Yosemite Valley Plan SEIS, Volume III, Chapter 7

Chapter 7 ~ Organized Response Campaigns

Introduction

A total of 3,741 out of 10,240 responses, or 37%, received during the public comment period for the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS reflect the work of 17 organized response campaigns. These response campaigns generated email, postcards, newspaper coupons, and multiple letters. Seven of these campaigns each generated more than 100 responses, resulting in 3,325 comments, 89% of all organized responses; 3,042 of those (91%) came from California.

Responses from campaigns are classified as "forms." A form is a response with identical content that is received from more than five people. In all cases a master form is entered into the database with all of the coded content information. All responses with matching information are then linked to this master form in the database with a designated master form number. If a response does not contain all of the information presented in a given form it is entered as an individual letter. If a response is identical except for some additional text, the additional text is coded and entered independent of the form content.

Table III.7.1 shows the total number of each form received and summarizes the issues presented in the various organized response campaigns.

Table III.7.1 — Forms
Summary of Public Comment, Yosemite Valley Plan

Name of Form	Number Received	Comments
1. Cut Auto Traffic	274	Supports park’s proposal to cut auto traffic, reduce development, and restore natural systems.
2. Threefold	8	Opposes removal of parking spaces and reductions in access; expresses concern over removal of low-cost lodging; believes plan will limit peoples’ enjoyment of the park.
3. Maximize Bicycling	40	Calls for modifying Alternative 2 to maximize bicycling: offer free community bikes, ensure sufficient lane width, convert Northside drive to multiuse non-motorized, construct a separate Class I path for novice rivers, install secure bicycle parking, allow bike access to some shared trails, provide bike carriers on transit systems.
4. Reduce Auto Traffic	88	Supports NPS proposals to reduce auto traffic and restore natural systems. Key recommendations include the following: make Camp Six a day-use parking lot, remove bridges, do not construct new units at Yosemite Lodge, provide detailed implementation plan.
5. Reduce Auto Traffic and Move Administration	124	Supports NPS proposals to reduce auto traffic. Also recommends using clean and quiet buses, making restoration of natural resources a high priority, locating the day use parking lot at Camp Six, moving development out of valley, not rebuilding Yosemite Lodge, retaining 100 rustic units at Camp Curry, providing a detailed implementation plan.
6. Priceless Taft No	1287	Supports proposals to cut traffic and reduce development; opposes parking facility at Taft Toe. Believes day use parking lot should be located at Camp 6 and shuttle bus system should use clean, quiet technology. Supports restoration of natural systems and removal of bridges.
7. Chambers of Commerce	166	Endorses chambers of commerce position opposing all four alternatives in the Yosemite Valley Plan.
8. Stop	304	Stop the Yosemite Valley Plan.
9. Vote for Alternative 5	20	Supports Alternative 5, but would prefer Alternative 1. Recommends the following modifications to Alternative 5: retain Housekeeping sites; don’t add rooms at Yosemite Lodge; don’t add RV hook-ups; leave Mountain Room, Mountain Shop and equipment rental, village garage, and village store as is; don’t replace service station; move day parking outside park; leave Yosemite Falls area as is; don’t rebuild river campgrounds; remove fire pits at Housekeeping Camp but leave the sites.
10. Detailed Description of Implementation	39	Supports NPS proposals to reduce auto traffic, restore natural habitat, remove parking spaces and unnecessary development. Also recommends removing bridges, temporarily locating the day use parking lot at Camp Six, not rebuilding Yosemite Lodge units, retaining 100 rustic units at Camp Curry, providing a detailed implementation plan.
11. Coming to Yosemite for 20 Years	27	Supports NPS proposals to reduce auto traffic. Also recommends using clean and quiet buses, making restoration of natural resources a high priority, locating the day use parking lot at Camp Six, moving development out of valley, not rebuilding Yosemite Lodge, retaining 100 rustic units at Camp Curry, providing a detailed implementation plan.
12. John Muir Discovered the Valley	183	Supports Alternative 2 with the following modifications for horses: retain and relocate stables, retain guided rides; eliminate the corral and add large, reserved parking areas. Believes that without these modifications, only alternatives 5 and 1 are acceptable. Opposes Alternative 3.
13. Opposed to Supporting Concessionaire	4	Opposes further development in the Valley, supporting the concessionaire, the construction of any new motel/hotel additions. Supports the replacement of campsites lost in the flood, the development of electric transportation systems, the elimination of diesel buses. Opposes all alternatives; believes Alternative 2 doesn’t go far enough to protect the Valley.
14. Alternatives for Stock	67	Supports Alternative 2 with the following modifications for horses: retain and relocate stables, retain guided rides; eliminate the corral and add large, reserved parking areas. Believes that without these modifications, only alternatives 5 and 1 are acceptable. Opposes Alternative 3. Includes a table showing effects of alternatives on stock use.
15. Welcome the Proposals	1002	Supports park’s proposal to cut auto traffic, reduce development, and restore natural systems. Believes day-use parking should be located at Camp Six.
16.Vote.com	89	Supports limiting the number of cars in Yosemite.
17. Please Do Your Job	19	Expresses support for more equestrian facilities in the Valley: horse campsites, additional parking in staging area, access to water and campsites from staging areas. Also calls for retention of stables, development of a reservation system for horse facilities.
	Total: 3,741

Petitions

Organized responses signed by more than five members of the public are treated as petitions. In cases where individual signatories included their addresses, they were assigned individual identification numbers in the database linking them to the text of the petition. This process is identical for form letters. Where multiple signatories did not include their addresses, the response, although treated as a petition for demographic purposes, was directly linked only to the name and address of the person who delivered or mailed the original response. In cases like this, the total number of signatures was counted and entered into the demographics as well. During the comment period for the Yosemite Valley Plan, three petitions were received and linked to 93 signatures, mostly from California. Table III.7.2 shows the number of signatures on each petition and summarizes major concerns.

Table III.7.2 — Petitions
Summary of Public Comment, Yosemite Valley Plan

Letter #	Number of Signatures	Originator of Petition, Location	Comments
2337	22	No group identified; most signatures from California addresses.	Opposes the closure of Housekeeping Camp or any reduction in the number of units.
3544	19	No group identified, all addresses from California.	Supports the preservation of drive-in campsites and the restoration of some river sites if possible.
3654	52	Petition circulated in Housekeeping Camp during Memorial Day weekend, 2000.	Wants the National Park Park to choose Alternative 1. Supports retaining bridges and range of camping opportunities including campgrounds, Housekeeping Camp, Camp Curry.
	Total: 93