plan prepared by the office of Lawrence Halprin in cooperation with the National Park Service and underwritten by The Yosemite Fund. This project should be among the first to proceed upon approval of a final Plan so as to serve as a model or symbol of the kinds of positive changes that the Plan describes." (Individual, Lafayette, CA - #4499)

Response: Improvements at Lower Yosemite Fall (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Visitor Experience, Recreation) are proposed in the Preferred Alternative of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. This area has long been recognized as both one of the major scenic wonders in Yosemite Valley and as a hazardous and unaesthetic combination of heavy vehicle traffic, parking for cars and buses, heavy pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and inappropriate design. The Preferred Alternative calls for the removal of parking and restoration of the area, relocating restroom facilities, and redesigning trails and bridges.

600. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should prohibit the implementation of the Yosemite Falls Project.

"I think Lower Yosemite Falls should be left as is unless there is an ecological reason to redesign the trails. If you remove the parking where will the tour buses park?" (Individual, Los Alimitos, CA - #5574)

Response: The Yosemite Falls Project is an important component of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS and is included in all action alternatives. The visitor experience is significantly degraded by a number of existing conditions. The close proximity of the parking lot to the Lower Yosemite Fall detracts from the overall sense of arrival and enjoyment. Currently, trails are in disrepair; Lower Yosemite Fall is not accessible to people with mobility impairments; the bathroom is both inadequate for the volume of visitors to the area and antiquated. Each of the action alternatives would address these shortcomings. (See Vol. IA, Chapter 2 for a description of alternatives.)

Section 2.4 ~ Applicable Laws

Several individuals are concerned with the Yosemite Valley Plan’s compliance with applicable laws, namely the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Comments regarding these laws, as well as the National Park Service’s own enabling legislation (Organic Act), are covered in this section.

2.4.1 ~ The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

Many actions proposed under the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS are perceived by the public to be in conflict with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA). Citing the widening of Highway 140, the construction of a half-mile of new roadway in a meadow, and the construction of new parking at Camp 6, one respondent wonders, "Where in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is there a justification of any such development or expanding impacts?"

Other individuals need no such clarification; they are convinced the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan contradicts the letter and intent of WSRA and insist that the Park Service address this concern. Diverting Merced River water for irrigation and development is cited as a possible conflict with the WSRA, according to some. Other respondents believe the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan does not adequately protect the Merced River’s Outstandingly Remarkable Values. "In some instances, undefined mitigation measures are proposed; however, WSRA requires that the ORVs be protected and enhanced, not degraded and mitigated," advances one conservation organization. "All of the actions proposed for El Portal, especially the new developments and the increase in human population of both visitors and employees, will have obvious adverse negative impacts on all of the ORVs except geological," adds another individual. The National Park Service should carefully study the effects these proposed actions may have on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Merced River, according to many respondents.

169. Public Concern: The National Park Service should clarify how the Yosemite Valley Plan complies with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

"Please demonstrate how the Valley Plan meets the requirements of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to protect the Merced River." (Individual, Malibu, CA - #1164)

"NPS has ignored the court. It first prepared an enormous but hollow Draft River Plan which gerrymandered protective corridors, created zones to allow new development, which lacked science, and otherwise subverted the requirements of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The court ordered a plan to protect and enhance Yosemite, but NPS refused to produce it. It is frankly outrageous that the public should now be asked to comment on a Draft Valley Plan, which subverts the environmental laws of the United States, and the order of a court of law. We believe that the Secretary of the Interior should be denounced for this arrogant effort to increase development in Yosemite, and denounced again for his public claims that he is really about the business of restoring Yosemite. No claim could be further from the truth. This tax-funded development drive proposes the further widening of Highway 140 into the Merced River Channel, it proposes a dramatic widening of about half of the Valley’s roadways, it proposes the construction of a half-mile of new roadway in a meadow (though a different half mile of roadway will be removed from another meadow, which has been great public relations for the plan). The plan proposes that the public approve the 20 to 30 acres of new parking added illegally at Camp 6 in Yosemite Valley last summer. We do not approve. Where in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is there a justification of any such development or expanding impacts? The answer is that there is none." (Public Hearing, Sacramento, CA - #20045)

Response: In 1987, Congress designated the Merced Wild and Scenic River, which flows through lands managed by the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. Section 3(d)(1) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) requires the administering agency to develop a comprehensive management plan that addresses "resource protection, development of lands and facilities, user capacities, and the management practices necessary or desirable to achieve the purposes of this Act." Section 10(a) of WSRA states that "management plans for any such component may establish varying degrees of intensity for its protection and development, based on the special attributes of the area". In 2000, in response to a court order, the National Park Service completed the Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement for the segments of the Merced Wild and Scenic River that flow through Yosemite National Park and the El Portal Administrative Site.

The Merced River Plan applies a consistent set of decision-making criteria and considerations composed of seven management elements: boundaries, classifications, Outstandingly Remarkable Values, the Section 7 determination process, the River Protection Overlay, management zoning, and the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection framework. The application of the seven management elements will allow the National Park Service to meet the requirements of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, including the requirement that comprehensive management plans address resource protection, development of lands and facilities and user capacities. All seven of the management elements will guide resource protection efforts and future development. User capacities are mainly addressed through the VERP process, river classification, the River Protection Overlay and management zoning. The Merced River Plan’s management elements guide the Yosemite Valley Plan in the type of development and levels of use allowed within and adjacent to the Merced River corridor in Yosemite Valley, Wawona, and the El Portal Administrative Site.

The Yosemite Valley Plan recognizes that "the Merced River…is central to the Valley’s scenery and ecological processes. The Yosemite Valley Plan protects and enhances the Merced River’s Outstandingly Remarkable Values primarily by removing development from the River Protection Overlay in Yosemite Valley, restoring areas along the river, and by prescribing actions that are consistent with the management zoning established by the Merced River Plan. The Yosemite Valley Plan action alternatives are consistent with the seven management elements of the Merced River Plan. Thus, the Yosemite Valley Plan complies with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by proposing alternatives that are based on the Merced River Plan and by proposing a host of specific actions that would protect and enhance river values.

The Merced Wild and Scenic River is described in Chapter 3, Affected Environment. Impacts to the Merced Wild and Scenic River are described in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. The Yosemite Valley Plan includes plates of the Merced Wild and Scenic River management zones in Yosemite Valley, Wawona, and the El Portal Administrative Site. The seven management elements of the Merced River Plan are described in detail in Appendix B to the Yosemite Valley Plan.

Note: One response is provided for Public Concerns #722 and #536 and placed following Concern #536.

722. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

"According to the Wild and Scenic Rivers act (WSRA) the managing agency is required to identify and protect ORVs, the river and its immediate environments, and the water quality to fulfill other vital conservation purposes. Its purpose is to be a policy that complements our national policy of damming rivers with a policy that helps protect rivers. And that primary emphasis shall be given to protecting its aesthetic, scenic, historic, archaeological and scientific features. This means that biological resources are not limited to rare and unique or exemplary within a regional or national context, nor that they must be directly river related as NPS had interpreted. Biological ORVs includes biodiversity and productivity of species as well as their role in the ecosystem. All management of the Merced WSR and its immediate environments, etc., is supposed to protect and enhance the identified ORVs for each section of the Merced. The Draft VP allows for adverse impacts on one section of the Merced WSR (e.g., El Portal) to be mitigated by protection of other ORVs on other sections (e.g., the Valley), falsely concluding overall impacts to be [often] beneficial. This creates a net loss of habitat, ecosystem, species, individuals, etc. and is not following the WSRA mandate to protect and enhance the Merced WSR ORVs. The out-of-valley sections are just as important to protect for their own unique ORVs that are not found in the Valley. The designation of WSR means that the whole river designated is protected, not one section protected at the expense of other section." (Individual, El Portal, CA - #7026)

"Any scheme to supply more water for development in Wawona, which entails draining water from the South Fork of the Merced River, conflicts with the South Fork’s designated status as a Wild and Scenic River. The NPS proposal to take water directly from Biledo Spring, or indirectly by diverting water from Big Creek (which flows into the South Fork of the Merced River) would reduce flow in the river, especially during drought years. The Mariposa Grove of Big Trees could also be threatened by a diversion of water from Biledo Spring. What would a drought year of reduced water flow mean for that treasured resource?" (Non-Governmental Organization, Wawona, CA - #7882)

536. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should not allow for the degradation of Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

"The DVP allows for the degradation of ORVs, in violation of WSRA. In some instances, undefined mitigation measures are proposed; however, WSRA requires that the ORVs be protected and enhanced, not degraded and mitigated." (Conservation Organization, Yosemite, CA - #7883)

"All of the actions proposed in El Portal will not protect and enhance the ORVs in the El Portal section of the Merced WSR, but will impact them instead. All of the actions proposed for El Portal, especially the new developments and the increase in human population of both visitors and employees will have obvious adverse negative impacts on all of the ORVs except geological." (Individual, El Portal, CA - # 7026)

Response: Each of the action alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS is consistent with the guidance and direction provided by the management elements of the Merced River Plan/FEIS. The Merced Wild and Scenic River section of Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, analyzes the consistency of each of the alternatives with the Merced River Plan, including impacts to Outstandingly Remarkable Values, compatibility with segment classifications, and consistency with the management zoning and River Protection Overlay. However, it is recognized that individual actions can have beneficial impacts on certain Outstandingly Remarkable Values and adverse impacts on other Outstandingly Remarkable Values. The Methodologies and Assumptions section of Chapter 4 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS states:

"It is not atypical for Outstandingly Remarkable Values to be in conflict with each other—that an action (or the existing condition) has beneficial impacts with regard to one Outstandingly Remarkable Value and adverse impacts with regard to a different Outstandingly Remarkable Value. The Merced River Plan/FEIS recognizes this situation, and in the section on Criteria and Considerations (Chapter 11 of that document) it states: "Actions must protect the Outstandingly Remarkable Values, regardless of where the Outstandingly Remarkable Value is located. When Outstandingly Remarkable Values lie within the boundary of the Wild and Scenic River, the Outstandingly Remarkable Value must be protected and enhanced. When Outstandingly Remarkable Values are in conflict with each other, the net effect to the Outstandingly Remarkable Values must be beneficial."

As discussed above, the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS complies with the guidance and direction provided in the Merced River Plan, and therefore complies with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. See the Merced Wild and Scenic River section of Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS for a full analysis of impacts to Outstandingly Remarkable Values associated with each of the alternatives. (This response also applies to the previous Public Concern #722.)

(Also see response to Concerns #16 and #169.)

2.4.2 ~ The National Environmental Policy Act

Several respondents cite various reasons why they believe the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The construction of housing in Wawona, the relocation of the fire station, and the removal of the historic bridges are all mentioned by constituents as actions that violate the National Environmental Policy Act.

Each aforementioned action does not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act for unique reasons, according to various respondents. The construction of housing in Wawona does not abide by the National Environmental Policy Act because the National Park Service did not consider alternative sites that "would avoid or minimize" the potential adverse impacts of the project, according to a civic organization. The tradeoff between a catastrophic rockfall of extremely low probability and the certain development of existing or former meadowland has not been adequately evaluated as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, according to respondents who oppose the firehouse relocation. Noting that bridge removal will also require additional state and federal Clean Water Act (Section 404) permits, one respondent concludes, "Prior to certification of the SEIS, these formal NEPA and Section 404 integration processes must occur."

456. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should comply with the National Environmental Policy Act.

"The CEQA regulations that implement NEPA direct that EISs ‘shall provide full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts and shall inform decision makers and the public of the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment.’ 40 C.F.R. 1502.1. EISs ‘shall be supported by evidence that the agency has made the necessary environmental analysis.’ Id. Where incomplete information relevant to a project’s potential adverse impacts ‘is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and the overall costs of obtaining it are not exorbitant, the agency shall include the information in the environmental impact statements.’ 40 C.F.R. 1502.22(a). Federal agencies ‘shall ensure the professional integrity, including statements.’ 40 C.F.R. 1502.24. Agencies must also assure that EISs are prepared ‘concurrently with and integrated with environmental impact analyses and related surveys and studies required by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and other environmental review laws and executive orders.’ 40 C.F.R. 1502.25(a). The SEIS for the draft valley Plan violates these requirements. Most importantly, neither the Valley Plan nor its SEIS considers alternative sites for the high-density housing project proposed for Wawona. This omission is demonstrably unreasonable, for three reasons: First, as previously noted, both the GMP and the Wawona Specific Plan forbid the placement of high-density residential development with Wawona. Hence, consideration of alternatives is not only reasonable, but necessary, to conform to these applicable regulations. Second, the SEIS admits that the housing project would cause significant adverse environmental impacts on Wawona and the South Fork Merced River’s Outstandingly Remarkable Values. NEPA specifically requires agencies to consider ‘alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts.’ 40 C.F.R. 1502.1. Hence, the Park Service must consider alternative sites that ‘would avoid or minimize’ this housing project’s adverse impacts on Wawona. Third, alternative sites for this proposed housing project do in fact exist outside the Park boundaries, in El Portal, Oakhurst, Yosemite West, Midpines and Mariposa." (Civic Organization, Wawona, CA - #7549)

"It appears that a decision to relocate the Fire Station (and the Auditorium) predates this document. This is contrary to NEPA. There appears to be a tradeoff between a catastrophic rockfall of extremely low probability, structural protection such as north-side blast walls and sand traps, and the certain development of existing or former meadowland. NEPA requires that this tradeoff be evaluated in its entirety." (Individual, Oakland, CA - #3835)

"We have carefully reviewed the SEIS and conclude that it is inadequate and does not fulfill the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (‘NEPA’). Because certain impacts will extend beyond the boundaries of Yosemite National Park (i.e., potential increases in the velocity of the Merced River water flow as a result of the proposed removal of historic bridges), we assert that pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) a full Environmental Impact Report must be prepared. In addition, because of the inevitable alterations to the river (with the proposed demolition of the historic bridges and the construction of new bridge(s) and roads, other state and federal permits will be required from the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers (under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act), the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish & Game with involvement with the Federal Bureau of Land Management. Further, to the best of our knowledge, there has been no coordination or ‘consultation’ between the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Army, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as it relates to an integration of the NEPA and Clean Water Act Section 404 procedures in accordance with the May 1, 1993 Agreement. Prior to certification of the SEIS, these formal NEPA and Section 404 integration processes must occur." (Business, San Diego, CA - #7884)

Response: The National Park Service is mandated by law to comply with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The National Park Service methodology for quantifying impacts in terms of both NEPA and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is presented in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. The implementing regulations for NEPA require agencies to estimate the intensities of impacts to the human environment, as well as the resultant intensity based on the implementation of mitigation measures (e.g., recordation). It is within this NEPA framework that terms such as "major," "moderate," and "minor" are used. The definitions for these terms as they apply to all impact topics, including cultural resources, are provided in this methodology section.

The National Park Service has considered a wide range of employee housing approaches and alternatives over the last several years. The Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plans of 1992 and 1996 provide information regarding alternatives considered and evaluated during earlier phases of planning for employee housing. The Preferred Alternative in the Yosemite Valley Plan/FEIS would locate an additional 198 beds to Wawona. Other alternatives in the plan propose no new housing in Wawona and would distribute the 198 Wawona-designated beds called for in Alternative 2 to other areas in and outside of the parkThus, the Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS presents a range of housing alternatives for Wawona and other areas administered by the National Park Service. In addition, language has been added to Chapter 2 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS (under all action alternatives) that discusses agency strategies for meeting needs for employee housing. The National Park Service is committed to following the direction established by the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 which seeks to reduce the government’s role in providing employee housing, while reserving the ability to provide housing when appropriate and necessary. Before constructing employee housing within Yosemite National Park, the National Park Service would encourage employees to find housing outside the park and would explore opportunities to reduce the government’s role in housing. However, since no opportunities exist at the present time, the Yosemite Valley Plan identifies areas under National Park Service jurisdiction where necessary employee housing can be located. Ultimately, factors such economic feasibility, functionality, and land-use compatibility would play an important role in the viability of locations outside National Park Service jurisdiction. For example, locations such as Oakhurst and Mariposa present issues of reasonable commuting time and distance for employees, depending on their work site.

The National Park Service disagrees with the statement that construction of housing in Wawona would significantly and adversely impact the Merced River Outstandingly Remarkable Values in the Wawona segment of the river. Impacts to ORVs in Wawona are fully described in Chapter 4, Impacts to the Merced Wild and Scenic River.

Readers should also see the response to concern #721 for clarification of the relationship between the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS and the Wawona Town Planning Area, Specific Plan.)

2.4.3 ~ The National Historic Preservation Act

A business representative proposes that the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan’s proposition to remove the historic bridges violates both the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. "Demolition, as a major, substantial adverse impact cannot and should not be characterized as ‘moderate’ and recordation and photo documentation as the proposed mitigation measure most certainly will not reduce the impact to a ‘minor’ level. At the very least, an examination of all other feasible mitigation measures, including retention, relocation, alteration in place, or reduction of the river bed beneath the bridges must be proposed and thoroughly analyzed in the SEIS," according to this respondent.

648. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should comply with the National Historic Preservation Act.

"The proposed standard ‘lowest level’ mitigation measures . . . will not mitigate the loss of three or more nationally significant 1920s - 1930s era constructed granite bridges (which are individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places) to a level below significance. Recordation and photo documentation rather than in-situ preservation of the historic resources, will not mitigate the loss to an acceptable level. Demolition, as a major, substantial adverse impact cannot and should not be characterized as ‘moderate’ and recordation and photo documentation as the proposed mitigation measure most certainly will not reduce the impact to a ‘minor’ level. At the very least, an examination of all other feasible mitigation measures, including retention, relocation, alteration in place or, reduction of the river bed beneath the bridges must be proposed and thoroughly analyzed in the SEIS. Without a full examination of all-feasible other mitigation measures including public comment as to their sufficiency, the SEIS does not adequately address the loss of, or the compensation for the historic resources identified in the SEIS. Consequently, the PA and EIS are inherently defective in content and do not comply with NHPA Section 106 requirements or NEPA." (Business, San Diego, CA - #7884)

Response: The National Park Service methodology for quantifying impacts in terms of both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is presented in Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. The implementing regulations for the National Environmental Policy Act require agencies to estimate the intensities of impacts to the human environment, as well as the resultant intensity based on the implementation of mitigation measures (e.g., recordation). It is within this National Environmental Policy Act framework that terms such as "major," "moderate," and "minor" are used. The definitions for these terms as they apply to cultural resources are provided in the methodology section, Vol. IB, Chapter 4.

There is a clear distinction between assessment of impact under the National Environmental Policy Act and assessment of effect under the National Historic Preservation Act. While intensities of impact (under NEPA) may be reduced by documentary mitigation, the National Park Service acknowledges the continued adverse effect (under NHPA) to historic properties. Hence, mitigation measures such as photodocumentation are not intended to reduce the level of effect under NHPA to a level considered "not adverse." The National Park Service has consulted (and reached concurrence) with the California State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regarding this methodology.

The National Park Service has relied on independent hydrologic studies (Jackson and Smillie 1997; Madej 1991; USDOT-FHA 1998) for the best-available information regarding the nature and severity of impacts that the historic bridges in Yosemite Valley cause to the hydrologic flow of the Merced River. The historic bridges in Yosemite Valley were evaluated based on the following factors: (1) the extent to which they each are causing significant and detrimental changes to the Merced River fluvial system, and (2) their importance and continuing use as a structure in the historically significant traffic circulation system. Bridges causing the most significant ecological degradation were considered for removal, especially in places where they are not critical as continuing links in the traffic circulation system. In situations where a bridge crossing is necessary and a historic bridge exists, priority consideration was placed on retaining that bridge. In other situations where a bridge crossing is not necessary, it was determined that redesigning the bridges would seriously degrade their integrity as historic structures. Under the Preferred Alternative, in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the bridge causing the most serious degradation, Sugar Pine, would be removed first, with subsequent monitoring and evaluation performed before any other bridges downstream would be removed.

Under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the National Park Service is charged with maintaining whenever possible the free-flowing nature of the Merced River as it runs through Yosemite National Park. Section 7 of the Act (16 USC 1277) requires a rigorous process to ensure that proposed "water resources projects," implemented or assisted by federal agencies within the bed and banks of designated rivers, do not have a "direct and adverse effect" on the values for which the river was designated. Water resources projects include hydroelectric projects, dams, water diversions, fisheries habitat and watershed restoration, bridges and other roadway construction or reconstruction, bank stabilization, channelization, levees, boat ramps, and fishing piers that occur within the bed and banks of a designated Wild and Scenic River (Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council 1999). Given the priority consideration for free-flowing river conditions, the National Park Service has not considered altering the river channel itself in order to maintain the viability of the historic bridges.

2.4.4 ~ The Organic Act of 1916

Many respondents support the Organic Act’s foundational mandates to protect the natural and cultural resources of Yosemite National Park while enhancing the visitor’s enjoyment of these resources. However, some people feel that the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan contradicts this edict.

225. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should comply with the Organic Act of 1916.

"We fully support the foundational roots of the National Park Service as articulated in the Organic Act of 1916 which calls for protection of the natural and cultural resources while enhancing the visitor experience." (Conservation Organization, Oakhurst, CA - #1435)

"At the Secretary’s direction, you are about to violate your own Organic Act on its two most basic counts: 1. You are required to protect the natural values unimpaired; this plan doesn’t do it. 2. You are required to provide for the enjoyment of the visiting public; this plan would have quite the opposite effect." (Conservation Organization, Fresno, CA - # 7881)

Response: The National Park Service takes all aspects of its mission seriously, including both the responsibilities "to conserve… and to provide for the enjoyment." as articulated in the Organic Act of 1916. The public has offered a wide range of opinions regarding the need to protect natural and cultural resources in Yosemite Valley, as well as provide for visitor access and use. As indicated in Chapter 1 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the National Park Service seeks to balance the five goals of the General Management Plan "to ensure both the long-term preservation and public enjoyment of Yosemite Valley."

Consequently, resource protection is a key element in each of the action alternatives presented in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. For example, protection of the Merced River and associated resources such as riparian zones, meadows, and wetlands is emphasized throughout the plan, including the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2). For information regarding the measures proposed to protect the Merced River ecosystem, as well as other important park resources, refer to Vol. IA, Chapter 2, in which highly valued resources as well as Alternative 2 are described.