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

---

Introduction

In 1987 federal legislation designated eighty-one miles of the Merced River within Yosemite National Park as Wild and Scenic. Although work had begun on a plan for protecting the Merced Wild and Scenic River within Yosemite National Park, it had not been completed at the time of the devastating New Year’s Day flood of 1997. That historic event restructured not only the configuration of the Merced River, but also set in motion a new wave of Yosemite Valley planning. After the flood, Yosemite National Park began reconstructing the heavily damaged El Portal Road. Legal action pertaining to that project’s environmental assessment resulted in a mandate that Yosemite National Park complete a Comprehensive Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the Merced Wild and Scenic River. The Draft Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (Draft Merced River Plan/EIS) was released for public review in January 2000. The Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement (Merced River Plan/FEIS) was released July 2000, and the Record of Decision signed on August 9, 2000. The Merced River Plan/FEIS brings together federal law and National Park Service management direction to create an integrated plan for the river that will provide a foundation for future actions within the park.

Draft Merced River Plan/EIS

The public comment period for the Draft Merced River Plan/EIS ran from January 7, 2000 to March 24, 2000. The resulting number of responses and comments is summarized in Table III.5.1, which offers three different ways of looking at how many people submitted input and how many comments they offered during this public comment period. The first column, titled "Number of Responses," displays the total number of pieces of correspondence (letters, faxes, emails, comment forms, and public testimony). The second column reports the number of signatures tabulated from all responses, including petitions. This number provides the most accurate gauge of how many people, whether individually or as co-signatories to a letter, offered input during the comment period for the Draft Merced River Plan/EIS. The third column displays the number of comments coded, categorized, and entered into the comment analysis database. Although there is no distinct correlation between the numbers presented in each column of this table, the number of comments relative to the number of responses for a given planning effort can give readers some indication of the level of detail in public input (this same description applies to Tables III.5.3 and III.5.4, below).

Table III.5.1 — Number of Responses, Signatures, and Comments Received During Public Comment Period for Merced River Plan

Table III.5.2 — Number of Comments Sorted by Planning Process
Summary of Public Comment, Merced River Plan

Comment Analysis Process

The letters, emails, and faxes represented in this report were analyzed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office Ecosystem Management Staff, Content Analysis Enterprise Team using the same process as used for the analysis of public comment on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. (See Chapter 8 for a description of this process.)

For more information on the public input for the Draft Merced River Plan/EIS, refer to the Merced River Plan/FEIS, Appendix I, "Summary of Public Comments and Responses" (NPS 2000c). For additional information, the reader should refer to the Summary of Public Comment, Yosemite National Park, Merced River Plan (USFS 2000c), the original letters, and the database reports prepared as part of this process and available in the Research Library, Yosemite National Park, P.O. Box 577, Yosemite National Park, California 95389.

How to Use This Document

This summary of comment analysis presents public concerns related to the Yosemite Valley Plan drawn from letters submitted in response the Merced River Plan. The order of presentation of topics in this document approximates that of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Section 1 includes concerns regarding the purpose of Yosemite National Park, the purpose and need for action, relationships between different planning efforts, compliance with land management laws, and public involvement. Section 2 is a placeholder to indicate no comments specific to the range of alternatives were identified from public input. Section 3 analyzes responses in detail organized by area of potentially affected resource or environmental consequence including natural resources, cultural resources, visitor experience, and social resources which include, transportation, scenic resources, socio-economics, access issues, park operations and facilities. As was the case with Chapters 2, 3, and 4, each section is organized in an outline format by topic area.

---

Draft Merced River Plan/EIS Concern Statements, Supporting Quotes, and National Park Service Responses Related to Yosemite Valley Planning

Section 1 ~ Purpose and Need

Section 1.1 ~ Purpose of the Action/ Need for the Action

1.1.1 General Management Direction

1001. Public Concern: The National Park Service should reduce the level of development in Yosemite National Park.

"The way National Parks are managed must change. We realize now that we do not need to build attractions and glorious lodging to draw visitors. Slowly but surely, the man made obstacles and impact should be removed, beginning with the dams. The golf course should probably get phased out as well, especially if its irrigation needs strain the resources." (Individual, No Address - #8)

"We have visited Yosemite every year for many years. We have long thought it was overused with too many cars, too much unsuitable development, too much commercialization." (Individual, Simi Valley, CA - #6140)

"In my view, the National Park Service is jeopardizing the preservation of the national treasure called Yosemite National Park by attempting to serve too many masters. Yosemite Valley is in grave danger of being further developed and urbanized for the short-term benefit of commercial interests and misguided visitors." (Individual, San Francisco, CA - #1638)

Halt Development in the Park

"We are dismayed that the Park Service intends on bringing new development projects into Yosemite Park. Hotels should not be expanded; Roads should not be widened; Parking lots should not be enlarged; Tourist facilities should not be increased. Yosemite is a treasure that should remain wild and offer only minimal human access and comfort." (Individual, Portland, OR - #1410)

Response: The National Park Service acknowledges that the level of development in Yosemite National Park (in particular Yosemite Valley) should be reduced. This fact was recognized in the 1980 General Management Plan and remains one of the primary objectives of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

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. 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.

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 as well as a description of 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 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. 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.
(Also see response to concerns #47, #48, #49, #95, #305, #1002-1005.)

1002. Public Concern: The National Park Service should allow natural processes to continue in Yosemite National Park.

"I have noted in a few places, comment about ‘restoring’ an area to its earlier condition, as in 1880 or 1930. This seems to me inconsistent with the current policy of letting nature take its course — ‘let natural fires burn.’ I realize compromises must be made (keep Mirror Lake from becoming a meadow), but in most cases, the natural processes should be allowed to continue." (Individual, San Francisco, CA - #45)

Response: As indicated in Vol. IA, Chapter 1 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, one of the five goals of the 1980 General Management Plan is allowing natural processes to prevail. Consequently, the action alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5) presented in Chapter 2 seek not only to protect unaltered natural systems, but also to restore significantly altered systems to a natural state.

Restoration is a tool used to assist in returning impacted areas to a more natural state. As indicated in the Glossary, Vol. IB, of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the concept of restoration refers to work conducted to remove impacts on natural resources and restore natural processes, and to return a site to natural conditions. Restoration is typically deemed necessary when impacts from human use and activity have reduced the capability of a site to recover to natural conditions on its own in a reasonable length of time.

Another way in which the terms "restoration" and "preservation" are used is in reference to historical sites or structures. The National Park Service mission includes historic preservation of such things as landscapes that have been determined to be of historical or cultural significance.
(Also see response to concerns #1001, #1003-1005.)

1003. Public Concern: The National Park Service should restore Yosemite National Park to a more natural environment.

"It angers me that an area which was once considered pristine wilderness; is threatened, once again, by more development. I am disgusted that my tax dollars will be used to fund any development project. I do not support development, and I don’t want to see my tax dollars support it. Instead of an upscale resort, why not spend the money on restoration projects? People visit Yosemite to experience the beauty and serenity of the wilderness. Who will want to visit Yosemite Valley when it’s covered in asphalt? I know I won’t. So instead of using money to build a new parking lot or restaurant, why not use it for restoration of Yosemite to its full potential. Use the money to find ways to lessen the impact that tourism has instead of increasing the impact with over development." (Individual, Sacramento, CA - #134)

Response: The National Park Service acknowledges the fact that it should help restore portions of Yosemite National Park (in particular Yosemite Valley) to a more natural environment. This was recognized in the 1980 General Management Plan, and remains one of the primary objectives of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Each of the action alternatives proposed in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS incorporate elements that focus on restoring, protecting, and enhancing the natural environment within Yosemite Valley. In addition, each of the action alternatives would also implement guidance and direction outlined in the Merced River Plan/FEIS to protect and enhance the river’s unique values for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations.
(Also see response to concerns #47, #95, #305, #49, #48, #335, #1001, #1002, #1004, and #1005.)

1004. Public Concern: The National Park Service should emphasize resource protection in Yosemite National Park planning.

"I strongly support an effort to assess visitor capacity to determine the maximum level of visitor use acceptable for resource protection. . . I would hope that river protection would be weighted more heavily than visitor experience when there is a conflict. . .?" (Individual, Snelling, CA - #946)

Response: As indicated in Vol. IA, Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the National Park Service seeks to balance the five goals of the 1980 General Management Plan "to ensure both the long-term preservation and public enjoyment of Yosemite Valley." It is the mission of the National Park Service, as articulated in the Organic Act of 1916, to both "conserve…and provide for the enjoyment of…the scenery, natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein."

Regarding the assessment of visitor capacity to determine the maximum level of visitor use acceptable for resource protection, the National Park Service has made a commitment, as an action common to all alternatives (see Vol. IA, Chapter 2), to complete a Visitor Experience and Resource Protection study within five years of a Record of Decision on the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. If the results of the study indicate the need to establish a maximum visitor level for Yosemite Valley, additional environmental compliance and public involvement would be conducted.

In addition, Vol. IA, Chapter 1 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS presents criteria for accomplishing the five broad goals of the General Management Plan. Included are several specific criteria found in the Merced River Plan/FEIS established to protect the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Merced River. As a result, resources associated with the Merced River would receive ample protection under the Yosemite Valley Plan.

(Also see response to concerns #47, #95, #305, #49, #48, #1001, #1002, #1003, and #1005.)

1005. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not promote Yosemite National Park as a tourist destination.

"The obvious solution is to reduce congestion by ceasing to promote the park as a tourist attraction. Less people will mean less traffic. If people really want to go to Yosemite, let them make the effort on their own." (Individual, La Habra Heights, CA - #3040)

"We don’t need a Starbucks. We don’t need a roller coaster. It’s not Disneyland. It’s Yosemite Valley. It’s there for the enjoyment of its beauty. It’s not there for recreation, basically. If you want to play golf; you want to ice skate? There are plenty of places to do that." (Individual, Harbor City, CA - #3055)

Response: Yosemite National Park is a place of extraordinary beauty where people may learn about the nation’s land and history. The National Park Service’s mission serves the public's interests, which include opportunities to visit such places that are held in common by all. To do this and to provide for fair access, it must make information easily available to all segments of the public. However, public use of park resources must also be consistent with the purposes of the park. The Yosemite Valley Plan has been developed with an eye toward maintaining a diversity of visitor experiences and recreational opportunities in Yosemite Valley. The Yosemite Valley Plan would further reduce select facilities such as the Ahwahnee tennis courts, which would be restored to natural conditions, and remove or relocate guest facilities that are situated in highly valued resource areas.

(Also see response to concerns #47, #48, #49, #95, #305, #1001, #1002, #1003, and #1004.)

1006. Public Concern: The National Park Service should encourage the use of the larger Sierra Nevada environment surrounding Yosemite National Park.

"Somehow the plan needs to be tied into other beautiful parts of the Sierra, that would absorb some of the load. Each place could provide some facet of the Yosemite Valley experience." (Individual, Orange, CA - #76)

Response: The Yosemite Valley Plan focuses on Yosemite Valley–from Happy Isles at the east end to the El Portal Road and Big Oak Flat Road intersection on the west. It also presents and analyzes actions in adjacent areas of the park and the El Portal Administrative Site that would occur as a result of actions implemented in Yosemite Valley. However, the management and use of areas of the Sierra Nevada ecosystem outside of Yosemite National Park are issues beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. This plan does analyze the cumulative effects of other actions in the region in conjunction with the impacts of each of the Yosemite Valley Plan alternatives. Please refer to Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS for analysis of cumulative impacts.

In 1992, the U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region initiated a planning effort throughout the Sierra Nevada known as the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP). This effort, now known as the Sierra Nevada Framework for Conservation and Collaboration, combines the latest scientific information with broad public and intergovernmental participation in natural resource planning to form a national forest management policy. Refer to Vol. II, Appendix H, Cumulative Impact Scenario, for a brief description of this regional planning effort.

1007. Public Concern: The National Park Service should consider cumulative impacts from park projects both inside and outside Yosemite National Park.

"The Yosemite NPS has assumed that cumulative effects and impacts apply only to future projects outside the Park such as the anticipated Hazel Green development. There is the potential for numerous projects inside the Park which must conform to the Council on Environmental Quality’s directive that even minor projects must include an assessment of cumulative impacts." (Individual, Mariposa, CA - #62)

Response: The cumulative impacts section of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS includes a list of projects within Yosemite National Park as well as outside the park that have been evaluated in conjunction with the proposed action alternatives. All of these past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects–both major and minor–inside and surrounding Yosemite National Park have been included in the assessment of cumulative impacts. These projects are listed in Vol. II, Appendix H.

Section 1.2 ~ Direction for this Planning Effort

1008. Public Concern: Yosemite National Park planning documents should address balancing visitor experience with protecting the natural environment.

"The general approach in the Yosemite Valley Plan has been weighted in favor of resource preservation and against human enjoyment of the trails, river and natural scenic beauty. The Park Service’s direction which says the beauty needs to be preserved for future generations, means for future generations to see, use and enjoy. My hope is to see Yosemite balance nature, people, preservation, and enjoyment. Let’s maximize the human enjoyment and minimize the harmful human impact." (Individual, La Jolla, CA - #3034)

"Documents often refer to maintaining the quality of the Park for future generations; however, if future generations will not be able to visit the Park due to rigid constraining rules then who are we really maintaining the Park for? Yosemite is in a constant state of change. The documentation acts as if the environment is static and that actions can be taken to maintain it as such. It is very important to realize that change will occur and that man is a part of the environment and to some extent will influence and promote such change in a natural way. The key is that man is a part of the environment!" (Individual, Simi Valley, CA - #3070)

"When you preserve for the future are you condemning the present? The future is never now. Mother Nature is reworking the park all the time. The people have never ‘hurt’ the park. Sheep grazing did not ‘hurt’ the park. Give us back the park instead of preserving it for park rangers." (Individual, Indio, CA - #155)

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: reclaim priceless natural beauty, allow natural processes to prevail, promote visitor understanding and enjoyment, markedly reduce traffic congestion, and 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 protecting resources while providing for visitor access and experience of them.

These alternatives have been adjusted in this final plan to reflect the responses received during the public comment period. 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 meeting visitor enjoyment and resource protection needs in Yosemite Valley; refer to Vol. IA, Chapter 2 Alternatives, of the final plan for strategies for managing the Valley to best achieve these goals.

1009. Public Concern: The National Park Service should base Yosemite National Park planning decisions on the desires of the majority of park visitors.

"YNP offers something for all types of visitors. The high country offers the challenge to those seeking solitude and the wilderness experience. But judging from the small number of those requesting wilderness permits, the overwhelming majority of visitors want a more ‘civilized’ Yosemite experience as found in the Valley. Then why is it assumed that Valley visitors want more wilderness experience when the numbers indicate the opposite?" (Individual, American Canyon, CA - #3126)

Response: Public involvement is a key element of the Yosemite Valley planning and National Environmental Policy Act processes. The National Park Service has gone through considerable effort, time, and expense to document and consider all the comments received from agencies, organizations, and individuals throughout the Yosemite Valley planning process. For many issues, such as the appropriate level of facilities development in the Valley, there is not a clear-cut direction voiced by the public; the diversity of opinions is as varied as those providing feedback.

As the managing agency for Yosemite National Park, the National Park Service is entrusted to make decisions regarding the future of Yosemite Valley. Public involvement is an important factor utilized in making these decisions. However, other factors must also be considered, including the park’s authorizing legislation, the agency’s mission, etc. It is the role of National Park Service to consider all relevant factors and ultimately determine what is best for the future of Yosemite Valley protecting resources while providing for appropriate visitor access. For further discussion of the role of the public, other government agencies, and American Indian tribes in the planning process for the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, see Vol. Ib, Chapter 5, Consultation and Coordination, and this volume (III), especially the Introduction and Chapter I, Publications and Modifications of the Draft Plan.

1010. Public Concern: The National Park Service should ensure that Yosemite National Park plans are adaptable to future changes.

"Yosemite National Park, especially the valley, has been influenced and changed by human activity for many more years than history has recorded. The NPS finds itself at a point where through the General Plan, the DCMP & EIS, and the future plans (Fire Management, Yosemite Valley and the Wilderness Management Plan) under consideration will provide direction into the future. How long into the future? With the vision to allow minor adjustments within a chosen alternative each plan can stand for many years. Any plan must have the ability to change." (Individual, Quincy, CA - #6258)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS has been prepared assuming a management life of approximately 20 years. Although the plan would guide actions required to implement the five broad goals of the 1980 General Management Plan during this time period, the planning process for Yosemite Valley would by no means be static. Following selection of an alternative by the National Park and subsequent documentation in a Record of Decision, the process of implementing actions identified in the Yosemite Valley Plan could begin. This process would typically include site-specific planning and design for facilities removal, construction, or restoration, and provide a vehicle for minor adjustments to elements of the selected alternative as needed. Should more substantial changes to the selected alternative be deemed necessary that could result in impacts not previously analyzed, additional environmental compliance and public involvement would be completed as appropriate. The National Park Service can respond to changing conditions and needs over the 20-year life of the plan by amending the Yosemite Valley Plan as necessary, in much the same way the 1992 Concessions Services Plan amended the 1980 General Management Plan.

1011. Public Concern: The National Park Service should develop natural resource management goals in Yosemite National Park based on local and regional assessments.

"The authors of the Plan note that more detailed analysis will be conducted for site-specific projects, but management planning for wildlife, vegetation, and special status species should not be done on such a piecemeal basis. The approach used should be to gather data on the status of habitats and species in a local and then regional context, and then craft goals for the population or habitat on a regional basis. Armed with this information, the site-specific analysis can be guaranteed to be consistent with that goal. . . each site-specific assessment for impacts cannot fit into a larger framework, and impact assessment and mitigation will be inconsistent.. . . How can the Park Service make site-specific management decisions . . . without having an approximate idea of the status of the plant in the park? We know that park-wide, regional data will not be collected for each site-specific project. Obviously it would not be possible to collect such extensive data for every species, but some of the key plants and animals . . . surely should have updated surveys and analysis." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #1705)

Response: One of the cornerstones of the Yosemite Valley Plan is restoration and preservation of species and their habitats that have been identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and the National Park Service as critically affected by human activities. As such, substantial information exists about the distribution and habitat requirements of these species in the Sierra Nevada. In creating the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, this information was used to craft actions that would restore important habitats or have minimal impact on special-status species. For some species (e.g., California spotted owl, great gray owl, peregrine falcon, mountain yellow-legged frog), the National Park Service has extensive recent data on their occurrence in Yosemite, and such data were used in formulating the Yosemite Valley Plan. For those species without such specific data, the National Park Service took the conservative approach of assuming that the species are present in areas where suitable habitat is present, based upon detailed knowledge of vegetation types in the park. This approach provides an "information buffer" to protect sensitive species and their habitats. Using this information, the Yosemite Valley Plan takes into consideration potential regional and local effects on plant and animal species. This general approach is appropriate for evaluation of the wide variety of actions proposed under the range of alternatives, and evaluates regional effects on species both inside and outside the park.

Accepted principals of ecology were among the main factors guiding development of alternatives and actions in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS that provide maximum benefit and minimum harm to resources. For example, the plan strives to reduce habitat fragmentation and avoid further fragmentation, especially in those habitats identified as critically-impacted in the Sierra Nevada and in those habitats important to a wide range of species. Management on this landscape basis, and in correlation with regional effects on species and habitats, yields the most comprehensive benefit to park and Sierra Nevada ecosystems.

Site-specific surveys will yield more precise information about plants and animals that could be affected, but such surveys must coincide with the timing of the project in order to provide the most up-to-date information. For example, the park service has a reasonable amount of information on the current distribution of California spotted owls in potential project areas, but many actions under the plan may not occur for years. In the interim, use of habitats by spotted owls in certain areas may change. Areas that currently have no known spotted owls could, by the time of the project, have nesting pairs that could be adversely affected if only the existing data were used in project planning.

1012. Public Concern: The National Park Service should emphasize restoration in planning efforts.

"Any responsible plan for Yosemite should: Design and implement meaningful long-term environmental restoration plans with respect to the human impact issues . . . natural and peaceful enjoyment, wildlife and habitat . . ." (Individual, Mammoth Lakes, CA - #145)

Response: Restoration of natural resources is a key element of Yosemite Valley planning. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS identifies highly valued resources and proposes varying levels of restoration including restoration of natural areas, particularly riparian, meadow, and wetland communities associated with the Merced River.

However, it is beyond the scope of this Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS to provide detailed, site-specific design or restoration plans for all actions being proposed. As discussed in Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Mitigation Measures Common to All Action Alternatives, design level details for a number of elements in the Preferred Alternatives have not been fully developed. Consequently, additional implementation planning or design analysis would be required prior to implementation. Should additional environmental compliance be required for these projects, it would tier from the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

1013. Public Concern: The National Park Service should use year-round statistics to develop Yosemite National Park planning documents.

"Yosemite is a year-around park, and planning decisions should not be made based on the most crowded two or three weekends of the year." (Individual, Livermore, CA - #6348)

Response: Year-round statistics have been considered during the development of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, including transportation, lodging demand, housing, and visitor services. With regard to transportation issues, traffic congestion in the park occurs throughout the peak summer season, posing problems to park resources, visitor enjoyment, and operational safety through much of that period. Additionally, the popularity of national parks like Yosemite continues to grow. The Yosemite Valley Plan is a long-range plan that seeks to address visitor demands and protect park resources well into the future.

1014. Public Concern: The National Park Service should consider population changes when making planning decisions regarding Yosemite National Park.

"Documents do not address growing population and need to provide greater number of services. It is NPS responsibility to provide access and usage of the Valley to a greater number of visitors and at the same time keeping a balance between the use and the integrity of the Park. The key is balance!" (Individual, Simi Valley, CA - #3070)

Response: In analyzing future visitor use, activities, and services in Yosemite Valley, the National Park Service has considered the potential increased demand for access and services associated with population growth. As indicated in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS Vol. Ib, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, Alternative 1–Visitor Experience, the San Joaquin Valley population is expected to double over the next 20 years. Although demand for Yosemite Valley use could increase substantially as a result of projected population growth, a variety of other factors would likely act to reduce or limit demand. Consequently, it is uncertain how future increases in population may translate into visitor demand for access and services in Yosemite Valley.

As indicated in Vol. Ia, Chapter 1 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the National Park Service seeks to balance the five goals of the 1980 General Management Plan "to ensure both the long-term preservation and public enjoyment of Yosemite Valley." Consequently, the alternatives in the Yosemite Valley Plan were developed to provide a range of approaches accommodating visitors while protecting resources. Accommodating greater numbers of visitors would likely continue to adversely affect the integrity of park resources in some areas of the Valley. The interrelationships between visitor use and resource condition would be the focus of the Visitor use and Resource Protection study proposed for completion within five years of the Record of Decision for the Yosemite Valley Plan. Resource conditions would be monitored to ensure they are not degraded beyond standards established by the visitor experience and resource protection process. Please refer to Vol. Ia, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Actions Common to All Action Alternatives for additional information regarding future studies of visitor use in Yosemite Valley.

1015. Public Concern: Management plans for Yosemite National Park should not be driven by political or monetary motives.

"Yosemite is not a destination resort and it should not be set aside for the rich. Replacing campgrounds, where a modest tent can be pitched, with a hotel room may fill the pockets of a politically savvy corporation, but it does not serve the people, the park, or the future. It directly contradicts the purpose of the National Park Service and it is contrary to the spirit of stewardship that should govern your actions. . . We can imagine a Yosemite that is natural and enjoyable for our grandchildren. It may take some ingenuity and it may mean that greed has to take a back seat to integrity. But why would we want Yosemite to be ruled by greed instead of by integrity and ingenuity? . . . Perhaps no one will get rich with a sane and ethical plan, but Yosemite will enrich the lives of generations. That is why we hold it in trust. And that is why you, the people in charge, are there." (Individual, Coarsegold, CA - #128)

"The Delaware North Concessions Corporation has plans to make its fortune in as many of the national parks as it possibly can. Please stop this threat of the ‘men of great enterprise’ to Yosemite, and to all of our parks forever, if you can. The foolish plans of material man have no place in the gardens of God. What part do businessmen and financiers in the surrounding communities play in these plans, all of them gearing up on all sides for mass accommodations and parking? And what part do the politicians play? Should any of this have anything at all to do with the way you manage our national parks for us?? I think not!" (Individual, Midpines, CA - #131)

Response: As indicated in Chapter 1, the intent of the National Park Service in planning for the future of Yosemite Valley is to adopt the best method for achieving the five broad goals of the 1980 General Management Plan, consistent with the park’s authorizing legislation and the 1916 Organic Act. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS also includes criteria for achieving the General Management Plan goals in Yosemite Valley. These goals, legislation, and criteria provide the framework for planning at Yosemite Valley and, along with public involvement, are the forces behind the planning process.

1016. Public Concern: The National Park Service should encourage managers of adjacent lands to adopt a land management philosophy similar to that of Yosemite National Park.

"Any responsible plan for Yosemite should: Seek the same objectives and spirit of protection in the adjacent wilderness and public lands." (Individual, Mammoth Lakes, CA - #145)

Response: The management of private and public lands adjacent to Yosemite Valley is beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The National Park Service will continue to cooperate with adjacent landowners and land management agencies to share information and work toward achieving common goals and objectives. However, management authority and direction for such lands rests with the land management agency or individual(s).

Section 1.3 ~ Applicable Laws, Regulations and Policies

1017. Public Concern: The National Park Service should comply with the National Environmental Policy Act when planning actions in Yosemite National Park.

"In the future, construction projects, such as the El Portal road widening project, should not be developed with out attention to NEPA." (Recreational Organization, Silver Spring, MD - #1592)

Response: The National Park Service is committed to complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in all of its undertakings in Yosemite National Park, including actions associated with the Yosemite Valley Plan. As indicated in Vol. Ia, Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, Issues Beyond the Scope of This Planning Effort, the National Park Service would conduct additional planning and environmental compliance as necessary for specific elements of the action alternatives requiring development of design-level details. Such projects would also comply with the National Environmental Policy Act.
(Also see response to concern #456.)

Section 1.4 ~ Relationship to other Park Planning Efforts and Projects

1018. Public Concern: The National Park Service should slow down the Yosemite National Park planning process.

"The current Valley Management plan is ill conceived. You cannot put a comprehensive plan about the future of Yosemite together in a few months. And you cannot designate it to a consulting firm. My understanding is that a federal judge gave you as much time as you wanted to complete this plan. So the NPS comes up with a poor plan in only four months. This issue deserves more thoughtful attention than the park service has given it." (Individual, Monte Sereno, CA - #50)

Response: The National Park Service has been planning for Yosemite Valley for several years, and the Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS is the result of many years of analysis, planning, and public input. The Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS utilizes a wealth of research and data, some of which was developed for previous planning efforts, including the Draft Valley Implementation Plan, Draft Yosemite Lodge Plan, and Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan. Additional research was conducted specifically for the Yosemite Valley Plan as needed. Thus, the process has occurred over many years, integrated the issues and concerns of several previous planning efforts, and incorporated the findings of years of research.

While the National Park Service did use the assistance of consulting firms in preparing the Yosemite Valley Plan, the National Park Service consistently provided oversight of the consulting firms and retained its decision-making authority. The Yosemite Valley Plan team also included a host of National Park Service staff with relevant, professional expertise. See list of preparers.

1019. Public Concern: The National Park Service should clarify the relationship between the General Management Plan and all other Yosemite National Park planning documents.

"The Park Service decided that this was an important document and got elevated to equal stature with the General Management Plan, which then raises a concern. If we aren’t getting public input and understanding of this document and it becomes then the guide for the Valley Plan when people are really interested in looking at that. And it comes along and they’re talking about removing bridges and the existing infrastructure and so on. They’re going to find that the decisions are mandated by a document that’s been approved without their awareness. So my concern is that this document went from an unnecessary requirement, in the minds of the Park Service, to something that now is equal stature to the GMP." (Civic Organization, Wawona, CA - #3178)

"We strongly support using the 1980 General Management Plan (‘GMP’) as the guiding document for all Park planning. After extensive public review and environmental study, the GMP set levels for day use visitation and overnight accommodations which, in the opinion of many organizations, remain appropriate today." (Business, Yosemite National Park, CA - #1524)

Response: The 1980 Yosemite National Park General Management Plan provides guidance for all decisions made in Yosemite National Park. General management plans are required by the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625, Nov. 10, 1978) for all units of the National Park System. Yosemite’s General Management Plan remains the foundational document for all other park planning and development plans. Similarly, the Merced River Plan is required by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Like the General Management Plan, the Merced River Plan provides foundational direction for all park implementation occurring within the corridor the Merced River. Both documents are considered "general planning" documents and thus provide guidance for all park implementation plans.

In the early 1990s, park managers realized that a comprehensive planning approach was needed for Yosemite Valley, including specific planning to evaluate alternatives for managing visitor use and resource protection in the face of rapidly increasing visitation. The new information resulting from additional research directed by the General Management Plan ultimately led to a decision to prepare a Yosemite Valley Plan. The Yosemite Valley Plan would implement many of the provisions for Yosemite Valley included in the 1980 General Management Plan. However, because it uses the best available information, the Yosemite Valley Plan also modifies some of the specific actions included in the General Management Plan; as a result, the Yosemite Valley Plan is a supplement to the General Management Plan. Please refer to Vol.1A, Chapter 1, (Purpose and Need, Introduction) of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS for additional information regarding the relationship between the 1980 General Management Plan and the Yosemite Valley Plan.

Section 1.5 ~ Public Involvement and Coordination

1020. Public Concern: The National Park Service should improve public involvement strategies.

Provide advance notice of hearings

"It would be nice if you would give more advance notice of public meetings. Less than a month is just not acceptable, especially when the meetings are during the week. More people would be able to participate if the meetings were held on the weekends. Also, it would be helpful if the plans were sent to people sooner. That’s a lot of reading to be done before the public comment time is over." (Individual, Los Angeles, CA - #5)

include campers

"The Park Service did not include a majority of the public who uses the Park, specifically thousands of new and returning campers each year. Campers register before entering the Park, and the Park Service has a database of campers’ information available. The Park Service could have informed this specific group of these hearings with a postcard that would have costs 20 cents to mail. However, the Park Service has admitted that they did not address or inform this particularly large group of potential participants about the public hearing process." (Individual, Malibu, ca - #6079)

Form an advisory committee

"We suggest public involvement every step of the way in the form of–for lack of a better term–an advisory committee composed of representatives from all sectors of the public. This solution will only work as long as the selection process is conducted with impeccable integrity. We believe such an advisory board with park planners and scientists working together every step of the process offers the greatest assurance for the Merced River and Yosemite." (Individual, Oakhurst, CA - #6081)

Response: Although an important part of the planning process, these concerns are outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Public meetings were scheduled to occur when most people could attend–weeknights after work and not on weekends when people typically schedule family commitments. Assessments of past public meetings showed that attendance at weekend venues was less than on weeknights, and many complaints were received regarding having them on the weekend. Public relations experts informed the National Park Service (and it has been confirmed through this planning process) that notifying the public of meetings more than one month prior to an event was not effective; it was too far ahead and many people did not remember or plan for it.

Public meeting notices were mailed to the addresses on the park mailing list, which consists of those who expressed interest in receiving information from the park. Unsolicited mailings are often treated as "junk mail."

Developing alternatives and the overall content of an environmental impact statement requires a great deal of decision making. The National Park Service involves individuals and organizations in the decision-making process through the plan’s initial scoping and public comment periods. The creation of a park advisory group literally takes an act of Congress. A law called "Federal Advisory Committee Act," states that government agencies are not allowed to involve private individuals or organizations in decision making except in open public meetings.

1021. Public Concern: The National Park Service should continue to actively involve the public in Yosemite planning.

"First I want to express my thanks for all the work the Yosemite National Park team has put into working on the Merced River Plan and into taking the plan around the state for comment. I attended and spoke at the Berkeley sessions and was favorably impressed by the amount and quality of information that was available, and on the level of expertise in the group working on the plan. Perhaps most of all, I appreciate the attitude of openness to different opinions and the encouragement to express my views that I felt from the Park personnel." (Individual, Berkeley, CA - #138)

"Thank you for holding your meeting in the Mid-Peninsula (Palo Alto) rather than San Francisco or Berkeley. It was easier to park; and they provided information handy and easier to read! The Park Staff were very available to hear our comments and to help us better understand you Merced Wild and Scenic River Plan. Please don’t hold your Valley Plan Information Meeting in the month of August 2000! I hope you (NPS) will hold future meetings in the general Peninsula Area." (Individual, San Jose, CA - #3103)

Fresno

"We are also concerned that when public meetings are held, Fresno is omitted from hosting a public workshop. With a population of _ million people and a major point of access to the park, it would seem a good location to gather information for your plan formulation. We understand you are dealing with the Merced River Plan, but I believe you will find significant interest in the park in this region." (Business, Fresno, CA - #606)

"It has come to my attention that Fresno County has not been included as one of the areas for public meetings. Would it be possible to schedule a meeting in Fresno County? As you stated in your letter, public input is vital to park planning and we in Fresno County are very much interested in Yosemite." (Board of Supervisors, Fresno, CA - #61)

Southern California

"During the initial public scooping comment period for the Merced River Plan, the Park Service limited public hearings to six meetings. None of these meetings was held in Los Angeles or San Diego." (Individual, Malibu, CA - #6079)

"I cannot attend the public meetings, their (sic) too far and I have no transportation. If you had one here in Santa Cruz I would attend. Santa Cruz has a Civic Auditorium that would easily hold every one from throughout the area wishing to attend. and you would have a great attendance this is an Environmentally concerned area." (Individual, Santa Cruz - #77)

OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA

"I just want to state that I have an objection that these hearings are not being held anywhere but in California for a visitor population that is much greater than that. And I’m speaking as a non-native resident of this area." (Public Hearing, El Portal, CA - #3200)

Response: Although outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan, public involvement is a critical component of the Yosemite Valley planning process. Consequently, the National Park Service held a total of 18 public meetings in California and across the nation. Fourteen public meetings were conducted in California for the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS during the public comment period of over 90 days. Included were several meetings in gateway communities, three meetings in the San Francisco Bay area, two in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, and one each in Fresno, San Diego, and Sacramento. Four additional public meetings were held out of state in the Seattle, Denver, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., areas. In addition to those public participation periods required by the National Environmental Policy act, the National Park Service met more informally with interested groups in gateway communities and throughout the region. The National Park Service is committed to continuing public involvement in current and future planning for Yosemite Valley.

1022. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not impose time restrictions on public verbal comments.

"The ‘moderator’ for the February 3 meeting was quite rude. He was obviously paid for by the NPS which means he was paid by the tax payers. Since there were so few people in attendance, it would have been good p.r. to allow the people there to have their say. One more minute here or there would have caused little problems." (Individual, No Address - #6029)

"Public hearing participants should have been allowed to use the entire length of time allotted for the comment session — to make comments — even if they had addressed the group before. A two-minute limitation was imposed to limit public comments, participation, dialogue and education." (Individual, Malibu, ca - #6079)

"I might suggest that to create a document of this size and then to hold public hearings in which you limit public comments to two minutes gives a rather unfortunate impression of how much you value public participation in this process. It appears the NPS would prefer not to know very much- if anything- about what the public thinks about this plan for protecting one of the nation’s most unique and priceless resources the river that runs through Yosemite National Park." (Individual, Coursegold, CA - #1688)

." . . .many are not willing to give up two to four hours for only two minutes of input on 1,300 pages." (Individual, Oakhurst, CA - #3172)

Response: This concern is acknowledged, but is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan itself. In order for everyone to be heard and have the hearing conclude at a reasonable hour, the amount of time available at the public hearings was divided by the estimate of the numbers who would attend. This led the National Park Service to decide on a three-minute time limit. This time limit was maintained at each venue to ensure equality of time for each speaker regardless of what venue they attended. As explained by the moderator, the oral comments should have been main points that the speaker wanted to get into the process. More detailed and unlimited comment ability was available by using written comments.

1023. Public Concern: The National Park Service should ensure that presenters at public meetings are well informed.

"The public speakers came across as having a passion for camping in Yosemite. The presenters came across like hired guns not really familiar — or passionate about — the place. Their credibility was low." (Individual, Altadena, CA - #3073)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The presenters were all trained, experienced park interpreters or planners of long standing ability. Many have numerous letters from the public appreciating the quality of their programs and the passion they show for the place. Many members of the public who attended the public meetings complimented the speakers. Also, the presenters were there to present and listen, not make impassioned speeches in support of the plan—they were not there to "sell" the plan, but to explain it.

Section 2 ~ Alternatives

At the time of the review of the Draft Merced River Plan/EIS, the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS had not been released for public review, so there were no actual alternatives to comment on relative to the Yosemite Valley Plan. Therefore, comments with specific reference to Alternatives of the Yosemite Valley Plan analyzed for this report were assigned to the appropriate topic area in Section 3. For example, comments with reference to the options and appropriate choices for locating transit facilities are captured in Section 3.11 ~ Transportation.

Section 3 ~ Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Section 3.1 ~ Water Quality

1024. Public Concern: The National Park Service should improve water quality monitoring in Yosemite National Park.

"Since it has been determined that the golf course at Wawona is to continue operations, we would like to request that monitoring of water quality be imposed after wastewater, fertilizers or pesticides are applied. We feel that golf courses are one of the major threats to aquatic health and would like the Park to certify that water quality standards are being met." (Conservation Organization, Camp Nelson, CA - #242)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The actions considered in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS pertain to those land uses and activities which occur within Yosemite Valley, and at those areas outside the Valley where there is a functional relationship or connected action between land uses or activities that occur in Yosemite Valley. Therefore, in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, actions considered or proposed to occur in Wawona are limited to those that relate to specific land-use changes considered or proposed to occur in Yosemite Valley. In the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the relocation of employee housing from Yosemite Valley to Wawona is the primary land-use change being considered. Some employee housing (24 beds) is proposed to help meet deficiencies in employee housing for employees working in Wawona.

Because actions related to the Wawona Golf Course are outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan, no changes are considered or proposed for the golf course.

1025. Public Concern: The National Park Service should store fuels above ground in Yosemite National Park.

"We recommend that Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), Electric Power and other alternative fuels that are not stored underground or can leak into the groundwater should be prioritized immediately for use in Yosemite National Park." (Conservation Organization, Catheys Valley, CA - #266)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Fuel storage facilities are managed by applicable regulatory requirements and other park directives. The protection of groundwater quality within Yosemite National Park is performed through compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Water Act, and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

1026. Public Concern: The National Park Service should develop a common wastewater system that services Yosemite West, Badger Pass and Chinquapin.

"Yosemite West is in a dire position of having a sewer system upgrade which Mariposa County cannot afford to do . . . I know that one of the ideas the park service has for future parking is using Yosemite West or Badger Pass. Either one is going to have to have a waste water system upgrade. . . run a waste water line down from Badger Pass and pick up the waste water from Chinquapin and Yosemite West . . . to El Portal . . . this line would have to go over the Merced River . . . outside of the park. I think this is a win-win situation for both the park and Mariposa County because both would share in the costs of such a project." (Individual, No Address, CA - #M-6379)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The 1980 General Management Plan provides direction for the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS to present and analyze alternatives that take a comprehensive look at Yosemite Valley. As a result, the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS only provides general direction and guidance for future management decisions. An issue this specific would not fall under the scope of this plan, but may be considered under one of the park's subsequent implementation plans. If a project such as this was proposed under an implementation plan, it would need to comply with the management elements in that plan.

1027. Public Concern: The National Park Service should address Wawona winter sewage overflow.

"Could the sewage overflow in Wawona area in the winter, be held in holding tanks, to either be removed, or reintroduced, when the water table becomes favorable? " (Individual, Clovis, CA - #152)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Nonetheless, the National Park Service must conform to the regulatory requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments placed a new focus on source water protection by requiring implementation of source water assessment and protection programs to assess areas serving as sources of drinking water in order to identify potential threats and implement protection efforts. Sanitary surveys of the Merced River watershed and its groundwater resources have been performed as a result of the program and are used to help guide the protection of both surface water and groundwater within Yosemite National Park.

Section 3.2 ~ Wetlands

1028. Public Concern: The National Park Service should increase spending on riparian science.

"Twenty-five percent of the total cost of all future roads, utility crossings, bridges or buildings that are rebuilt or newly constructed within the 100-year floodplain should be allocated for riparian science. This would: (1) provide financial incentive to place this development elsewhere and (2) fund highly needed aquatic invertebrate surveys, fisheries surveys, fluvial geomorphic studies, and riparian endangered species recovery plans. Such studies would pay dividends to the health of the ecosystem quickly and might even save the National Park Service (NPS) money in the end by helping the NPS place roads where they will not be washed out." (Individual, Fresno, CA - #6083)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The National Park Service will continue to pursue a variety of funding sources for resources management (including riparian studies) through federal and outside sources. Outside sources include park partners such as the Yosemite Fund, the Yosemite Association, and the City of San Francisco (for work related to water quality). Determination of funding allocation, studies needed prior to project implementation within the riparian zone, and other site-specific issues would be addressed in future action plans and site designs following the Record of Decision for the Yosemite Valley Plan.

Section 3.3 ~ Vegetation

1029. Public Concern: The National Park Service should emphasize meadow restoration.

"I favor more . . . meadow restoration." (Individual, Lakeshore, ca - #6286)

"All meadows in the corridor should continue to be protected by either restricting visitor use or providing roped areas and boardwalks." (Individual, Snelling, CA - #946)

Response: In Yosemite Valley, open meadows intermixed with other vegetation types are an important natural resource and cultural landscape component and are recognized as a highly valued resource. These highly valued resources would receive the greatest level of protection and restoration effort. Also, in the final Merced River Plan/FEIS, river-related wetlands, including some meadows, are identified as one of the Outstandingly Remarkable Values for the Merced River in Yosemite Valley. These plans strive to preserve and restore the free-flowing condition of the Merced River and protect and enhance wetlands and riparian habitats including meadows.

Restoration of meadows includes identifying the processes that caused meadow decline, determining whether natural processes can be restored, and carrying out the restoration. In Yosemite Valley, a combination of restoration of the free-flowing nature of the Merced River, restoration of old channels, oxbows, and other hydrologic features, and restoration and continuation of prescribed fires would all facilitate the restoration and protection of meadows throughout the Valley. Fencing, boardwalks, and interpretive or directional signs (as described in Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposed mitigation measures in Vol. Ia, Chapter 2) may also be installed. These measures would be implemented if necessary in all areas where meadow restoration is proposed to occur.

Other aspects of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS include restoration of natural water flow patterns through removal or modification of roads, paved paths, and parking lots. This would also lead to altered soil moisture with associated shifts in vegetation. The National Park Service would also continue to control non-native plant species and place an emphasis on defragmenting vegetation through the center of Yosemite Valley to improve ecosystem function. This would include linkages of wetlands and riparian areas to current and potential meadow sites. These treatments are proposed to varying degrees in each of the action alternatives, with consequences outlined in Vol. Ib, Chapter 4 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

1030. Public Concern: The National Park Service should address the potential spread of invasive weed resulting from road construction in Yosemite Valley.

"The massive, unnecessary and illegal project to widen the straighten the El Portal Road in Yosemite has created an area 6.5 miles in length which is now highly susceptible to weed invasion. This susceptibility will last 10-15 years or much longer, until the ground story vegetation along the roadway is fully reestablished. The exotics will continue to have ample opportunity to invade and potentially establish populations where native vegetation and rich habitats once thrived. If invaded, and the likelihood is great, the roadway will serve as a conduit for the spread of weed species that are not yet established in Yosemite Valley." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #1705)

survey and remove yellow star thistle

"The spread of yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis) is of particular concern. It is widespread in El Portal, the area adjacent to the construction zone and is highly invasive. It is one of the most, if not the most, dangerously invasive exotic plants in California. It has been prevented from becoming established in Yosemite Valley by the careful and watchful efforts of Park Service resource managers and volunteers. Yellow star thistle now poses orders of magnitude greater threat to Yosemite Valley, as the construction area has created a conduit into Yosemite Valley for invasive weeds to colonize and spread along the road construction area. Previously the intact ecosystem and native vegetative cover in the Gorge did not provide a welcome environment for the yellow star thistle; however, since the construction with the attendant dynamiting and clear cutting of the uphill slopes and dumping of dirt and rocks and rip rapping into the river, a bed has been laid for the possibility of a massive invasion of this destructive weed into the Gorge and on to Yosemite Valley. There must be a long-term commitment to survey for and remove weed areas at a bare minimum of twice each growing season (May-October). This needs to be very intensely monitored especially during the first 3 years or so." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #1705)

Response: The conduit for the spread of many non-native species, including yellow star-thistle, along road corridors entering Yosemite National Park has existed for decades. To combat this, Yosemite National Park is a co-signer (with Caltrans and the County of Mariposa) of a Memorandum of Understanding to establish a Merced Canyon Cooperative Weed Management Area. This area includes the El Portal Administrative Site and the Merced River corridor. Management of weeds along the road corridors leading into the park is critical for preventing or controlling the introduction of seeds of many non-natives that could reach Yosemite Valley. National Park Service staff are dedicated to detecting and removing new infestations of weeds that invade the park as well as controlling and removing existing stands. The National Park Service is working in conjunction with California Department of Food and Agricutlure weed specialists using techniques and methods identified in part by research being completed by U.S. Geological Survey - Biological Resources Division staff. Monitoring programs have been established in a number of areas to detect new infestations as well as to monitor the long-term effectiveness of control techniques over the years.

The current reconstruction of the 6.5-mile section of the El Portal Road is outside the scope of this planning effort. However, measures being employed on the project include weed control at staging areas and throughout the project site, no importation of metamoprhic topsoil, cleaning construction equipment before entering the site, construction compliance monitoring, revegetation, and long-term monitoring.

The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS evaluates the potential effects of non-native species (introduced or spread) resulting from construction or demolition-related projects and general visitor use in all alternatives. Also, in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, mitigation measures specific to non-native species are addressed in Vol. Ia, Chapter 2. These measures seek to avoid, minimize, rectify, and/or compensate for the potential introduction or spread of non-native species that would result from implementation of specific actions allowed under the Preferred Alternative. Yosemite National Park currently implements measures to control non-native species throughout the park and, in particular, during construction activities.

1031. Public Concern: The National Park Service should protect Yosemite’s oak trees.

"I would hope that the planners would strive to reduce the destruction of Valley and Black Oaks in any development. Regeneration of these big trees takes a lifetime. Restoration of these big trees takes a lifetime. (Individual, Menlo Park, CA - #262)

Response: Yosemite's oak trees are recognized as an important contributor to the ecological and cultural landscape of the park. Regular park planning efforts take into account the potential impacts to these trees (as well as other vegetation), and efforts are made to avoid impacts wherever possible. In the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the National Park Service has focused on protecting and restoring stands of oaks and avoiding impacts in areas where development would continue to occur within these long-lived oak stands.

California black oaks form pure open stands of large stately trees; the stands are unique to the Valley due to thousands of years of anthropogenic activities. Because of their unique stand structure and their important role in providing habitat as well as evidence of past cultural activities, they are one of the highly valued resource vegetation types (see Vol. 1a Chapter 2, Alternatives). These stands are included in the list of resources given the highest priority for protection and restoration, and have been used (in conjunction with the other highly valued resources) to guide land-use planning decisions during the development of alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. In addition, the mitigation measures listed in Vol. Ia, Chapter 2, Alternatives, include guidance for protection of individual trees through site design, avoidance, trenching guidelines, and landscaping and yard care guidelines.

The biological Outstandingly Remarkable Value in El Portal, as listed in the Merced River Plan, includes diverse vegetation types such as riparian zones that contain Valley oaks. This diverse vegetation would be protected.

1032. Public Concern: The National Park Service should address the impacts of air pollution on flora in Yosemite National Park.

"Although not enforced by law, air quality standards to protect vegetation are even lower than those for people. For example, the state ozone standard for human health is a 1-hr average ozone concentration of 90 ppb, while the national standard to protect vegetation is 80 ppb. Damage has been seen in many forest species at ozone exposures as low as 60 ppb. The protection of trees, wildflowers, shrubs and grasses within Yosemite Valley should provide substantial incentive to improve air quality." (University of California, Department of Environmental Policy and Management, Berkeley, CA - #138)

protect ponderosa pines from ozone pollution

"Ponderosa pine are the most sensitive tree in the Sierra to ozone damage. In terms of vegetation injury and human health concerns, they can be considered the canary in the coal mine. The level of ozone frequently seen in the Valley is known to damage ponderosa pine, the most abundant tree in Yosemite Valley. These trees provide shade for the camping areas, create the open glade-like feel to El Capitan meadow, and give off the sweet pine scent so characteristic of warm summer days. Although the results of ozone damage studies on the Valley floor are presently unavailable, ozone damage has been observed on ponderosa and the less sensitive Jeffrey pine throughout the Park (M. Arbaugh, USFS PSW Station). The loss of ponderosa pine in the Valley would damage more than aesthetics. They provide important ecosystem functions, regulate temperature, move water through the system, filter air, provide habitat for animals and smaller plants. They also are an important part the beauty, the grace, and the spirituality of the cathedral-like setting which is the magic of Yosemite Valley. Yosemite Valley without its ponderosa pine trees would be a completely different place." (University of California, Department of Environmental Policy and Management, Berkeley, CA - #138)

Response: The National Park Service is aware of its responsibility to curb air pollution sources within Yosemite National Park to protect not only visitor and employee health but also welfare or nonhealth values, such as visibility, vegetation, and wildlife. In order to monitor ozone trends in the Valley, the park has operated an ozone monitor at Turtleback Dome for more than a decade. The park has been involved in biological effects research and monitoring related to air pollution for many years. Research has determined that ponderosa and Jeffrey pine trees, two key species in Yosemite National Park, are highly sensitive to tropospheric ozone. The park currently monitors both species for early detection of ozone damage.

An overview of methods used to evaluate the impacts of air pollution on park lands is included in Vol. 1b, Chapter 4, Methodologies and Assumptions of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. These potential impacts are described in the Air Quality section for each alternative, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. Transportation planning has also taken into account the potential for impacts to vegetation through changes in air quality conditions. The National Park Service is committed to the use of alternative fuel vehicles, regulating emissions that can affect air quality, and reducing the likelihood of generating excessive levels of pollutants. Ongoing air quality monitoring will continue to occur in the park and include continuing evaluations of the specific impacts to the park’s flora from regional and local air pollution sources.

(Also see responses to concerns #621 and 197.)

1033. Public Concern: The National Park Service should allow the use of prescribed fire in Yosemite Valley.

"Prescribed burns and prescribed natural fires must be allowed to continue as long as they meet criteria that takes into account a natural fuel loading. Those areas where fire suppression activities have allowed fuel build-up must be suppressed. Those areas must be prioritized to receive fuel treatment so that prescribed natural fires can be allowed to burn. This natural smoke is again allowable." (Individual, Quincy, CA - #6258)

"I favor the use of fire (a natural tool) for ecological restoration and fuel management. Fire management only temporarily affects air quality and visual experiences, leaving only the factor of public safety with which to be concerned." (Individual, Paso Robles, CA - #28)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Yosemite National Park has developed a prescribed burning program that manages vegetation and improves habitat conditions for many species. It has long been recognized that fire is an integral part of the forces that have created Yosemite's natural and cultural landscape, and these activities, as described in Vol. Ia, Chapter 3, Affected Environment, and Vol. Ib, Chapter 4, Alternative 2, would continue as proposed in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Specific prescriptions for environmental conditions must meet the specific objectives of each prescribed fire, including safety and minimization of smoke and visitor disturbance. Site-specific restoration and habitat management goals are covered in various portions of the 1990 Fire Management Plan, the 1993 Resources Management Plan, and the 1997 Vegetation Management Plan.

1034. Public Concern: The National Park Service should reconsider the goals and timing of prescribed fires in Yosemite National Park.

"To go much beyond this towards recreating the more expansive grasslands of 1866 would neither be more natural (if the fungus is pre-Indian) nor be more attractive. The Plan describes an 8-10 year burn interval for Yosemite Valley and Wawona, yet a 20 - 30 year interval for the much more flammable chaparral communities. An obvious interpretation is that the shorter interval was anthropogenic, that the Indians burned the vicinity of their abodes more frequently. Why would they do so in late summer, when these fires would most likely threaten their creators? Why does your burn policy allow fires to burn into late summer?" (Individual, Oakland, CA - #6276)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Fire management goals and timing are addressed in the update to the National Park Service Fire Management Plan.

 

Section 3.4 ~ Wildlife

1035. Public Concern: The National Park Service should protect wildlife not legally protected by federal or state statutes in Yosemite National Park.

"The importance of identifying, monitoring, and protecting these species is greater than ever. The MRP gives the rationale for dropping special emphasis species designated by the park as, ‘State and Federal listings are more permanent and legally binding than the park’s own designation system.’ While the park’s statement is in itself valid in that the park could be compelled to protect the State and Federal listed species, that does not obviate its duty to protect the plants and wildlife therein unimpaired for future generations. Since the park is lucky enough to have some species that are not threatened by extinction on a country-wide or state-wide level (or at least not yet listed), these are still species that, looked at in the context of the park, are threatened and are a special Outstandingly Remarkable Value that should be protected." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #1705)

protect species of concern

"Many species listed as Federal Species of Concern (FC) or California Species of Concern (CSC) deserve listing and protection as a federal or state threatened or endangered species, but are not yet listed. It is even more important to protect those that are not yet listed, but identified. Any species waiting for listing that does not have staff or resources sufficient to bring a petition for listing, is still as threatened whether it is listed, has a pending petition for listing or has not yet had a petition brought. The way that these species achieve listing and protection is through persons or agencies who are tuned into the localized situation of the species. We would certainly hope that the National Park Service takes its duty to identify, monitor and protect these species seriously. One way to do so, is to keep the species already identified by the park itself as rare or threatened in the ORV list, not to delete them from the list." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #1705)

Response: The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS addresses the legal requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, Federal Endangered Species Act, and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act with respect to threatened and endangered species as well as other species not formally listed by the state of federal governments. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS Biological Assessment was prepared by Yosemite National Park, pursuant to Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act, and submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in August 2000 for its review and comment. A revised Biological Assessment based on the Merced River Plan/FEIS was submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in August 2000. Both the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Biological Assessment address species formally listed by the federal or state governments, species of special concern as listed by the federal of state governments, and park rare species. In total, the Biological Assessment evaluated the potential effect of the proposed action upon 97 individual special-status plant and wildlife species. The Biological Assessment determined that decisions made under the Yosemite Valley Plan are programmatic and no specific commitment of resource is made by the action. Potential residual indirect effects of the proposed action would be avoided, minimized, or compensated through implementation of the conservation and protection measures incorporated into the plan. For information on effects of the Yosemite Valley Plan on wildlife, refer to the Biological Assessment reference in Vol. II, Appendix K.

1036. Public Concern: The National Park Service should emphasize human safety in wildlife management in Yosemite Valley.

"Because humans have and will in foreseeable future be caretakers of Yosemite Valley, special consideration should be taken to maintain the Valley Floor safe from wild animals for humans. In my opinion, I see no reason to import coyotes, costly rare birds and or other dangerous wild animals into the Valley Floor because they migrated into the area at some recent time or after the Ice Age. Coyotes can kill or seriously injure small babies and/or children. Bears create hundreds of thousands of dollars damage to automobiles, campsites, etc. It is time humans who inhabit the earth in the billions be moved up the priority list for the use and access in controlled numbers of the Yosemite Valley Floor above bears, coyotes and other dangerous wild animals." (Individual, Santa Anna, CA - #321)

Response: The issue of wildlife management to protect human safety is operational and is, therefore, outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Nonetheless, actions and mitigations included in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS are designed to minimize conflicts between humans and wildlife by providing adequate facilities, education, and enforcement to control the availability of human food to wildlife. Wildlife management issues are addressed in the 1993 Resource Management Plan.

1037. Public Concern: The National Park Service should provide alternatives to the wildlife barrier on the north side of the Merced River.

"The effective elimination of wildlife travel overland from the chaparral on the North side of the river — through the creation of a continuous and impassible concrete barrier wall — are not addressed by the CMP. The CMP should propose alternatives to this wildlife barrier." (Conservation Organization, Yosemite, CA - #6441)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The new guardwall along the El Portal Road is approximately the same height, dimension, and length as the original guardwall constructed in the early 1900s by the Civilian Conservation Corps. The new guardwall measures 27 inches high by 20 inches wide. The height of the existing (historic) guardwall ranges from 19 to 26 inches high. Several guardwall alternatives were considered during the Value Analysis (VA) process for the El Portal Road Improvements Project, with specific criteria stating that all alternatives must "preserve the integrity and park-like character of the road corridor." The guardwall is a character-defining feature of the historic El Portal Road travel corridor and its elimination has never been considered. It does not and has not ever acted as a barrier to wildlife. Larger and mid-sized animals, including deer, black bear, ringtail, and raccoons, are accustomed to traversing the cliffs and boulder-strewn slopes on the Merced River Canyon and can easily jump or scale the wall. Smaller animals can get through the wall by also climbing over, or using the numerous drain openings or frequent breaks in the wall.

1038. Public Concern: The National Park Service should eliminate non-native wildlife species from the park.

"If we can positively trace the physical introduction by humans of a species within the park, and the NPS is obligated to return the park to native, indigenous species, then let us remove that specie." (Individual, Quincy, CA - #6258)

cowbird

"Introduction of exotic plants and animals, of which the cowbird may prove to be the toughest to eradicated, but must be done as soon as possible." (Individual, Clovis, CA - #152)

fish

"The Park Service should remove the non-native trout and encourage the frogs and native fish population." (Individual, Redding, CA - #130)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The National Park Service addresses wildlife management through the 1993 Resources Management Plan.

1039. Public Concern: The National Park Service should develop a comprehensive management plan for areas used by migratory birds.

"We have a lot of birds that migrate. . . We need a comprehensive plan to ensure that these migratory areas are used and preserved." (Individual, Merced, CA - #3162)

Response: Management plans protecting migratory birds are outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Actions undertaken by the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS are designed to improve habitat quality for all species, including migratory birds, in Yosemite Valley. The National Park Service addresses wildlife management through the 1993 Resource Management Plan.

1040. Public Concern: The National Park Service should address potential conflicts between bears and humans in Yosemite National Park.

"We always like to be sure that any plan for Yosemite or any other areas allow for the fact that we want to be sure bears are kept away food, and food is kept away from bears. If we provide a habitat that protects bears, we’re providing a habitat the that will protect all . . . the native species in the region. And it will make for a much more pleasant experience for the humans to visit Yosemite.." (Individual, Palo Alto, CA - #3089)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, it is outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The National Park Service addresses bear and human interaction in the Bear Management Plan. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does address mitigation measures to reduce conflicts. Prevention of conflicts between humans and bears was a strong issue taken into consideration during development of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Yosemite already has unacceptably high levels of such conflicts, and the park service wanted to make sure no Yosemite Valley Plan actions contributed to these problems. As such, proposed new development includes necessary mitigation to provide adequate facilities, education, and enforcement to minimize wildlife access to human food. In Yosemite Valley, minor reductions in the number of campsites under some alternatives, and restoration of natural habitats could reduce the attractiveness of developed areas to black bears. (Also see Vol. Ia, Chapter 2, Mitigation Measures Common to All Action Alternatives.)