U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

71-353 DTP WASHINGTON : 2001

YOSEMITE VALLEY PLAN

OVERSIGHT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION,

AND PUBLIC LANDS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

March 27, 2001

Serial No. 107-8

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

or

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska,

Vice Chairman

W.J. ′′Billy′′ Tauzin, Louisiana

Jim Saxton, New Jersey

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Joel Hefley, Colorado

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Ken Calvert, California

Scott McInnis, Colorado

Richard W. Pombo, California

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

George Radanovich, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Mac Thornberry, Texas

Chris Cannon, Utah

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania

Bob Schaffer, Colorado

Jim Gibbons, Nevada

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Greg Walden, Oregon

Michael K. Simpson, Idaho

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

C.L. ′′Butch′′ Otter, Idaho

Tom Osborne, Nebraska

Jeff Flake, Arizona

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana

George Miller, California

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Calvin M. Dooley, California

Robert A. Underwood, Guam

Adam Smith, Washington

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands

Ron Kind, Wisconsin

Jay Inslee, Washington

Grace F. Napolitano, California

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey

James P. McGovern, Massachusetts

Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico

Hilda L. Solis, California

Brad Carson, Oklahoma

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel

Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director

Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION,

AND PUBLIC LANDS

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado, Chairman

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands Ranking Democrat Member

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

George Radanovich, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina,

Vice Chairman

Mac Thornberry, Texas

Chris Cannon, Utah

Bob Schaffer, Colorado

Jim Gibbons, Nevada

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Michael K. Simpson, Idaho

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey

James P. McGovern, Massachusetts

Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico

Hilda L. Solis, California

Betty McCollum, Minnesota
(III)

CONTENTS

Page

Hearing held on March 27, 2001 ............................................................................ 1

Statement of Members:

Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate to Congress from the

Virgin Islands ............................................................................................... 6

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6

Doolittle, Hon. John T., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California ................................................................................................... 14

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 16

Hefley, Hon. Joel, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2

Map of Yosemite Valley submitted for the record .................................. 3

Summary of Yosemite Valley Plan submitted for the record ................ 4

Radanovich, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the State

of California ................................................................................................... 7

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9

Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Indiana, Prepared statement of ............................................................... 11

Statement of Witnesses:

Balmain, Doug, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, County of Mariposa,

California ....................................................................................................... 60

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 61

Gilbert, Gary, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, County of Madera,

California ....................................................................................................... 49

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 51

Hardy, Ed, Owner and Operator, Bass Lake Lodge, Bass Lake,

California ....................................................................................................... 90

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 92

Oliver, Gregory J., Tuolomne County Counsel, Sonora, California .............. 63

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 66

Reynolds, John J., Regional Director, Pacific West Region, National Park

Service ............................................................................................................ 21

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 23

Szefel, Dennis, President, Delaware North Parks Services, Inc., Buffalo,

New York ....................................................................................................... 93

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 96

Watson, Jay Thomas, California/Nevada Regional Director, The Wilderness Society ................................................................................................... 98

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 100

Whitmore, George W., Chairman, Sierra Club’s Yosemite Committee ........ 101

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 103

Additional materials supplied:

McConnell, Nancy, President, Board of Trustees/Education, Mariposa

County Unified School District, Letter submitted for the record by

The Honorable George Radanovich ............................................................. 19

Ratzlaff, Don, Vice-Chairman, Tuolomne County Board of Supervisors,

Letter submitted for the record ................................................................... 67

Wald, Johanna H., Director, Land Program, Natural Resources Defense

Council, Letter submitted for the record .................................................... 112

(1)

THE FINAL YOSEMITE VALLEY PLAN AND

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

STATEMENT

Tuesday, March 27, 2001

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands

Committee on Resources

Washington, DC

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in

Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Joel Hefley

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Mr. HEFLEY. The Committee will come to order.

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE JOEL HEFLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

Mr. HEFLEY. Good morning. Welcome to the hearing today. This

morning, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and

Public Lands will hear testimony on the National Park Service’s

Yosemite Valley Plan and its accompanying Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.

At this point, I would like to ask unanimous consent that Congressman Doolittle be permitted to sit on the dais to give his statement and to participate in the hearing. Is there any objection?

Hearing none, so ordered.

We actually shouldn’t do that, Representative Doolittle, after you

deserted our Committee to go somewhere else, but— Mr. DOOLITTLE. I was kicked off, Mr. Chairman.

[Laughter.]

Mr. HEFLEY. Well, then that’s rightly so. So we’ll move on.

On December 29th, 2000, the National Park Service signed the

Record of Decision for the Yosemite Valley Plan. The Record of Decision, the result of a very lengthy process, will provide direction

for managing the natural and cultural resources, facilities, and visitor experiences in Yosemite Valley for the next decade. In its final

form, the plan encompasses thousands of pages and, if implemented, would cost a healthy $441 million.

For those of you who are not familiar with the Valley, it encompasses an area within Yosemite National Park that is a mile wide

and seven miles long, and is visited annually by 70 percent of the

Park’s visitors. It is famous for its campgrounds, hiking trails,

waterfalls, scenic wildlands and, of course, the sheer walls of
2

El Capitan. Since becoming a national park in 1890, Yosemite National Park has been enjoyed by millions of people every year, and

is considered to be one of the crown jewels of the National Park

System.

However, according to the National Park Service, the Valley has

become congested, especially with private automobiles. It is overcrowded with more than a thousand park facilities, such as stores,

homes, garages, apartments, lodging facilities and restaurants. It is

bisected by approximately 30 miles of roadway. All of these factors

allegedly threaten its natural beauty and suggest that a plan of action is necessary.

While many people in this room would agree that the Valley may

be crowded during certain peak times, many would disagree with

a number of recommendations slated for action in the Valley Plan.

Based on the tenor of our new Interior Secretary, and her approach

of inclusiveness, I am optimistic and hopeful that the Bush administration will be open minded in their review of this plan.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, especially their

thoughts on the transportation plan, lodging, campsite changes,

parking relocation, and the overall effects to the gateway communities.

I now recognize the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hefley follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Joel Hefley, Chairman, Subcommittee on

National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands

Good morning and welcome to the hearing today. This morning, the Subcommittee

on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands will hear testimony on the National Park Service’s Yosemite Valley Plan and its accompanying Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.

At this point, I would like to ask unanimous consent that Congressman Doolittle

be permitted to sit on the dais to give his statement and to participate in the hearing. Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered.

On December 29, 2000, the National Park Service signed the Record of Decision

for the Yosemite Valley Plan. The Record of Decision, the result of a very lengthy

process, will provide direction for managing the natural and cultural resources, facilities, and visitor experiences in Yosemite Valley for the next decade. In its final

form, the Plan encompasses thousands of pages, and if implemented, would cost a

healthy $441 million dollars.

For those of you who are not familiar with the Valley, it encompasses an area

within Yosemite National Park that is a mile wide and seven miles long and is visited annually by 70 percent of the Park’s visitors. It is famous for its campgrounds,

hiking trails, waterfalls, scenic wildlands, and of course, the sheer walls of

El Capitan. Since becoming a National Park in 1890, Yosemite National Park has

been enjoyed by millions of people every year and is considered to be one of the

crown jewels of the National Park System.

However, according to the National Park Service, the Valley has become congested, especially with private automobiles. It is overcrowded with more than a

thousand park facilities, such as stores, homes, garages, apartments, lodging facilities and restaurants. It is bisected by approximately 30 miles of roadway. All of

these factors allegedly threaten its natural beauty and suggest that a plan of action

is necessary.

While many people is this room would agree that the Valley may be crowded during certain peak times, many would disagree with a number of recommendations

slated for action in the Valley Plan.

Based on the tenor of our new Interior Secretary and her approach of inclusiveness, I am optimistic and hopeful that the Bush Administration will be open minded

in their review of this plan.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, especially their thoughts on the

transportation plan, lodging and campsite changes, parking relocation and the overall effects to the gateway communities.
3

{A map of the Yosemite Valley and a summary of the Yosemite

Valley Plan submitted for the record follow:]
4
5
6

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A

DELEGATE TO CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Today, as you said, the Subcommittee will receive testimony on

the Yosemite Valley Plan. I am assuming that’s the plan over

there. Oh, my goodness. This plan has been years, obviously, in the

making. It’s a significant document for a significant area of great

beauty and majesty.

As the National Park Service notes in its testimony, Yosemite

Valley is only seven miles long and less than one mile wide. The

floor of the Valley is further reduced by rock fall zones and the

flood plain of the Merced River. Within this relatively small area,

millions of people come annually to experience the nationally significant resources of the Valley.

How to protect these important park resources and still maintain

a quality visitor experience has been a concern going back for many

years. In fact, I have been informed by staff that today’s hearing

is at least the fourth congressional hearing held in the last decade

dealing with Yosemite Valley and related matters.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to learning more on what the

Yosemite Valley Plan will mean for the Park resources and visitors.

I appreciate the presence of our witnesses, including our former

Committee member, Congressman Doolittle, here today. I look forward to their insights on the subject of today’s oversight hearing.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Christensen follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Donna M. Christensen, a Delegate to Congress

from the Virgin Islands

Mr. Chairman, today the Subcommittee will receive testimony on the Yosemite

Valley Plan. This plan has been years in the making. It is a significant document

for a significant area of great beauty and majesty.

As the National Park Service notes in its testimony, Yosemite Valley is only seven

miles long and less than one mile wide. The floor of the valley is further reduced

by rock-fall zones and the flood plain of the Merced River. Within this relatively

small area, millions of people come annually to experience the nationally significant

resources of the valley.

How to protect these important park resources and still maintain a quality visitor

experience has been a concern going back many years. In fact, I have been informed

by staff that today’s hearing is at least the fourth Congressional hearing held in the

last decade dealing with Yosemite Valley and related matters.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to learning more on what the Yosemite Valley Plan

will mean for the park’s resources and visitors. I appreciate the presence of our witnesses here today and look forward to their insights on the subject of today’s oversight hearing.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much, Mrs. Christensen.

Our first panel is—I’m sorry. Mr. Radanovich, do you have an

opening statement?

Mr. RADANOVICH. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do, if I may take the

time.

Mr. HEFLEY. You certainly may. I’m sorry. I was about to overlook that.

Mr. RADANOVICH. No problem.
7

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GEORGE RADANOVICH, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

Mr. RADANOVICH. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing. I think Yosemite is one of the crown

jewel parks in our Nation and deserves the attention that this

does.

I also want to thank many constituents, frankly, that are out

here testifying, and I’m glad that you’re here to give some input on

this plan, as well as members of the National Park Service.

I have been personally involved in the formulation of the

Yosemite Plan and all of its manifestations since the 1980 General

Management Plan, and since that original plan, Yosemite has been

studied, prodded, poked and written about by numerous park planners, with ideas ranging from massive bridges across the Valley to

multi-story parking garages in the Valley itself, to trains, guideways, monorail—you name it, it’s been considered for Yosemite.

These plans are represented by what’s in front of me here. As I

was leaving my office this morning, I pulled out these plans that

were made available to me, were sitting on my bookshelf, and I believe that this pile of documents demonstrates one of the problems

with the Yosemite Valley Plan and the EIS. Frankly, it’s just simply too much for the average citizen to comprehend, let alone review and digest.

These massive piles of documents do not do one thing to improve

the visitor experience for Yosemite Valley. I understand that they

are part of the mandated planning process, that they provide a

basis for actions, that they cost a lot and that they keep numerous

graphic designers employed. But they serve to confuse and distract

from the purpose of the Park Service, to be good stewards to the

resources and facilities that it is charged to manage.

To the substance of the plan, in sum, the implementation of the

Yosemite Plan and the EIS will cost about $441 million in one-time

funds, and an increase of over $10 million in annual spending, in

annual operating funding, and large increases in the number of

Federal employees serving the Park.

It will do this, while at the same time reduce the services available to the public—the roads, the bridges, parking spaces, stables,

camping and lodging units and convenience which provide service

for the owners of the Park, the American taxpayer.

This analysis would lead one to start the planning process over,

but I must confess that I don’t have the patience for this kind of

paperwork. I don’t think anybody wants to start from ground one,

in a process that took over 20 years to develop.

My goal is that the Park Service implement the most incremental, least cost, and least disruptive elements of the flood recovery and park improvements first, and reevaluate each step as the

public experiences the improvements. Renovations and rebuilding

required by the flood must be first on the list, and other projects

that have obvious merit should be pursued.

There are numerous projects contained in the details of this plan

that I do support and that I want to ensure get accomplished as

soon as feasible within the constraints of the law. For example,
8

transfer of park and concessionaire administrative activities into

the gateway communities of Oakhurst, Mariposa, and elsewhere.

The old warehouse and other facilities in the Park were replaced

in El Portal, yet the old facilities have not been removed and they

should be removed.

Public/private partnerships for the development of new employee

housing in the gateway communities should move forward, where

appropriate. Employee housing in the Valley for those employees

who are required to be near their work was destroyed in the flood

and needs to be replaced.

Campgrounds that were an integral part of the visitors’ public

enjoyment of the Park were closed and have not been reopened

since 1997. Specifically, the upper and lower river campgrounds,

they need to be renovated, repaired and reopened. And then traffic

patterns causing congestion and confusion for the visiting public

have been identified and these bottlenecks need to be fixed.

These projects need to be completed quickly. Funds are available

for most of these projects as a result of the appropriation which

Congress made for the flood recovery, from the flood of 1997, and

from Park visitor fees retained by the Park, from donations made

to the Park for improvements and from capital improvement funds

contributed by the concessionaire.

There are many elements of the plan that I do not support. The

most important in the long run is the over-reliance of the plan on

the success of the Yosemite Area Regional Transit System, also

known as YARTS. This system depends upon the provision of some

$850,000 per year of specially approved funds from Congress. We

have not considered or approved this request, and until we have,

I believe the Park Service must make available sufficient parking

and related infrastructure within the Valley to support the public.

We cannot support a plan that prevents the visiting public from

enjoying their park. Eliminating parking spaces in the Valley will

do just that. I, therefore, do not support that element of the plan.

The Park Service has provided a plan that relies on YARTS nine

months out of the year. Instead, I have asked the Park Service to

provide an analysis of the level of parking required in order to

meet the demands of the visiting public at least nine months per

year without YARTS. Many of my constituents claim that the Park

Service has already reduced the number of parking spaces in the

Valley by as many as 3,300 spaces. I am not sure what the real

number is, but I do know that 550 spaces provided in this plan are

inadequate by any measure.

Earlier I commented on the sources of funds available to the

Superintendent to accomplish the goals of the plan. One concern

that you will hear today is that Congress cannot adequately monitor the implementation of the plan because there are too many discretionary sources of funds available to be spent without further

congressional review. This is true and is of concern that I intend

to correct, with your help, Mr. Chairman, through continued oversight by this Subcommittee, through the appropriations process,

and through my continued personal and direct involvement in the

implementation of this plan.

I believe the planning process, as implemented by the National

Park Service, in this case is fatally flawed. Further review, in con-
9

junction with gateway communities concerning the economic, infrastructure and land use impacts of the proposed actions needs to be

accomplished before the plan is finalized.

I recognize that Mr. Babbitt, while he was Secretary of Interior,

committed to and accomplished a record of decision for this plan

prior to leaving office. I believe that, in this case, as with other

cases under the Clinton administration, the plan was finalized because review by the new administration would find that the conclusions were not supported by the facts.

Since that administration would not and could not be held accountable as it left office, arbitrary decisions were fair game. We

need to hold the Clinton administration accountable and to stay

the record of decision until the Department of Interior has appropriate staff in place to evaluate the plan and its impact on the surrounding communities.

I have asked the Secretary of Interior to take whatever action is

necessary to accomplish this because, as you will hear today, a consensus has not been established in the surrounding communities.

In fact, my constituents believe that they have not been heard

throughout the park planning process.

Last year, I introduced the Gateway Communities Cooperation

Act and will shortly reintroduce it. That Act will require Federal

land managers to consult with, assist and support local gateway

communities that are affected by such massive planning efforts.

The gateway communities in my district do not have the resources

available to fully participate in such huge planning efforts, nor do

the Federal land managers have the mandate from this Congress

to involve their local gateways in these efforts. We need to correct

that, and I will ask the Subcommittee to move the legislation so

that such an oversight will never happen again.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to provide this input

at the beginning of this hearing, and to display the incredible plan

that we have before us. I look forward to the testimony of the panels.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]

Statement of The Honorable George Radanovich, a Representative in

Congress from the State of California

Chairman Hefley, thank you very much for the opportunity to submit this statement on the Final Yosemite Valley Plan and Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement, and the related concerns, comments and issues identified by gateway

communities, concessionaires and interested parties. This plan and planning process

has had a significant impact on my district. More importantly, the plan will set the

direction for Yosemite Valley for the foreseeable future. That future is important;

to the health and vitality of the communities I represent, and to our neighbors.

Let me first say that Yosemite Valley is in my district, and that I grew up not

far from that valley. I. have a direct personal knowledge and involvement in what

happens in Yosemite and in the mutual dependence of gateway communities on the

park, and of the park on the gateway communities. This interdependence cannot be

overstated, and I think part of the controversy we will hear about today is based

upon the concern that the Park Service does not fully embrace the importance of

the gateway community relationship.

Mr. Chairman, I have been personally involved in the formulation of the Yosemite

Valley plan in all its manifestations dating back to the 1980 General Management

Plan. Since that original plan, Yosemite has been studied, prodded, poked and written about by numerous park planners with ideas ranging from massive bridges

across the valley to multi-story parking garages in the valley itself, to trains, guideways and monorails. As I was leaving my office this morning I pulled out the plans
10

that were available on my bookshelf. I believe that this pile of documents demonstrates one of the problems with the Yosemite Valley Plan & EIS - it is simply

too much for the average citizen, even one who is directly affected by it - to review

and digest.

These massive piles of documents do not do one thing to improve the visitor experience in Yosemite Valley. I understand that they are part of mandated planning

processes, that they provide a basis for actions, that they cost a lot, and that they

keep numerous graphic designers employed. But they serve to confuse and distract

from the purpose of the Park Service to be a good steward of the resources and facilities it is responsible to manage.

Let’s move on to the substance of the plan that this subcommittee is charged to review. In sum, implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan and EIS will cost $441

million in one-time funds, over $10 million in annual operational funding, and large

increases in the number of federal employees serving in the Park. It will do this

while at the same time reducing the services available to the public - the roads,

bridges, parking places, stables, camping and lodging units and conveniences which

provide service for the owners of the park, the American taxpayer. This analysis

would lead one to want to start the planning process over, but I must confess to

not having the patience for more of this paperwork.

My goal is that the Park Service implement the incremental, least cost, least disruptive elements of flood recovery and park improvements first and re-evaluate each

step as the public experiences the improvement. Renovations and rebuilding required by the flood must be first on the list. Other projects have obvious merit, and

should be pursued. There are numerous projects contained in the details of this plan

that I do support, and that I want to ensure get accomplished as soon as feasible

within the constraints of the law. Examples of this include: • Transfer of park and concessionaire administrative activities into the gateway

communities of Oakhurst, Mariposa and elsewhere;

• The old warehouse and other facilities in the valley were replaced in El Portal,

and then old facility never removed. Let’s remove it; • Public–Private partnerships for the development of new employee housing in the

gateway communities should move forward where appropriate;

• Employee housing in the valley for those employees which are required to be

near their work was destroyed in the flood in 1997, and needs to be replaced;

• Campgrounds that were an integral part of the visiting public’s enjoyment of

the park were closed, and have not been reopened since 1997. Specifically,

Upper and Lower River Campgrounds need to be renovated and reopened.

• Traffic patterns causing congestion and confusion for the visiting public have

been identified. These bottlenecks need to be fixed.

These projects need to be completed quickly. Funds are available for most of these

projects as a result of an appropriation which made by Congress for flood recovery,

from park visitor fees, retained by the Park, from donations made to the Park for

improvements and from capital improvement funds contributed by the concessionaire.

There are many, elements of the plan that I do not support. .The most important

in the long run is the reliance of the plan on the success of the Yosemite Area Regional Transit System (YARTS). This system depends upon provision of some

$850,000 per year of specially appropriated funds from Congress. We have not considered or approved this request, and until we have, I believe the park service must

make available sufficient parking and related. infrastructure within the valley to

support the public. We cannot support a plan that prevents the visiting public from

enjoying their park. Eliminating parking spaces in the Valley will do just that, and

therefore I do not support that element of the plan. .

The park service has provided a plan that relies on YARTS nine months per year.

Instead, I have asked the park service to provide an analysis of the level of parking

required in order to meet the demands of the visiting public at least nine months

per year without YARTS. Many of my constituents claim that the park service has

already reduced the number of parking places in the valley by as many as 3,300

spaces. I do not know what the real number is, but I do know that the 550 spaces

provided in this plan are inadequate by any measure.

Earlier, I commented on the sources of funds available to the Superintendent to

accomplish the goals of the plan. One concern that you will hear today is that Congress cannot adequately monitor the implementation of the plan because there are

too many discretionary sources of funds available to be spent without further congressional review. This is true, and is a concern that I intend to correct with your

help, Mr. Chairman, through continued oversight by this subcommittee, through the

appropriations process and through my continued personal and direct involvement

in the implementation of this plan.
11

I believe that the planning process as implemented by the National Park Service

in this case is fatally flawed. Further review in conjunction with the gateway communities concerning the economic, infrastructure and land-use impacts of the proposed actions needs to be accomplished BEFORE the plan is finalized. I recognize

that Mr. Babbitt, while he was Secretary of the Interior, committed to and accomplished a Record of Decision for this plan prior to leaving office. I believe that in

this case, as with other cases under the Clinton administration, the plan was finalized because review by a new administration would find that the conclusions were

not supported by the facts.

Since that administration would not and could not be held accountable as it left

office, arbitrary decisions were fair game. We need to hold the Clinton administration accountable and to stay the Record of Decision until the Department of Interior

has appropriate staff in place to evaluate the plan and it impacts on the surrounding communities. I have asked the Secretary of the Interior to take whatever

action is necessary to accomplish this stay because, as you will hear today, a consensus has not been established in the surrounding communities. In fact, my constituents believe that they have not been heard throughout the park planning process.Last year, I introduced the Gateway Communities Cooperation Act and will shortly reintroduce it. That act will require federal land managers to consult with, assist

and support local gateway communities that are affected by such massive planning

efforts. The gateway communities in my district do not have the resources available

to fully participate in such huge planning efforts, nor do the federal land managers

have the mandate from this Congress to involve their local gateways in these efforts. We need to correct that. I will ask this subcommittee to move the legislation

so that such an oversight will never happen again.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony from our panels today concerning

the Yosemite Valley Plan and Final EIS. I believe that today’s hearing will highlight

the important role of gateway communities in federal planning efforts, and provide

a new look at the future of the Crown Jewel of the National Parks, Yosemite.

Thank you for your time.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Mr. Radanovich.

Is there anyone else who has an opening statement they would

like to make?

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I do not have an opening statement,

but I would like to insert a statement at a later point. I was at

Yosemite again the weekend before last and I’m interested in hearing the testimony today and learning from the witnesses.

Thank you.

Mr. HEFLEY. Without objection.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Souder follows:]

Statement by The Honorable Mark Souder, A Representative in Congress

from the State of Indiana

Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this important hearing. Yosemite National

Park is indisputably one of our world’s foremost natural wonders. Yosemite Valley,

with its towering waterfalls and massive granite walls, impresses visitors from all

over the world, young and old.

It is perhaps our greatest challenge to balance the desire of increasing numbers

to see the greatest wonders of the world—Yosemite Valley, Grand Canyon, Old

Faithful in Yellowstone, Glacier Bay—without so degrading the experience that it

is no longer memorable in a positive sense. Visitors expect to be awed with nature,

not fumes, smog, trash and jockeying for a view.

But we are not arguing over pristine environments. Long ago, Americans decided

that providing the opportunity for many to view those magnificent wonders superseded the desire of some to return them to pristine wilderness or the preserve of

a privileged few. It is important to preserve wilderness—with limited or no access—

but Yosemite Valley is not such a place.

What today’s hearing focuses on is the attempt to achieve a balance. Sometimes

those on opposing sides imply the other is either for total elimination of human impact or for paving over the last grass in the Valley. The American people not only

don’t support such radical viewpoints, but they are pretty firmly in the middle: give

us reasonable access and stop the drama. The problems addressed in this hearing
12

is illustrative not only of the problem facing Yosemite National Park but in many—

if not most—of our national parks.

Since I joined this Subcommittee, I have visited Yosemite National Park twice,

including just over a week ago. Over the last two years I have systematically been

visiting our national parks to discuss challenges facing the parks with park superintendents and staff. My meetings and visits have included large and small parks,

as well as natural and cultural parks. These include, but are not limited to, at least

one visit to these natural parks: Yosemite, Yellowstone, Glacier, Mt. Rainier, Grand

Canyon, Everglades, Olympic, Grand Teton, Denali, Kenai Fjords, Theodore Roosevelt and Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore; to these cultural parks: Independence, Gettysburg, Fort Clatsop, Golden Spike, Lincoln Home, and Mount Rushmore;

and combination parks like Golden Gate NRA (including the Presidio) and Gateway

NRA (including Ellis Island). What becomes apparent is that problems are not

unique, though specific variations may be.

Today’s hearing on the Yosemite Valley Plan highlights a number of the major

challenges. I would like to review a few of them.

1) Traffic congestion in the most popular areas

Yosemite, Grand Canyon and Zion are each developing plans limiting automobile

usage. Each is different. But today’s discussion on Yosemite highlights several

points.

a) Traffic congestion is not a year -around problem. It peaks at certain times—

usually the summer season. Yet solutions tend to be restrictive of automobile use

year around, or at least beyond the peak of the normal bell curve.

b) The cost of mass transit alternatives is high thus tending to attempt to maximize (i.e. force) as many auto passengers out of their cars, even if it means limiting

them at off-season times and by greater amounts than necessary.

c) The cost of mass transit adds to pressures to reduce parking spaces in the

sought after locations even if additional spaces could be allowed in management

plans such as the Yosemite Valley Plan.

d) Other options need to be pursued such as charging higher fees for such parking

as is done at airports (e.g. high rates for close access, none or minimal for ‘‘satellite

lots’’) Those dollars could then help subsidize a shorter season mass transit solution,

especially with adequate parking spaces.

2) Historical/cultural preservation versus natural preservation

At fifty years cultural resources come under the Historic Preservation guidelines.

Because this law is universal, it at times has lead to the unintended consequence

of letting structures deteriorate that may have been worthy of preserving because

scarce dollars and resources must be spent on less significant structures. It also

leads to conflict such as at Gettysburg, where a truly significant historic structure

sits on one of the nation’s most culturally significant pieces of land.

a) At Yosemite one such issue that appears to be resolved is the preservation

(through moving) the historic superintendent’s office which sits on a flood plain, and

was seriously flooded. It clearly needed to be preserved—its historic significance is

directly related to Yosemite Park’s history.

b) There is a debate about the usage of other buildings in Yosemite Village. These

buildings are of also great significance to the Park’s history. Hopefully creative solutions can be found similar to these being pursued at Grand Canyon Village and

Longmire at Mt. Rainier National Park.

c) There is a debate about a number of historic footbridges. This is the type of

debate that needs some serious re-evaluation of the current system (though at least

the current law forces such a debate, not just a tear-down). The bridges apparently

alter the natural flow of the Merced River, a National Scenic River. Of all the cultural resources in our natural Parks, a strong argument can be made that structures that epitomize the ‘‘National Park’’ look are the most important to preserve.

Those include the great historic inns like Many Glacier Lodge, El Tovor, Old Faithful and Ahwanee; the works of Underwood and Coulter, the landscaping of Olmsted.

But the broadest application is the WPA ‘‘park look’’. Bridgework is one of the best

examples of this type of architecture. The Yosemite Valley Plan proposes to remove

one, and study the impact. But once again, the key point here is that we need to

develop and approach that combines historic significance, natural importance of the

impacted area, and visitor impact (which at a minimum, should break ‘‘ties’’).

3) National Scenic River and other environmental guidelines

Let me state this clearly: I support the goals of the National Scenic River legislation. It has been and will continue to be a vital way to continue to clean up our

most scenic rivers. The challenges are many. Obviously, a scenic river that has been

highly developed along its river banks is going to be treated differently than in a

wilderness area. The debates in Yosemite about the Merced River are interesting
13

because they are not as not as clear cut. The Merced is gorgeous as it meanders

through the Valley, and then cuts its way out.

a) But the Merced River is already significantly altered. Today’s visitors who

enter Yosemite Park have no desire to repeat the experiences of John Muir. Few

had the time to wander then and few do now. To access the road at the El Portal

entrance, the Merced River was ‘‘controlled’’. It still has enough force (and speed)

to alter its riverbed during the last major flood, but it is significantly altered. The

goal should be minimal further alteration, but the Park Service should be commended for its attempts to improve the safety of the road with minimal river damage. The small environmental groups that are suing to stop such improvement

should be accountable to lawsuit if someone is hurt or killed because of their

grandstanding.

b) It is not an easy question as to removing culturally significant structures to

let the Merced River discover its ‘‘natural’’ course in the Valley. Moving the Superintendent’s residence makes sense because the flooding damages the building. The

riprap of the disputed bridges may alter the flow but the question here is destruction of a structure that is not endangered. Perhaps, all things considered, the first

bridge should be removed as a trial, but visitor usage should also be a factor.

4) Closing the horse trails in Yosemite Valley

Once again, this issue is debated in other areas as well. Clearly horseback riding

is a historic usage within a National Park. In fact, other than hiking, it is probably

the oldest. (And few, if any, of the earliest hikers didn’t have a horse or mule.) Banning horseback riding would be akin to banning camping. It is not like the firefalls

at Yosemite that delighted visitors for years, nor is it like feeding the bears. They

may have been traditions but were ‘‘artificial’’ creations for entertainment (and did

impact natural behavior). This is also not snowmobiling, air overflights, or engine

-powered motorcraft—about which there is much legitimate despite.

But just because horses are allowed, does not mean that they need to be allowed

everywhere in the park. It is an especially thorny issue when people are packed into

a small area of the park, like in Yosemite Valley. As a general rule, it seems that

when one visitors experience negatively impacts a large number of visitors, changes

are in order. With a limited number of valley trails, mutual enjoyment is difficult.

Therefore, as long as the service is provided and not reduced, and scenic alternatives are found, Valley limitations seem to make sense.

5) Numbers of lodging and camping sites

There is a clear trend toward reducing overnight accommodations inside our national parks. This clearly is not responding to visitor demand: it flies in the face

of it. It is one thing to argue that additional accommodations should not be added,

and should instead be added in gateway communities (often in national forests). It

seems like that whenever a Park develops a plan, they universally have a proposal

to reduce overnight accommodations. Not only is it not visitor requested, it is, at

most for negligible environmental gain.

Moving campground spaces at Yosemite and other parks because of issues like

rock slides or flooding may be needed but then attempting to maintain the number

should be undertaken. (At Yosemite, to pre-flood levels).

6) Gateway communities

Nearly every park has inevitable conflicts with the gateway communities. From

my experience, each park superintendent spends a lot of their time working with

these communities (in disproportion to their numbers—visitors and taxpayers, being

far larger constituencies). Furthermore, gateway community leaders almost always

say to the superintendent (or the Park Service) is unresponsive if they don’t get

their way.

But gateway communities do have a vital interest in each park and, quite frankly,

are part of the ‘‘National Park experience’’ for most Americans. To not work with

them would be shortsighted and counter-productive for visitors and those of us who

fund the National Parks. Issues include lodging, food services, recreation, and wildlife issues (e.g. wolves, elks, bears) just to name a few.

As a business person with a background in retailing, it is amazing to me to note

the often limited vision of the gateway community business leaders. While visitors

may prefer, when given the choice, to stay overnight inside the park, it benefits

gateway communities if the Park Service limits overnight accommodation, for example. It is obviously clear that all across America excellent accommodations—along

with other visitor services like food, shopping, entertainment (e.g. IMAX theaters

and museums as well as supplemental visitor centers) and recreation- are booming

in gateway communities. It is not clear that the National Park Service has diminished interest in visiting the parks by limitations on visitor services. But it is a delicate balance. The criteria to be evaluated at parks like Yosemite include: Does a

proposed transportation system create a disadvantage for one gateway community
14

over another? At what point do rising fees discourage visits? (And which visitors,

day, overnight or once-in-a-lifetime)? From the gateway merchants perspective—can visitors be enticed into extending their stay by having more entertainment options

at the edges of the parks? From a business standpoint, that is their best financial

opportunity.

7) Employee and Concessionaire Housing

This is a critical issue in nearly every park. Some is sub-standard. Some is far

away, making transportation costs increasingly prohibitive for many park employees. The Yosemite Valley plan proposes to move some employee housing to El Portal

at the edge of the Park. They have already moved- logically -park services that don’t

need to be in the valley to El Portal. Some of the moves make sense, even if it is

also understandable that people would prefer Valley housing. But for those who

must commute in, transfer costs are serious. Furthermore, inside parks if more and

more employees are removed it is going to be an increasing problem to provide adequate schooling for the children of remaining employees without resorting to lengthy

bus journeys.

8) Demonstration Fees

Two points-they should be made permanent and superintendent should be given

more flexibility to utilize them. Excellent visitor friendly projects have been developed in most parks, including Yosemite. Analysis should be made about using fees

for personnel but should only be done after careful debate about consequences.

9) Private support groups like the Yosemite Fund

The Yosemite Fund, and groups like it, are critical to the preservation of our

parks. In Congress we need to stimulate further charitable giving through the tax

code. While I was recently in Yosemite, I visited a Yosemite Fund Session with scientific researchers who study all the aspects of Yosemite’s natural history. It is a

living laboratory for Yosemite Park and university researchers. The Yosemite Fund

is working with researchers to make sure the research is coordinated with what is

most needed to make wise decisions.

I also met with major Yosemite Fund donors who are working to raise over ten

million dollars to redo the chaotic Yosemite Falls visitor area. We need to constantly

thank those thousands of families who give additional dollars to the park they love.

Those contributors should not be viewed as a lessening of the obligation of the general taxpayer, but rather a resounding vote of the confidence by citizens in the priority of that particular park. One way to determine whether a park has public support or was a ‘‘pork barrel’’ project of a Member of Congress (or a President) is

whether it has support public financial support. The concept of ‘‘crown jewels’’ is

hotly debated, but the size and membership diversity of some parks non-profit

groups (often multiple ones) proves the point. Yosemite and Yellowstone, Independence Hall and Gettysburg, to name a few, are in fact, different than your average

park.

Mr. HEFLEY. Our first panel will be made up of Mr. Doolittle,

from the 4th District of California, a district which encompasses

about half of the Park. Is that correct, Mr. Doolittle?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. That’s right, Mr. Chairman. Between Mr. Radanovich and me, we encompass the entire Park. I have the high country and he has the Valley.

Mr. HEFLEY. I see. Well, we would recognize you then for your

statement.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members. I appreciate the opportunity to rejoin you today

for this hearing. Yosemite is obviously a vital national treasure,

and it’s a privilege to represent a portion of it.

I would like to specifically express my thanks to my colleague,

Representative George Radanovich. His district, as we mentioned,

together with mine, do encompass the Park, and he has displayed

tireless efforts to maintain continued public access. Those have
15

been very well received throughout our shared region. I know that

the Tuolumne County Counsel, Gregory Oliver, is here as well, and

I especially appreciate him making the long trip to Washington to

represent the views of my constituents, and you will hear from him

on the third panel, I believe.

As we all know, Yosemite National Park has long been an international travel destination, drawing millions of tourists every year

to marvel at breathtaking waterfalls, Giant Sequoias, and plentiful

wildlife. I have long appreciated the beauty Yosemite has to offer,

and have made it a priority to preserve this national treasure for

future generations to enjoy.

However, I believe very strongly that we should seek to accomplish that objective without compromising the visitor experience

and without unnecessarily impacting the economies of the communities that lie at the gateway to the Park. It is in these two/ areas

that the Valley Plan falls woefully short.

First, the plan, as Mr. Radanovich mentioned, has unnecessarily

and unfortunately decreased the amount of parking spaces in the

Valley. You know, this reminds me, this is kind of a ‘‘Jerry Brown’’

approach to transportation. You just don’t build freeways and

somehow we’re going to solve the problem. Mr. Chairman, this is

a problem. Taking out those parking spaces is something I am

strongly opposed to.

Now, there is a congestion problem at times in the Valley, and

it’s a heavy congestion problem. Those problems are not good for

the Park or for the visitors. However, I want to emphasize congestion, at that level, only exists a few days per year, and for those

days, a more efficient traffic management strategy is needed. But

permanently reducing the number of parking spaces would only result in unnecessarily hampering the ease of visitation for many

day-use travelers during times of the year when traffic volume is

low. As such, I will continue to seek alternatives that reduce congestion while preserving auto touring as a viable means for all to

visit the Park.

I don’t know how many of our members have actually been to

Yosemite but, obviously, it’s possible to enter one way and leave

another, and to cross the mountains in the process. It’s a great way

to see features of Yosemite without having to make that your end

destination. We want to preserve that. But if there’s no place for

you to park once you drive into the Park, you’re not going to be

able to see the Park. You’ll just have to keep on going. I think

that’s a great injustice to the day-use visitors.

Second, Mr. Chairman, I object to the Plan’s severe reduction in

the number of overnight accommodations under the guise of flood

management. As one who has been very supportive of the Park’s

efforts to obtain Federal funds to repair damage resulting from the

1997 floods, it is disheartening to see those appropriations being

used to impede the visitor’s ability to enjoy what is perhaps the

Park’s greatest appeal—one’s ability to spend the night under the

stars in one of the most beautiful places in the world.

Third, although Housekeeping Bridge will remain under the Plan

to provide access across the Merced River, the removal of Sugar

Pine and Stoneman Bridges remains in the Plan.
16

Now, maybe this is just nostalgia on my part, but when we used

to go camping in the Valley, we would camp on one side of the

Merced River and cross Stoneman Bridge to reach Camp Curry,

which had the store with the candy and, you know, all the ‘‘fun’’ stuff. It’s a marvelous old bridge. It looks like some of the beautiful

stone work you see on the GW Parkway. It’s all nicely assembled.

Those two bridges are a great part of the culture and the history

of Yosemite Valley, and I think it would be a travesty to cause

those to be removed. So I join many of my constituents in objecting

to the elimination of these historic and valued attributes of

Yosemite.

Fourth, I am very much opposed to the removal of horse stables

from the Valley and the elimination of commercial trail rides. As

one who has personally utilized these stables, I can attest to the

enjoyable and historical experience they provide to many of the

Park’s visitors. I might add, I still remember how sorry I felt after

my eight-hour trip up and eight-hour trip down—I think it was

eight hours—to get to the back of Half Dome. But horses belong in

the Valley. It would be a shame to force them out. I think diversity

in the type of experience visitors can enjoy has the effect of spreading out congestion in the Valley, which would otherwise be more

concentrated under this restrictive Plan.

Finally, I am concerned with the manner in which the Clinton

administration force-fed this plan to the people of this country.

Former Interior Secretary Babbitt’s refusal to extend the diminutive public comment period of a plan that has been 20 years in the

making was very disappointing. Furthermore, I received a copy of

the Merced River Plan Record of Decision, a plan critical to the implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan, a mere four days prior

to the end of the public comment period for the Valley Plan. Needless to say, ample time for both my constituents and me to fully

digest and comment on the Plan was effectively denied.

Overall, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Yosemite Valley Plan

significantly limits the ability of visitors to enjoy the Park. When

this ability is eroded, the value of the Park, as well as the economies of the gateway communities, is compromised. This result is

unnecessary, and I encourage Park officials to develop a more appropriate balance between visitor experience and protection of the

Park. I am further encouraged that the new Bush administration

has signaled a greater willingness to work with communities when

developing policies that impact them on such a significant level.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing,

and I thank our witnesses for their contributions and their interest

in preserving the beauty of and the continued access to Yosemite

National Park. I look forward to the testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Doolittle follows:]

Statement of The Honorable John T. Doolittle, a Representative in

Congress from the State of California

I would like to thank Chairman Hefley for holding this hearing on this very important matter, the Yosemite Valley Plan. Also, I would like to express my thanks

to my colleague, Congressman George Radanovich. His district together with mine

contains Yosemite National Park, and his tireless efforts to maintain continued public access have been well received throughout our shared region. I know that

Tuolumne County Counsel, George Oliver, is here as well, and I especially appreciate him making the long trip here to represent the views of my constituents.
17

As you all know, Yosemite National Park has long been an international travel

destination, drawing millions of tourists every year to marvel at breathtaking waterfalls, Giant Sequoias, and plentiful wildlife. I have long appreciated the beauty

Yosemite has to offer, and have made it a priority to preserve this national treasure

for future generations to enjoy. However, I believe very strongly that we should seek

to accomplish that objective without compromising the visitor experience and unnecessarily impacting the economies of the communities that lie at the gateway to the

Park. It is in these two areas that the Valley Plan falls short.

First, the Plan has unnecessarily and unfortunately decreased the amount of

parking spaces in the Valley. I am well aware that at times, Yosemite Valley experiences heavy traffic congestion, and that such congestion is neither good for the Park

or for the visitor. However, congestion of this level only exists a few days per year,

and for those days, a more efficient traffic management strategy is needed. But permanently reducing the number of parking spaces would only result in unnecessarily

hampering the ease of visitation for many day use travelers during times of the year

when traffic volume is low. As such, I will continue to seek alternatives that reduce

congestion while preserving auto touring as a viable means for all to visit the Park.

Secondly, I object to the Plan’s severe reduction in the number of overnight accommodations under the guise of flood management. As one who has been very supportive of the Park’s efforts to obtain federal funds to repair damage resulting from

the 1997 floods, it is disheartening to see those appropriations being used to impede

the visitor’s ability to enjoy what is perhaps the Park’s greatest appeal - one’s ability to spend the night under the stars in one of the most beautiful places in the

world.

Third, although Housekeeping Bridge will remain under the Plan to provide access across the Merced River, the removal of Sugar Pine and Stoneman Bridges remains in the Plan. I join many of my constituents in objecting to the elimination

of these historic and valued attributes of Yosemite.

Fourth, I am very much opposed to the removal of horse stables from the Valley

and the elimination of commercial trail rides. As one who has personally utilized

these stables, I can attest to the enjoyable and historical experience they provide

to many of the Park’s visitors. Diversity in the type of experience visitors can enjoy

has the effect of spreading out congestion in the Valley, which would otherwise be

more concentrated under this restrictive Plan.

Finally and most importantly, I am concerned with the manner in which the Clinton Administration force-fed this plan to the people of this country. Former Interior

Secretary Babbitt’s disgraceful refusal to extend the diminutive public comment period of a plan that has been 20 years in the making is nothing but a total affront

to our democratic system. Furthermore, it is absolutely appalling that I received a

copy of the Merced River Plan Record of Decision - a plan critical to the implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan - a mere four days prior to the end of the public

comment period for the Valley Plan. Needless to say, ample time for both my constituents and me to fully digest and comment on the Plan was effectively denied.

Overall, I believe that the Yosemite Valley Plan significantly limits the ability of

visitors to enjoy the Park. When this ability is eroded, the value of the Park, as well

as the economies of the gateway communities, is compromised. The result is unnecessary, and I encourage Park officials to develop a more appropriate balance between visitor experience and the protection of the Park. I am further encouraged

that the new Bush Administration has signaled a greater willingness to work with

communities when developing policies that impact them on such a significant level.

Again, I thank the Chairman for holding this very important hearing, and I thank

these panels of witnesses for their contributions and great interest in preserving the

beauty of, and continued access to, Yosemite National Park.

Mr. HEFLEY. Any questions for Mr. Doolittle?

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I have one.

Mr. HEFLEY. Yes. You’re recognized for five minutes.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Doolittle, obviously, since the upper part of the

Park is closed during the winter, the eastern gateway, Tioga Pass

and that area in your district, would be most heavily impacted by

this.

Do you have any visitation figures for how many people would

stay at the gateway community and then come into the Park and

exit at another point?
18

Mr. DOOLITTLE. You know, I don’t have that at my fingertips, but

I will provide them for the record, because the figures illustrate

just how significant having the road open is to our gateway communities. It means—as I recall, it’s hundreds of thousands of dollars a day when people have the ability to go through the Park. So

every day beyond Memorial Day that that road isn’t open is of

great concern to us.

Mr. SOUDER. The time to enter from the east side, going across

Columbia Meadows and down into the Valley is about how long?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. You know, I have not entered the Park ever from

the east side, but I believe that that would be, well, a good hour

or more, probably, an hour-and-a-half.

Mr. SOUDER. And then it’s similar if you exited one of the other

directions, you’re 45 minutes to an hour?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Yes. It would be more like an hour or so, I think.

Mr. SOUDER. Okay. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you. Any further questions?

With that, Mr. Doolittle, I do hope you will stay with us and participate fully in the hearing.

Mr. HEFLEY. The next panel will be Mr. John Reynolds, Regional

Director, Pacific West Region, National Park Service, San

Francisco, California.

At this point I would like to ask Mr. Radanovich to take the

gavel and to chair the hearing. The Valley is in his district; he has

a deep and abiding love for Yosemite National Park, and an interest in this Plan. So I would like, Mr. Radanovich, if you would care

to, to come and chair the Subcommittee.

Mr. RADANOVICH. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think we will call the next panel up, but first, let me do one

quick housekeeping thing. I do have a letter from the Mariposa

County Unified School District that has some concerns regarding

the Plan, and I would ask unanimous consent that it be included

in the record. Hearing no objection, I will go ahead.

[The letter follows:]
19
20
21

Mr. RADANOVICH. Let’s go ahead and start then with our first

panel. That is John Reynolds, who is the Regional Director of the

Pacific West Region of the National Park Service in San Francisco.

John, welcome. We’re glad that you were able to come testify

today, and we look forward to your statement and follow-up questions.

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. REYNOLDS, REGIONAL DIRECTOR,

PACIFIC WEST REGION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE; ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID A. MIHALIC, SUPERINTENDENT,

YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK

Mr. REYNOLDS. Thank you, Congressman Radanovich, and thank

you, Chairman Hefley. It’s my pleasure to be here.

My name is John Reynolds. I’m the Regional Director of the

Pacific West Region of the National Park Service. I am here today

to report on the Yosemite flood recovery efforts, the Yosemite Valley Plan, and how it relates to the flood recovery efforts.

A major flood occurred at Yosemite National Park in January,

1997, causing significant damage throughout the Park. In July

1997, Congress appropriated $186 million for flood recovery repairs, with the proviso that these repairs be carried out to help implement the Park’s 1980 General Management Plan. An additional $11 million of funding is available from the Federal Lands Highway Program, for a total flood recovery program of $197 million.

We are on track with the flood recovery program. A substantial

portion has been completed. Thirty-two miles of damaged roads

throughout the Park have been repaired, and six miles of the El

Portal Road has been completely reconstructed. One hundred-andthirty eight miles of back-country trails have been reconstructed,

25 trail bridges have been repaired or rebuilt, and seven miles of

paved bike paths have been reconstructed. The Park sustained substantial damage to the valley water, wastewater and electrical systems, and they have been repaired.

Seventy-seven million dollars has been obligated to date. Of the

balance, $106 million is for flood-affected facilities that are included in the Yosemite Valley Plan, with the remainder for flood

damage repairs to infrastructure elsewhere in the Park, outside of

Yosemite Valley.

At the end of last year, I approved the Yosemite Valley Plan and

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. This plan will implement many of the goals of the Park’s 1980 General Management

Plan, and will ensure Congress’ direction that flood appropriations

be used for this purpose. The 1980 plan established the broad goals

to reclaim priceless natural beauty, to allow natural processes to

prevail, to promote visitor understanding and enjoyment, to markedly reduce traffic congestion, and to reduce crowding. The

Yosemite Valley Plan was guided by these goals.

Since 1980, additional studies and analyses have been conducted,

particularly related to natural processes, visitor enjoyment, transportation, and housing. In the early 1990’s, work on specific improvement plans for housing in the Yosemite Valley and the

Yosemite Falls area was started. These efforts took on greater urgency following the flood of 1997, with the need to replace visitor

facilities damaged or destroyed by the flood. The flood reconstruc-
22

tion plan for Yosemite Lodge, in conjunction with other pre-flood

plans, spurred litigation against the National Park Service over

concerns about fragmented planning. This litigation resulted in the

decision to create one comprehensive and integrated Yosemite Valley Plan.

We will soon begin to obligate the balance of the flood recovery

funds on those portions of the Yosemite Valley Plan that were affected by the 1997 flood. Campgrounds will be restored or relocated. Lodging units lost to the flood will be replaced at Yosemite

Lodge and Curry Village. New facilities will be designed and located where they will not experience damage in future floods.

Other projects include natural resource restoration and improved

road circulation to reduce congestion and conflicts with people

walking or riding bicycles.

Beyond flood recovery, the Yosemite Valley Plan also identifies

many important projects that would require additional funding and

further approval from Congress and the administration before they

could proceed. For these projects, we will do additional regulatory

compliance that will involve extensive community and public review and input, specifically including the gateway communities.

In the Yosemite Valley Plan, we commit to fulfilling our housing

needs first in local communities. We have authority to create public/private partnerships to build and operate housing outside the

Park. We intend to use private fundraising, where appropriate,

such as that we are doing with the Yosemite Falls project. We

would need to seek additional funding and approval before we

could provide out-of-valley parking areas and associated shuttle

systems.

There are exciting opportunities underway by several of the local

counties near the Park to develop regional transit that has dramatic potential for lessening the amount of capital expenditures

called for in this Plan. Park visitors staying in nearby communities, leaving their cars in the motel lot and taking regional transit, could lessen the need to develop out-of-valley parking and associated business systems in Yosemite.

Yosemite Valley is only seven miles long, and less than one mile

wide. The floor of the Valley is further constrained by rockfall

zones on both sides, and the flood plain of the Merced Wild and

Scenic River down the middle. Through the Yosemite Valley Plan

and extensive public involvement and studies, we have addressed

issues concerning space for campgrounds, tent cabins, historic hotels, roads, bike paths, parking lots, Housekeeping Camp and employee housing, while also providing for and conserving the very

natural scenery that draws people to this very special park.

For the draft plan, testimony was received at 14 public meetings

throughout California. Public meetings were held in Denver, Seattle, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. We held over 60 informal

open houses and 59 walking tours to help people see, on the ground

in the Valley, what the Plan proposed. We made 150 presentations

to interest groups and service clubs. This resulted in over 10,200

comments that were used to modify the Plan into the final Plan.

While the majority of commenters acknowledge that recreational

opportunities should continue to be available for Yosemite Valley

visitors, people differ, obviously, in their opinions of what sort of
23

activities should be allowed and how they should be managed.

While these choices are difficult, I am pleased to report that traditional activities will, for the most part, continue at levels that fit

within the rockfall hazard and flood plain that constrain us in

Yosemite.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I will be happy to answer any questions you or members may have.

As you know, I have with me Superintendent Dave Mihalic of

Yosemite, and I would appreciate your permission to invite him to

the table with me, so that we may all benefit from the most knowledgeable answers to your questions as possible.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today, sir.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reynolds follows:]

Statement of John J. Reynolds, Regional Director, Pacific West Region,

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior

Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name is John

J. Reynolds and I am Regional Director of the Pacific West Region of the National

Park Service.

I am here today to report on the Yosemite flood recovery efforts, the Yosemite Valley Plan and how it relates to the flood recovery efforts, and future projects that

will require us to come back to Congress for more discussion.

As you may recall, a major flood occurred at Yosemite National Park in January

1997 causing significant damage throughout the park. The damage was so severe

that Yosemite Valley was closed to the public for three and one-half months and,

in fact, reopened to the public four years ago this month. In July 1997, Congress

appropriated $186 million for flood recovery repairs, with the proviso that these repairs be carried out to help implement the park’s 1980 General Management Plan. An additional $11 million funding is available from the Federal Lands Highway Program, for a total flood recovery program of $197 million.

I am pleased to report that since then, we are on track with the flood recovery

program. A substantial portion of the flood recovery program has been completed,

resulting in restoration of many different types of public services. For example, 32

miles of damaged roads throughout the park have been repaired and six miles of

the El Portal Road, one of three major access roads to Yosemite Valley has been

completely reconstructed. This road not only connects Highway 140 and Mariposa

to the valley, but also provides the connection to the park’s primary administrative

and maintenance center in El Portal. Moreover, 138 miles of backcountry trails have

been reconstructed, 25 trail bridges have been repaired or rebuilt, and seven miles

of paved bike paths have been reconstructed. The park sustained substantial damage to the valley water, wastewater and electrical systems, which has been repaired.

This vital infrastructure is critical to supporting both park operations and visitor

facilities.

As of February 28, 2001, $77 million has been obligated. Of the balance, $106 million is for flood-affected facilities that are included in the Yosemite Valley Plan, with

the remainder for flood damage repairs to infrastructure elsewhere in the park, outside of Yosemite Valley. More information on these projects can be found in the

Flood Recovery Quarterly Report, which we routinely provide to Congress.

At the end of last year, I approved the Yosemite Valley Plan and Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement. This plan will implement many of the goals of

the park’s 1980 General Management Plan and will ensure Congress’’ direction that

flood appropriations be used for this purpose. The 1980 plan established the broad

goals to reclaim priceless natural beauty; allow natural processes to prevail; promote visitor understanding and enjoyment; markedly reduce traffic congestion; and

reduce crowding. The Yosemite Valley Plan was guided by these goals.

Since 1980, additional studies and analyses have been conducted, particularly related to natural processes, visitor enjoyment, transportation, and housing. In the

early 1990’s work on specific improvement plans for housing, Yosemite Valley, and

the Yosemite Falls area was started. These efforts took on greater urgency following

the flood of 1997 with the need to replace visitor facilities damaged or destroyed by

the flood. The flood reconstruction plan for Yosemite Lodge, in conjunction with the

other pre-flood plans, spurred litigation over concerns about fragmented planning.

The litigation resulted in the decision to create one comprehensive and integrated

Yosemite Valley Plan.
24

With the completion of this plan for Yosemite Valley, we are now on track for

completing the remainder of the flood recovery program. We will soon begin to obligate the balance of the flood recovery funds on those portions of the Yosemite Valley

Plan that were affected by the 1997 flood. For example, campgrounds will be restored or relocated to areas identified in the plan that are better able to sustain

their impacts or do not, in themselves, cause impacts to the Merced Wild and Scenic

River. Lodging units lost to the flood will be replaced at Yosemite Lodge and Curry

Village. As detailed in the Flood Recovery Action Plan, new facilities will be designed and located where they will not experience damage in future floods of similar

magnitude. Other projects include natural resource restoration and improved road

circulation, to reduce congestion and conflicts with people walking or riding bicycles.

Beyond flood recovery, the Yosemite Valley Plan also identifies many important

projects that would require additional funding and further approval from Congress

and the administration before they could proceed. For many of these projects, we

will do additional regulatory compliance that will involve extensive public review

and input, including input from the gateway communities. Some of these projects

include moving additional employee housing and services out of Yosemite Valley.

In the Yosemite Valley Plan, we commit to fulfilling our housing needs first in

local communities. We have authority to create public-private partnerships to build

and operate housing outside the park. We intend to use private fundraising, where

appropriate, such as what we are doing with the Yosemite Falls Project. We would

need to seek additional funding and approval before we could provide out-of-valley

parking areas and associated shuttle systems. However, there are exciting opportunities underway by several of the local counties near the park to develop regional

transit that has dramatic potential for lessening the amount of capital expenditures

called for in this plan. Park visitors staying in nearby communities, leaving their

cars in the motel lot, and taking regional transit could lessen the need to develop

out-of-valley parking lots and associated shuttle bus systems in Yosemite. In fact,

motels in gateway communities could offer their guests a choice in how to visit the

park.

Mr. Chairman, Yosemite Valley is only seven miles long and less than one mile

wide. The floor of the valley is further constrained by rockfall zones on both sides

and the floodplain of the Merced Wild and Scenic River down the middle. Through

the Yosemite Valley Plan and extensive public involvement and studies, we have addressed issues concerning space for campgrounds, tent cabins, historic hotels, roads,

bike paths, parking lots, Housekeeping Camp, and employee housing, while also

providing for and conserving the very natural scenery that draws people to the park.

During the public comment period for the draft plan, testimony was received at

14 public meetings throughout California. Public meetings were held in Denver, Seattle, Chicago, and Washington, DC. In Yosemite Valley, we held over 60 informal

open houses and 59 walking tours to help people see on the ground what the plan

proposed. And we made 150 presentations to interest groups and service clubs. This

resulted in over 10,200 comments that were used to modify the draft and make

changes in the final plan in response to public input.

We have found that people are passionate in their opinions of what should, or

should not happen in Yosemite, and their input is important. While the majority

of commenters acknowledge that recreational opportunities should continue to be

available for Yosemite Valley visitors, people differ in their opinions of what sort

of activities should be allowed and how they should be managed. While these

choices are difficult, I am pleased to report that traditional activities will, for the

most part, continue at levels that fit within the rockfall hazard and flood plain that

constrain us in Yosemite Valley.

We are fortunate that with the funding opportunities of the flood recovery appropriations, the Fee Demonstration program, private donations, public-private partnerships, and future line item projects, we can implement the plan and restore natural processes and visitor services that are vital to the very values people come to

Yosemite to enjoy—the meandering Merced River, the views of the thundering water

falls and shadowed granite walls, the lush meadows and the wildlife that makes

this valley its home.

That concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to answer any questions that you or the members of the subcommittee may have.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Without objection for others to speak on your

behalf, I don’t see any dissent on that. So ordered.

John, thanks for your testimony. The way I’m going to handle

this, I’m going to ask a couple of questions and then we’ll go quick-
25

ly down. I would ask for—You know, typically the thing is five minutes per person. I want to make sure that everybody who has a

question gets answers, but I don’t want to take up all the time initially, either. So we’re going to pass this baton along rather quickly, and we’re going to go more than one round. If you don’t get

every question asked your first go around, you will have a second

round. I just want to make sure everybody has a chance to participate.

If you would set the clock to three minutes, then we’ll go ahead.

My first question, John, is that, as you know, the budget request for this is $441 million. In the flood of 1997, there had already been

appropriated some $200,000 for improvements to the Park. Much

of that was spent on Highway 140, getting it repaired and up and

running, which leaves a balance of about $106 million that’s already available to you to begin spending on this plan, in addition

to gateway receipts that add up to about $40 million.

Can you list for me specifically what you have the green light on,

to go ahead and begin spending on, and what you intend to spend

money on, given that appropriation already?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, sir. We would begin immediately on guest

lodging and campground replacement and restoration; replacing

the existing shuttle fleet with a fleet that is much more environmentally friendly; construct a transit center; reconstruct trails,

bridges and utilities; and reconstruct concession employee housing

so that the concessionaire can operate in a more effective manner.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Did you mention also the campgrounds, the

upper and lower river campground projects as well?

Mr. REYNOLDS. As you know, sir, the upper and lower river

campgrounds are called for in the Plan to be restored to their natural environment. They are in the natural waterway and floodway

of the Merced Wild and Scenic River. They have been held in place

so far by riprapping along much of the bank, on the upper side of

the river.

We are not, under the constraints of the Wild and Scenic Rivers

Act; we may not continue—we are not allowed to continue to protect that landscape in that manner. So as part of both the mission

of the National Park Service and the requirements of the Wild and

Scenic Rivers Act, we would restore the natural environment of

those two campgrounds. Work is called for in the 1980 plan to provide campsites, additional campsites, in other parts of the Park.

Mr. RADANOVICH. And that is not lodging facilities outside the

Park to account for any loss of campground spaces or anything like

that; that is, actual campground spaces may not be in the Valley

itself but somewhere in the Park?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, sir, that’s correct.

Mr. RADANOVICH. What would be an example of some of these

projects that are part of the Plan that would require future appropriations for outside that $140 million that’s available to you now?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Can I ask Dave to address that in detail, sir?

Mr. RADANOVICH. Sure.

Mr. MIHALIC. Mr. Chairman, I think that the question is which

ones are not yet funded, that are part of the Plan?

Mr. RADANOVICH. Yes, that would require future appropriation

from the Congress.
26

Mr. MIHALIC. A good example of that would be Mr. Doolittle’s

concern over the historic bridges, which are called for removal in

the Plan. Those are not yet—those do not have funding appropriated for them.

Another example might be the satellite and out-of-valley parking.

That does not have funding. In fact, the Plan, before we would actually construct those, calls for further environmental review, public input, and a traffic management study that we would do in

order to best be able to build those appropriately.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Okay. Thank you.

I’m going to defer to Mrs. Christensen, and we’ll have more questions. I do want to make the rounds for everybody first before we

answer any more.

Mrs. Christensen.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you.

I’m sort of concerned about the discrepancy and whether there

was enough public comment, and your statement about all the outreach that you made and the number of hearings and so forth that

you had.

Do you feel that all of the communities that were involved were

reached through the various outreaches that were made by the

Park Service? Because we’re hearing on the other side that the

communities have not been properly consulted.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Congresswoman, I would never decide that I

should speak for those communities. It was obviously our intent

and we tried very, very hard to include those communities. I think,

obviously, if they feel that they need additional ways in which we

can communicate, it is up to us to meet with them, to find ways

with them to do so.

We have started something that I don’t think we’ve done anywhere else with Mariposa County, which is now starting its general

plan, and Superintendent Mihalic and the Park are working with

the county now to try to come to a way where we can do our plans

for El Portal, which is within Mariposa County, and the Mariposa

County plan as one document that serves us all and as one process

led by the county and participated in by us that results in that

kind of thing.

So I think your question is a question that is one that is very,

very important. We felt very strongly that the design of our involvement system would include the counties. The counties I think

would say that they would have liked additional and different ways

to be involved.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. One of the concerns also is about the lodging

and whether the new Plan allows for enough accommodation for

visitors and so forth. In your plan, do you think there’s enough

lodging, both within and outside the Park to accommodate the

usual number of visitors that would come to Yosemite?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Congresswoman, in no park has it ever been the

intent of the Park Service to accommodate all the demand. Instead,

we’ve tried to accommodate that which is necessary and appropriate, as the law says. Our intent has always been, and continues

to be, to provide the maximum amount of access to people.

When the 1980 plan was approved, we expected some development of overnight lodging to take place outside the Park, because
27

we put limits on the amount in the Park, and called for further reductions. We were overwhelmed by the—I mean, in terms of the

emotion—by the amount of overnight accommodations that has

taken place outside the Park to serve the needs of visitors, so that

more people can come and stay in the Yosemite area in the local

economy. We expect the same thing to continue to happen.

So I think whether or not visitors can have access to the Park

and enjoy the Park is very well taken care of, and will be further

taken care of by local private interests.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I will stop here and allow others to ask questions.

Mr. RADANOVICH. All right. Thank you.

My Chairman, Mr. Hefley.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, and I will try to be brief.

You have two charges as the Park Service. One of them is to protect the resource and the other one is to provide for the enjoyment

of the public to enjoy that resource.

Why in the world would the Plan call for destroying these historic bridges, which are one of the things that people do remember

when they leave the Park, in addition to the waterfall and other

things, and what is your plan for the horses, which has been a part

of the Park experience for, gosh, who knows, generations, I suppose. It’s kind of part of the western experience that people enjoy,

even if they don’t ride the horses anywhere, to see the horses in

the park as part of the western experience.

What are your plans for the horses and why would it call for destroying the bridges?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Hefley, may I ask Mr. Mihalic to give you a

good, detailed answer? And if you would like to come back to me,

I would be happy to respond.

Mr. MIHALIC. Mr. Chairman, it’s an excellent question. With respect to the bridges, as you know, with our mission, we are required to do two things, not one or the other.

With the Merced River having been designated a wild and scenic

river under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, we were confronted

with the challenge of how to allow the river to be free-flowing, as

required by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, yet constrained by

these bridges that were put in that cause the river to act in an unnatural way, and sometimes even during the flooding, act as dams.

What the Plan calls for is for the first bridge, the Sugar Pine

Bridge, to be removed, and because of controversy, we know that

the river will then react in a different way. The Plan then calls for

us to do a hydrologic study to determine whether the other bridges

need to be removed.

With respect to the horses, the Plan calls for the removal of the

commercial horse stable. The government horse stables are also in

the Valley. We’re taking those stables out. The commercial trail

rides have been in conflict with other visitors with respect to

hikers, day hikers and backpackers using the same trails. The

trails that we’re talking about receive literally thousands of people

on those trails a day out of the Valley. With respect to the public

input, we believe that having the commercial trail rides will reduce

that conflict.
28

It is important to note that private horse users, day users, people

who bring their horses into the Valley and wish to ride in the Valley, that will still be possible and trails will still be open. It’s only

the commercial aspects that we’re calling to be removed.

Mr. REYNOLDS. May I also add that the rest of the Park, the entire rest of the Park, is still open to horses, as it is today, under

this plan.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you.

Mr. Kildee, any questions?

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you. I will be very brief. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

If the flood of 1997 had not occurred, would your plan for this

Valley been significantly different than what it is now, or how different would it have been, perhaps, from the 1980 plan that had

been developed for the Valley?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Sir, thank you. I don’t believe, in having participated extensively in both efforts, I don’t believe it would have been

much different today. The reason for that is we’ve learned, since

the 1980 plan, about the actual extent of the dangerous rockfall

zone and the actual location of the flood plain. Even if the flood

hadn’t occurred, there are other floods that have been very, very

near to the same volume and aerial extent. So I think we would

have been faced with exactly the same constraints that we had as

a result of the flood.

I think what the flood did was give us the opportunity and the

direction by the Congress to take that new knowledge into account

and create a plan and get on with doing it. So I think the answer

is it would not have been significantly different, sir.

Mr. KILDEE. In general, do we have to be careful with our national treasures like this, to make sure that the reason that attracts people to these places is we do not at the same time destroy

the very thing they came to see.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, sir, I think that’s the charge of the National

Park Service and why it’s so much fun to work there.

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RADANOVICH. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. It’s good to see you again, Mr. Mihalic.

I appreciated your hosting me while I was there, to explain and

help me understand some of the concerns.

I have a quick question about the bridges. Are the bridges historic structures?

Mr. MIHALIC. Mr. Souder, yes, they are. They are designated

under the National Historic Preservation Act, because of their age,

as historic bridges.

Mr. SOUDER. It is suggested that, in trying to reconcile, that

there’s a third thing in addition to the fact that we have this dilemma, with different places where we have a historic structure on

historic natural ground and which takes preeminence, but visitor

enjoyment is also a third charge of the National Park Service. So

you’re really trying to balance multiple things.

In trying to sort through the parking question, is 550 the maximum amount allowed under the Plan?
29

Mr. MIHALIC. Mr. Souder, yes, 550 is the amount called for under

the Plan.

Mr. SOUDER. Could that be altered? Are there variables in the

plan that would allow that to go up, or is that fixed?

Mr. MIHALIC. Mr. Souder, the Plan, as you know, includes an environmental impact statement. As part of the environmental impact statement process, we looked at an area in which the day-use

parking of 550 cars would go. It’s important to note that the total

amount of parking in the Valley is actually over 2,000 cars. The remainder of that are for the Housekeeping Camp, the campgrounds,

the lodge, Curry Village, the Ahwahnee Hotel. Everyone going

there will have a parking place as well. The 550 figure to which

you refer is just for the day-use parking lot.

In that area, we actually did an analysis that we could probably

fit as many as maybe half again as much as the 550, maybe 800

vehicles, in that area. It is also important to note that if we were

to try to reverse the figure in terms of reliance on buses, that that

figure would probably be closer to 1,200 cars for day-use parking.

Mr. SOUDER. Could you explain that last statement again? In

other words, if you used buses, you would have fewer, longer-term

people in the park. Therefore, your day-use availability of spaces

would be higher; is that what you’re saying?

Mr. MIHALIC. Mr. Souder, the concern of Mr. Radanovich that he

mentioned was that he would like to see less reliance on the outof-valley parking and the bus system that would serve that parking. The number that it would take to make the out-of-valley shuttle only about three months of the year would be around 1,200 cars

for day-use parking.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. The chair recognizes Ms. McCollum from Minnesota.

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Reynolds, if I’m understanding your testimony correctly, part

of the contributing factor to the floods were some of the man-made

structures that were placed in the Park; is that correct?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, that’s correct, particularly in the case of

some of the bridges.

Ms. MCCOLLUM. So part of the management plan was looking at

reducing potential flooding in the future by removing some of these

obstacles—and I understand you still have some hydraulic studies

that are going to progress forward, to see where or not some of the

structures should be removed. But the decision to remove them

would be to lessen the threat of flooding in the future; is that correct, Mr. Reynolds?

Mr. REYNOLDS. It would be to—that’s generally correct. It would

be to reduce the aerial extent of the floods above the bridge, above

the bridges, and let the natural flow of the water take place.

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Chair and Mr. Reynolds, I read in one of

the pieces of information that I have that you have about four million visitors a year, is that correct, Mr. Reynolds?

Mr. REYNOLDS. It has actually been as high as four million. I

think last year it was about 3.7.

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, could someone from the Park Service

tell me, in the next ten to twenty years, what do you think, based
30

on trending that you did in your Plan, what do you think you

might have for annual visitors?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I think we would have to come back to tell you

exact numbers, but with the population increases in California and

the continuing trends toward travel from all over the United States

and all over the world, I think the pressures to visit national parks

everywhere, including Yosemite, is just going up.

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That information coming

at a future time is fine.

[The response to the aforementioned question follows:]

In response to a question asked by Ms. McCollum to John Reynolds concerning visitation trends at Yosemite:

While specific visitation projections for the next ten or twenty

years are not available, we expect visitation to the park to continue

increasing, based on the anticipated growth of California’s population and trends toward increased travel to national parks from

within the United States and abroad.

Ms. MCCOLLUM. I haven’t had an opportunity to be there, gentlemen, but the Yosemite Valley, along with the congestion, often has

a smog core to it. Could you tell me about the air quality in the

Park, if that’s ever been a concern?

Mr. REYNOLDS. It has been a concern, from two sources. The first

source is within the Park itself, and it consists of automobile exhausts and campfire smoke, if you will. At some times of the year,

it could be from natural or prescribed fires.

The second source is out of the Park and is increasing. The recent studies show that everything in the Sierras, all plant materials in the Sierras below 6,000 feet—and the Valley is just about

4,000 feet—all plant materials in the Sierras are being damaged,

about 29 percent of the plant materials in the Sierras below 6,000

feet.

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, if I could just make sure that I understand the testimony, if I could do a follow up. Mr. Reynolds, the

cars that are going through on a heavy day use are contributing

to the lack of air quality, the potential smog quality, for people that

are hikers who could be suffering from asthma, respiratory disease?

Mr. REYNOLDS. In the Valley itself. The intent of the Plan, of

course, is to reduce the adverse air quality within the Valley from

emissions produced inside the Park.

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. RADANOVICH. The gentleman with whom I share the Park

with, Mr. Doolittle. John?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The bridges, tell me about the flooding problem. Well, before we

get into that, what was the bigger factor, the flooding issue or the

incompatibility of the Wild and Scenic River status that dictated

the selection of a plan that removes these two bridges?

Mr. REYNOLDS. From my point of view—and if you would like to

have Dave answer as well, because we might get a more full answer here—but from my point of view, it is the combination of the

two together. Had we not had the Wild and Scenic River mandates,
31

I’m sure we would have had a much more difficult time making

this decision.

Nonetheless, that being said, as we understand natural systems

better and better from better science, I’m sure we would have had

the same kind of discussions and probably come to the same conclusion. But I think that focusing in on the Wild and Scenic River

helped us very much to focus in on this issue.

Dave, do you want to add more to that?

Mr. MIHALIC. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Doolittle, it’s one of the

most difficult parts of not just the bridge question but almost all

the questions in the Valley, because our mission from Congress is

to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and

the wildlife therein. So it’s very difficult to come to an either/or

conclusion.

In this particular instance, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act has

specific language that says that it shall take precedence over other

law. In order to keep the bridges, which are obviously anchored on

either side of the river, from washing away during flood events, the

river has been riprapped and the channel has been kept in the

bridges upstream, and then there’s been scouring downstream,

which has caused the erosion to occur below the bridges. In essence, what we’ve had to do is constrain the river to fit where the

bridges are.

It’s a very difficult issue. It’s obviously as much a science issue

as well as an emotional issue. I think we came down on the side

of trying to retain those natural features and those natural processes in the Valley that the public does come to see, and that’s why

we had originally proposed in the draft plan the removal of three

of the bridges. We said we will remove the first bridge, do a hydrologic study, and then see what happens after that.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let me just observe that certainly a different approach has been taken on other rivers. The American River, below

Nimbus Dam to the confluence of the Sacramento, is a wild and

scenic river. There are, I believe, close to half a dozen bridges that

traverse it. The river itself is impounded by levees on both sides

that are about 20, 25 feet high. No one has ever suggested that we

remove any of the bridges.

You know, in the case of Yosemite, I think you have erred in the

wrong direction by taking out those bridges.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RADANOVICH. You’re welcome.

Tom Udall from New Mexico.

Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Reynolds, it seems to me one of the issues here is the impact

on the Valley communities, the community outside of Yosemite Valley. In looking at this and hearing your testimony and the questions of others, it seems like what you’re doing is actually a ‘‘win

win’’ for the communities outside the Valley, in the sense that

you’re moving parking spaces, many of them, to outside the Valley.

So if there are parking spaces outside the Valley, those individuals

will park and shop in those communities and be out there and then

be able to take a shuttle in.

The same thing is true, I think, for the concessions and the hotel

space. There are many new hotels being built, I think, hotel rooms
32

in the outside community. So there is more of an opportunity for

those people to spend time there.

Then the ‘‘win’’ on the Park side is having people come into the

Park and really enjoy the experience. It seems to me that you’re

reaching a pretty good compromise here.

But could you give me your comments on that, in terms of looking at both sides of this?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question.

Obviously, as I came to the time to sign or not sign the Record

of Decision, I had to think about that very issue as well as the rest

of the issues that have been talked about here. We believe, of

course, we’re headed there. I think a lot of people actually believe

that we’re headed there, too.

I think the real issue, in relationship to the communities here,

and particularly as we have found out in the last several months

as we’ve gone into very detailed discussions with Mariposa County,

it’s how we go about creating an understanding between both of us

and the need to raise our ability, to improve our ability to do that,

which I think many of the counties are coming to.

I think that’s one of the reasons that Dave came to the Park almost two years ago, was to increase the relationship between the

Park and the communities prior to the time the decisions were

made. I would point to the recent developments with Mariposa

County to indicate how much we might be able to do that.

I think it’s a difficult question. I think it’s a question of agencies

in transition, plus I think it’s a question of communities becoming

much, much more concerned with their relationship with their

Park areas nationwide, not just in Yosemite.

Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. Could you tell us briefly about the

fee demonstration program, how that operates and how those monies are to be used?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. If it’s all right with you, I’m going to have

Dave do that because he can illustrate with exact examples from

Yosemite as opposed to some more general things I might be able

to cover.

Mr. MIHALIC. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Udall, the fees called for in this

Plan, we’ve actually been banking our fee revenue. We get about $12 million a year and we want to apply it toward this Plan.

Some examples of visitor facilities that would be funded by the

Plan would be everything from fixing up some of the water and

sewage treatment plants and the utilities that support those visitor

services, to some of the campground and road projects and other

restoration projects, and a lot of the research that is needed to be

done before we can actually do the environmental compliance.

Mr. REYNOLDS. I might add to that, sir.

As you probably recall, we have fee demonstration authority from

the Appropriations Committee. The Park keeps 80 percent of the

fees that it collects in the Park to use for projects, and those are

primarily headed toward addressing the backlog of infrastructure

and resource projects within the Park.

Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. Thank you both very much. Thank

you, Mr. Chairman. I have additional questions, but I will do them

on the next round.

Mr. RADANOVICH. We’ll make sure we get to them all.
33

Mr. Reynolds, I grew up next to Yosemite, and always the common wisdom was don’t go to Yosemite between Memorial Day and

Labor Day because it was crowded, that school was out and there

were a lot of people visiting. I know this plan attempts to address

that problem.

By the way, the only time it ever got on national TV, that

Yosemite had traffic problems, was either Memorial weekend of the

4th of July or Labor Day. I think it created a problem that in some

ways could have been easier dealt with, rather than this image

that Yosemite has gridlock traffic 9 to 12 months out of the year.

In the development of this Plan, I know there is a direct relationship between YARTS, the busing system that would bus people

from points in the Valley, but also points in the outlying communities into the Park and back. There is a direct relationship between that and the amount of parking spaces that this record decision has identified as being sufficient to meet the demands for

visitorship in Yosemite. You have settled on 550 spaces, but that

includes the operation of YARTS for a nine-month period.

I have always been a supporter of YARTS, but I have always perceived it as being there to make the need when traffic was a problem, when visitorship was at an excess, and that, to my knowledge,

would be a three-month period between Memorial Day and Labor

Day weekends.

Superintendent, you alluded a little bit earlier that there’s a direct relationship between the amount of time that YARTS operates

and how many spaces are required.

If YARTS were to operate on a three-month period, just so that

I understand it completely, was it said there would be 1,200 spaces

required in the Park, different from the 550 that are there now?

Mr. MIHALIC. Actually, Mr. Chairman, I may have misspoken

and I apologize if I didn’t say it quite correctly.

It is not so much the YARTS regional transit system, but the

Plan proposes three satellite out-of-valley parking areas— Mr. RADANOVICH. Correct.

Mr. MIHALIC. —which we would have to run an additional shuttle bus service from that satellite parking into the Valley. It would

be that shuttle system that would work nine months out of the

year.

What we have said is, if YARTS is successful, YARTS is the regional transit system, then we may not have to build or run such

a separate shuttle system. It may be that YARTS could either do

it under contract, or YARTS’ regular normal regional service may

actually serve that need. Therefore, that aspect of the Plan

wouldn’t have to be built, which would substantially reduce the $441 million capital cost of the Plan.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Satellite parking aside, my question is, if

YARTS were to run for three months, from Memorial Day to Labor

Day, what would be, in your view, the necessary amount of parking

spaces in the Valley, not including the satellite parking spaces,

that would meet visitor demand?

Mr. MIHALIC. From the studies—and we did extensive transportation studies with transportation engineers. We worked with

Caltrans. We had other reviews of those studies. In order to get it

to three or four months, that summer period of which you speak,
34

we believe that you would need around 1,200 spaces for day users

in the Valley.

Mr. RADANOVICH. So for a three-month operation of YARTS, you

would need 1,200 spaces, not the 550 that were called for in the

Record of Decision?

Mr. MIHALIC. That’s correct.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Sir, if I may add, partially just for the record, I

think that the—Well, let me start over.

There are two trends that have taken place since the 1980 plan

came out which are essential in understanding the transportation

issues. One is, the percent of the visitation to the Park that is day

use has gone way, way up. In addition to that, the percent of the

time that the Park has heavy transportation issues has also gone

way, way up. So visitation has changed from primarily overnight

use to primarily day use, corresponding in large part to the increases in population at the California location. And it has spread

through the year farther.

So the plan, just for the record, calls for eight months, and for

transportation four months. That was decided based upon when the

largest amount of transportation need was, because of the trends

in the way use is going. If California continues to develop in the

way that we all think it is, electricity aside for the moment, we expect that the amount of time that the Valley is heavily used and

the percent of day-use visitation will continue to go in the same

way they have been. So that’s why there’s a lot of difference between the 1980 plan and this Plan here.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I think the debatable part is that by using—

The plan overly relies on the busing system, YARTS, in order to

meet that demand. It’s the perception of some that the overdependence on YARTS is another means of just basically keeping people

out of the Park, because YARTS, although it’s been on a test pilot

program for the last year, has not necessarily proven that it’s going

to be able to meet the visitorship demands that are required on the

Park. That’s my big issue with this plan, that it’s been overly relied

on.

As to the cost of also maintaining a bus system into the Park,

do you have information you can provide to me that would show

the cost of operating YARTS on an eight-month, 550 parking space

scenario, and also a three- or four-month operating scenario at

1,200 spaces?

Mr. REYNOLDS. We would be glad to provide that. In addition,

you might be interested to know that if we did build a 1,200 space

site, it would probably be in the east Valley, where there are no

utilities, no electricity, no previous development. You might be interested in the comparison cost to build and operate that as well.

Mr. RADANOVICH. If you could separate out operating costs with

development costs, that would be fine.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Absolutely.

[The response to the aforementioned question follows:]

In response to questions asked by Mr. Radanovich to John Reynolds concerning costs for an out-of-valley shuttle system:

The operating cost for an out-of-valley shuttle system based on

550 day-use parking spaces would be approximately $7.4 million
35

annually. An out-of-valley shuttle system is not required if 1,200

day-use parking spaces are provided.

Development costs for an out-of-valley shuttle system include

construction of parking lots, utilities, water and wastewater systems, and visitor information facilities at each of three parking

areas (Badger, El Portal, and Hazell Green). In addition, development costs include purchase of fleet vehicles, as well as construction of storage and maintenance facilities. The estimated costs are

$7.6 million for Badger, $6.1 million for El Portal, and $14.2 million for Hazell Green. A private developer is expected to cover the

majority of development costs for Hazell Green.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I’m sorry that Mrs. Christensen is not here.

I’m going to advance to Ms. McCollum.

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Reynolds, back again to the parking. Some of the parking

areas you are eliminating, were they destroyed during the flood?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I don’t—I would not say there’s any significant

day-use parking areas that were destroyed by the flood. They are,

instead, dispersed around the Valley and this brings them together.

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Okay, thank you. I just wanted to be clear that

I had some information on that.

For me, I am struggling with—you can look at cost benefit analysis and hard, cold cash, or you can look at cost benefit analysis

of maybe doing some transit and transportation for not having ongoing, continuing maintenance of parking facilities. So when you

provide to the Chair here the cost of building the parking lots,

could you also include your best estimates for what it’s going to

cost for repaving and replenishing and taking care of these parking

lots on an ongoing and continuing basis? Because quite often we

fail to do that.

Could you tell me a little more about what you have done to

monitor air quality inside of the Park and what might happen if

we don’t do something about automobile emissions going into the

air, how it might impact people being able to camp and have fires

in the Park? Is there something maybe you can point me to or let

my staff know about air quality that is in the plan?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I think—First, in answer to your first question

about cost, the answer is yes, just for the record. Second, I think

it would be far more instructive for us to get good information to

you rather than for us to give you sort of an overview that wouldn’t

teach any of us very much, if that’s all right with you. We can provide it for the record and to your staff.

Ms. MCCOLLUM. That’s what I said. You can provide it to my

staff or in the documentation. Thank you.

[The response to the aforementioned question follows:]

In response to questions asked by Ms. McCollum to John Reynolds concerning road maintenance and air quality:

Specific maintenance costs for the roads and parking lots associated with the shuttle system have not been determined. Although

implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan will reduce the number of automobiles, the number of buses will increase. The heavier

weights will initially cause greater wear and tear on park roads,

primarily on older asphalt. As roads are upgraded to accommodate
36

the heavier bus traffic, they will be better able to withstand the

loads. Once the roads have been upgraded, it is not expected that

there will be significant differences from current maintenance

costs. Similarly, parking lots for the shuttle system will be constructed to a standard appropriate for the types and numbers of vehicles that will use them. Once constructed, cyclic maintenance

costs are expected to be consistent with current costs.

The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/Supplemental Environmental

Impact Statement included air quality analyses for each alternative

considered. The document concluded:

Compared with Alternative 1 (existing condition), Alternative 2

(preferred alternative) would produce moderate adverse impacts

on nitrogen oxides emissions, moderate beneficial impacts on carbon monoxide and particulate matter emissions, and minor beneficial impacts on volatile organic compounds emissions with the

use of diesel fuel in shuttle buses through 2015. There would also

be a moderate, beneficial impact on sulfur dioxide emissions. Alternative 2 would achieve a major reduction in PM 10 emissions

associated With reductions in vehicle miles traveled and road

dust. In comparison with diesel fuel for shuttle buses under Alternative 2, the use of fuel cells would result in lower vehicle

traffic emissions for all pollutants by 2015. Emission reductions

under Alternative 2 would be the greatest for all pollutants with

fuel cell technology in the shuttle bus fleet. With the use of diesel, propane, or compressed natural gas in shuttle buses, emissions of three of the four pollutants would be reduced under Alternative 2.

Air emissions associated with construction and demolition

projects would be minor and occur over a relatively short-term

period. (See Vol. IB, p. 4.2–125).

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mark?

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First I would like to note for the record one last comment on the

bridge question and the wild and scenic river.

Clearly, a wild and scenic river in a park needs to be more sensitively treated than outside of a park. At the same time, this has

always been a dilemma with Yosemite, because when you come in

from Congressman Radanovich’s home town, clearly the wild and

scenic river has been partially filled in and riprapped because of

the road. In fact, the National Park Service is in a fairly—hopefully

it will be worked out soon—but a contested suit over the last part

of the road, where your car practically gets destroyed with the lack

of width and the potholes in the road. So, in that situation, I think

the Park Service is doing the absolutely right thing, to just widen

it and do minimal damage to the river, but accommodate visitors.

It’s a combination of historic structures, the visitor, and the wild

and scenic river. In fact, this isn’t a pure wild and scenic river, or

people wouldn’t be able to get into the Park. They would be doing

like John Muir did, going on mules and trying to go up the side

of the hills to get in.

A second thing, I would appreciate you providing some clarity for

the record in an additional supplemental statement, because I have

the Park Service data—and we’re going to hear, I’m sure, additional data. But what was the number of lodging units pre-flood,
37

now in your proposed post-flood? Because I have here the number

of lodging units would change from 91 to 61, but I assume that’s

from current to post-flood as opposed to pre-flood. And similarly for

camping, which your statement says is currently 465, the draft

would take it to 500, and I wanted to see a pre-flood number with

that as well.

One other question I want to make sure I get in here. This bell

curve that goes up in the middle months—and we had a question

about whether the shuttle would be financially feasible, and you

were going to provide that data. Has there been discussion about

that peak period, charging for some of the day parking and helping

fund a shuttle by the people who are willing to pay for the parking?

Because many people, particularly those who have driven from long

distances, may be willing to pay that extra. It would be a small

percentage of their cost, whereas those who are day users, in fact,

if you could reduce the shuttle cost, might feel differently and

would still accomplish some of the same goals.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Could Dave answer these?

Mr. SOUDER. Yes.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Thank you.

Mr. MIHALIC. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Souder, with respect to the

camping, there were about 800 campsites pre-flood. The draft

called for about 465 sites. As a result of public input and public

comment, we revised that in the final Plan to around 500 sites,

again, the numbers mostly being in the River’s campground area

that we spoke of earlier, that would not be retained in the Valley.

But those numbers could be provided for elsewhere in Yosemite

National Park from the general management plan that proposed

other areas.

With respect to the actual number of lodging units, I would feel

more comfortable getting back to you with exact numbers rather

than do it off the top of my head, if that’s okay with you, sir. And...

[The response to the aforementioned question follows:]

In response to questions asked by Mr. Souder to John Reynolds

and David Mihalic concerning the number of lodging units and

campsites in Yosemite Valley:

Prior to the 1997 flood there were approximately 800 campsites

in Yosemite Valley. At present, there are 475 campsites, and the

Yosemite Valley Plan calls for an additional 25 sites for a total of

500.

With respect to lodging, before the 1997 flood there were a total

of 1,510 lodging units available in Yosemite Valley, spread among

Housekeeping Camp, Curry Village, Yosemite Lodge, and the

Ahwahnee. At present, there are 1,260 lodging units available in

the valley. The Yosemite Valley Plan calls for a total of 961 lodging

units. It should be noted that, in comparison to the existing conditions, the mix of accommodations in Yosemite Valley will be geared

more toward affordable economy lodging units.

A full description of the lodging and camping scenarios can be

found in Volume IA of the Yosemite Valley Plan l Supplemental

EIS.

Mr. SOUDER. ...whether or not you had looked at the parking

fees.
38

Mr. MIHALIC. With respect to market and stuff like that, we did

not consider that in the Valley Plan itself. We have talked about

using either the market or that type of differential pricing as a possibility when we do the traffic management plan that the Yosemite

Valley Plan calls for us to do, and look at ways of either utilizing

the fee structure to fund the shuttle system, or to use it in a way

to manage demand, such as demand for airport parking is used,

whether you park in the long-term lot and take the shuttle, or you

park up close to the terminal.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I have two groups waiting outside

that I need to see. Can I ask one more question now, and then I

will come back a little bit later.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Sure. Go ahead, Mark.

Mr. SOUDER. And this may require additional data as well for the

record.

Mr. Reynolds, you said day use numbers had gone up substantially. I wondered whether or not that day use number is up—In

other words, is it because there is not overnight capacity? In other

words, is that day use up mostly in the summer periods when, in

fact, there may be minimal capacity for overnight lodging, and in

a day use figure, do you figure in people who may come in one day,

come back out to a gateway community, and come back in the next

day?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I will provide the information. But, in general, I

would like to say—I was talking about the percentage that has

gone up. The visitation in the Park has only increased slightly over

time, but the percentage difference—Part of it is because the external community is providing so much overnight accommodations

these days, that that contributes, of course, to the percent that’s

day use.

Mr. SOUDER. Because, in fact, if the number of campground

spaces go from 800 down to 465, and some lodging after flood, your

day use percentage would go up because they wouldn’t have an alternative.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Right. I would be glad to provide some information, and if we need to talk about it, we can do that, too.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Thank you, sir.

[The response to the aforementioned question follows:]

In response to a question asked by Mr. Souder to John Reynolds

concerning lodging capacity and day-use visitation:

In 1980, visitation to Yosemite National Park was approximately

2.5 million people, the majority of whom stayed overnight in the

park. In recent years, visitation has varied between 3.6 million and

4.3 million, although no additional overnight accommodations were

provided inside the park. In response to the increased demand for

overnight accommodations, hotels, motels, bed and breakfasts,

campgrounds, and other visitor services have been provided by the

private sector in the gateway communities. Damage caused by the

1997 flood resulted in a reduction in the amount of overnight accommodations in the park, placing additional demand for services

on the gateway communities. As the number of visitors staying outside of the park in the gateway communities continues to increase,

the percentage of park visitors that are day-users will increase ac-
39

cordingly. Visitors who stay in lodging outside the park in the gateway communities or elsewhere are counted as day-use visitors each

time they enter the park

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Udall.

Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Back to the fee demonstration issue. My understanding is that

the fee demonstration project was started as a result of trying to

allow you to do projects and the need for money. Could you give

us a little background on that?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Gee, I can’t remember what year we started the

fee demonstration program, but Congress authorized us to do a fee

demonstration program and relieved us of having the Congress setting the fees park by park by park, and also relieved us of having

to send the fees back to the general treasury.

The idea of the demonstration program is to try a lot of different

things in a lot of different places. There’s a hundred different fee

demonstration projects within the National Park System, some

multi-park, and to be able to show what we accomplished because

we were able to get the money directly, rather than have it go back

to the general treasury.

In general, it has been an incredible boon to the National Park

Service. Although the backlog figures, as we all know, are still very

high for maintenance and resource issues, they would be higher

had it not been—much higher, had it not been for the fee program.

It’s been extremely successful in the National Park System.

Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. Thank you, Mr. Reynolds. My point

there—and I’m not asking you to comment on this—is that I have

heard rumors and comments that this administration, in terms of

pulling together the budget, may well try to move some of that fee

demonstration money into other areas, other than specifically back

to the National Parks, as 80 percent of it is supposed to go. That

is something that would concern me a lot, because I think we have,

as you pointed out, huge maintenance needs and resource needs

that this program provides for. So I think we need to keep that

money right where it is.

Back to the automobile usage and parking spaces and all of that.

Is there a big need for having an automobile after you get into the

Valley there? Are we talking about hiking huge distances or something, or are we talking about a fairly narrow area where the ability to use an automobile is very limited?

Mr. REYNOLDS. The Valley is seven miles long and one mile wide.

It is generally flat. It’s a marvelous place to bicycle and walk. Increasing numbers of users particularly want to bicycle. So our proposals are to try to make the Valley more tranquil and make the

Valley quieter, have less intrusion of automobiles, and have as

many or more people than we do today enjoying the Park, at a pace

in which they can take in the grandeur, take in the sublimity of

that place that doesn’t exist anyplace else in the world.

Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. Thank you, Mr. Reynolds. I applaud

you for that part of the plan. I think that’s a very important thing

you’re doing. I think the idea of reducing automobile usage and trying to get the experience of the visitor to be heightened, and doing

that with walking and bicycles and those kinds of things, I think
40

makes a real difference. I think those of you who have worked on

that plan have thought this out well and I applaud you on that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RADANOVICH. You’re welcome.

Mr. Doolittle?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

Does it concern either of you gentlemen that the Merced River

Plan was released for comment just, I believe, four days before the

end of the comment period on the Valley Plan?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Well, if it—I don’t have the schedules in front of

me, but as I recall, there was more time than that. But I would

have to check. Obviously, if there were just four days, I would probably have to be concerned.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Because the two plans are closely intertwined,

are they not?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Absolutely. As a matter of fact, the Yosemite Valley Plan is constrained by the Merced River Plan.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. The facts that I have before me indicate that my

assertion about that is, indeed, correct. I would appreciate your

looking into it and submitting for the record what the answer is.

If it should be different than that, then—I understand there wasn’t

much time. If four days is not right, I don’t believe there were very

many days between the release for inspection by the public of the

Merced River Plan and the end of the comment period for the Valley Plan.

Mr. REYNOLDS. We would be glad to provide that.

[The response to the aforementioned question follows:]

In response to a question asked by Mr. Doolittle to John Reynolds

concerning the timing of the Final Merced River Plan and the Yosemite Valley Plan:

The Final Merced River Plan was available by mail and on the

park’s website on June 20, 2000. The comment period on the Draft

Yosemite Valley Plan closed on July 14, 2000.

While the Final Merced River Plan was being printed during the

spring of 2000, the park actively provided information to the public

about its contents. At each of the 19 formal public meetings on the

Draft Yosemite Valley Plan during May and June 2000, and at the

63 open houses held throughout the public comment period, information regarding the Final Merced River Plan was made available

to the public.

Mr. REYNOLDS. In addition, as you well now, the Yosemite Valley

Plan was started long before the Merced River Plan was finished,

and so— Mr. DOOLITTLE. It must have been in the works for 20 years,

right?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Well, this particular piece. Actually, as others

here in this room know, it has been a lot longer than 20 years.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Wasn’t the plan created before Yosemite was

created? Forgive me, John—

Mr. REYNOLDS. No. As a matter of fact, just as an aside,

Yosemite never had a long-range plan approved for it until 1980,

so it came about originally in 1864, so that’s a long way to have

any rational piece of paper in front of you.
41

Mr. DOOLITTLE. It’s my understanding there was a 90-day comment period on the draft, and then a 90-day comment period on the

final. Is that correct?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, sir.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. For a plan that you have said was even longer

than 20 years—and I thought 20 years sounded pretty long—does

that strike you as unnecessarily brief, given the severe potential

impacts this plan can have on everything, from the visitor experience, to the quality of the resource management, to the impact on

the gateway communities?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Well, sir, obviously my answer has to be no, and

it’s twice as long as the norm is in the regulation. But, on the other

hand, I would agree with you, that the public, in all of its forums,

should have ample time. We believe that there was, and we made

a tremendous effort to get out and to be able to talk to people in

their communities.

I would have to say that yes, we did provide a lot of opportunity

for people to be involved.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. If your research confirms that there was a very

brief period between the release of the Merced River Plan and the

close of the comment period on the Valley Plan, would you support

a reopening of the Valley Plan for an extended comment period?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No, sir, I would not.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Would you support reopening of the Plan under

any circumstances?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No, sir, I would not. And the reason is that I believe there is lots and lots in this Plan that is both funded and

agreed to by a lot of people.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Sir, didn’t you indicate earlier that you would be

concerned if there were only a few days between the release of the

Merced River Plan and the close of the comment period? I thought

I understood that manifestation of concern.

Mr. REYNOLDS. I did. But I— Mr. DOOLITTLE. But it wasn’t that strong a concern apparently.

Mr. REYNOLDS. But I would also take into account how much

people had the opportunity before the Yosemite Valley Plan was finalized to take into account what happened.

If I may continue, the reason I would not reopen it is because

I think there’s lots of things that a lot of people agreed to, and

there is some money to be able to do those things right away.

If we stop, nothing will happen in Yosemite for probably another

10 years. The current condition that exists there today will be the

status quo for that time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Oh, I have other questions, but my time is up.

May I just ask this one. Air quality is one of the concerns advanced for restricting the cars, is that right?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Could you confirm, then—with reference to the

Merced River Plan, I am told that the Plan deleted air quality as

an outstanding resource value. True or false?

Mr. MIHALIC. Mr. Doolittle, I think we’ll have to get back to you

exactly. But as an outstanding resource value for the River, the

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act specifically speaks to issues in which

the value is directly related to the River, and if I recall, between
42

the draft and the final, air quality was deleted as an outstanding

resource value for the Merced River.

In other words, the Merced River was not designated a wild and

scenic river because of air quality. What that doesn’t imply is that

it somehow is not an outstanding resource value, in a sense, for the

Valley or for our planning efforts for Yosemite National Park.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, I’ll close with this. I would just observe,

Mr. Chairman, that the deletion of air quality as an outstanding

resource value has the effect to advance forward this mass transit

plan. Those buses will be belching diesel fumes, because that’s the

available technology. That’s a far dirtier quality of air than would

be coming out of automobiles. It’s important that air quality be deleted as an outstanding resource value from this plan in order to

allow the mass transit to move forward.

I would just submit that this whole thing has been manipulated

by the Park Service to promote these buses. I would like to say

more about it and ask more questions, but I’m out of time. I thank

you.

[The response to the aforementioned question follows:]

Response to a question asked by Mr. Doolittle to John Reynolds

concerning the decision not to use air quality as an outstanding resource value in the Merced River Plan:

Air quality was not included in the Merced River Plan as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value because it does not meet the criteria

for such. In accordance with the Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council Reference Guide (joint document prepared

by the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Forest Service) in order to

be considered, two vital questions must be answered to establish

the criteria for selection of Outstandingly Remarkable Values:

• Is the value river-related or river-dependent?

• Is the value rare, unique, or exemplary in a regional or national context?

Air quality does not meet the criteria for being included as an

Outstandingly Remarkable Value, and was not included in the

original 1987 Wild and Scenic River designation..

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Doolittle.

Mrs. Christensen.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to go back a bit to traffic, realizing that at least half of

the emissions, half of the air quality, is affected by automobile

emissions, but there is also a matter of a lot of congestion and traffic congestion.

What would be the level of traffic congestion in the Yosemite Valley on a typical summer day?

Mr. REYNOLDS. That is kind of—I don’t know how to characterize

this so that it’s understandable.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Even though it’s a seven-mile long area,

there is an area that is probably more likely to get a lot of traffic,

a particular area.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Obviously, there are locations within the Valley

that exhibit congestion, severe congestion, more so than other locations in the Valley. It is the intent of this Plan to not only elimi-
43

nate those but to create a situation where additional places in the

Valley do not become severely congested.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. But in reducing the amount of traffic, that

would really enhance or improve the visitor experience, would it

not? Isn’t that what you’re getting towards, instead of having a lot

of traffic going through, wouldn’t reducing the traffic really—For

an area where most people can walk or bike or so forth, does it enhance it or does it go against the visitor experience?

Mr. REYNOLDS. We believe it enhances it tremendously.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. I think that answers my question.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much.

To address a number of things that have been said in the past,

this air quality thing is not relevant, I think, to this Plan, at least

in my opinion, because so much of the air pollution that might happen in Yosemite comes from everywhere, from San Francisco and

all points in between, meaning the Bay Area, the Central Valley.

The trade winds, on inversion days, bring all that smog up against

the west side of the Sierras.

This Plan is really six of one and half-dozen of the other as far

as air quality is concerned in the Park, don’t you think? Give me

some reason to think otherwise.

Mr. MIHALIC. Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Doolittle’s concerns are

certainly valid. If we meant to imply that air quality wasn’t a concern of ours, then we misspoke, because—

Mr. RADANOVICH. No, I know that air quality is a concern, but

this Plan doesn’t address that, unless its campfires.

Mr. MIHALIC. This plan does address air quality because of the

issues of the foothill communities, which are both in your district

and Mr. Doolittle’s district, the counties that will become nonattainment areas.

One of the official air quality monitoring sites for Mariposa

County is—

Mr. RADANOVICH. —is Yosemite Valley.

Mr. MIHALIC. —is in Yosemite Valley. So if we can reduce air

quality in Yosemite Valley, it obviously will be of benefit to the remainder of the county. And since both Tuolumne County and

Mariposa County are both going to be treated as one air quality

district, we believe—

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, did the witness mean if they can

improve air quality or reduce air quality? The bus plan will reduce

air quality, I believe, but I think you meant to say if you can improve it.

Mr. MIHALIC. That’s what I did mean to say, Mr. Doolittle.

Thank you.

Mr. REYNOLDS. And I might clarify that the buses that we are

specifying are California standard buses for the future standard.

They are the cleanest buses in the world. They are not the traditional bus that exists today.

Mr. RADANOVICH. But to say that the Yosemite Plan improves air

quality in the Park and enhances the visitor experience I think is

a real stretch, mainly because the bulk of the air quality issues are

a result of Bay Area pollution, air pollution, and Central Valley.
44

I mean, if you’re going to address it, unfortunately, you have to

address that in order to make this work. I mean, that’s just my

comment.

Mr. REYNOLDS. First, within the Valley, we can improve the air

quality in the Valley by reducing the number of miles traveled,

with high technology buses. So we can improve the air quality of

the Valley.

Mr. RADANOVICH. But it will never have a significant impact, I

think, on the air quality because you can’t deal with Bay Area and

Central Valley pollution.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Nonetheless, we are required by law to reduce—

Mr. RADANOVICH. Right, I understand. But to say this is a big

improvement in air quality for the Park I think is a bit of a stretch.

Mr. REYNOLDS. It is an improvement. I will leave out the word

‘‘big’’.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Let’s have a discussion about bridges now.

There are three bridges that are planned to be removed, according

to this Plan; am I right?

Mr. MIHALIC. Mr. Chairman, there were three proposed in the

draft plan. There is only one bridge proposed in the final plan, with

a hydrologic study to look at the effects of, once the first bridge is

removed, then determining about the other bridges.

Mr. RADANOVICH. And that would be Stoneman?

Mr. MIHALIC. The bridge to be removed is Sugar Pine Bridge,

which would be the farthest bridge upstream, and then Stoneman

would only be removed if the hydrologic study determined that it

would be necessary to meet the requirements of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Now, to my knowledge—is it Sugar Pine

Bridge, did you say, Dave?

Mr. MIHALIC. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RADANOVICH. This is a bridge that is not on a road any more,

right?

Mr. MIHALIC. That’s correct, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RADANOVICH. What’s the point of keeping the bridge?

Mr. MIHALIC. Well, the point would be one of two points. As Mr.

Doolittle rightfully points out, it is a historic bridge, and under the

National Historic Preservation Act, has historic values which we

are required to look at, just as we look at any other values. Right

now it is part of the trail system, and we believe we could actually

reroute the trail around fairly easily to get around that bridge. It

is part of our trail system. It is not part of the road system.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Then the other bridge was the foot-bridge that

went from across the River from Housekeeping. Is that not a part

of the final ROD?

Mr. MIHALIC. The bridge from Housekeeping was part of the

draft plan, and as a result of public input, we determined that we

would not remove it as part of the final Record of Decision.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Is it possible to use the money that’s been appropriated already to restore Stoneman Bridge to where it was

prior to any flooding? As you know, the way Stoneman Bridge is

set up, there is the arch where the river runs through, and then

there’s two passageways for pedestrians on each side, which is now
45

part of the river, because the river is flooded and the banks have

not been restored to pre-flood stages.

Can you use part of that money to restore the bridge for the use

that it was originally intended?

Mr. REYNOLDS. I think we’re looking at each other because I

think you know more than we do in this case.

Mr. RADANOVICH. It would just be pushing the bank back up to

the river. I think the problem—

Mr. REYNOLDS. I would like to provide an official answer for the

record. But I think the answer is no, because of the impact on a

free flowing wild and scenic river.

[The response to the aforementioned question follows:]

Response to a question asked by Mr. Radanovich to John Reynolds concerning the Stoneman Bridge:

At Stoneman Bridge, the Merced River has widened to the point

where the bridal paths that passed through the arches on either

side of the bridge have been inundated. This widening has been

caused by ongoing and gradual changes in the dynamics of the

river, rather than as a result of the 1997 flood. Following the flood,

the damage assessments identified bridge abutment damage at

Tenaya, Sugar Pine, and Ahwahnee Bridges, but did not note any

damage at Stoneman Bridge. Therefore, no flood recovery funding

was requested for Stoneman Bridge.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Has there been any studies to split Stoneman

Bridge and just lengthen it, in order to save the bridge?

Mr. REYNOLDS. No, there has not been.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Part of the problem with Stoneman Bridge is

the bridge itself, and that the river, if left alone, would go around

the bridge and make it an island. The other part is that it’s a vital

link to a part of the northside drive, which a lot of people don’t

want to see removed, and that’s part of what the controversy is.

But there isn’t that type of controversy on the Sugar Pine Bridge

to the north. That literally is a bridge that—it’s part of the walkway system, but it’s not being used by automobiles right now,

right?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Correct, sir.

Mr. RADANOVICH. With regard to consultation, it has always been

my opinion that, in this process of public hearings, I think they

began to do a lot of good. I think some of the far flung ideas for

solutions to the Yosemite traffic problem were vetted properly and

I think the Park Service learned a lot from these public hearings,

and also the outlying communities did.

I thought that it was hastened, though, by the end of the Clinton

administration in their desire to want to have a Record of Decision

by the time the administration ended. I think it would have been

better served had this public hearing process gone on for perhaps

another six months to a year. I think we could have gotten to some

better solutions.

Now, you are not beholding to the prior administration. I guess

what I want is some idea from you as to whether or not you think

this project was hastened and improperly drawn to a conclusion by

the end of this last administration.
46

Mr. REYNOLDS. I am probably a bad person to ask, sir, because

I have been, as you know, involved in the planning and decision

making for the Yosemite Valley for 25 years. So I think if there’s

anyone that wanted to have a very good process, that included lots

and lots of people and took into account the best information we

had available and get a decision so we could start spending the

flood money, it was me. It was me.

So I didn’t feel a particular lot of pressure from the Secretary.

I mean, he never came and told me, ‘‘John, you had better damn

well have this thing done.’’ But I wanted it done pretty badly. I

also wanted to have what I considered to be a very open process,

with lots and lots of public involvement.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Mihalic, would you care to respond?

Mr. MIHALIC. Mr. Chairman, I think obviously there would be

opinions that would differ on whether to stretch the planning out

further or bring it to some conclusion. The very good thing about

having a deadline—and I’m reminded that this process started long

before I got to the Park—the very good part about having a deadline was that it did focus people’s attention, it kept people engaged,

for the time period since the flood in 1997 until the end of December of 2000, when the Record of Decision was signed, everybody

who had an interest in Yosemite was heavily involved and engaged,

not necessarily full time, but certainly fully engaged in the planning process. I think it actually gave us a better plan as a result.

My concern is that if we keep it up as it was prior to the flood,

where planning just happened every now and then and never came

to conclusion, we would never get to a final plan.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much.

Ms. McCollum, did you have any questions?

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I know you were moving on to

bridges, but in the Yosemite Final Plan, it does—and I won’t get

into all that, Mr. Chair—there is some serious discussion about air

quality in here, ozone. We have done much, probably because of the

stringent laws that California has passed, in going from 1995, 11

days exceeding the California standard, to 1997, which is the last

date on here, three days of the standard.

Congressman Doolittle, I certainly agree with you, that buses do

pollute. But I think if we were to look on the basis for California

emission standards, one bus versus 40 cars going through, I think

we would start seeing an analysis that would show we’re better off

with more condensed people making fewer trips.

Mr. Chair, I also would like to ask the Park Service if they would

be kind enough—When I was asking for the maintenance on the

parking lots, I forgot to ask for your maintenance on roads, too,

and the contributing factors, or what you might see in road savings

by having fewer vehicles going on your Park roads. If you could

provide that to me, also at your convenience, I would appreciate it.

Mr. REYNOLDS. We will do so.

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you.

Mr. Udall.

Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just to follow up on Ms. McCollum’s question here on the buses,

for the record, could you tell me—are you talking about future
47

buses that are going to be the latest California buses, and could

you tell us about that bus, the pollution, and what it runs on?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Dave can, sir.

Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. Okay. Thank you.

Mr. REYNOLDS. I’m glad we have him here today.

Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. So am I.

Mr. MIHALIC. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Udall, the bus issue, as has

been pointed out, the Plan does discuss air quality quite extensively.

With respect to the buses, in almost all of the measurable areas

of air quality, the Plan will call for reductions in those various parameters of air quality, overall.

The buses we’re speaking to are actually two different kinds of

buses. The buses that we are moving forward now to replace the

existing shuttle fleet in the Valley, which are diesel buses, they are

diesel buses of old technology, we— Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. So that have extensive particulate

emissions and all the— Mr. MIHALIC. They’re horrible, sir.

Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. And the smoke that you see on the

freeways and all that with diesels, the same kind of thing?

Mr. MIHALIC. Exactly.

Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. And you’re replacing those?

Mr. MIHALIC. We’re replacing those. It will take—with the Federal procurement process, it will take about two years to get either

alternative fuel or a hybrid fuel type of vehicle, hybrid meaning either a very small gas or diesel engine that is very efficient, that

then drives a generator for electric powered buses, or something

similar in terms of alternative fuels. Those are in the Valley where

it’s flat.

The buses that will have to come from outside the Park into the

Valley, if we had fuel cell technology, we would make a huge difference. But that’s years away. We could either wait for that technology to happen, or what we have proposed is that, with the clean

diesel standards that California has proposed, that any buses that

would be used in shuttle systems would meet those clean fuel

standards. But it would have to be diesel at this point because

they’re going from 1,000 feet up to 4,000 feet. As Mr. Reynolds

said, the Valley floor is about 4,000 feet, so it’s constantly going uphill and then back downhill. That would have to be diesel technology, but it would be the best available. We would hope the future diesel technology for California standards will be the best in

the Nation.

Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. Go ahead, Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. REYNOLDS. I believe the new California standards go into effect in 2004, if I’m not mistaken, so all diesel in California will

have to move to the new standard.

Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. So we’re talking about not only improving air quality, in terms of changing over to these buses, but

we’re probably talking about lowering the noise level, too, with the

noisiness that diesels have compared to these newer technologies

you’re talking about.

Mr. REYNOLDS. For the shuttles in particular inside the Valley,

yes.
48

Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RADANOVICH. You’re welcome.

I’m going to ask a couple more questions, and then we’ll move

on to the next panel. One thing I wanted to mention, I have a

memo dated August 4, 1999, from then Secretary of Interior Bruce

Babbitt, to members of the National Park Service, which was a

comment that was a reaction from a Federal court ruling that enjoined the Park from doing any further work on the planning effort

because of an issue with the Merced River.

In that the Secretary states, ‘‘Bob Anderson has advised me that

it is still possible to complete a final Valley EIS by the end of FY

2000, and I have directed him to see that these interim deadlines

are met and that the ROD is signed prior to the end of the Clinton

administration.’’ So it really was the goal, I think, of this past administration to get this thing done, whether it was done in a timely

manner or not.

Two more questions and then I’ll be done. You mentioned the

upper and lower river campgrounds being in the flood plain. Does

that mean that both campgrounds are entirely within the flood

plain?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, sir, that’s correct.

Mr. RADANOVICH. So the entire campgrounds are included in

that?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, sir.

Mr. RADANOVICH. The other question I have, the Park Service

and concessionaire housing continue to be an area of concern to

employees in Yosemite. Congress has authorized the Park to contract for off-site housing for employees in 1996.

What progress has been made in that effort, and what do we

need to do to encourage movement toward the public-private partnership?

Mr. REYNOLDS. Well, I think both of us should answer that. The

first thing I would say is, the more encouragement that you and

the Committee and anybody else can give us, the better off we’re

all going to be.

The Park Service has not made significant strides in implementing that part of the law. Knowledge in Yosemite about ways

in which that might happen is probably higher than anyplace else

in the Park System. The need to drive us, for both of us to drive

ourselves and you to drive us to implement that experience, to find

ways to do it, would be extremely helpful.

Now, in terms of a more technical response, let me ask Dave if

he would like to say a few words, if I may.

Mr. MIHALIC. Mr. Chairman, the bill that Mr. Reynolds refers to

is the 1996 National Park Service Omnibus Act, which did provide

special authorities. I don’t know if a final decision has been made,

but we believe that Yosemite will be one of the test cases for the

National Park Service for having this type of housing.

We have broached the subject with county officials, and everybody is very favorable to us doing that. One of the things that

would be helpful is if we could participate in the Mariposa County

general plan, which as you know, this plan deals only with the

Yosemite Valley, which is part of the larger Yosemite National
49

Park. We are constrained, in terms of solving our problems within

Park boundaries. Nonetheless, many of our problems, housing and

moving office space out of the Park, would probably be more efficient if we did it outside the Park. The best opportunity to do that

would be to participate with the county.

However, right now, while we have the authority to do that, we

don’t have the funding to participate.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you.

Mr. REYNOLDS. May I also add, sir—I hope I’m not interrupting

you—both the General Services Administration and the U.S. Forest

Service have authorities that we do not have, that we’re exploring

the ability to use, in either housing or office space outside of the

Park itself.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Okay. Thank you.

I want to thank you both very much, Mr. Reynolds and Superintendent Mihalic, for testifying here.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Radanovich, may I just say thank you very

much for this hearing. We have appreciated it very much and we

appreciated the questions and the atmosphere in which we were

asked to respond. Thank you, sir.

Mr. RADANOVICH. You’re welcome. And thanks for being here.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Our next panel includes Mr. Gary Gilbert, who

is Chairman of the Board of Supervisors for Madera County, California; Mr. Doug Balmain, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors

for Mariposa County; and Mr. Gregory Oliver, who is the Tuolumne

County Counsel, from Sonora, California.

Welcome, gentlemen. I’m sorry it took so long to get to you.

There is just a lot of questions about this Park that need to be

asked and answered.

Mr. Gilbert, if you would like to begin, what we will do is hear

testimony from each of you and then questions will be from me

alone, it looks like. I’m kind of the ‘‘Lone Ranger’’ up here right

now. Perhaps some other members will come back. But you each

have five minutes to read and/or summarize your comments.

STATEMENT OF GARY GILBERT, CHAIRMAN, MADERA COUNTY

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, MADERA, CALIFORNIA

Mr. GILBERT. My name is Gary Gilbert, and I am Chairman of

the Madera County Board of Supervisors. I would like to also

thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of your Committee, for this opportunity to discuss the Yosemite Valley Plan.

The word ‘‘implementation’’ implies the Valley Plan has been developed through a legally-mandated process and administered with

integrity. Our Congressman, Congressman Radanovich, has recently stated, ‘‘the preparation of this plan, in fact, the entire planning process, has been fatally flawed.’’ Our written testimony will

further support his statements.

Today, you’re going to hear varying points of view, but Madera

County comes before you representing the gateway community of

Oakhurst and other small communities on Highway 41. We have

no conflicts of interest. Madera County’s budget does not contain

any Park pass-through taxes. We have no well-placed individuals

in government agencies, and we receive no donations from special

interests.
50

The Yosemite Valley Plan and the Merced River Plan were negotiated by Secretary Babbitt from a prior position of political power

and special interests. As legally mandated, the public participated

in that process. Major funding had already been allocated and the

agendas had been aligned.

The 1997 flood request was misrepresented to Congress. More

than $123 million was for nonflood projects. The 1997 Congressional Report further documented that the Park Service is using

the occasion of the flood to advance an entirely separate agenda

other than flood restoration.

That separate agenda can be traced to a 1994 transportation

study. It focused on Yosemite and it mainly focused on mass transit tourism. Secretary Babbitt again, from his position of power, referred to the flood as a ‘‘heaven sent’’ event and implemented his

agenda that will forever change the way the American public accesses our national park.

In 1997, an MOU between the Department of Interior and Transportation again targeted not only Yosemite, but the Grand Canyon

and Zion for mass transit tourism. In 1998, Congress passed TEA21. Again, funding is provided in that legislation for Yosemite National Park for development of a regional transportation system.

Your Resource Committee documents confirm that one of the

shortcomings of NEPA is the sham of public participation when decisions have already been made. That was exactly the environment

in which both the Merced River and Yosemite Valley Plans were

prepared.

In 1987, Congress designated the Merced River wild and scenic.

That designation required the Park Service to develop a river management plan within three years. Thirteen years later, and only

after a court order, Yosemite National Park finally complied. That

plan was assembled in three months. It lacked scientific credibility

and is currently in litigation.

It is impossible to make informed decisions on the proposed

projects in the Valley Plan without a clear understanding of the

River Plan. Yet, the Valley Plan was at the printers before the public comment period for the River Plan had even closed. The Record

of Decision for the River Plan was made in November of 2000, well

beyond the close of comment on the Valley Plan. Again, a sham of

public participation. The goal was to get the River Plan Record of

Decision completed before the Clinton administration left office.

Such political manipulation and control of time lines have no place

in safeguarding the future of Yosemite.

The Valley Plan acknowledges underrepresentation of low income

and non-Anglo visitors. There is a lack of appropriate studies, and

the Plan assumes that these visitors will use inexpensive methods

of visitation, such as day use, camping, and tent/cabin rentals and

concludes that the Plan may impact and perhaps displace this population.

The Plan further targets day visitors for inconvenient bus rides,

with additional expenses, with an increased dependence upon the

concessionaire, with the removal of nearly 300 campsites, 400 tent

cabins, and that’s on top of a higher gate fee.
51

Do you ever wonder what the largest percentage of visitors to

Yosemite National Park is and their annual income? It’s over

$100,000 per year.

The Yosemite Valley Plan is a framework of open-ended documents. It promises to embark on a resource inventory and monitoring program within the next five years, it will have an inventory

monitoring, and within the next five years it will have carrying capacities, and in the next five years it will design a traffic system.

The Valley Plan’s transportation element proposes an urban design bus system, complete with massive park-and-ride lots, more

than 500 daily round trip buses—and that’s one diesel bus arriving

every 1.4 minutes during the peak period—-a 22-bay transit center

in the heart of Yosemite Valley, as well as other out-of-place infrastructure. This remote staging option was dismissed by the Park

Service consultants in the 1994 study. Yet, it’s the centerpiece for

this Valley Plan.

The prior administration’s political legacy and abuse of power

will cause irreparable damage to the environment, waste hundreds

of millions of taxpayers’ dollars, gamble with the economic vitality

of our gateway communities, and ultimately restrict the freedom of

Americans to access and enjoy their park.

As a Committee, you are faced with the challenge of sorting out

the truth. We would respectfully request that: as a Committee, that

no funding be appropriated for the implementation of this Yosemite

Valley Plan, or YARTS, the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation

System; set aside and rescind this Valley Plan; redo the Merced

River Plan in full compliance with the protective mandate of the

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; schedule follow-up hearings in our

local congressional districts to more fairly and fully understand the

impacts of this Park’s planning process, and finally, return the left- over flood money, $110 million, that was never used for damage

caused directly by this disaster to the U.S. Treasurer.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilbert follows:]

Statement of Gary Gilbert, Chairman, Madera County Board of Supervisors

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for this

opportunity to represent the concerns of the people of Madera County with respect

to the Yosemite Valley Plan.

Your written communication refers to implementation of the Valley Plan. We believe any discussion of implementation is premature. Instead, we request that the

committee thoroughly investigate the flawed process by which this Plan was developed, calling into question the validity of the Plan itself. Charged with oversight of

the National Park Service, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and thus

the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) which NEPA created, the committee

is in a unique position to recommend that this Yosemite Valley Plan be rescinded

before the magnificent splendor that is Yosemite National Park is destroyed forever.

In testimony today, we urge the following:

—No funding be appropriated for this Yosemite Valley Plan —Set aside/rescind this Yosemite Valley Plan —All excess flood funding ($110 million) be returned to the U.S. Treasury —Redo the Merced River Plan in full compliance with the protective mandate of

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, thus creating a solid foundation for all future plans‘

—Schedule follow-up hearings in the local districts to more fairly and fully understand the impacts of park planning

Former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt commented to the Commonwealth Club

(3/27/00) that ‘‘the problem with Yosemite—it’s got too damn many friends; I wish

about 95% of them would go home and shut up.’’ We always wondered what it would

take to be among the favored 5%. Campaign contributions?? Special interest trade-
52

offs?? Political paybacks?? Instead we trust that the Bush administration and members of this committee have the courage and integrity to examine the truth and respond to the American people with the respect they deserve.

As Congressman Radanovich has publicly stated in the press, ‘‘the preparation of

the plan, in fact the entire planning process, has been fatally flawed.’’ We could not

agree more.

97 FLOOD REQUEST MISREPRESENTED

When Congress passed Public Law 105–18 in June of 1997 awarding a

$187,321,000 flood recovery package to Yosemite National Park, it was with the understanding that it would be used ‘‘—for ‘‘construction’’ for emergency expenses resulting from flooding and other natural disasters—’’ Yet then–Superintendent B.J.

Griffin testified at the subcommittee El Portal Oversight Hearing (3/22/97) that

more than $123 million was for pre-flood projects.

And as stated in the ‘‘Trip Report for Field Hearing on Yosemite Floods and to

Conduct a review of the $200 million Emergency Supplemental Request for Appropriations for Yosemite’’ prepared for this committee (3/26/97) by a member of your

professional staff:

′′According to the transmittal by the White House to Congress, ‘Each request has been kept to the absolute essential level and is limited to the

amount necessary to restore damaged property—that is, damage caused directly by the disaster—to its pre-damaged condition.’ This is not true with

respect to the request for Yosemite Park. In addition, the National Park

Service has stated that its recovery proposal is guided by three principles:

(1) the 1980 General Management Plan, (2) protection of park facilities

from a similar level of flooding in the future, and (3) reduction of the development footprint in Yosemite Valley. These statements are also not accurate.′′

′′It is also clear that the National Park Service is using the occasion of

the flood to advance an entirely separate agenda from flood restoration.′′

Apparently, such controversial warning signs were pushed aside in favor of the

political capital that could be gained in solidifying funding to repair one of the

world’s treasures; you trusted that the funds would be used with integrity. But the

‘‘red flags’’ that were courageously raised in that congressional report have come

back to haunt all of us; they are the centerpiece of why we’re here today and they

have fueled the controversy that has surrounded the Yosemite planning process for

the past four years.

Congress, in its haste to do good things, awarded money IN ADVANCE for

projects that were not part of any publicly approved plan—for example, removing

Upper and Lower Rivers Campgrounds (utilities still intact), closing/rerouting

Northside Drive, relocating concession employee housing, constructing new/upgraded (more expensive) lodging, rebuilding/widening El Portal road under the guise

of repairs, an overblown multimillion dollar mass transit plan, and more. In fact,

closing down the Rivers Campgrounds, closing Northside Drive, and mass transit

tourism were integral parts of the ‘‘Alternative Transportation Modes Feasibility

Study’’ (1994) prepared by consultants BRW/Dames and Moore for the National

Park Service. Such projects had nothing to do with ‘‘emergency expenses resulting

from flooding and other natural disasters’’ but instead were identified as critical to

the consultant’s idea of a master transportation plan for the park.

In a desperate attempt to stop the Park ‘‘spending spree,’’ lawsuits and injunctions were filed by the public with the court ultimately ordering that all Yosemite

Valley projects be placed under one comprehensive planning process. Now four years

later and with Secretary Babbitt’s endorsement, the Park Service claims to have

$110 million ‘‘left over’’ from the flood money (and more than $60 million in gate

fees) to begin implementing the Yosemite Valley Plan. Yet something as basic as

the sewage infrastructure, which was severely damaged in the flood, is in such disrepair and so poorly maintained that the California Regional Water Quality Control

Board has voted to begin fining the National Park Service for their negligence in

the never-ending sewage spills, the only apparent recourse in dealing with a nonresponsive federal agency.

Taxpayers, terribly concerned about damage caused by what was promoted as a

100-year flood fully endorsed a flood repair package; but instead they ran head on

into Park Service bureaucrats flush with cash, now armed to implement an agenda

dictated from Washington, D.C. As Interior Secretary Babbitt told the Sacramento

Bee: ‘‘It was a heaven-sent event, tantamount to Hercules cleaning out the Aegean

stables.’’ Eager to implement a long-elusive valley decongestion plan that the Carter
53

administration had unveiled back in 1980, the post-flood generosity of Congress now

made Secretary Babbitt’s goal a reality. But the public trust has been betrayed.

A TOP–DOWN PLAN

From the onset, the Yosemite Valley Plan has been dictated from Washington,

D.C. As Secretary Babbitt told supporters in his Commonwealth Club presentation

(3/27/00), ‘‘I immersed myself in this issue of the future of Yosemite very shortly

after I went to Washington in 1993.—

Actively involved in gaining endorsement of the Flood Recovery Package, Secretary Babbitt was soon a co-signer with Secretary Rodney Slater as part of a Department of Interior/Department of Transportation Memorandum of Understanding

orchestrated by President Clinton (November 1997); the MOU specifically targeted

three parks for vehicle reduction and mass transit implementation—the Grand Canyon, Zion, and Yosemite. This action was nothing more than an executive order, a

federal mandate. The public never had any say.

Then in May of 1998, Congress passed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st

Century (TEA 21)—a comprehensive bill which funded various surface transportation programs at a total of $217 billion over six years. This bill opened up a tremendous number of additional funding opportunities to the National Parks ($165

million annually) and specifically referenced development of ‘‘a regional transportation system as well as in-park transit and intermodal transportation circulation

plans’’ at Yosemite National Park. Shortly thereafter, DOT shared full-time staff on

site at Yosemite specifically charged with implementing a transit program.

To further support and reinforce planning decisions, the Department of Interior

and the National Park Service released a flurry of new and revised Director’s Orders. And though mass transportation is the foundational element of the Yosemite

Valley Plan and therefore opened to comment through the required public hearing

process, the funding and the political agendas had already aligned. According to

House documents, at a full Resources Committee hearing on March 18, 1998, the

administration admitted that it had ‘‘not well implemented’’ NEPA and testified to

some of the shortcomings including ‘‘the sham of public participation when decisions

have really been made already.’’ This Yosemite Valley Plan and the Merced River

Management Plan appear to be casualties of that administration.

As stated in the Los Angeles Times (11/14/00), ‘‘Babbitt personally intervened in

the drafting of the final report. He has said he regards the Yosemite Valley Plan

as central to the Clinton administration’s environmental legacy.—

The top-down effort was not lost on the press as a host of articles reflected

Babbitt’s involvement in their headlines: ‘‘Interior to develop plan for reducing crush

of cars, air pollution at Yosemite (Washington Times, 12/8/98); ‘‘White House Tries

Again to Restore Yosemite’’ (New York Times, 11/12/00); ‘‘Government Acts to Reduce Yosemite Traffic’’ (Associated Press, 11/14/00); ‘‘Babbitt Releases Plan for

Yosemite’’ (Washington Times, 11/15/00); ‘‘Feds want fewer cars, rooms in Yosemite

National Park’’ (San Francisco Examiner, 3/28/00); ‘‘New Plan To Reduce Traffic at

Yosemite; Babbitt wants satellite parking lots outside valley’’ (San Francisco Chronicle, 3/25/00); et al.

Current Interior Secretary Gale Norton in testimony (3/18/98) before the House

Committee on Resources Oversight Hearing on the National Environmental Policy

Act stated the following: ‘‘The original goal of NEPA and of many other environmental statutes was to forge a federal-state partnership in protecting the environment. In NEPA, state and local governments were to have an essential part in determining the environmental and societal impacts of federal actions.’’ ‘‘—after NEPA

declared national environmental policy, Congress intended and wrote the concept of

‘‘state primacy’’ into all subsequent major federal environmental statutes.’’ ‘‘The federal agencies—often pay lip service to state primacy, but in practice, the agencies

have mastered the art of ‘‘mission creep,’’ using their budgets and authorities to

micromanage the 50 states. That approach is not just bad policy: it defies the will

of Congress as expressed in NEPA and the subsequent environmental statutes.’’ ‘‘To

return to the original intent of Congress in NEPA and so many other environmental

statutes, I (Gale Norton) recommend—Congress should require that agencies consult

at an early stage with state and local governments in developing environmental impact statements. It should be clear in NEPA that an environmental impact statement is not adequate if it does not address fully state and local concerns.—

As part of an administration that espouses the value of local and state participation during the formulative stages of federal decision-making, we urge you to aggressively investigate options for rescinding or indefinitely tabling this Plan that

represents nothing more than Secretary Babbitt’s ‘‘top down’’ personal attempts at

a legacy.
54

WILD AND SCENIC RIVER IMPLICATIONS

In 1987, the Merced River was designated a Wild and Scenic River. The National

Park Service had three years from that date to develop a Comprehensive Management Plan that would protect the river corridor. In July of 1999, as part of litigation

on the Highway 140 construction project, Judge Anthony Ishii ordered the Park

Service to refrain from releasing any more planning documents until a Merced River

Management Plan had been prepared. The Park Service told the judge it would need

one year to comply; litigants stated they did not believe one year was sufficient time

to create a valid plan that would fulfill the protective mandate of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and encouraged the National Park Service to request additional

time.

One month later (8/4/99), Secretary Babbitt circulated a memo stating that the

Merced River Plan must be completed by July 12, 2000 and ‘‘I have directed him

(Bob Anderson) to ’see that the Record of Decision for the Yosemite Valley Plan is

signed prior to the end of the Clinton Administration.’ I will need your cooperation

and help in making sure that the work gets done in a timely fashion. Please ensure

that we have adequate financial and personnel resources working on these initiatives to meet our objectives.′′ In releasing the Draft Merced River Plan in January 2000, Superintendent David

Mihalic explained in his cover letter: ‘‘The Merced River Plan is a ‘foundational plan.’ By that I mean it provides a foundation and a direction for future actions. You will find that this

plan does not spell out specific actions that may occur in the future, but

through various zoning options in the alternatives, provides a direction for

the specific action that will follow. For example, the upcoming draft

Yosemite Valley Plan—is a plan that may call for a specific ‘action,’but only

as permitted by the zoning proposed in this document.′′ The enabling authority of the resource-based Merced River Plan raises numerous

concerns with respect to development of the follow-on Yosemite Valley Plan:

TIMELINES DETERMINED BY ELECTION CYCLE/POLITICAL AGENDAS

Public comment on the draft Merced River Plan was scheduled from January 7,

2000 through March 24, 2000. The following Monday (3/27/00), Secretary Babbitt released the five-volume, 2300 page draft Yosemite Valley Plan for public comment

through July 7.

—In order to comply with such a timeline, the follow-on Yosemite Valley Plan

would have had to be at the printers as much as 4–6 weeks previous, during the

public comment period for the ‘‘foundational’’ Merced River Plan. Therefore, the public comments for the River Plan could not have been considered when developing

the draft Yosemite Valley Plan. It appears that public comment on the Merced River

Plan was merely an exercise in futility—just a check off on a NEPA list of requirements—since apparently the draft Valley Plan was already completed.

—An effective, adequate public comment period for the Yosemite Valley Plan cannot be achieved until the public knows the full parameters, effects and impacts of

the Merced River Plan. How can the public or even the Park Service make fully informed decisions or comments on a follow-on plan that is directly affected by a

foundational plan not yet completed?

—All of the land-use zoning for the Valley is prescribed in the River Plan, yet the

Record of Decision for the River Plan wasn’t final until November of 2000. What

planning department in the country conducts project review and approval (i.e.,

Yosemite Valley Plan) without a legal zoning map? A valid River Plan needed to

be completed before starting on a draft Yosemite Valley Plan.

LACK OF SCIENTIFIC CREDIBILITY

No less than 12 major reports prepared for Congress over the past 40 years have

criticized the National Park Service for its lack of science-guided resource protection. As recently as February 1997, the General Accounting Office testified to Congress that ‘‘although NPS acknowledges, and its policies emphasize, the importance

of managing parks on the basis of sound scientific information about resources,

today such information is seriously deficient.’’ ‘‘At California’s Yosemite National

Park, officials told us that virtually nothing was known about the types or numbers

of species inhabiting the park, including fish, birds, and such mammals as badgers,

river otters, wolverines, and red foxes.’’ ‘‘This lack of inventory and monitoring information affects not only what is known about park resources, but also the ability to

assess the effect of management decisions.’’ (National Parks: Park Service Needs

Better Information to Preserve and Protect Resources, GAO/T–RCED–97–76)
55

—The Merced River Plan is supposed to be a scientifically based resource preservation plan. What role did scientists play in its development? Though park scientists admitted involvement in a technical review, they were not members of the

planning team. Raised as a concern by the public, their names suddenly appeared

in the final plan on the ‘‘list of preparers.— —The 1500-page draft Merced River Plan was developed in three months. The

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires detailed knowledge of the Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) as inventoried on a mile-by-mile basis along the River.

Such documentation serves as the foundation in determining classifications, establishing boundaries and preparing management prescriptions for the various river

segments. Yet the follow-on Yosemite Valley Plan now proposes an Inventory and

Monitoring Program within five years of the Valley Plan Record of Decision. Such

data should have been an integral part of the foundational Merced River Plan;

therefore, the Merced River Plan is an invalid document.

—Why was Air Quality removed as an ORV in the Merced River Plan? The recently approved 2001 NPS Management Policies state: ‘‘The National Park Service

will seek to perpetuate the best possible air quality in parks because of its critical

importance to visitor enjoyment, human health, scenic vistas, and the preservation

of natural systems and cultural resources.’’ ‘‘The Park Service will assume an aggressive role in promoting and pursuing measures to protect these values from the

adverse impacts of air pollution. In cases of doubt as the impacts of existing or potential air pollution on park resources, the Service will err on the side of protecting

air quality and related values for future generations.’’ (Chapter 4.28) Currently,

both Mariposa County and Tuolumne County are nonattainment counties. Was Air

Quality dropped as an ORV to accommodate the elephant chain of diesel shuttle

buses projected during peak season (500+ roundtrips daily) as would be proposed

in the follow-on Yosemite Valley Plan, thus exacerbating the situation.

LACK OF CARRYING CAPACITY STUDIES

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Interagency Guidelines (1982) refer to carrying capacity as the ‘‘quantity of recreation use which an area can sustain without adverse

impact on the outstandingly remarkable values and free-flowing character of the

river area, the quality of recreation experience, and public health and safety.’’ The

Guidelines further state that ‘‘studies will be made during preparation of the management plan and periodically thereafter to determine the quantity and mixture of

recreation and other public use which can be permitted without adverse impact on

the resource values of the river area. Management of the river area can then be

planned accordingly.—

—According to the most recent release of the Merced River Plan (February 2001),

‘‘the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) framework is a tool developed by the National Park Service to address user capacities—and to meet the requirements of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.’’ Yet the follow-on Yosemite Valley

Plan ‘‘proposes to fully implement a Visitor Experience and Resource Protection

(VERP) study and program within five years of the Record of Decision for the Final

Yosemite Valley Plan.’’ Isn’t such research required as part of determining the management prescriptions/zoning in the Merced River Plan that would ultimately enable

Valley Plan projects? Consequently, the Merced River Plan is an invalid document.

SUMMARY STATEMENT

A legally adequate Merced River Comprehensive Management Plan must be in

place affirmed with a Record of Decision before scoping can begin on a draft

Yosemite Valley Plan. Limited participation in the Merced River Plan review process resulted in only 2,500 comments, indicating the public did not fully understand

that the River Plan would ultimately amend the General Management Plan, rezone

the Valley floor, and become the enabling authority for the follow-on Draft Yosemite

Valley Plan. Politically charged timelines suggest that the Merced River Plan was

designed to accommodate an already completed Yosemite Valley Plan rather than

vice versa. Therefore, we urge the committee to request that the National Park

Service redo a valid Merced River Plan.

$441 MILLION FOR WHAT???

The draft Yosemite Valley Plan came with a $343 million price tag, but only a

few months later the final document suddenly increased to $441 million (one-time

development costs). Thousands of pages and 10,000 public comments later, the increased price tag appeared to be the only major change between the draft Valley

Plan and the final Valley Plan, indicative of a predetermined agenda.
56

Referred to as an ‘‘implementation plan,’’ the Plan in actuality resembles a loosely

bound framework of open-ended projects with no design-level specifics and suggesting further environmental compliance. Not only was the public unable to evaluate the full extent of the collective impacts of the various ‘‘design/build’’ projects

since no site-specific details were available, but it would appear that any cost estimate for such projects is purely hypothetical—a guesstimate at best. Additionally,

the Park Service projects a $10 million increase in its annual operating budget for

the transportation component alone (see Special Note below).

As responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars, we urge you to reject any request for

funds to support implementation of this Yosemite Valley ‘‘Plan.’’ The dollar amounts

appear to be premature and without substance. We’ve already seen how the National Park Service manipulated the flood request; ‘‘fool me twice, shame on me.—

(Special Note: According to park officials at Alaska’s Denali National Park, the

Park Service implemented a transit system at Denali in 1972 to ‘‘minimize the impacts of increased traffic.’’ ‘‘The system was provided free to riders from 1972

through 1994. The bus system cost federal taxpayers about $1.6 million annually.

The bus system subsidy amounted to 22% of the Park’s operating budget, and as

the price of running the system increased, the Park had to reduce other services

to visitors as well as reduce the number of buses and the distance they travel. National Park Service funding was no longer able to cover the costs of such services

and still provide necessary visitor services and adequate protection of park values.

Park visitors were being asked to share in the costs associated with their visit

through increased fees.’’ Turned over to the concessionaire, bus tickets now cost

$30–$40 per adult depending on distance traveled. Should this same scenario occur

at Yosemite, it would effectively price out most Americans; Valley Plan research

documents that the statistically typical visitor to Yosemite has a yearly income of

over $100,000—evidence that park policies are already contributing to economic discrimination.)

‘‘ASSEMBLY–LINE TOURISM’’ IS NOT ‘‘ACCESS’’

Obsessed with mass transit and increasing throughput by moving visitors as

though on a conveyor belt, the Clinton/Babbitt regime sought to control the way

Americans experience our national parks. Couched as ‘‘environmentally responsible,’’ their perceived solution lacks scientific credibility and, in the words of environmental icon David Brower, will cause ‘‘irreparable damage to the environment.—

This Yosemite Valley Plan continues on the Clinton/Babbitt course as it proposes

to follow the example of our large cities with massive park and ride lots, an urbandesigned transit system with more than 500 daily round trip shuttles projected during peak season, a 22-bay Transit Center as the ‘‘point of arrival’’ denigrating the

glorious shadow of Half Dome in the heart of Yosemite Valley, faster and wider

roads and other assorted infrastructure to accommodate the 45-foot over-the-road

diesel behemoths—in effect, an assault on personal freedom and individual responsibility and anathema to the treasured ‘‘up close and personal’’ national park experience. In their rush to implement such a system, park officials have ignored the advice of their own traffic committee which functioned during the ‘‘80s; additionally,

they’ve displayed no interest in simple, low-cost, low-impact suggestions that would

facilitate traffic management. Preferring more draconian measures, remodeling the

valley to provide the visitor with a more costly, more controlled, and more commercialized experience appears to be the goal and most certainly would be the outcome.

The Valley Plan’s transportation component also flies in the face of what the

Park’s own consultants advised in the congressionally mandated 1994 Alternative

Transportation Modes Feasibility Study. The Study states that ‘‘locating staging

areas in remote locations would influence the following quantifiable aspects of visitor use and park management:—

—Parking Demand. The time required to travel to and from the Valley on buses

would lengthen the time visitors spend making a visit to the Valley and would result in a need for additional parking spaces.

—Shuttle System Fleet. More distant staging areas would require larger bus

fleets to transport Valley visitors to and from the staging area.

—Shuttle System Operating Costs. Larger fleets and longer travel distances required for remote staging would require greater levels of funding for operations.

—Delays to Through Visitors. Visitors traveling to the Valley as part of longer

trips which involve stops in other areas of the park or which involve entering

Yosemite at one location and leaving from another would be inconvenienced by the

need to travel to and from the valley by bus and then travel much of the same route

in a private vehicle to complete their park visit.
57

—Remote staging areas would limit visitors’’ ability to stop at features along the

park roads for sightseeing and other activities.

—Potentially higher levels of particulate and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions

would be generated by high volumes of bus travel on park roads.

—Increased noise levels on park roads and in the Valley would be associated with

high volumes of bus travel.

‘‘The cost, visitor confusion, visitor delay, information challenges, and management difficulties associated with operating remote valley staging areas would be

substantial. In return, the benefits would be minor, consisting of moderate decreases

in vehicle traffic along sections of park road that are not congested. Perhaps the

greatest drawback of remote staging would be the loss of visitors’ personal freedom

to experience portions of Yosemite at their own pace and in their own way.’’ And

yet this is exactly the option proposed in this Yosemite Valley Plan.

A recent letter to the editor perhaps states it best: ‘‘The whole concept of elimination of individual ownership and use, in favor of group use, is at the base of many

of the Park Service plans. For example, the massive invasion of the visitors, foreign

and domestic, by controlled means through the use of the tour bus is creating a faceless user who no longer feels a personal connection between himself, his family and

these pristine areas. He is fed our national parks much like the Monterey Aquarium—behind the glass wall of Park Service policy. In a controlled environment, he

will be shown and told what the Park Service thinks is appropriate at the time. The

loss of personal pride in our national parks will ultimately be devastating.—

Threatening to ‘‘close the gate’’ as the alternative, we urge the National Park

Service and the Department of Interior to focus instead on resolving a host of internal management and performance issues. Congress has commissioned numerous

studies through the General Accounting Office that document ‘‘significant problems

and weaknesses in the management of Interior’s programs——problems that are

‘‘the result of serious deficiencies in organizational structure, information systems,

and the management controls that provide oversight and accountability’’ (Major

Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of the Interior, 01/01/99,

GAO/OCG–99–9).

We urge Congress to exercise its jurisdictional oversight as representatives of the

citizenry who own the national parks and other public lands. To allow further restrictions, regulations, and increased fee assessments on the American taxpayer, albeit endorsing the mantra that ‘‘people’’ are the problem rather than placing the responsibility squarely where it belongs—on the land management agencies, is criminal. Americans have a right to access their national parks in the manner they so

choose, while still preserving the integrity of the Park, and deserve better than to

be placed on a conveyor belt like a can of beets. As elected officials, we all have

a responsibility to fiercely protect that right and privilege.

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ILL–CONCEIVED PLANNING PROCESS

In response to a 1980 General Management Plan directive, restaurants, lodging

and other services began investing along gateway corridors outside the park, thereby enabling park administrators to avoid further commercial development in

Yosemite Valley. Yet nowhere in the General Management Plan or in the core principles that govern the actions of the Park Service is there any acknowledgement of,

or concern for, the mutually dependent relationship that has subsequently evolved

between the park and the gateway communities as a result of that directive. It is

that apparent lack of concern that is particularly troubling to Madera County.

Heavily dependent on the tourist dollar, the fledgling communities along the

Highway 41 corridor are all too familiar with the extreme fluctuations that occur

based on the park press release, policy or disaster of the day. Any rise or fall in

visitation directly impacts business income and job generation, and consequently the

economic vitality of the area.

Visitation over the past five years has steadily dropped from a high of 4.1 million

visitors in 1996 to 3.5 million visitors in 2000. The Park Service is projecting another 2% drop in 2001. And even those numbers are suspect. The current method

of relying on an underground mechanical ‘‘counter’’ that (when operable) is unable

to delineate between visitors, employees and vendors other than by formula needs

to be reexamined for validity. Since a major part of park planning efforts appear

to be based on annual visitation numbers, it is critical that those numbers be clearly

defined.

The proposed urban-designed mass transit system that threatens to eliminate

automobile touring in Yosemite Valley is the biggest gamble yet. Client surveys and

park studies already predict busing will degrade the visitor experience—bad news

for any economy based on tourism. In fact, from the moment the draft Yosemite Val-
58

ley Plan was released, local businesses began receiving telephone calls from potential visitors asking if they had to ride a bus to get into the park—and the plan

hasn’t even been implemented yet. As proposed in this Valley Plan, guests of any

lodging facility outside the park are considered ‘‘day visitors.’’ Such visitors will directly incur increased economic hardship and inconvenience resulting from mandatory bus travel.

Another part of the Yosemite Valley Plan is the Park’s stepchild, YARTS, the

Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System. Heavily funded by the National

Park Service as well as through the Department of Transportation and TEA 21, this

effort has been promoted as the answer to economic vitality in the gateway communities. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In reality it has enabled the Park

and the concessionaire to move out into our communities further controlling our

visitors and the manner in which they access the Park. Though promoted as a ‘‘voluntary alternative,’’ YARTS is the vehicle for helping the Park incrementally

achieve the stated 1980 General Management Plan goal of removing all cars from

the Yosemite Valley. Once day visitor parking has been completely eroded, bus

transportation will be the only means of access. But it’s important to note that the

1980 Plan is 20 years out of date. Since 1980 there have been a host of environmental regulations as well as advances in technology that have mandated cleaner

air and resulted in near-zero emissions in autos; the same can not be said of buses.

Consequently, the 1980 goal must be reevaluated. Nonetheless, the Yosemite Valley

Plan continues to parrot a predetermined agenda for buses regardless of the environmental and socioeconomic consequences. YARTS and the Valley Plan are one in

the same, so when we urge no funding for the Yosemite Valley Plan—included in

that request is no funding for YARTS.

To date, the park has avoided conducting a socioeconomic analysis of day visitors

to determine what eliminating cars and mandating buses will really cost the gateway communities. In fact, the Yosemite Valley Plan doesn’t even recognize gateway

communities, instead focusing on the ‘‘local communities’’ of El Portal, Foresta,

Wawona, Yosemite Village, and Yosemite West—communities that, for the most

part, can only be accessed inside park gates. The tourist dependent towns of

Oakhurst, Mariposa, and Groveland are now included as part of a regional economy

that the park claims will benefit from an increase in construction jobs as part of

the numerous development projects planned inside the park. Such an ‘‘analysis’’ is

of little use to the local lodge owner or restaurateur who invested his/her savings

in a gateway business trusting that such an effort would help park administrators

avoid further commercial development inside the Park.

Adding insult to injury, Superintendent Mihalic told the press shortly after his

arrival that ‘‘if there’s ever a conflict on his watch between what’s best for Yosemite

and these so-called ‘‘gateway communities,’’ the park will win every time.’’ The small

town character of healthy, vibrant gateway communities are the first stop on the

way to a pleasurable visit to Yosemite; the warmth and energy of our people, the

attractiveness of our businesses, low crime rate, and an environment that mirrors

the Park set the stage for a quality visitor experience. It is important that the Park

take pride in the gateway communities just as our communities take tremendous

pride in the Park. What has made this Yosemite Valley Plan such a flashpoint is

that residents recognize the tremendous environmental damage that will occur inside as well as outside the park as it is converted from a nature center to a profit

center; dealing with a nonresponsive but highly political and arrogant bureaucracy,

that is funded by a never-ending supply of tax dollars, with large corporations

poised to displace small local businesses, in a system that offers no recourse other

than litigation. This is not the American way.

SUMMARY

In closing, thank you for your leadership in conducting this hearing on the

Yosemite Valley Plan. But we strongly urge you to continue your investigation, coming to our districts and talking with the numerous folks who could not be here today

but who certainly have important contributions to make. It would be especially beneficial to hear from Friends of Yosemite Valley; this grassroots organization has consistently and articulately raised concerns about the environmental destruction inherent in both the Merced River Plan and the Yosemite Valley Plan and is currently

pursuing litigation in a system that offers no recourse to Park Service decisions. It

would be beneficial to visit with our Visitors Bureaus and Chambers of Commerce,

the folks who assist the visiting public day after day. It would be beneficial to speak

with our law enforcement and emergency personnel and hear their perspectives on

public health and safety as well as fire management in a region where private and

public lands are intermingled. It would be beneficial to hear from our civic groups
59

who provide endless hours of volunteer labor in support of every worthwhile cause,

making our gateway communities better places to live. It would be beneficial to visit

with our citizens as well as folks in neighboring counties to hear their concerns.

Making a decision in Washington, based upon five minutes of testimony, is unfair

to Yosemite and unfair to the American people. Please consider scheduling followup hearings in our districts.

As a committee you have an invaluable opportunity to revisit a decision that was

made in haste four years ago, in the midst of an emergency; we ask you to exercise

courage and integrity as you provide oversight with respect to funds not yet expended in the name of flood recovery. We further request your intervention in a

planning process that has gone awry. The ‘‘legacy’’ plans that are before you today

will cause irreparable damage to the environment, waste hundreds of millions of

taxpayer dollars, gamble with the economic vitality of our gateway communities,

and ultimately restrict the freedom of Americans to access and enjoy their park.

As stated earlier, we urge the committee to consider the following:

—No funding be appropriated for this Yosemite Valley Plan (and YARTS)

—Set aside/rescind this Yosemite Valley Plan (and YARTS)

—All excess flood funding ($110 million) be returned to the U.S. Treasury

—Redo the Merced River Plan in full compliance with the protective mandate of

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, thus creating a solid foundation for all future plans

—Schedule follow-up hearings in the local districts to more fairly and fully understand the impacts of park planning

COUNTY OF MADERA PARTICIPATION IN THE YOSEMITE PLANNING PROCESS

SCOPING, Yosemite Valley Plan; January 25, 1999

—Concern about visitor demographics and access; requested Park immediately investigate the socioeconomic impact of its decisions in determining policy to ensure

that such policies are not and will not be discriminatory.

—Concern about preservation of the environment should the Park introduce a

mass transit system both in Yosemite Valley and the outlying areas.

—Concern about economic vitality in the gateways; requested Park commission an

independent study that will analyze the economic impact of Park policies on the

gateway communities

PUBLIC COMMENT, Merced River Plan; February 29, 2000

No alternatives acceptable in draft Plan; requested full compliance with WSRA

Federal Register Guidelines as well as conformity with the NPS Natural Resource

Challenge Initiative.

—Define visitor experience

—Scientific credibility compromised as result of politically charged timelines

—Lack of carrying capacity studies

—Boundary/classification/management prescription concerns

—Air Quality removed as an ORV

—Concerns about process of plan development

PUBLIC COMMENT 1, Yosemite Valley Plan; June 13, 2000

Unanimously rejected Draft Yosemite Valley Plan

—Status of Merced River Management Plan unknown

—Status of Yosemite Valley Plan scoping comments submitted by Madera unknown

—Planning assumptions not supported by sound scientific study

—Lack of project design-level specifics; numerous issues ‘‘beyond scope—

—Concerns about transportation component

PUBLIC COMMENT 2, Yosemite Valley Plan; June 27, 2000

Submitted two-part strategy: preparation of scientific body of knowledge in advance of Plan development with five-year ‘‘temporary’’ plan for Yosemite Valley in

the interim.

APPEAL TO CONGRESS, SECRETARY NORTON, PRESIDENT BUSH;

February 13, 2001

—Request that no funding be appropriated for this Yosemite Valley Plan

—Request that this Yosemite Valley Plan be rescinded/tabled indefinitely pending

further investigation

—Volunteered to host local forum with broad-based participation to develop strategy for future plan development

COPIES AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST:
60

Board of Supervisors, Madera County

209 West Yosemite Avenue

Madera, CA 93637

Phone: 559–675–7700

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Gilbert.

Mr. Balmain, welcome.

STATEMENT OF DOUG BALMAIN, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF

SUPERVISORS, COUNTY OF MARIPOSA, MARIPOSA, CALIFORNIA

Mr. BALMAIN. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Doug

Balmain, and on behalf of the Mariposa County Board of Supervisors, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Mariposa County has closely followed the Yosemite Plan process.

While we regret the lack of opportunity for effective input during

the development of the Yosemite Valley Plan, the County recognizes that the implementation phase of the Yosemite Valley Plan

provides opportunities for our community to join the National Park

Service to address numerous elements of the plan.

There are many planning and implementation issues that are of

mutual concern to the County of Mariposa and the National Park

Service, most notably the following: providing sufficient alternative

parking and overnight accommodations outside Yosemite Valley;

appropriate relocation of employee housing and worksites from the

Yosemite Valley to gateway communities within Mariposa County;

providing responsible and sustainable management of solid waste,

and providing regional transportation sufficient to attain the goals

of the Valley Plan and meet the needs of the County.

Other current planning efforts between the County and the National Park Service include a comprehensive update of our County

general plan in anticipation of opportunities presented by the Valley Plan, and the development of a new University of California,

Merced campus, near the western border of Mariposa County. The

National Park Service has also joined the county in developing

waste recycling programs and an innovative composting project

that will revolutionize the management of our solid waste. This is

an extremely important project for the County and the Park.

The County has planned and subsidized a regional transportation program serving Yosemite National Park for the last 10

years, most recently in the form of the Yosemite Area Regional

Transportation System, or YARTS. The town of Mariposa affords

good opportunities for developing Park and concessionaire administrative offices, visitor centers, and employee housing. Developable

land exists with expansion capabilities, and with utility and transportation infrastructure.

Although encouraged by the aforementioned opportunities, the

County of Mariposa is discouraged by the potential reduction of

parking spaces in Yosemite Valley. The County does not believe the

elimination of parking spaces is necessary to achieve the primary

goals of the Yosemite General Management Plan or the Valley

Plan. Rather than reducing the supply of parking spaces, the County suggests reducing the demand for such parking spaces by making bus transportation more attractive.
61

The County is also discouraged by the potential removal of transportation infrastructure in Yosemite Valley, such as roads and historic bridges. These improvements are not only used for recreational access, but they are also needed for emergency vehicles.

The County of Mariposa requests the following of this Committee

and Congress: Encourage the participation of Mariposa County in

the implementation of the Valley Plan elements that impact gateway communities, and encourage additional funding to the Park

Service for joint planning efforts with the County, supplementing

a regional transportation system, and addressing K-12 education

and other socioeconomic concerns in communities within or adjacent to the Park.

The County of Mariposa offers the following to this Committee

and Congress: The County will continue to include the participation of the National Park Service in the development of the County

general plan update, to prepare for potential relocation of Park offices and residences.

The County will continue to partner with the National Park

Service to improve visitor experience, while still maintaining the

integrity of Yosemite National Park.

With these joint planning efforts, the County can incorporate into

the County’s general plan the accommodations needed to relocate

Park offices and residences in the County of Mariposa.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Balmain follows:]

Statement of Doug Balmain, Chairman, Board of Supervisors,

County of Mariposa, California

The County of Mariposa wishes to extend their gratitude to the Subcommittee for

inviting our community and requesting our testimony at this hearing. Mariposa

County has been closely following the Yosemite Valley Plan process. While we regret

the lack of opportunities for effective input during the development of the Yosemite

Valley Plan, the County recognizes that the implementation phase of the Yosemite

Valley Plan provides opportunities for our community to join the National Park

Service to address numerous elements of the Plan. Particularly, 1) the relocation offices and housing out of the Park and into other communities in Mariposa County,

2) the development of a premier regional transportation system, 3) the development

of a jointly operated visitor centers, and 4) the continued partnership to develop a

very innovative, sustainable solid waste management system, and other infrastructure to serve the Park and its gateway communities.

The entire Yosemite Valley is geographically located within the boundaries of the

County of Mariposa. The Park gateway communities of El Portal, Wawona, Fish

Camp, Buck Meadows, Foresta, Yosemite West, Midpines, and Mariposa are all located within the jurisdiction of the County of Mariposa. There are no incorporated

cities. The County spans 1,463 square miles, half of which is Federal entitlement

lands managed by the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the

Sierra and Stanislaus National Forests. The permanent residential population of the

County is 16,150 persons. The daily population, including visitors, during the summer is over 34,000 persons.

The town of Mariposa rests 32 miles from the Park’s western boundary. It is the

County seat and the County’s largest community with a residential population of

1,800. Regional government administration and Park tourism are the economic

foundation for the town. It offers a hospital, airport, high school, middle school, elementary school, senior center, fairgrounds, the California State Mining and Mineral

Museum, new public library, regional shopping, residential utilities and services,

and ample visitor accommodations.

There are many planning and consequent implementation issues that are of mutual concern to the County of Mariposa and the National Park Service, most notably

the following:

• Providing sufficient alternative parking and overnight accommodations outside

Yosemite Valley.
62

• Appropriate relocation of employee housing from Yosemite Valley to gateway

communities within Mariposa County.

• Appropriate relocation of employee work sites from Yosemite Valley to gateway

communities within Mariposa County.

• Consideration of socio-economic impacts of employee relocation. Particularly, potential development of or access to governmental and private sector services,

health care, schools, transportation and recreation.

• Appropriate relocation of visitor centers from Yosemite Valley to gateway communities within Mariposa County.

• Preservation of Historic Structures.

• Conformance with the ‘‘Merced Wild and Scenic River Plan.— • Appropriate phasing of Valley Plan elements and projects.

• Funding timelines, restrictions, and amounts for implementation of the Valley

Plan.

• Providing responsible and sustainable management of solid waste.

• Providing regional public transportation sufficient to attain the goals of the Valley Plan and meet the needs of the County.

The County of Mariposa and National Park Service are working towards an unprecedented approach to solving planning issues in areas of solid waste management, transportation, and where both agencies have joint jurisdiction. This effort,

made possible by both the Valley Plan and Merced River Plan Records of Decision,

creates a model for the National Park Service with other gateway communities both

here at Yosemite National Park and around the country.

If successfully funded and implemented, this program would provide some surety

for our citizens owning property within the park boundaries or dependent on park

approvals. In addition, it provides surety for the National Park Service about the

type of development the County will permit on lands adjoining or within Yosemite

National Park. The Valley Plan opened the door for this effort.

Other current planning efforts between the County and National Park Service include a comprehensive update of the County General Plan in anticipation of the opportunities presented by the Valley Plan and development of a new University of

California campus (UC Merced) near the western border of Mariposa County. The

National Park Service has also joined the County in developing waste recycling programs and an innovative composting project that will assist in the management of

our mixed solid waste. It is important to the Park and County for the National Park

Service to be able to continue in these efforts.

The County has planned and subsidized regional transportation programs serving

Yosemite National Park for the last ten years, most recently in the form of the

Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) demonstration project. The

County has partnered with the Park and neighboring counties to plan and fund

YARTS to assist transporting visitors and park employees to and from Yosemite

Valley. This effort has greatly reduced the number of private vehicles entering the

valley. The demonstration period is soon closing and YARTS will be expanding services to increase its use and further decrease the number of vehicles entering the valley.

The currently successful working relationship between the National Park Service

and the County of Mariposa will certainly help address the known limitations and

opportunities for key relocation elements of the Valley Plan. Known limitations for

potential development in the communities of El Portal, Wawona and Foresta are of

great concern for the County.

The town of Mariposa may afford good opportunities for developing Park and concessionaire administrative offices, visitor centers and employee housing. Developable

land with expansion capability, existing utility and transportation infrastructure,

proximity to services and UC Merced, and opportunities for cost sharing exist. Employees residing in Mariposa can have access to museums, art studios and performances, social groups, greater breadth of educational and activity programs for children, and governmental services.

Although encouraged by all the aforementioned opportunities, the County of

Mariposa is discouraged by the potential reduction of parking spaces in Yosemite

Valley. The County does not believe the elimination of parking spaces is necessary

to achieve the primary goals of the Yosemite General Plan or Valley Plan. Rather

than reducing the supply of private automobile parking, the County suggests reducing the demand for such parking by making public transportation the preferred access choice. Further development of the existing regional transportation system,

greater marketing of the service, and other incentives can accomplish this.

The County is also discouraged by the potential removal of transportation infrastructure in Yosemite Valley, such as roads and bridges. These improvements are

not only used for recreational access, but they are also needed for emergency vehicle
63

access, bicyclists and pedestrian use. The Valley Plan goals of reducing the impact

of vehicles can still be met with better traffic management. In addition, the County’s

desire and responsibility for providing public safety and effective emergency response can also continue. We are all well aware of Yosemite Valley’s proneness to

rockslides and exposure to floods and wild land fires.

The County of Mariposa requests the following of this Committee and Congress:

• Encourage the participation of Mariposa County in the implementation of all

Valley Plan elements that impact gateway communities. Support the participation of the National Park Service in the County’s General Plan update process.

• Encourage additional funding to the National Park Service for joint planning efforts with the County for Wawona, El Portal, and Foresta, supplementing a regional transportation system serving Park visitors and employees, and addressing K–12 education and other socio-economic concerns in communities within or

adjacent to the Park.

• Decrease regulatory restrictions to the National Park Service so they may partner with the County in accommodating the relocation of offices, residences, visitor centers and transportation infrastructure outside Park boundaries. Provide

exceptions to the ‘‘rules and regulations’’ that traditionally prohibit more feasible investments than what the National Park Service is sometimes limited to.

• Encourage the completion of flood recovery projects in Yosemite Valley before

embarking on many other elements of the Valley Plan.

The County of Mariposa offers the following to this Committee and Congress:

• The County will continue to include the participation of the National Park Service in the development of the County General Plan Update, to prepare for potential relocation of Park offices and residences.

• The County will plan for any pressures to increase overnight visitor accommodations outside the Park resulting from the implementation of the Valley Plan.

• The County will make available staff with expertise in transportation planning,

land use planning, building development services, and environmental health

services to assist the National Park Service in executing key relocation elements

of the Valley Plan, particularly employee housing, visitor centers and administrative offices.

The County of Mariposa will continue to partner with the National Park Service

to improve visitor experience while still maintaining the integrity of Yosemite National Park. With a joint planning effort, the County can incorporate into the County General Plan update the accommodation of relocated Park offices and residences

in the County of Mariposa. The County will continue to partner with the National

Park Service to further develop a premier regional transportation system so that the

elimination of vehicle parking spaces is not necessary to achieve Valley Plan goals.

With full County of Mariposa support and participation, sufficient funding to the

National Park Service, and regulatory flexibility, the Valley Plan will be successfully

implemented with broad-based satisfaction.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Balmain.

Mr. Oliver.

STATEMENT OF GREGORY J. OLIVER, ESQ., COUNTY COUNSEL,

TUOLUMNE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Mr. OLIVER. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My

name is Gregory Oliver, and I am the County Counsel for the

County of Tuolumne, California.

I would like to begin by thanking Congressman John Doolittle for

securing my opportunity to address this Committee. With over

57 percent of Yosemite National Park located within the boundaries of the County of Tuolumne, the county obviously has a major

stake in the outcome of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

The county appreciates the Subcommittee soliciting comments on

the implementation of the Valley Plan. Our county’s comment is

simple. Please do not implement the Yosemite Valley Plan until the

county’s concerns have been adequately addressed.

One of the most fundamental areas of concern to the county is

how conversion from traditional, family-oriented, private vehicles,
64

auto touring to mass tourism will affect the natural and socioeconomic environments of the County of Tuolumne. Auto touring is

arguably the number one recreational activity in America. The vast

majority of people visiting Yosemite National Park do so in private

automobiles.

Some 80 percent of these tourists are day visitors, most of whom

spend on average only about 4.2 hours in Yosemite Valley. Many

day visitors stay overnight in lodging and campground facilities located in Tuolumne County. Day visitors are accustomed to driving

their own vehicles on their own time schedules to Yosemite Valley.

Auto tourists also expect to be able to drive to the east end of the

Valley where the Park Service and concessionaire facilities are located, and where a number of Yosemite Valley’s most popular natural features are to be observed and accessed.

Day and overnight visitors also enjoy driving the loop road system, stopping at various locations during their auto tour. These visitor activities are central to the current marketing strategy of the

tourism industry of the affected region. The ability to spontaneously visit and tour Yosemite Valley by private vehicle is also frequently cited by the real estate industry in its promotion of property sales within the County of Tuolumne.

Tourism is the largest sector of the economy in Tuolumne County. It is by far and away the most important segment of the economy of southern Tuolumne County, specifically the State Route 120

corridor. Adoption of any plan which would disrupt the present

ability of the traveling public to access Yosemite Valley by private

automobile would adversely affect businesses and communities located along the State Route 120 corridor.

Proposals to develop out-of-valley parking facilities and shuttle

day visitors to the Valley floor would inconvenience motorists. This

inconvenience would serve to reduce visitation to Yosemite Valley

and, consequently, adversely affect businesses located along the

State Route 120 corridor.

Similarly, the inconvenience of riding shuttle buses into

Yosemite Valley would encourage day visitors to ride tour buses

into the Valley from locations outside the Park, and this, in turn,

would reduce tourism in gateway communities if tour buses do not

stop within those communities. Where an individual in a private

automobile can stop in a gateway community if he/she so chooses,

that same individual may lose that option if he or she rides a tour

bus into Yosemite for the day. This scenario would negatively impact businesses in the gateway communities.

The Tuolumne County Chamber of Commerce has estimated that

by limiting private automobiles from entering the Park and relying

on mass transit instead, it would equate to a loss of tens of millions

of dollars to the businesses located in the gateway communities in

Tuolumne County.

In addition, the County of Tuolumne would lose hundreds of

thousands of dollars in transient occupancy tax from reduced stays

in hotels and motels located within the County of Tuolumne. While

these numbers may first appear insignificant, in a county like

Tuolumne County, that relies on tourism for its major source of

revenue, the impact to the county and businesses is catastrophic.
65

Another area of concern for the county is that the process followed by the National Park Service in producing the Valley Plan

was flawed. The public could not provide an informed opinion of

the merits and demerits of the various alternatives found in the

draft Valley Plan because too much key information was missing.

Critical information regarding visitor patterns, transportation redesign impacts, and updated cultural resources inventories were

missing from the draft Valley Plan. Most glaring of all was that the

Merced River Plan was not finalized and released to the public

until just shortly before the closing of comments on the Valley

Plan.

Yosemite Area Regional Transportation Systems, or YARTS as it

is known, and the Valley Plan are inextricably intertwined, and yet

the environmental review for YARTS was prepared independent of

the Valley Plan. The County of Tuolumne believes that a programmatic environmental impact report should have been done of

the joint Park Service/YARTS bus plan. As National Park Service

representatives have stated, the transportation scheme within the

Valley Plan is designed to marry with the YARTS plan. Only when

the impacts and the mitigation for those impacts have been identified and adequately addressed will the ultimate cost of this experimental bus system be known.

The County of Tuolumne recognizes that the Valley Plan does

contain some elements of benefits. Few would argue that it is time

to remove the Cascades Dam or redesign the lower Yosemite Falls

area. However, the County of Tuolumne feels strongly that at the

foundation of any land management plan should be the ideals of

equity and environmental benefit. The process that produced the

Valley Plan was warped by special interests with shortsighted

goals. The Valley Plan is, indeed, fatally flawed because none of the

applicable scientific theories were considered when the plan was

written, and it was not properly explained to the public.

It is time to return to the National Park Service’s founding authorities and regain the high ground of resource protection. It is

also past time to remember that our national parks are for the people and we must carefully plan our strategies around equality of

access.

The County of Tuolumne requests that this Subcommittee send

the Valley Plan back to the Yosemite National Park area for further comment to address the concerns of the County of Tuolumne

and others that have not yet been heard on the Yosemite Valley

Plan.

The County of Tuolumne also requests the Subcommittee hold

hearings in Yosemite National Park and the surrounding communities to obtain comments from the people and communities in and

around Yosemite National Park who would be affected by the adoption and funding of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The County’s comments on the Valley Plan also apply to the Merced River Plan. The

County also requests that the Merced River Plan be returned to the

park in order to allow for the required public input.

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to address

your Committee.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Oliver with attachments follows:]
66

Statement of Gregory J. Oliver, Esq., County Counsel,

County of Tuolumne, California

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name is Gregory Oliver and

I am the County Counsel for the County of Tuolumne in California. I would like

to begin by thanking Chairman Hefley for the invitation to speak today. I would

also like to thank Congressman John Doolittle for securing my opportunity to address this subcommittee.

With over fifty-seven percent (57.27%) of Yosemite National Park located within

the boundaries of the County of Tuolumne, the County obviously has a major stake

in the outcome of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The County appreciates the subcommittee soliciting comments on the implementation of the Valley Plan. The County’s comment is simple: please do not implement the Yosemite Valley Plan until the

County’s concerns have been adequately addressed.

One of the most fundamental areas of concern to the County is how conversion

from traditional, family orientated private vehicles auto touring to mass transit

tourism will affect the natural and socioeconomic environments of the County of

Tuolumne. Auto touring is arguably the number one recreational activity in America. The vast majority of the people visiting Yosemite National Park do so in private

automobiles. Some eighty percent (80%) of these tourists are day-visitors, most of

whom spend on average only about 4.2 hours in Yosemite Valley. Many day-visitors

stay over night in lodging and campground facilities located in Tuolumne County.

Day-visitors are accustomed to driving their own vehicles on their own time schedules to Yosemite Valley. Auto tourists also expect to be able to drive to the east end

of the valley where the Park Service and concessionaire facilities are located, and

where a number of Yosemite Valley’s most popular natural features are to be observed and accessed. Day and overnight visitors also enjoy driving the ‘‘loop road’’

system stopping at various locations during their auto-tour. These visitor activities

are central to the current marketing strategies of the tourism industry of the affected region. The ability to spontaneously visit and tour Yosemite Valley by private

vehicle is also frequently cited by the real estate industry in its promotion of property sales within the County of Tuolumne.

Tourism is the largest sector of the economy in Tuolumne County. It is by far and

away the most important segment of the economy of southern Tuolumne County,

specifically the State Route 120 corridor. Adoption of any plan which would disrupt

the present ability of the traveling public to access Yosemite Valley by private automobile, would adversely affect businesses and communities located along the State

Route 120 corridor. Proposals to develop out of Valley parking facilities and shuttle

day visitors to the Valley floor would inconvenience motorists. This inconvenience

would serve to reduce visitation to Yosemite Valley and consequently, adversely affect businesses located along the State Route 120 corridor.

Similarly, the inconvenience of riding shuttle buses into Yosemite Valley would

encourage day visitors to ride tour buses into the Valley from locations outside the

Park and this in turn would reduce tourism in gateway communities if tour buses

do not stop within those communities. Whereas an individual in a private automobile can stop in a gateway community if he/she so chooses, that same individual

may lose that option if he/she rides a tour bus into Yosemite Valley for the day.

This scenario would negatively impact businesses in the gateway communities.

The Tuolumne County Chamber of Commerce has estimated that by limiting private automobiles from entering the Park and relying on mass transit instead, it

would equate to a loss of tens of millions of dollars to the businesses located in the

gateway communities located in the County of Tuolumne. In addition, the County

of Tuolumne would lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in Transient Occupancy

Tax (TOT) from reduced stays in hotels and motels located within the County of

Tuolumne. While these numbers may first appear insignificant, in a county like

Tuolumne County that relies on tourism for revenue, the impact to the County and

businesses is catastrophic.

Another area of concern for the County of Tuolumne is that the process followed

by the National Park Service in producing the Valley Plan was flawed. The public

could not provide an informed opinion of the merits and demerits of the various alternatives found in the draft Valley Plan because too much key information was

missing. Critical information regarding visitor patterns, transportation redesign impacts, and updated cultural resources inventories were missing from the draft Valley Plan. Most glaring of all was that the Merced River Plan was not finalized and

released to the public until just shortly before closing the comments on the Valley

Plan.

Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) and the Valley Plan are

inextricably intertwined, and yet the environmental review for YARTS was prepared
67

independent of the Valley Plan. The County of Tuolumne believes that a programmatic environmental impact report should have been done of the joint Park

Service–YARTS bus plan. As National Park Service representatives have stated, the

transportation scheme within the Valley Plan is designed to ‘‘marry’’ with the

YARTS plan. Only when the impacts and the mitigation for those impacts have been

identified and adequately addressed, will the ultimate cost of this experimental bus

system be known.

The County of Tuolumne recognizes that the Valley Plan does contain some elements of benefits. Few would argue that it is time to remove the Cascades Dam or

redesign the lower Yosemite Falls area. However, the County of Tuolumne feels

strongly that at the foundation of any land management plan should be the ideals

of equity and environmental benefit. The process that produced the Valley Plan was

warped by special interests with shortsighted goals. The Valley Plan is indeed fatally flawed because none of the applicable scientific theories (i.e., Forest Management theories, Species protection theories, etc.) were considered when the plan was

written, and it was not properly explained to the public. It is time to return to the

National Park Service’s founding authorities and regain the high ground of resource

protection. It is also past time to remember that our National Parks are for the people, all the people and we must carefully plan our strategies around equality of access. The County of Tuolumne requests that this subcommittee send the Yosemite Valley Plan back to the Yosemite National Park area for further comment to address

the concerns of the County of Tuolumne and others that have not yet been heard

on the Yosemite Valley Plan. The County of Tuolumne also requests that this subcommittee hold hearings in Yosemite National Park and the surrounding communities to obtain comments from the people and communities in and around Yosemite

National Park who would be affected by the adoption and funding of the Yosemite

Valley Plan. The County’s comments on the Yosemite Valley Plan also apply to the

Merced River Plan. The County also requests that the Merced River Plan be returned to the park in order to allow for the required public input.

Again, thank you Mr. Chairman for this opportunity to address the subcommittee.

If anyone has any questions, I would be happy to answer them. Thank you.

{Letters and exhibits attached to Mr. Oliver’s prepared statement

follow:]

March 22, 2001

The Honorable Joel Hefley, Congressman

Chairman Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands

Committee on Resources

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: Implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan

Dear Congressman Hefley:

The County of Tuolumne wishes to publicly thank Congressman John Doolittle for

securing us an opportunity to address the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands on the issue of implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

This plan will not only have a significant impact on the future of Yosemite Valley,

but all of Yosemite National Park and the gateway communities surrounding the

Park. With over fifty-eight percent (58%) of Yosemite National Park located within

the boundaries of the County of Tuolumne, the County obviously has a major stake

in the outcome of the Valley Plan.

We appreciate the subcommittee soliciting input on how to implement the Valley

Plan and how the Valley Plan will impact such things as transportation, parking,

visitor services, employee housing, and the wild and scenic river. The County’s comment is simple: please do not implement this Plan until these concerns have been

adequately addressed.

Several issues were raised during the scoping on how the redesign of the Valley’s

infrastructure was going to impact the natural environment, the cultural environment, and the visitor experience both within and outside the Park. Central to the

Valley Plan is access conversion from private vehicles to buses, and the National

Park Service was asked repeatedly what the design limits were for mass transit

tourism, and how impacts associated with mass transit tourism would be mitigated.

Unfortunately, these questions went unanswered.

While the theory of mass transit tourism has been discussed widely and defended

strenuously by its supporters, the test of this theory appears to be intended for

Yosemite National Park. Indeed, Park Service representatives have stated their in-
68

tent is to ‘‘experiment’’ with Yosemite National Park. They have- openly advocated

that experimentation is the best way for implementation. No true protector of the

environment would take this position, and neither does the County of Tuolumne.

Again, our comment is simple: please do not implement this Plan until these concerns have been adequately addressed.

The County of Tuolumne has many concerns about the adverse impacts implementation of the Valley Plan will cause. Enclosed as Exhibit ‘‘A’’ is a copy of a letter

dated June 28, 2000, which was Tuolumne County’s Response to the Draft Yosemite

Valley Plan. In addition, these concerns were outlined in the County’s response to

scoping on the Valley Plan. The entire text of the letter is submitted to the committee as Exhibit ‘‘B’’. In short, there are impacts that will occur far beyond the

boundaries of the Park if the Valley Plan goes forward as adopted.

Our key concerns are as follows:

• One of the most fundamental areas of concern is how conversion from traditional, family orientated private vehicle auto touring to mass transit tourism

will affect the natural and socioeconomic environments of the County of

Tuolumne. The National Park Service has made clear their intent to limit private vehicle access to Yosemite National Park. They contend that they cannot

handle the vehicle traffic loads that occurred in the mid–1990s without having

chronic gridlock and congestion or causing unacceptable resource impacts. However, it should be noted that in 1997 the Park Service demonstrated that it

could handle those traffic levels with relatively simple traffic management techniques and no appreciable resource impacts.

• A common myth has been that Yosemite Valley is chronically plagued with gridlock and congestion. This is blamed on day visitors in private vehicles exceeding

the capacity of the Valley’s parking space inventory. In reality, the lack of restraint is a bigger threat. A carefully managed auto plan will bring about far

greater equity and superior environmental benefits than the poorly thought out,

open ended mass transit tourism plan.

The County of Tuolumne is on record asking for the National Park Service to

provide information on the people carrying capacity of Yosemite Valley. Carrying capacity or occupancy limits is not just a matter of parking space inventory. There are a number of infrastructure constraints in Yosemite Valley. Before launching upon an undefined mass transit bus system, the National Park

Service should research and divulge the design limits of Yosemite Valley. The

National Park Service should identify what the ‘‘people per hour’’ limits are at

the most popular viewing stations, trail heads, trails, and visitor contact points.

Capacity should also be divulged regarding food services, restrooms, sewage

system, water supply, and electrical loads. A Valley Plan alternative based

upon known infrastructure limitation is the most practical and environmentally

sound approach, which has not been considered by the Park Service.

• According to the National Park Service over a third (1/3) of day visitors enter

the Park through one gate and exit through another. By restricting private vehicle access for day visitors at least thirty-three percent (33%) of the existing tourism market will be affected. The proposed bus plan does not fit this visitor pattern. Over the past eighty (80) years the gateway communities have built their

tourism economy around private auto touring. A potential loss of thirty-three

percent (33%) or more of this market will have a significant economic impact

on the gateway communities. In addition, the bus plan favors one corridor over

the others as the distances traveled from staging areas to the Valley are far

less. With shorter distances, travel times by bus are less, and fares are lower.

There is a real potential that travelers will be aware of this and tend to patronize the Highway 140 corridor to the detriment of businesses on the other routes.

With traditional auto touring there was more equity in the Yosemite tourism

market. In light of the tremendous economic impact on surrounding communities, our comment remains: please do not implement this Plan until these concerns have been adequately addressed.

• The process followed by the National Park Service in producing the Valley Plan

was flawed. The public could not provide an informed opinion of the merits and

demerits of the various alternatives found in the draft Valley Plan because too

much key information was missing. Critical information regarding visitor patterns, transportation redesign impacts, and updated cultural resources inventories were missing from the draft Valley Plan. Most glaring of all was that the

Merced River Plan was not finalized and released to the public until just shortly

before closing the comments on the Valley Plan.

Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) and the Valley Plan

are inextricably intertwined, and yet the environmental review for YARTS was
69

prepared independent of the Valley Plan. The County of Tuolumne believes that

a programmatic environmental impact report should have been done of the joint

Park Service–YARTS bus plan. As National Park Service representatives have

stated, the transportation scheme within the Valley Plan is designed to ‘‘marry’’ with the YARTS plan. Only when the impacts and the mitigation for those impacts have been identified and adequately addressed, will the ultimate cost of

this experimental bus system be known.

The National Park Service was fairly clear in the 1980 General Management

Plan (GMP) about private vehicle capacities in the Valley floor. In stark contrast, the information on bus limitations has been vague at best. In fact YARTS

insists that buses will ‘‘guarantee access’’ to all that come and that the bus system will bring ‘‘more people’’ to Yosemite. They are correct about one thing,

buses can bring more people per hour into the Park than private vehicles. • In the Merced River Plan, one of the obvious entitlements is mass transit tourism. The evidence that the plan was manipulated to usher in mass transit tourism can be found no more clearly than in the plan’s deletion of air quality as

an outstanding resource value. Obviously, the bus technology currently available

and proposed for the Valley will severely damage air resources.

The question must be asked how does the Valley Plan and YARTS comply with

the Federal Clean Air Act, as both the County of Mariposa and the County of

Tuolumne have been identified as future nonattainment areas. Although both

the National Park Service and YARTS have stated they will use alternative fuel

buses, it is clear that for the foreseeable future diesel buses will be the mainstay of the proposed regional bus plan. The emissions impacts associated with

this plan are unacceptable especially when the superior technology of the private vehicles is displaced by diesel buses with low ridership. The National Park

Service and YARTS representatives propose that technology will solve this

problem in the future. The County of Tuolumne believes that all development

projects must mitigate impacts with current technology instead of being approved with the hope that in the future we will find a cure.

It should be made very clear that the introduction of electric buses and shuttles

into the Valley may not be possible if Pacific Gas and Electric cannot provide

the infrastructure to support, or deliver the energy needed to recharge, a large

electric fleet.

• Equity is a key issue with the Valley Plan. During the peak visitation years of

1995–97, less than twenty percent (20%) of the development footprint of

Yosemite Valley was solely attributable to day visitor needs. The Yosemite Plan

targets nearly ninety percent (90%) of the day visiting auto touring market for

removal from Yosemite Valley. More than sixty percent (60%) of the development footprint of Yosemite Valley is dedicated for the overnight market and its

supportive services. Considering the $441 million price tag of the Valley Plan

and with less than six (6) cents on every dollar going to natural resource restoration, that equates to far too much of the $441 million going into the construction and rehabilitation of overnight lodging. The Valley Plan appears to be

weighted toward intensification of commercialization. Simply put, the city of

2,500 located at the east end of Yosemite Valley is there to service the overnight

guest not the day visitor. It is the position of the County of Tuolumne that day

visitor auto touring is far less of an impact to the environment of Yosemite National Park than the open ended mass transit tourism that is codified in the

Valley Plan. It is also the opinion of Tuolumne County that even though currently up to eighty percent (80%) of the Yosemite tourism market is comprised

of day visitors using private vehicles to visit Yosemite Valley, the vast majority

of resource impacts in the Valley are caused by overnight visitors and their supportive services. Overnight visitors can be accommodated with less environmental impacts in gateway communities.

• The overnight market for the Valley consists primarily of campers and lodgers.

Despite the fact that lodgers have a greater impact on the environment than

campers, it is the campers that are called to sacrifice more accommodations in

the Valley Plan. As a rule, lodgers pay more per night than campers therefore,

campers will tend toward the lower income groups. There is real concern that

the Valley Plan is practicing economic discrimination.

Certainly the Valley Plan does contain some elements of benefit. Few would argue

that it is time to remove the Cascades Dam or redesign the lower Yosemite Falls

area. However, the County of Tuolumne feels strongly that at the foundation of any

land management plan should be the ideals of equity and environmental benefit. If

the subcommittee truly wants to leave a legacy worthy of the traditions of the National Park Service then you must agree with us that the Valley Plan and the
70

Merced River Plan must be pulled back. The process that produced these plans was

warped by special interests with shortsighted goals. The products are indeed fatally

flawed because they are not science based, and they were not properly explained to

the public. It is time to return to the National Park Service’s founding authorities

and regain the high ground of resource protection. It is also past time to remember

that our National Parks are for the people, all the people and we must carefully

plan our strategies around equality of access.

The County of Tuolumne requests that this subcommittee send the Yosemite Valley Plan back to the Yosemite National Park area for further comment to address

the concerns of our County and others that have not yet been addressed in the

Yosemite Valley Plan. The County of Tuolumne also requests that this subcommittee hold hearings in Yosemite National Park and the surrounding communities to obtain comments from the people and communities in and around Yosemite

National Park that would be affected by the adoption and funding of the Yosemite

Valley Plan.

The County of Tuolumne wishes to thank Congressman Joel Hefley for the opportunity to comment on the Yosemite Valley Plan and the invitation to our County

Counsel, Gregory J. Oliver, Esq., to speak before the subcommittee hearing.

Very truly yours,

DON RATZLAFF

Chairman

Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors

Enclosures
71

EXHIBIT A
72
73
74
75
76
77

EXHIBIT B

January 12, 1999

Stan Albright, Superintendent

Yosemite National Park Valley Plan

P.O. Box 577

Yosemite, CA 95389

Dear Superintendent Albright:

The Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors thank you for the opportunity to comment on the drafting of your ‘‘new comprehensive plan’’ for Yosemite Valley. However, we note that the announcement of the scoping period took place on December

18, 1998, just ahead of a two-week holiday break for many people and organizations.

We also note that the scoping period closes on January 15, 1999, less than 30 days

after your press release. We wonder if the notice and the duration of the scoping

period meets the legal requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA). We don’t believe we have to remind you of the criticism that occurred when

the Draft Valley Implementation Plan (VIP) was released in 1997 just ahead of the

holiday period. In response to those concerns the National Park Service did extend

the comment period for the VIP. Likewise, we believe that the timing of the scoping

period is not conducive to gaining complete public awareness nor garnering broadbased input and Tuolumne County requests that the scoping period be extended an

additional 30 days. In addition to this, we have the following comments and concerns.

The merging of the four existing documents (Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan/

EIS, Yosemite Lodge Development Plan/EA, Draft Valley Implementation Plan/EIS,

Lower Yosemite Falls Corridor Project) with public comments on these plans, is the

focus of this scoping. The National Park Service has stated that these plans are all

‘‘rooted’’ in the 1980 General Management Plan (GMP). Therefore, the proposed

‘‘New Yosemite Valley Plan’’ does not constitute a ‘‘new’’ comprehensive plan for

Yosemite Valley. The four individual plans were all predicated on the assumption

that they are to implement the nineteen year old, 1980 GMP.

The 1980 GMP is an outdated plan which does not address changes that have occurred in the last nineteen years in environmental regulations and federal regulations. The 1980

GMP does not address the changes that have occurred in the last nineteen years

to the natural environmental conditions, the cultural resources conditions and to

other physical conditions in the Valley floor. The 1980 GMP does not address the

tremendous change that has occurred in the past nineteen years in the social expectations of the traveling/visiting public. The four implementation plans cited above

also do not address these innumerable changes.

The National Park Service’s Organic Act states in part that the National Park

Service’s purpose is to ‘‘conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects

and the wildlife’’ in the park ‘‘by such means.as will leave them unimpaired for the

enjoyment of future generations’’. Under the terms of the National Historic Preservation Act, the 1980 GMP would only have addressed historic objects that were fifty

years of age or older at the time the GMP was adopted. Within the last nineteen

years, many objects in Yosemite Valley have passed their 50th anniversary, objects

which would not have been addressed in the 1980 GMP. The four implementation

plans have proposed significant alterations to historic objects that have not had

complete environmental review, such as bridges, roads, and parking areas constructed in the 1930’s and ‘40s. This seems to be a clear violation of NEPA, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended, and the 1997 National Park

Service Cultural Resources Strategic Plan (CRSP). The CRSP Section 1.A requires

that ‘‘Cultural Resources are protected, preserved, and maintained in good condition.’’

It is the opinion of several cultural resources specialists that the Yosemite Valley

floor constitutes an historic district as defined by the National Historic Preservation

Act and therefore, each individual historic object, structure, or building contributes

significantly to the overall historic district which is eligible for the National Register

of Historic Places. In essence, Yosemite Valley is a highly prized cultural landscape
78

and your Organic Act charter mandates sensitive environmental protection of the

Valley’s cultural resources.

Federal wetlands regulations have become more stringent in the past nineteen

years. This is due to changes in the Clean Water Act and in Army Corps of Engineers Regulations. These changes could not have been addressed in the 1980 GMP.

Another significant change in environmental regulation is air pollution control

regulations. In the last nineteen years the State of California has adopted tighter

regulations on emissions for private vehicles, while buses have not had the same

level of restrictions. Recent studies have shown that buses add 30 to 40 times the

pollutants to the air than private vehicles in California. The changes in regulations

and emissions were not addressed in the 1980 GMP.

In discussing transportation options, the various implementation plans as well as

the 1980 GMP appear to only focus on private passenger vehicles, bicycles and shuttle buses. There needs to be a comprehensive analysis on how various forms of

transportation could be accommodated and/or treated separately. For example, tourists traveling to Yosemite Valley via motorcycle pose a significant difference in environmental impacts than tourists arriving on diesel fuming buses. The National Park

Service should address all forms of transportation including, equestrian, bicycle, motorcycle, small passenger vehicles and trucks, large recreational vehicles and trailers, shuttle and tour buses, and rail.

Traffic patterns and usage levels that existed in 1980 have substantially changed

in the last nineteen years. While these changes were partially considered in the visitor transportation study conducted by Yosemite National Park in 1992–93, there

are significant components to traffic patterns and usage that have not been documented by the National Park Service. Some of these significant changes have occurred in the ‘‘gateway communities’’ surrounding Yosemite National Park. The National Park Service’s incomplete and outdated traffic analysis fails to meet the

NEPA requirements to address the entire environmental impact associated with the

various alternatives proposed by the four implementation plans nor those impacts

associated with the ‘‘conceptual alternatives’’ for the new plan.

The Central Sierra Nevada has been classified by the California Department of

Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) as an extreme wildland fire hazard area. In

1987, 1990 and 1996, major event fires closed all or part of the access roads leading

into Yosemite Valley. Profound changes to the environment have occurred because

of these fires. Federal and State fire, health and safety regulations have substantially changed in the last nineteen years. The proposed changes to the physical infrastructure of the Valley floor that are predicated on the 1980 GMP could not have

addressed these regulatory changes. There needs to be an analysis of how variously

proposed transit programs will address fire, health and safety issues. For example,

private vehicles are easier to evacuate from the Valley and pose less interference

to incoming emergency vehicles than buses. Also, buses would have to wait for all

of their passengers to board before leaving a threatened area, putting larger groups

of people at risk in an evacuation situation.

There is a significant absence of quantified and quality data on cultural resources,

natural resources, and visitor experience. In particular, there is no clear information

provided in the various Yosemite plans on how one area is weighed against another

in arriving at management decisions. For example, management decisions to reduce

private vehicles and increase buses in an attempt to ‘‘improve’’ visitor experience

may actually decrease the quality of the visitor experience by increasing total numbers of visitors at popular stops

and vistas which would be to the detriment of the visitor experience, cultural resources and natural resources. Buses can actually bring in more people per hour

than private vehicles and there has been no limit proposed on buses. Furthermore,

buses will concentrate people and vehicles around staging areas, stops and schedules creating concentrations of environmental impacts both within and outside

Yosemite Valley.

Any general management plan that seeks to eliminate private day visitor vehicles

and/or restrict day visitor activities would have a profound impact upon the gateway

communities’ economies, especially those communities which depend primarily on

private vehicle based visitor traffic for tourism dollars. Neither the 1980 GMP, nor

the four implementation plans address socio-economic impacts beyond Yosemite National Park’s boundary.

The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) underscored the inter-relation of resource decisions being made by land management agencies throughout the Sierra

Nevada. Even John Muir spoke of the connection that all resources have to one another. Specifically, the various Yosemite plans have yet to relate themselves to the

SNEP report. Nor does the National Park Service take into account how Yosemite

National Park policy changes will impact the surrounding National Forest lands.
79

In the last nineteen years, there has been a tremendous change in the demographics of the State of California. These changes have been mirrored in the

changes in the socioeconomic climate of visitation to Yosemite National Park, tourism in general, and in the population of the United States as a whole. The presumption that the general public’s response today on the Valley’s desired condition is the

same as it was in 1980 is dubious. A summary analysis of what the public responses

were for the 1980 GMP should be provided along with a summary of the planning

assumptions that were circulated in preparation of the 1980 GMP.

We note that in the Yosemite National Park’s January 1999 newsletter, a summary of the public responses for the four draft implementation plans is provided.

The newsletter requests that the reader review these summaries to see if there are

any issues not covered. The summary provided on public input for the VIP appears

to not include certain key concerns raised by Tuolumne County in its VIP response.

Therefore, we are resubmitting our VIP response letter into this scoping process (see

attachment).

The National Environmental Policy Act, Section 101(42 USC Subsection 4331)

states that Congress declares that it recognizes ‘‘the critical importance of restoring

and maintaining environmental quality to the overall welfare and development of

man, declares that it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with State and local governments, and other concerned public and private organizations, to use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare,

to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and

future generations of Americans.’’

We ask the National Park Service to cooperate with our local government by honoring its social, economic and environmental commitments to the public, to serve the

needs of the public, and to honor its Federal regulations and statues which are in

place today, by readdressing all aspects of the 1980 GMP and its management decisions of the past. Parks are for people and Yosemite Valley is a park, not a wilderness area.

Sincerely,

Mark V. Thornton

Chairman

Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors

February 10, 1998

Stanley T. Albright, Superintendent

Attn: VIP Planning

Yosemite National Park

P.O. Box 577

Yosemite National Park, CA 95389

Re: Draft Yosemite Valley Implementation Plan/Supplemental Environmental

Impact Statement

Dear Mr. Albright:

The Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors has reviewed the Draft Yosemite Valley Implementation Plan/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (VIP).

Below is a summary of key points followed by a general discussion of our principal

concerns. Attached to this correspondence is a proposed fifth alternative which is

essentially a list of measures we ask the National Park Service to consider when

implementing any actions.

Tuolumne County’s key concerns:

1) Because the reduction in camping sites and lodging rooms may be targeting

lower cost accommodations, which would impact lower income visitors; and

because proposed restrictions on vehicle access falls primarily upon day-visitors, which may be comprised largely of working class Americans who cannot

afford the luxury of staying overnight in Yosemite Valley, the issue of economic discrimination should be addressed.

2) In-park revenue losses due to permanent campground space reductions is said

to be off-set by revenues generated from construction activity. However, construction revenue will last from 5 to 10 years, campground reductions are permanent so why is this considered off-setting?. Furthermore, those working in
80

construction are generally not the same as those engaged in catering to tourists.

3) A socio-economic analysis needs to be provided on impacts to the ‘‘affected region’’ because of a decline in day-visitors (including both ‘‘local overnighters’’ and ‘‘day excursion visitors’’) to Yosemite Valley due to reductions in private

vehicle capacity and/or increases in the expense of visiting the valley.

4) An environmental and economic analysis needs to be provided on impacts

that.might occur to the surrounding National Forest lands due to increased

numbers of excluded Yosemite day and overnight visitors.

5) A technical analysis of in-valley environmental impacts needs to be provided,

including establishing direct links between natural resources restoration and

day-use vehicle capacity reductions, cultural resources impacts, and facility remodeling, relocation, and new construction. Percentages of reclamation by

habitat type and area should be correlated with losses in cultural resources

and changes in visitor experiences. These connections need to be clarified and

quantified.

6) Because YARTS is integral to the VIP an economic and environmental analysis needs to be conducted on impacts associated with the implementation of

a regional transportation system.

7) A technical analysis of an integrated regional transportation system should

be included in the VIP, including the consideration of offering the public an

optional rather than mandatory system.

8) An analysis should be provided of how special groups such as senior citizens,

young families with small children, people with disabilities, and those with

special recreational equipment will be accommodated by a public transportation system or unduly hindered by private vehicle reductions.

9) An analysis of trail capacity, occupancy limits and visitor behavior patterns

(for both overnight and day visitors) should be in the VIP with the intent of

establishing clearly defendable population limits for the valley and the park.

10) A discussion and an alternative should be provided that addresses the congestion issue on a seasonal or peak demand basis. .

11) An analysis of a day use reservation system or periodic quota closure policy

should be provided.

12) The National Park Service needs to correct the misinformation that most of

Yosemite National Park is in Mariposa County (page 1 I5). Of Yosemite

Park’s 747,956 acres approximately 435,847 acres (58%) are in Tuolumne

County.

13) Since the State of California once held title to Yosemite Valley and the

Mariposa Grove of Redwoods, a legal opinion should be provided on the applicability of the conditions attached to the transfer of title to these lands from

the State of California to the Federal Government in 1906.

The Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors, in governing their jurisdiction, is

charged to protect and enhance the economic and environmental climate of the

County of Tuolumne. Two principal concerns have arisen out of our review of the

VIP. These concerns are centered on: (a) private vehicle accessibility to Yosemite

National Park; and (b) the impacts associated with the building of a regional public

transportation system. A significant component of Tuolumne County’s economy is

dependent on tourism. Much of the County’s tourism industry consists of small businesses built upon the seasonal arrival of customers in private vehicles bound for

Yosemite National Park. The National Park Service’s proposed actions could significantly reduce the total numbers of these customers. The building of a regional

transportation system will shift visitor travel patterns leaving ‘‘winners and losers’’

in the restructured pattern of visitor spending. While the VIP does provide some information on the affected region’s economic output, the analysis of potential impacts

is incomplete. Furthermore, the figures presented in Table 25 of the VIP (page 119)

for Tuolumne County, in the aggregate, may be understated by as much as $5O million. Our following comments focus on the connected issues of private vehicle accessibility and regional public transportation.

The VIP is a draft land management plan which presents four alternatives for redesigning the infrastructure of Yosemite Valley. Costs associated with the four alternatives are primarily a result of remodeling, refining and/or reconstructing National Park Service and concessionaire facilities. Many of these proposed construction projects have little direct impact on the County of Tuolumne. However, central

to all the alternatives are proposed changes in the traditional vehicular accessibility

of Yosemite Valley. Specifically, the VIP proposes to reduce the current inventory

of day use private vehicle parking spaces and restrict private vehicle movement

within Yosemite Valley. These two proposals equate to a radical change in the traditional auto touring experience now being afforded both day and overnight visitors.
81

These proposed changes are large in scope, permanent in design and portend a

major impact on the tourism economy of Tuolumne County. These actions are also

linked to regional transportation strategies, which will also impact the County of

Tuolumne.

Auto touring is arguably the number one recreational activity in America. The

vast majority of the people visiting Yosemite National Park do so in private automobiles. Some 80% of these tourists are day-visitors, most of whom spend on average only about 4.2 hours in Yosemite Valley. Many day-visitors stay over night in

lodging and campground facilities in the ‘‘affected region’’ of Madera, Mariposa,

Merced, Mono and Tuolumne Counties. Still others are residents of the affected region, or central California in general, who pay repeat visits to Yosemite Valley during the course of the year. Day-visitors are accustomed to driving their own vehicles

on their own time schedules to Yosemite Valley. Auto tourists also expect to be able

to drive to the east end of the valley where the Park Service and concessionaire facilities are located, and where a number of Yosemite Valley’s most popular natural

features are to be observed and accessed. Day and overnight visitors also enjoy driving the ‘‘loop road’’ system stopping at various locations during their auto tour. The

National Park Service plans to change these visitor experiences. These visitor activities are central to the current marketing strategies of the tourism industry of the

affected region. The ability to spontaneously visit and tour Yosemite Valley by private vehicle is also frequently cited by the real estate industry in its promotion of

property sales within the affected region.

The Park Service has reported that its decision to reduce private vehicle capacity

and eliminate auto touring is based on the 1980 General Management Plan (GMP).

The GMP states: ‘‘Increasing automobile traffic is the single greatest threat to enjoyment of the natural and scenic qualities of Yosemite. In the near future, automobile

congestion will be greatly reduced by restricting people’s use of their cars and increasing public transportation. And the day will come when visitors wilt no longer

drive their private automobiles into the most beautiful and fragile areas of the park.

The ultimate goal of the National Park .Service is to remove all private vehicles

from Yosemite Valley. [emphasis added] The Valley must be freed from the noise,

the smell, the glare and the environmental degradation caused by thousands of vehicles.’’ The GMT was developed in the 1970s as a 10 year plan. It is a dated document based on an out-dated environmental analysis. The VIP acknowledges that

noise and air quality issues associated with private vehicles is decreasing as automotive technology continues to advance. Furthermore, noise and emissions caused

by public transportation probably is more adverse to the environment than those associated with private vehicles, as the emissions tables in the VIP suggest. Perhaps

the only major issue remaining from 1980 is that of traffic congestion in the valley

floor.

The VIP uses the word ‘‘congestion’’ throughout the document but it does not define, qualify or quantify its use. The VIP does indicate that traffic congestion, as

in private vehicles, is the issue. In addressing this, all four alternatives in the VIP

recommend reducing the day use parking space inventory. The alternatives also recommend curtailing or limiting auto touring on Northside and Southside Drives. It

is also recommended that day-use parking be consolidated into a limited number of

staging areas. The VIP does not analyze all aspects of traffic and congestion, and

specifically doesn’t indicate where or when traffic congestion is a problem. Consequently, it is difficult to determine the merits of the various alternatives. However, it seems dubious to suggest that congestion will be cured by significantly decreasing private vehicle capacity in the valley unless a day use reservation system

or quota closure policy is also to be enacted. The VIP does not address either of

these policies which is a serious omission. The VIP also does not provide a complete

picture concerning congestion as it relates to overnight visitors, resident employees,

commuting employees, service and delivery personnel, and tour bus passengers. All

of these groups are traffic generators. The VIP should define objectives regarding

traffic congestion, and establish benchmarks. Furthermore, the National Park Service should spread the vehicle reduction burden across all categories of traffic generators, with employees being the first target group and day-visitors being the last. The

VIP also provides an incomplete analysis of how a public transportation system

would be utilized to reduce traffic congestion. And, the VIP does not address any

limit to total bus numbers, which could rise substantially over current levels and

introduce exponentially more people into Yosemite Valley as compared to private vehicles.

If the ultimate goal of the National Park Service is for public transportation to

replace private vehicle access to Yosemite Valley, then why is the National Park

Service promoting Alternative 2 as their ‘‘preferred alternative’’? Under this scenario there would be one in-valley staging area for day-visitors at Taft Toe. Once
82

day-visitors arrive at this location further travel in the valley would be by foot, bicycle, or public transportation. However, there is no basis of support for an in-valley

staging area (i.e. parking lot) in the GNP. The GNP’s stated goal was to remove all

vehicles from the entire valley. The Taft Toe concept, as well as the idea of limiting

traffic movement and consolidating day use parking, apparently stems from the

findings of a 1994 transportation study conducted in Yosemite Park. A summary of

the study is found in Appendix D of the VIP. This study concluded that an ‘‘in-valley

staging area strategy’’ would be the most effective way of addressing the increasing

number of automobiles that are crowding into Yosemite Valley. The reasons for selecting an in-valley staging area strategy are also set forth in the summary.

Those reasons came about as a result of considering two plans for a remote staging area strategy. Under one plan, staging areas (i.e. parking lots) would be located

at Crane Flat, El Portal, and Badger Pass. The other plan considered constructing

staging areas near the Big Oak Flat Entrance Station, El Portal, and the South Entrance Station. The reasons against building either network of parking lots were the

same. Two major factors were that from 40 to 62 more buses would be needed for

a remote vehicle staging system than for an in-valley staging system and, secondly,

the remote system would cost from $10.8 to $16.5 million more annually than an

in-valley system. Another significant finding was that only 21 % of the visitors enter

and exit Yosemite National Park via the same gate. The pattern of travel for the

other 79% would be greatly challenged by a remote staging system. Other findings

included: ‘‘Remote staging areas would limit visitors’ ability to stop at features along

the park roads for sightseeing and other activities. Potentially higher levels of particulate and nitrogen oxide emissions would be generated by buses. Increased noise

levels would be associated with high volumes of bus travel. Complex visitor communications and management systems would be necessary at many sites to sort nonvalley, valley day use, and valley overnight traffic. Similar functions would need to

be accommodated at the entrance to the valley as well as the remote staging areas.’’ In short, the National Park Service abandoned the idea of establishing a remote private vehicle staging network because of high costs, adverse environmental impacts,

and negative impacts to the visitor experience. Thus, the National Park Service’s preferred alternative in the VIP promotes an in-valley staging area strategy centered on the construction of the Tart Toe facility.

The factors that led to the rejection of an in-park remote staging area strategy

will also serve as serious impediments to constructing a regional transportation system. The building of a regional transportation service is the focus and purpose of

the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation Strategy (YARTS). The VIP briefly addresses the interrelationship between Yosemite Park and YARTS. Specifically, the

VIP states that the National Park Service will ‘‘seek’’ to ‘‘complement and encourage’’ the development of a regional transportation system. The VIP also states that

the National Park Service ‘‘will implement a transit shuttle service in Yosemite National Park and Yosemite Valley...’’ It is apparently proposed that this would be coordinated with the YARTS system and private tour buses. Two points need to be

considered about YARTS. First, the five counties, and several agencies that comprise YARTS are only held together by a memorandum of understanding. This is

a fairly weak arrangement for a public transportation program that promises to cost

millions of dollars if it is ever constructed. Second, there is no YARTS transportation system in place today. Studies on the nature and extent of a regionally operated YARTS shuttle bus system have only begun. The current proposal is to set up

staging areas along the Highway 41, 140, and 120 corridors in the vicinities of

Oakhurst, Mariposa and Groveland. This concept has essentially taken the in-park

remote staging area strategy studied in 1994 and moved it to the ‘‘gateway communities.’’ Because of the greater distance from Yosemite Valley, the negative factors

associated with the in-park remote staging strategy will be exponentially more severe. No doubt this is why the VIP contains the following statement: ‘‘In the event

that the YARTS process leads to a determination that a regional transportation system is not feasible, the National Park Service will proceed with projects consistent

with the Draft Valley Implementation Plan that will reduce traffic congestion yet

ensure visitor accessibility.’’

Evidence is mounting that the YARTS system will not be feasible. If the system

of travel to Yosemite Valley to replace private vehicle access is a full service, yearround gateway-community-based shuttle bus system, the costs will be enormous.

The price to build such a system is currently estimated by the YARTS consultant

to be upwards of $200 million. Annual operating costs could run as high as $17.5

million. At this time no funding source has been secured to build, much less operate,

the YARTS bus service. If funding is based on bus fares, the cost for going to

Yosemite National Park in the future will be far greater than it is today via private

automobile. On the other hand, if entry fees are raised for private vehicles to sub-
83

sidize the bus system, a drop in private vehicle entries will result, thus negating

any potential revenue increases. In either case, these actions would damage the

tourism industry of Tuolumne County, which raises questions about economic discrimination. If a regional revenue system is adopted, the surrounding counties will

be severely impacted. If YARTS applies for existing state and federal grant programs it will be competing with the affected region’s other transportation needs.

Costs will not be the only deterrent to establishing and operating a regional transportation system.

Another area of concern is the issue of visitor experience. Private vehicles offer

a degree of flexibility and convenience which is very difficult, if not impossible, for

buses to mimic. Returning to Yosemite National Park’s 1994 transportation study,

the report listed several reasons why an in-park shuttle system could not readily

accept overnight visitors. One reason was the expense attendant to maintaining a

bus fleet capable of carrying luggage and camping gear. The study also stated that

overnight visitors would resist being separated from their additional luggage and

equipment left behind in their cars. Another concern was providing security and

protection for remotely parked vehicles. These concerns no doubt played a role in

formulating the VIP. All four alternatives allow overnight guests to drive to their

lodging or camping areas at the east end of the valley. These and other factors will

weigh against overnight visitors riding into Yosemite Valley aboard a regional bus

system. But the transporting of belongings is not exclusive to overnight visitors.

From anglers to photographers, from picnickers to rafters, most day-visitors have

a myriad of things in tow when heading for a day in Yosemite Valley. In addressing

impacts on recreational activities the VIP states: ‘‘Private cars would be unavailable

for transporting and storing picnic food and equipment. This could make picnicking

more difficult for some visitors and would change the experience for others.’’ Later

the VIP states: ‘‘Photographers would have to carry equipment and supplies with

them on the transit system and while walking to sites. Reduced mobility would seduce and restrict the ability of photographers to respond quickly to changing conditions.’’ The VIP adds: ‘‘Transport of hang gliders, skis, and other equipment would

be a challenge.’’ Other equipment could include bicycles, rock climbing gear and

kayaks, to name just a few items. The VIP also states: ‘‘Day excursion visitors are

expected to be most discouraged from visiting Yosemite due to constraints on private vehicle access.’’ This statement is buttressed by these additional comments: ‘‘Auto and bus touring are common ways of exploring and enjoying Yosemite Valley...’’ ‘‘While some people access picnic areas with backpacks, most rely on automobiles to transport families, food, and paraphernalia. Frequently, picnic sites become a base for exploring the park.’’ The VIP’s response is: ‘‘Shuttles would be

equipped to handle recreational equipment.’’ It should be clarified that the YARTS

buses will also be challenged to accommodate the stuff day-visitors bring. But this

isn’t the worst of it, the VIP does not allow for YARTS buses to have access to the

east end of the valley under Alternatives 2 and 3. This means YARTS passengers

would be faced with the major inconvenience of transferring to the in-valley shuttles. Finally, neither the National Park Service nor YARTS has convincing evidence

that the proposed public transportation systems will be as user friendly as private

vehicles for such special groups as young families with small children, senior citizens, or visitors with disabilities. All of these factors may very well lead to a decline

in annual visitation to Yosemite Park if the proposals in the VIP are implemented.

This equates to a major impact upon the tourism economy of the affected region,

including Tuolumne County.

The National Park Service apparently recognizes that public transportation will

create hardships for many day visitors. The VIP states: ‘‘Visitors might respond to

changes in park facilities and operations by altering their demand for park access,

their spending behavior, their use patterns, and their length of stay. Changes in visitor spending patterns represent an important potential impact on the region’s economy. Yosemite visitor spending patterns could be affected by factors such as increased spending opportunities, changes in the visitor experience, and shifts in the

visitor population if current visitors are displaced by others with different spending

habits.’’ In spite of the uncertainty of these statements, they do hint at a change

in the demographics of the tourist population brought about by restrictions in private vehicle access and the implementation of a public transportation system. However, the VIP gives no insight into what the anticipated final outcome will be, something that an environment impact statement should address.

Although many of the proposed actions in the VIP deal with non-transportation

issues, a principal focus continues to be on private vehicles in Yosemite Valley. This

is based on the anti-private vehicle philosophy found in the GNP. The GMP cited

the issues of noise, emissions, visual impacts, environmental degradation, and congestion. Technological improvements for private vehicles continues to reduce noise
84

and emissions far faster than for public transportation vehicles (as indicated in the

VIP). Visual impacts can be addressed by proper screening of parking areas with

natural vegetation (the strategy proposed for hiding the Taft Toe facility). Environmental degradation includes the specific issues of cars being parked in ‘‘out-ofbounds’’ areas because parking lots are full and to the problem of cars being driven

onto road shoulders. These can be addressed by public education and enforcement

(something the VIP agrees must be done to mitigate impacts associated with all the

proposed parking strategies and in addressing the ongoing problems of crowded

trails and viewing areas where people tend to go off trail). Finally, we get to the

issue of congestion. Traffic congestion in Yosemite. Valley maybe attributable to

many factors other than simply raw numbers. Improper placement of crosswalks

and bus stops, buses blocking roads, or pedestrians and bicyclists darting in and out

of traffic can constrict vehicle movement even with relatively few cars on the road.

There is also the issue of carrying capacity of valley roads and parking areas. If the

National Park Service has a precise vehicle limit for Yosemite Valley, then a quota

closure policy for day use visitors to the valley should be straight forward and more

cost-effective than constructing a’ new parking facility. However, this information is

not included in the VIP.

The VIP appears to indicate that the day use parking limit in Yosemite Valley

is 2,300 spaces. However, both the VIP and GMP state that the day-visitor capacity

of the valley is 10,530 people. This figure is said to be based upon the day use parking space inventory. If we take into account the average occupancy of day use vehicles, which the VIP reports as 2.9 per car, and divide this by the population limit

of 10,530 this would lead to the conclusion that 3,631 spaces exist in the valley

today. Three of the alternatives in the VIP state that day use private vehicle capacity will not exceed 1,800 spaces once the valley floor is redesigned. Until a complete

disclosure is made on the current parking space inventory and road capacities of

Yosemite Valley, the true impact of capacity reductions for day visitors cannot be

ascertained.

Data is also lacking, as the VIP states: ‘‘...on the specific conditions and social

qualities that visitors seek...’’ Without an in-depth understanding of visitor behavior,

the National Park Service cannot clearly identify how the redesign of Yosemite Valley will affect the visitor experience. Despite this, the VIP states: ‘‘No reductions in

the number of visitors are expected because any negative responses to changes in

park facilities and operations are expected to be offset by people who didn’t visit the

park because of congestion and overcrowding in recent years.’’ This statement is

challenged by the fact that the National Park Service is offering no alternative form

of transportation to Yosemite Valley. Therefore, when the private vehicle capacity

of the valley is reduced, the National Park Service will have no choice but to turn

greater numbers of Yosemite Park visitors away than in previous years. On the

other hand, if the intent of the National Park Service is to replace private vehicles

with buses then the total visitation numbers won’t change and overcrowding of

trails, viewing locations, and facilities will continue unabated and many will see little improvement in the visitor experience. In either event, the prospect grows that

more auto-tourists will be turned back at the entrance stations to Yosemite Park.

Excluded Yosemite-bound tourists represent a potential economic and environmental impact to surrounding National Forest lands. It should be pointed out that,

unlike with the Park Service, the Forest Service routinely calls upon county resources to assist in certain visitor needs. Thus, excluded Yosemite-bound tourists

also represent an impact on the surrounding counties, as well.

To this point our comments have been confined to the issue of private vehicle access and public transportation. Our position is that the proposed changes to private

vehicle access will adversely impact the majority of Yosemite Park’s visitors. These

impacts will probably lead to a decline in annual visitation to Yosemite National

Park and a corresponding decline in Yosemite Park dependent economies. Public

transportation in the valley will further decrease the quality of the visitor experience for many Americans because buses are perceived to be noisy, smelly, inconvenient and ugly. Additionally, a regional transportation system will have formidable

obstacles to overcome to be successful. And, it will be costly to operate and it will

not provide the flexibility, convenience and relatively low cost that private vehicle

access does today. A regional transportation system will also probably result in a

decline in Yosemite Park dependent economies. A regional transportation system

also will cause environmental impacts in gateway communities, e.g. noise, congestion and land use conflicts over staging area locations. Because of these anticipated

effects, the VIP as an environmental document is deficient in not providing a complete analysis of socio-economic and environmental impacts to the affected region of

Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Mono and Tuolumne Counties.
85

The other topic to address is the completeness and accuracy of the environment

assessments used to justify the redesigning of the developed areas at the east end

of Yosemite Valley. Once again, conflicting statements, vague reasoning and a serious lack of hard data make it difficult to ascertain the benefits and need for the

many changes being offered. Rather than go at length in dissecting the VIP on this

issue, a call for further study is.requested coupled with a clear analysis of how restoration and preservation of natural resources directly relates to impacts on cultural

resources. The VIP proposals must be clearly correlated to the 1992 Concession

Services Plan, the 1996 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan and the 1997 Draft

Yosemite Lodge Development Concept Plan/Environmental Assessment. These actions also need to be directly linked to visitor experience. Particular attention should

be paid to the suggestion that lower rent lodging and camp sites are targeted for

reduction while higher cost accommodations are not, thus impacting lower income

groups not the wealthy.

In closing, while flood recovery is what prompted Congress to allocate a large appropriation to Yosemite National Park, two concepts seem to be driving the VIP.

One is ‘‘visitor experience’’ and the other is ‘‘natural resources restoration.’’ In regard to the former, the National Park Service and various special interest groups

have gone to great lengths expressing their opinion that traffic congestion is the

number one problem facing Yosemite National Park. They assert that many people

are not going to Yosemite because of this problem. The problem has been characterized as chronic, pervasive, and growing. However, the VIP states that only in 1995

was the National Park Service forced to restrict vehicle access to Yosemite Valley

for seven weekends between May and July because of ‘‘high’’ traffic volumes. August

of 1997 saw the highest 30-day visitor count in Yosemite Park history. The count

exceeded previous 30 day totals by nearly 100,000 visitors and yet there were no

gate closures. This fact plus the reality that peak loading in Yosemite Valley is only

occurring during the summer months appears to be lost on many people. The VIP

offers no seasonal or peak-demand approach to addressing traffic congestion. Nor

does the VIP address restricting any of the other traffic generators in the valley

(specifically employees). No one disputes that traffic congestion is occurring in

Yosemite Valley but this problem has been overstated. If cars were degrading the

visitor experience then people would not come back; just the opposite is happening.

Yosemite National Park continues to post a gain in annual visitation. Most of this

increase is attributable to day-visitors in private vehicles, many of whom pay repeat

trips during the course of the year. Unfortunately, while the VIP does address the

issue of traffic congestion, it does not confront the problem of overcrowding. Ultimately, whether visitors come via private vehicles or on public transportation population limits will have to be defined and maintained for the valley and the park as

a whole.

The other idea driving the VIP is natural resources restoration. Part of the National Park Service’s mission is the ‘‘...preservation of the resources that contribute

to Yosemite’s uniqueness and attractiveness— its exquisite scenic beauty; outstanding wilderness values; a nearly full diversity of Sierra Nevada environments...’’

If the actions proposed in the VIP were truly centered on natural resources restoration it would be difficult to take issue with this document. However, there is no

base-line data to clearly show what the natural conditions should have been in

Yosemite Valley if structural intrusions had not been installed. Furthermore, the

VIP is vague on whether the natural conditions sought are pre–Euro–American or

pre–Native American. If we ignore . the failure to substantiate presumptions on

habitat evolution and river hydrology we’re still faced with the meager amount of

actually proposed natural resources restoration. Even under the preferred alternative, only 115 acres of upland communities may be restored (out of over 3,100

acres of this habitat type in the valley). An additional 21 acres of aquatic, riparian,

and meadow communities are projected for restoration (out of some 506 acres of

these habitat types). The VIP gives no clarity on whether or not these are ‘‘net

gains’’ because other actions under the preferred alternative, such as the Taft Toe

facility and the Tenaya Creek Walk-in Campground will impact previously undeveloped areas. Furthermore, if aquatic, riparian and meadow community restoration is

a top priority then the VIP is remiss in not discussing the feasibility and benefits

associated with other methods of restoration such as reconstructing the terminal

moraine at the west end of the valley, removing trees that are encroaching upon

historic-era meadow lands coupled with establishing a frequent fire regime, and the

curtailment of ground water use for the development at the east end of the valley.

Most of the activity proposed in the VIP (and costs) will not go toward natural

resources restoration. The majority of the expenditures are aimed at new construction, ‘‘refining,’’ and rebuilding of National Park Service and concessionaire facilities. The retention of two grocery stores, a pizza parlor, and gift shops indicates that
86

the de-commercializing of Yosemite Valley is not a priority in the VIP’s objectives.

This is particularly frustrating since so many significant cultural resources will be

adversely impacted by the redevelopment: Besides natural resources and visitor experience, the National Park Service is charged to protect and preserve cultural resources. But cultural resources seemed to have taken a back seat in the formation

of the VIP alternatives. The National Park Service should provide a complete disclosure on the direct links between natural resources restoration and all other proposed actions. Benchmarks and percentages need to be provided so that a true assessment can be made of the trade-offs proposed between natural resources, cultural

resources, and visitor experience. Meanwhile, it would be a serious mistake to go

forward with a redesign of the infrastructure of Yosemite Valley if only a minority

of people will benefit, especially if it is at the expense of the majority.

In summary, the VIP raises far more questions than it provides answers in how

the various alternatives to redesigning the infrastructure of Yosemite Valley will effect natural resources, cultural resources, and the visitor experience. The VIP also

does not adequately address socio-economic and environmental impacts to the affected region of Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Mono and Tuolumne Counties caused

by implementation of any of the proposed alternatives. The National Park Service

appears to be piece-mealing the NEPA process by not providing a comprehensive,

integrated plan that correlates all previous individual planning documents in a master plan of Yosemite National Park. (A master plan of Yosemite National Park

should also be placed in context with the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project). Additionally, the support for the VIP’s NEPA review is based on an outdated General

Management Plan and its outdated supporting documentation.

Sincerely,

Larry A. Rotelli

Chairman

Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors

A FIFTH ALTERNATIVE:

A ‘‘Fifth Alternative’’ needs to address the needs of the majority of the public over

the wishes of the minority. The National Park Service’s final plan of action for

Yosemite Valley shall include these measures:

1) Flood recovery projects shall proceed where a) previously undeveloped areas will

not be impacted, b) no significant cultural resources will be adversely impacted,

and c) popular visitor activities will not be overly degraded.

2) National Park Service and concessionaire building projects shall proceed where

a) previously undeveloped areas will not be impacted, b) no significant cultural

resources will be adversely impacted; and c) popular visitor activities will not

be overly degraded.

3) Flood recovery and building projects shall be divided into appropriate phases.

A regular re-assessment of environmental impacts shall be made. Such periodic

reassessments should occur upon completion of specific projects or every year,

which ever is most frequent.

4) A comprehensive traffic and transportation analysis, as well as a technical analysis of trail capacity, occupancy limits and visitor behavior patterns (for both

overnight and day visitors), shall be completed prior to any changes in the existing road system and prior to any reductions in the day use private vehicle parking space inventory.

5) No development shall be allowed in areas currently undeveloped.

6) No significant historic buildings, structures, cultural landscapes or archaeological sites shall be impacted until further studies are conducted, and with

consultation of the California State Office of Historic Preservation. Of specific

concern is the proposal to remove three historic bridges, two historic orchards,

residence one, and the degradation of the historic districts.

7) An analysis of the specifics of a day visitor reservation system and/or quota closure policy shall be conducted prior to any road and parking lot infrastructure

changes being implemented.

8) All previous planning documents, including the 1980 General Management Plan

shall be revised and updated, and then integrated into a comprehensive 10-year

master plan of Yosemite Valley.

9) The National Park Service shall establish an ongoing, public collaborative process which builds upon the ‘‘Presidio’’ meetings.
87

10) All visitors arriving in private vehicles shall be allowed access to the east end

of Yosemite Valley for both day and overnight visitor use. Traffic congestion is

a periodic and seasonal problem, and shall be alleviated with peak-loading and

seasonal remedies.

11) The National Park Service shall strive to find a fair and equitable balance between the protection of natural resources, cultural resources and visitor experience.

12) The National Park Service shall undertake further study to locate the majority

of Yosemite Parks archives, artifacts and collections in a centralized facility outside of Yosemite Valley.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Oliver. I get to

question you all by myself.

Mr. Gilbert, I, too, have expressed frustration with this planning

process and, again, what has been signed into law, or into the

Record of Decision, is not something that I support. There are some

problems to a complete termination of the Plan and scrapping it

and starting all over again, which would result perhaps in nothing

being done, as you might have heard the Park Service say, and

years and years before anything is finished.

Tell me, are you still in that position of starting over again, or

at least opening public hearings to look into a portion of the Plan?

Mr. GILBERT. Congressman, I think the first thing is you have

to make the decision of is it a legal plan. When you look at some

of the documents and how it has been formalized, I believe it would

be shown in a court of law that it would be illegal. But that’s a decision that somebody else is going to get to make.

If the decision is made that it is a legal plan and has to be implemented, then I believe you need to reopen those public hearings if

you’re proposing some kind of implementation here.

Mr. RADANOVICH. And you may have learned during the course

of this hearing that all of the flood money that’s available, $106

million plus another 40 from gate receipts, is available to spend on

projects. You probably were exposed to some of the projects.

Although I don’t want to hold you exclusively to that, it seems

like there is somewhat of a consensus on those projects going forward, that are implemented already, to the exclusion of perhaps

the campgrounds. Would you support spending that money on what

you might know to be available projects right now?

Mr. GILBERT. I believe there is $30 million that was identified in

that 1997 report back to this Committee. The actual numbers was

probably over $100 million. But of that balance, there is at least

$30 million in there identified for transportation, and I believe that

should be returned and completely be looked at, to what is the

transportation study, what is the system that the Yosemite National Park is going to apply, and how does all that come together.

But I would definitely hold that $30 million back on transportation.

Mr. RADANOVICH. In discussions with the Park Service, is there

a collaborative effort on the part of Madera County with the Park

Service to address issues perhaps within Madera County but outside the Park, with regard to housing and some of these other

issues, visitor stations in Oakhurst, those types of things?

Mr. GILBERT. In our comments back to the Park Service, one of

our comments was, you know, they have to address their outside

housing. We are in the process in eastern Madera County of
88

redoing a general plan update, which is really an area plan for

Oakhurst.

At this point in time the Park has shown no interest or come forward on any of those items, but if they were interested in a joint

visitors center or additional housing, now would be the time to put

that into our area plan. If they were looking at high density housing in some of our downtown area for a certain kind of housing, we

would be more than happy to have a partnership because we would

definitely need that assistance.

We do need more Federal assistance there because we are addressing many of those concerns on lodging and the restaurants

and things. We have a wastewater treatment plant that we’re

going to have to update, and I believe that would be an excellent

partnership for the Federal Government to assist in.

Mr. RADANOVICH. In that management plan, Mr. Gilbert, there

was a housing issue in Wawona that is of some controversy in

Wawona. There are some folks that don’t want that there.

Has the Park Service made any overtures to you or Madera

County to discuss the possibility of relocating that housing element

outside the Park and perhaps in Oakhurst or thereabouts?

Mr. GILBERT. There has been no contact on that. The community

of Wawona, I know there has been—outside of our country—there

has been community meetings with Wawona. I think their biggest

concern was with—There was a report done by the National Park

Service on the type of people who were going to be living in those

houses, and there were some concerns there.

Mr. RADANOVICH. All right. Thank you.

Mr. Balmain, thank you for testifying here today. Mariposa

County, as well as Madera, has a long relationship with Yosemite,

and there has been issues such as in your planning processes by— you know, with communities of El Portal, Wawona, and Foresta.

There are some current issues that need some collaborative work,

in addition to past issues. These are employee housing, administrative relocation and solid waste management.

Is there anything the Federal Government needs to do to get

those cooperative programs underway, and is there any kind of assistance that we in the Congress can provide, or from the Park

Service, that can help advance or obtain progress in each one of

these areas?

Mr. BALMAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, the first

thing that comes to mind is funding. We can certainly use funding

on our compost management plan, you know, that we’re working in

partnership with the Park and also the State of California.

The general plan update that involves the communities of El Portal and Wawona Foresta, I believe financial help would help there,

and also working in partnership with the Park Service to make

those things happen that are both good for the Park and the county

both.

The Park refers to rules a lot. They say we can’t do this with the

country because it’s against the rules, and the county is not privy

to those rules. We don’t understand the rules. If the Committee

and Congress could make those rules flexible enough so that the

Park could work with the gateway communities, it would certainly

help.
89

Mr. RADANOVICH. All right. Thank you.

Mr. Balmain, YARTS was created in 1991, and the bus service

has been operating at various levels since then—of course, more

diligently this last year or so.

What is the commitment of Mariposa County toward YARTS,

and how would you like to see YARTS operate over the next couple

of years?

Mr. BALMAIN. Well, Mariposa County is committed to YARTS. I

would have to tell you that my commitment has been —I’ve kind

of been like an anchor on the YARTS program. I was insistent it

be voluntary. I don’t think the American public is ready to be mandated to ride a bus, particularly in places like Yosemite.

I think a bus ride can be a real advantage in Yosemite if it fits

your needs. It can diminish your pleasure of that magnificent valley if you had small children, cameras, back pack equipment. There

is all kinds of different needs for transportation in that Valley. So,

from my point of view, it is most important that it’s a voluntary

system.

I think, in order for a voluntary system to be successful, it has

to be attractive to a certain degree. For example, right here, you

know, I ride a mass transit system right here because it’s must

more convenient than your own automobile. But until it becomes

a reality in Yosemite Valley, it ought to be a voluntary system.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Also, one last thing, Mr. Balmain. You had

mentioned that Mariposa County has begun a land use planning

process. Yosemite certainly has impacts on your planning efforts.

What impacts do you see that you would like to have and what

kind of impacts in that planning process would you like to avoid?

Mr. BALMAIN. Well, obviously, it would be a great advantage to

our socioeconomic condition in Mariposa County if, in fact, the Valley Plan is implemented and they do move employees and administrative headquarters and visitor centers outside the Park. Mariposa

County certainly would address that in their general plan and plan

for that. I think we’re obviously the area that could plan for it and

we have the facilities, the utilities and infrastructure. We also have

private industry that’s willing to work with the Park on that.

The thing I would not want to see is that we aren’t at the table

and aware of those impacts that are going to come to the county,

so that we can prepare for them. We really don’t want mandates.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Right. Thank you.

Mr. Oliver, I appreciated your comments. I agree with you. I

think that busing should be an alternative choice for people who

want to go to Yosemite. It shouldn’t be the sole choice and it

shouldn’t be used to limit people in the Park. So I want to thank

you very much, all three of you, for coming here today. I would like

to excuse you and move on to the next panel.

Thank you very much.

The next panel is Mr. Ed Hardy, who is the owner and operator

of Bass Lake Lodge, Bass Lake, California; Mr. Dennis Szefel, who

is President of Delaware North Parks Services, the concessionaire

to Yosemite from Buffalo, New York: Mr. Jay Thomas Watson, who

is the Regional Director of the California-Nevada Wilderness Society in San Francisco; and Mr. George Whitmore, who is Chairman

of the Sierra Club’s Yosemite Committee, from Fresno, California.
90

Welcome, gentlemen, and thank you so much for coming. I appreciate your patience as this has gone on a little bit longer than what

we thought.

Mr. Hardy, if you would like to start, we will start from right to

left. Please give us your statements, or summaries of them, and

then we will open it up for questions. I’m glad to see I’m joined by

my friend from Indiana, who can help me out with some of these.

Welcome.

STATEMENT OF ED HARDY, OWNER AND OPERATOR,

BASS LAKE LODGE, BASS LAKE, CALIFORNIA

Mr. HARDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished Member and staff. It is a pleasure to be here, especially to talk about

beautiful Yosemite Valley.

My family has been involved with the Valley since my mother

first went there in 1908, and I have been there every year except

for World War II, and had the privilege of living and working in

it as the president of the Yosemite Park & Curry Company for 20

years.

Having been through the master planning process and dealt with

the various parts of balance of preservation and use, I’m not going

to read my testimony, which you already have. I thought I would

cut right to the chase and talk about some fine-tuning.

I think, overall, the master plan and document was done in good

faith by the Park Service. I think it needs some fine-tuning. I was

present in the spring of 1974 when Undersecretary Nathaniel Reed

walked into Camp 6, tore up a master plan and threw it in the

wind as a media event, and the present process commenced. During that time, our operations moved many things to Fresno, such

as warehousing and freight lining and repairs, laundries and so

forth.

I live on the perimeter of the Park now at Bass Lake, but as I

go into the Park, I am disappointed in the lack of friendliness, the

lack of the ability for the Park to welcome us as Park owners, as

taxpayers. I draw that conclusion from several things. First of all,

someone traveling today or going to the Park and wants to get information as early as possible—weather, roads, activities—they can

bring their right wearing apparel, they’re aware of what’s going to

happen, they know what roads are open, what areas they can get

to, and whether camping, hiking or horseback riding and so forth

are going to be available. So information is a major thing for me.

Also, staff friendliness. I find an aloofness amongst the people I

interact with in the Park. I think along the way it has been forgotten that the visitors are the reason the employees are there, and

that they really need to address friendliness.

Camping really needs to be restored. You know, I heard John

Reynolds briefly mention 4,000 feet, but if you know Yosemite, the

only two flat areas that are friendly to people and can be retained

as friendly are Wawona and Yosemite Valley at 4,000 feet. From

there it goes up.

As you spread out into this seasonal parts of when it can be

used, to take campsites away from Wawona, which is part of the

Plan, which is a very popular place for RV family camping and so

forth, and upper and lower river campgrounds, you really move
91

away from the majority of the year of when people want to camp,

plus people on vacation like to have available to them a water activity, with the Merced River, of course, going right alongside upper

and lower river. I believe when you take the campgrounds away,

all you’re doing is encouraging another set of people, whether it’s

day users or people from the lodgings, to enter the rivers along

that same area and still be using it.

As far as the flood, having been in Yosemite for many years, in

and around it, the Yosemite Valley has the Merced River running

through it, which is a flood channel. For many, many years it was

managed that when logs fell in that flood channel, they were taken

out. It was cleared. It was kept open as a water course.

In recent years, just before the flood, that channel was not maintained. Logs were allowed to accumulate in it, which floated,

turned sideways, came to the bridges and formed dams. That’s not

a reason to take the bridges out. It’s a reason to take the logs out

and keep the channel open. The water that goes over the upper and

lower river campground, when it does, which is very occasional, is

inches of water. Once the water subsides, there is an opportunity

with a rake and a crew of a few people to restore the campgrounds

back to their usable condition. There is amphitheaters there, there

is infrastructure, and to move away from those into areas that are

not friendly to the public, and out of that climate, really is a disservice to the owners again.

Air quality. I heard that discussed quite a bit today. For years,

we owned the shuttle bus fleet and we drove it, we managed it, we

operated it, we repaired it, and it ran on propane. Propane was relatively quiet and much less polluting than diesel.

We also managed Yosemite Valley for years with fireless camping. Most of Yosemite National Park is fireless camping today, as

soon as you get into any kind of elevation off the Valley floor. But

Yosemite Valley without fire in the campgrounds means that, when

you wake up in the morning, you look right at Half Dome, the falls,

and it’s a photographic opportunity all day, instead of the campfire

smoke hanging in the Valley.

The transportation issues I think have resolution that do not

have to be nearly as expensive and need to recognize that there’s

only a few days a year that there’s any real transportation concerns if you have a couple of thousand parking places besides the

lodging, but for day use parking in Yosemite Valley. Those days are

Memorial Day, the 4th of July, Labor Day weekend, and the second

Saturday in August, which most people forget about. It’s the most

heavily traveled time by private automobiles because, for some reason, tour buses don’t operate that week as much. California schools

and businesses are on break, and that’s when the majority, the biggest number in quantity of automobiles, want to enter Yosemite

Valley.

YARTS has been discussed, and transporting people in and out

of Yosemite Valley at 4,000 feet at Mariposa does make some

sense. I think an experiment—my light is on.

Mr. RADANOVICH. That’s not your buzzer.

Mr. HARDY. It says stop, so I— Mr. RADANOVICH. You’re at stop, but if you want to close up, Ed,

we will have time to come back and get comments.
92

Mr. HARDY. Anyway, I believe a joint agency center between the

Federal, the State, the county and private sectors should be built

45 miles west of Yosemite Valley, at the intersection of historical

Highway 49 and 140, the low entrance road into Yosemite Valley.

In that center there would be a museum, which I happen to work

with the California State Mine and Mineral Museum, but also offices and shops, food services, visitor services, parking and a bus

area for volunteer bus passengers, can be there.

I request that the Federal Government make available for that

project—it’s a $9 million project. We would like to see you fund $3

million of it. The State is working on $3 million, and the local people are raising $3 million.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hardy follows:]

Statement of Ed Hardy, Owner and Operator, Bass Lake Lodge,

Bass Lake, California

Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Members and Staff, it is a pleasure to appear before

you to speak about one of the most beautiful places on earth which I had the privilege of living in for 20 years.

In the spring of 1974 Undersecretary of the Interior Nathaniel Reed held a media

event in camp 6, which I attended. At that ceremony he tore up the Yosemite Master Plan that had been in development since 1965 and declared a new planning effort will begin. After 15 years of planning the 1980 General Management Plan was

signed. Throughout this period and until 1993, I was President and Chief Operating

Officer of the Yosemite Park & Curry Company, the principle concessionaire operating inside this great National Park.

Many planning ideas have been suggested and some modeled. A model was built

in the 1880’s with full size visual aids that remained in place for several years. The

project was to build an aerial tram from Happy Isles to Glacier Point. The 196

Yosemite plan included a bridge styled similar to the Golden Gate Bridge that

would span the Merced Gorge from the area known as the Rostrum south of the

Wawona Tunnel on Highway 41 to Highway 120 west of the third tunnel. Obviously

each of these proposals and many others had their champions and critics. Fortunately neither of these two projects was built.

The reason I mention a little of the past is to demonstrate that professional park

planners and managers have prevailed in the past to protect the balance of preservation and use. In recent years Yosemite Valley has become a less friendly place

for people, tax-paying owners are being made to feel unwanted. The 2000 Yosemite

Valley plan was done by professional park planners and is basically a good plan

which needs to be fine tuned to make Yosemite Valley a little more people friendly.

Congestion

Yosemite Valley is only busy about 10 days per year [Memorial Day weekend, 4th

of July, the second weekend in August and Labor day weekend]. Traffic directors

in six locations can expedite the flow of traffic. Management can make the valley

friendlier.

Since 1970 thousands of automobile parking places has been removed from

Yosemite Valley with out NEPA requirements being met. Hundreds of parking

places can be relocated in the Valley with minimum impacts. Small satellite day use

parking areas that are only needed on busy days, that park 30 to 80 cars, can be

located along the free shuttle bus route. These lots can be covered with pine needles

and should be inexpensive to create or maintain. They are not needed in bad weather periods so mud and snow management are not required. The Curry dumpsite is

presently used for long term parking with proper design this lot can easily be enlarged. Camp 6, the mall and the Village parking areas all need organization and

beautification. Visitors staying in campgrounds, lodging and employee housing

should park as near to their destination as possible. Commuters should ride a bus.

Expanding the valley shuttle bus system will help decongest the valley 10 days a

year. Planning for 10 days should be just that. Bus service along highway 140 is

appropriate with the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System [YARTS] type

service.
93

Upper and lower river campgrounds must be restored. These areas are necessary

for the mental health of the tax paying park owners. Families bond in this desirable

climate. Bike, hike and equestrian trails need to be expanded.

Matinee style fees will help to spread park use through the year. Charge higher

entrance and camp fees on the busiest days like your lodges do.

One-way roads in Yosemite Valley presently are operating with an entrance road

on the south side and an exit on the north side of the valley. This traffic flow system

allows for emergency exits; roads do close from avalanche, tree fall, accidents, fire

and swollen watercourses. Visitors stop in the roads to view animals and majestic

scenes, two lanes each way greatly enhances the visitor experience. More viewing

turnouts will improve the experience.

Today’s traveling public expects to make contact with their destination before arrival. Joint agency visitor centers that can provide general information about Parks,

Forests. State and County facilities, educate the visitor making their experience

‘‘more people friendly’’.

Facilities are needed outside the park to support vehicles that choose not to enter

the valley. The staging area that will serve the most visitors to the Yosemite region

and reduce commutes is a joint agency project in Mariposa County 45 miles west

on highway 140 the only all year entrance road to Yosemite Valley. This is the

intersection of Historic Highway 49 that travels through California’s Mother Lode

and scenic highway 140.

The National Park Service, California’s State Parks, Mariposa County and the

private sector are jointly developing a staging center that includes a visitor center,

State Park Mining & Mineral Museum, educational interpretive theater, food and

beverage service, offices, retail shops and vehicle parking for staging the YARTS

transportation system. This $9 million project needs $3 million from the federal government; the state and local contributors make up the difference. A similar joint

agency center must be developed on highway 41 in the Oakhurst area.

Thank you, it is a pleasure to be here. I am happy to take questions.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Hardy.

Mr. Szefel, welcome.

STATEMENT OF DENNIS SZEFEL, PRESIDENT, DELAWARE

NORTH PARKS SERVICES, INC., BUFFALO, NEW YORK

Mr. SZEFEL. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the

Subcommittee.

My name is Dennis Szefel. I am the President of Delaware North

Parks Services, which through our Yosemite Concession Services

Corporation unit operates lodging, food, beverage, retail, interpretive programs, recreational activities, and transportation services

for the National Park Service at Yosemite National Park.

We also provide services at Sequoia National Park, Grand Canyon National Park, the Kennedy Space Center Visitors Complex,

and several other notable parks across the country.

I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify today on the

issue of the Yosemite Valley Plan, particularly as it relates to our

role as park concessionaire and our ability to provide quality services to guests of the Park.

Our precedent-setting contract with the National Park Service

began in 1993, a contract based on the assumptions and provisions

present in the 1980 general management plan. In the time we have

been there, we have seen some of the most unusual and traumatic

events in the Park’s history. Challenges we could have predicted—

catastrophic floods, rock slides, government shutdowns that closed

the park, four different superintendents, attendance that has ebbed

and flowed from record levels to precipitous declines, and murders

outside the Park that generated intense negative publicity—all

have contributed to our understanding of the Park from a perspec-
94

tive shared by few. Without the slightest hesitation, we can say

that we have seen the Park at its best and at its worst.

Throughout the term of our contract, and despite these challenges, we have remained committed to our goal of enhancing the

experience and exceeding expectations of those who visit Yosemite.

And we have done this in full partnership with the National Park

Service, together seeking to add long-lasting value to the Park. At

the conclusion of our contract, not only will we have left behind

over $100 million in buildings and other infrastructure, we also

have established a new and higher standard for what is expected

from Park concessionaires.

Despite the challenges we have faced, or perhaps because of

them, as I look back on the past eight years, I can honestly say

that for Delaware North our work in the Park has been among the

most professionally satisfying assignments we have had the pleasure to undertake. As the largest employer and taxpayer in

Mariposa County, we take great pride in being both a good corporate citizen and contributing to the educational, social and cultural life of the county and the gateway communities.

What’s more, the keen sense of responsibility we feel as a steward of the park has had its own influence. Our award-winning environmental practices in Yosemite have been a source of pride for the

entire company and now serve as a model for all of our business

lines. The spirit of Yosemite has, in many ways, transformed our

company, affecting us in the same profound way as it has millions

of Park visitors.

As I have said, our history at Yosemite gives us a unique perspective through which to view the Valley Plan. We, more than

most, understand just how daunting a task was the development

of this document. The remarkable treasure that is Yosemite serves

many constituents, some of whom have conflicting interests, yet the

Plan had to be developed in such a manner as to address a wide

variety of needs without compromising the integrity of the Park.

Yosemite Concession Services Corporation served as just one of

many resources available to the National Park Service in the process of developing the Valley Plan, and we were proud to do so.

Our role in the Park is to provide goods and services to Park

guests, with the goal of enhancing their overall experience, all

while performing as a steward of the Park. In this testimony, I will

not attempt to look beyond that scope, but limit our comments to

those issues related to our role as concessionaire.

First, let me say that we are supportive of the Plan and recognize the value it provides in protecting Yosemite National Park. We

fully understand are in total agreement with the need to preserve

this resource for future generations and limit our impact on the

ecosystem that has made Yosemite such a wonder. That notwithstanding, we do have some concerns that merit further discussion

and review, concerns that we believe can be resolved without compromising the integrity of the Park.

Perhaps our biggest concern involves employee housing within

the Valley. Our ability to deliver guest services at a level consistent

with our mission in Yosemite is highly reliant on being able to assemble a quality workforce. Relocating a majority of our employees

to areas outside the Valley will remove the highly desirable incen-
95

tive of living in the Park and jeopardize our ability to recruit and

retain the type of individual we need to give our guests the level

of service consistent with the stature of the Park.

What’s more, we believe that relocating employees outside the

Valley will have another unintended negative consequence. Considering that most of our employees commute to work by walking, bicycling or riding on the existing Valley shuttle, the final Plan will

have the unwanted effect of placing a significant new demand on

transportation systems. Over 1,000 employees will need to be

transported to and from the Park on a daily basis during the peak

season, adding to congestion on roads that are already prone to closure and rock slides.

We also have concerns with the amount of lodging called for in

the final Plan. Representing a dramatic reduction from existing

conditions, such reduction does more than limit our potential as a

concessionaire. It limits the opportunity of many who wish to experience Yosemite. We believe that revisiting certain elements of the

Plan, such as the configuration of Yosemite Lodge and Housekeeping Camp, could present opportunities to provide more sustainable accommodations and further the guest experience, without

placing additional stress on the Park’s environmental balance.

Finally, we are concerned that the Plan as currently communicated is giving rise to a perception that Yosemite National Park

is not open and accessible to private vehicles. We suggest that a

comprehensive signage and communication program be implemented to help clear up this confusion.

While we are not yet able to quantify the consequences of the

Plan on our business, we can anticipate that there will be some significant financial impacts under the terms of our existing contract.

It is fair to assume that reduced lodging and camping facilities, increased operating costs, union issues with respect to new employee

work requirements for travel and housing, increased costs relating

to recruitment and retention, and circumstances yet unforeseen,

will continue to produce a negative financial effect on our operations.

Does that mean that we view our position as untenable? No, we

don’t. Absolutely not. We have an outstanding relationship with

the National Park Service and are confident that we can work together to ensure that our ability to make a fair profit on our operations is not compromised by the necessary actions that comprise

the Valley Plan.

Our confidence is born, in part, by our previous experiences.

After the devastating flood in 1997, for example, we were able to

work with the National Park Service to restructure certain elements of our contract to create an equitable solution for all parties.

What’s more, we have already seen that the National Park Service

is open to modifying elements of the Plan in response to sound

thinking.

An excellent example is the medical/dental clinic. Originally

scheduled for relocation, the clinic was restored to its place in the

Valley when several interested parties pointed out that removal of

the facility would compromise the safety of a wide range of guests

and residents, many whose association with outdoor activities carries a risk of injury.
96

We also believe that a key to this Plan will be in the nature of

its implementation. How the individual elements of the Plan will

be phased in is critical. In our view, it is absolutely essential, absolutely vital, that any new infrastructure is completed before that

which it is intended to replace is demolished. Equally vital is consistent and reliable funding for the implementation program. And

lastly, we cannot stress how important we feel an ongoing outreach

program will be toward combating public perception that the Park

is not open, or at least not accessible.

It is our contention that a plan that is not enacted is not a benign thing. Plans meant to define direction produce paralysis, or

worse, when set aside or delayed. In the spirit of partnership that

has always been a strong point of our relationship with the Park

Service, we again state our willingness and desire to contribute to

the ongoing implementation of this Plan.

Our mission in the Park has always been characterized by the

respect we hold for the singular beauty and grandeur of Yosemite.

From the very beginning, we have been aware of our responsibility

to protect this special place. We understand what a privilege it is

to be a part of the Yosemite National Park and are profoundly

grateful for the opportunity.

We thank the National Park Service for its efforts in restoring

and safeguarding the Park through the development of this Plan

and look forward to being a part of its successful implementation.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Szefel follows:]

Statement of Dennis Szefel, President, Delaware North Parks Services, Inc.

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is

Dennis Szefel. I am the president of Delaware North Parks Services, which, through

our Yosemite Concession Services Corporation unit, operates lodging, food, beverage,

retail, interpretive programs, recreational activities, and transportation services for

the National Park Service at Yosemite National Park. We also provide services at

Sequoia National Park, Grand Canyon National Park, Kennedy Space Center Visitors Complex and several other notable parks across the country.

I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify today on the issue of the

Yosemite Valley Plan, particularly as it relates to our role as park concessionaire

and our ability to provide quality service to guests of the park.

Our precedent-setting contract with the National Park Service began in 1993, a

contract based on the assumptions and provisions present in the 1980 General Management Plan. In the time we have been there, we have seen some of the most unusual and traumatic events in the park’s history. Challenges we could never have

predicted-catastrophic floods, rockslides, government shutdowns that closed the

park, four different superintendents, attendance the has ebbed and flowed from

record levels to precipitous declines, and murders outside the park that generated

intense negative publicity-all have contributed to our understanding of the park

from a perspective shared by few. Without the slightest hesitation, we can say that

we’ve seen the park at its best and its worst.

Throughout the term of our contract, and despite these challenges, we have remained committed to our goal of enhancing the experience and exceeding expectations of those who visit Yosemite. And we have done this in full partnership with

the National Park Service, together seeking to add long-lasting value to the park.

At the conclusion of our contract, not only will we have left behind over $100 million

in buildings and other infrastructure, we also will have established a new and higher standard for what is expected from park concessionaires.

Despite the challenges we have faced, or perhaps because of them, as I look back

on the past eight years, I can honestly say that for Delaware North Parks Services,

our work in the park has been among the most professionally satisfying assignments we have had the pleasure to undertake. As the largest employer and taxpayer

in Mariposa County, we take great pride in being both a good corporate citizen and
97

contributing to the educational, social and cultural life of the county and the gateway communities.

What’s more, the keen sense of responsibility we feel as a steward of the park

has had its own influence. Our award-winning environmental practices in Yosemite

have been a source of pride for the entire company and now serve as a model for

all of our business lines. The spirit of Yosemite has, in many ways, transformed our

company, affecting us in the same profound way that has been felt by millions of

park visitors.

As I have said, our history at Yosemite gives us a unique perspective through

which to view the Valley Plan. We, more than most, understand just how daunting

a task was the development of this document. The remarkable treasure that is

Yosemite serves many constituents, some of whom have conflicting interests, yet the

plan had to be developed in such a manner as to address a wide variety of needs

without compromising the integrity of the park. Yosemite Concession Services Corporation served as just one of many resources available to the National Park Service

in the process of developing the Valley Plan, and was proud to do so.

Our role in the park is to provide goods and services to park guests with the goal

of enhancing their overall experience, all while performing as a steward of the park.

In this testimony, I will not attempt to look beyond that scope, but limit our comments to those issues related to our role as concessionaire.

First, let me say that we are supportive of the plan and recognize the value it

provides in protecting Yosemite National Park. We fully understand and are in total

agreement with the need to preserve this resource for future generations and limit

our impact on the ecosystem that has made Yosemite such a wonder. That notwithstanding, we do have some concerns that merit further discussion and review, concerns that we believe can be resolved without compromising the integrity of the

park.

Perhaps our biggest concern involves employee housing within the valley. Our

ability to deliver guest services at a level consistent with our mission in Yosemite

is highly reliant on being able to assemble a quality workforce. Relocating a majority of our employees to areas outside the valley will remove the highly desirable incentive of living in the park and jeopardize our ability to recruit and retain the type

of individual we need to give our guests the level of service consistent with the stature of park.

What’s more, we believe that relocating employees outside the valley will have another unintended negative consequence. Considering that most of our employees

commute to work by walking, bicycling or riding on the existing Valley shuttle, the

final plan will have the unwanted effect of placing a significant new demand on

transportation systems. Over 1,000 employees will need to be transported to and

from the park on a daily basis during the peak season, adding to congestion on

roads that are already prone to closure and rockslides.

We also have concerns with the amount of lodging called for in the final plan.

Representing a dramatic reduction from existing conditions, such reduction does

more than limit our potential as a concessionaire, it limits the opportunity of many

who wish to experience Yosemite. We believe that revisiting certain elements of the

plan, such as the configuration of Yosemite Lodge and Housekeeping Camp, could

present opportunities to provide more sustainable accommodations and further enhance the guest experience, without placing additional stress on the park’s environmental balance.

Finally, we are concerned that the plan as currently communicated is giving rise

to a perception that Yosemite National Park is not open and accessible to private

vehicles. We suggest that a comprehensive signage and communication program be

implemented to help clear this confusion.

While we are not yet able to quantify the consequences of the plan on our business, we can anticipate that there will be some significant financial impacts under

the terms of our existing contract. It is fair to assume that reduced lodging and

camping facilities, increased operating costs, union issues with respect to new employee work requirements for travel and housing, increased costs relating to recruitment and retention, and circumstances yet unseen will combine to produce a negative financial effect on our operations.

Does that mean that we view our position as untenable? It does not. We have an

outstanding relationship with the National Park Service and are confident that we

can work together to ensure that our ability to make a fair profit on our operations

is not compromised by the necessary actions that comprise the Valley Plan.

Our confidence is born, in part, by our previous experiences. After the devastating

flood in 1997, for example, we were able to work with the National Park Service

to restructure certain elements of our contract to create an equitable solution for

all parties. What’s more, we have already seen that the National Park Service is
98

open to modifying elements of the plan in response to sound thinking. An excellent

example is the Medical/Dental Clinic. Originally scheduled for relocation, the clinic

was restored to its place in the valley when several interested parties pointed out

that removal of the facility would compromise the safety of a wide range of guests

and residents, many whose association with outdoor activities carries a risk of injury.

We also believe that a key to this plan will be in the nature of its implementation.

How the individual elements of the plan will be phased is critical. In our view, it

is absolutely vital that any new infrastructure is completed before that which it is

intended to replace is demolished. Equally vital is consistent and reliable funding

for the implementation program. And lastly, we cannot stress how important we feel

an ongoing outreach program will be toward combating public perception that the

park is not open or at least is not accessible.

It is our contention that a plan that is not enacted is not a benign thing. Plans

meant to define direction produce paralysis or worse when set aside or delayed. In

the spirit of partnership that has always been a strong point of our relationship

with the National Park Service, we again state our willingness and desire to contribute to the ongoing implementation of this plan.

Our mission in the park has always been characterized by the respect we hold

for the singular beauty and grandeur of Yosemite. From the very beginning, we

have been aware of our responsibility to protect this special place. We understand

what a privilege it is to be a part of Yosemite National Park and are profoundly

grateful for the opportunity.

We thank the National Park Service for its efforts in restoring and safeguarding

the park through the development of this plan and look forward to being a part of

its successful implementation.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Szefel.

Mr. Watson, welcome.

STATEMENT OF JAY THOMAS WATSON, CALIFORNIA-NEVADA

REGIONAL DIRECTOR, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY,

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

Mr. WATSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and staff. On behalf of

The Wilderness Society, thank you for the chance to testify on the

Yosemite Valley Plan.

My name is Jay Watson, and as California/Nevada Regional Director for The Wilderness Society, I have also been asked to represent at today’s hearing the National Parks Conservation Association,. the American Alpine Club, and the Central Sierra Environmental Resources Center, located in Twain Harte, just north of

Yosemite.

More than four years ago, the floodwaters of the Merced River

presented the National Park Service with a historic opportunity—

the chance to transform into reality what had long been an elusive,

yet majestic vision for Yosemite. The central question was whether

or not the Park Service was up to the task. The Valley Plan answers that question with a resounding yes. It is a grand plan that

strikes an elegant balance between protecting natural values in the

Park, and allowing people to use and enjoy Yosemite.

Yosemite Valley has limits. For years, a cacophony of development was stuffed into its 4,480 acres. As a result, sensitive habitats and ecosystems were damaged, while a summer visit became

an exercise in frustration and not a restorative visit to a crown

jewel of the Park System.

The Plan was produced through an exhaustive and open and

honest planning process, and it enjoys considerable public support.

I have appended to my testimony 34 editorials from around Cali-
99

fornia from 14 different newspapers that support the plan and/or

YARTS.

The legitimacy of the process is borne out by changes made in

the Plan as it progressed from draft to final, changes that unequivocally show that the Park Service not only welcomed public

comment, but that they listened to it. Nowhere is this more observable than in overnight accommodations, camping, and parking.

When the draft plan was released, there was an outcry about the

types of overnight stays possible in Yosemite Valley. Simply stated,

they cost too much. In response, under the final Plan, camping and

rustic units account for 50 percent of all overnight stays in the

Valley. If you include ‘‘economy’’ cabins, it jumps to 81 percent.

Therefore, assuming a two-night stay during the four months of

June through September, almost 71,000 families or groups of

friends can camp in a campground or stay in a tent or economy

cabin in the Valley at costs ranging from $15 to $80. The Park

Service listened.

As for camping, under the plan there will be 500 campsites in

Yosemite Valley. Again assuming a two-night stay over the same

four months, 30,000 families will be able to camp in Yosemite Valley, and there are another 1,060 campsites outside the Valley but

still in the Park. That is enough for another 64,000 families to

camp in Yosemite during those four months.

The final Plan also recognizes the historical value of Camp 4, the

undisputed birthplace of American rock climbing. The Plan protects

Camp 4 by ensuring that the reconstruction of Yosemite Lodge will

not encroach on it or its historical values.

On day-use parking, the Plan provides 550 sites in a centralized

location, a decrease that is of elemental importance if the reductions in the overall vehicle congestion that so degrades the human

experience in the Valley are to be realized.

The draft plan allowed this parking facility to be built at Taft

Toe. The Wilderness Society and many others questioned the need

to turn a pristine area into a parking lot and, in response, the Park

Service shifted parking and transit to Camp 6 in Yosemite Village,

locations that are already heavily impacted. Again, the Park Service had listened.

Reductions in overnight accommodations at Yosemite will only

serve to increase occupancy levels at places of lodging outside the

Park. Moving employee housing into the community will lead to

new, additional home sales and rentals, and moving Park Service

and concessionaire offices into local communities will provide new

commercial real estate opportunities.

The adoption of the Yosemite Valley Plan makes the beginning

of the all-important implementation phase for the grandest of plans

for Yosemite. But the Plan’s promises will only be fulfilled if it is

put in place on the ground. Only then will the millions of people

who visit each year forever remember the Park for its waterfalls,

its granite, and it’s vibrant meadows, and not for a cacophony of

development, gridlock and asphalt.

But actions speak louder than words, so we call on the United

States Congress and the administration to make the resources

available to actually do what the Plan calls for. Failure to implement the Plan will put at risk the very things that bring millions
100

of visitors to Yosemite and through gateway communities every

year. In other words, Yosemite’s time has come and it’s time to get

the job done and put an end to planning.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Watson follows:]

Statement of Jay Thomas Watson, California/Nevada Regional Director,

The Wilderness Society

On behalf of The Wilderness Society, thank you for the opportunity to testify on

the Yosemite Valley Plan. Please note that I am also here on behalf of the American

Alpine Club, and the Central Sierra Environmental Resources Center located in

Twain Harte, California, just north of Yosemite.

Almost four years ago, the floodwaters of the Merced River presented the National

Park Service with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity—the chance to transform into reality what historically had been an elusive, yet majestic vision for Yosemite Valley.

The central question at the time was whether the Park Service was up to the task.

The Final Yosemite Valley Plan answered that question with a resounding yes!

The Yosemite Valley Plan is a grand plan that will protect the natural values of

Yosemite Valley and allow the American people to use and enjoy the park. The plan

sets forth a vision for Yosemite that is as strong as the park’s legendary granite

and as clear as the waters of the Merced River.

The time has come to realize that at 4,480 acres, Yosemite Valley is a finite place

with real limits. For years, Yosemite Valley was expected to be all things to all people, with a cacophony of things stuffed into the Incomparable Valley—parking lots,

roads, pizza parlors, a bank, a beauty parlor, a gas station, campgrounds, offices,

hotels, snack bars, restaurants, gift shops, a maintenance shop, bathrooms, bridges,

a museum, a church, hiking trails, bike paths, tent cabins, grocery stores, swimming

pools, skating rinks, signs, stables, employee housing, water systems, sewage systems, and a laundromat.

As a result, terrestrial and river ecosystems were severely altered, while a visit

during the summer became an exercise in frustration, not a restorative visit to one

of the crown jewels of our National Park System. Something had to change.

And that is what the Yosemite Valley Plan is all about—making positive changes

for Yosemite, its visitors, and for gateway communities.

The Yosemite Valley Plan (YVP) is the product of an open, honest, and accessible

planning process. It allowed for meaningful public comment. Dozens of workshops

and public hearings were held throughout California. Additional hearings took place

in Chicago, Denver, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. Every weekend, on-the-ground

tours with park staff were available in Yosemite.

Not surprisingly, the plan has been met with considerable public support. As an

expression of that support, I have appended to my statement 34 editorials from 14

different papers expressing support for the Yosemite Valley Plan and/or the

Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS). These papers are the: Los

Angeles Times, San Diego Union–Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle, Fresno Bee,

Modesto Bee, Sacramento Bee, Contra Costa Times, Santa Rosa Press Democrat,

Reno Gazette Journal, San Francisco Examiner, Oakland Tribune, Stockton Record,

New York Times, and USA Today.

The legitimacy of the planning process was borne out by any number of changes

made in the plan as it progressed from draft to final. Changes that unequivocally

demonstrate that the National Park Service not only welcomed public comment, but

that they listened to it, responded by making several very important modifications

in the final plan.

Nowhere is this more readily observable than in how the agency addressed the

issues of overnight accommodations, campgrounds, and centralized parking.

Overnight Accommodations

When the draft plan was released for public comment, there was an outcry about

the types of overnight stays possible in Yosemite Valley. Simply stated, they cost

too much.

However, in response to this criticism, under the final plan, camping and rustic

units account for 50 percent of all overnight stays in the Valley. Include ′′*economy′′

cabins, and it jumps to 81 percent. Most overnight stays in Yosemite Valley will

range in cost from $15.00 for a campsite, to $45.00 for a tent cabin, and about

$80.00 for a simple cabin.
101

Assuming a two-night stay, during the four months of June through September,

almost 71,000 families or groups of friends can camp in a campground or stay in

a tent or economy cabin in Yosemite Valley. The Park Service listened.

Campgrounds

As for camping, under the YVP, there will be 500 campsites in Yosemite Valley.

Again assuming a two-night stay, over the same four months, 30,000 families or

groups of friends will be able to camp in Yosemite Valley. Moreover, there are another 1,060 campsites outside of Yosemite Valley, but still within the boundaries of

the park. That is enough for another 63,600 families or groups of friends to camp

in Yosemite over a four-month period.

The plan also recognizes the unique, historical values of Camp 4—the birthplace

of American rock climbing. Reconstruction of Yosemite Lodge will not encroach on

Camp 4 and the campground will be slightly enlarged.

Yes, when all is said and done, there will be about 300 fewer campsites in

Yosemite Valley than before the 1997 flood. The reason for this is that those sites

are now located in what once was sensitive meadow, river, and black oak habitats,

which the plan proposes to restore. Campgrounds aren’t benign, particularly when

they erase critical habitats.

Parking

On parking, the plan adopts a proactive approach and limits day-use parking to

550 sites. This reduction is of elemental importance if the restoration of sensitive

habitats is to be realized and reductions made in the overall vehicle congestion that

so degrades the human experience in the valley.

The draft plan allowed for a centralized 550-car parking facility at Taft Toe, an

undeveloped area still in its natural state. The Wilderness Society, and many others, questioned the need to develop a pristine area for a parking lot. In response,

parking and transit operations were shifted to Camp Six and Yosemite Village—locations that are already heavily impacted. Again, the Park Service had listened.

Other Issues

Earlier, I mentioned that the plan makes changes that will benefit gateway communities. It goes without saying that reducing the number of overnight accommodations in Yosemite Valley will lead to increased occupancy levels at places of lodging

outside Yosemite. The same can be said of employee housing. And, moving Park

Service and concessionaire administrative offices out of the park and into local communities will provide new business opportunities in those communities.

Some have said the YVP is a sweetheart deal for Yosemite Concession Services.

This statement is puzzling, when you consider that YCS will realize lower revenues

under the plan. Dramatic improvements were made in the YCS contract as compared with the previous contract—which was truly a sweetheart deal.

Conclusion

The adoption of the Final Yosemite Plan marks the beginning of an all important

implementation phase for the grandest of plans for the park. And yet, the grandest

hopes and promises of the plan will only be fulfilled if it is put in place on the

ground. Only then will the millions of people who will continue to visit Yosemite

each year forever remember the park for its waterfalls, its granite, and its vibrant

meadows and not for its cacophony of development, gridlock, and asphalt.

At the end of the day, actions speak louder than words. Therefore, we are thrilled

to see the Park Service commit itself to moving aggressively forward with key restoration projects described in the YVP. These actions will set an all-important tone

for plan implementation.

We now call on the United States Congress and the Administration to make the

resources available to actually do what the plan calls for. Thank you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Watson.

Welcome, Mr. Whitmore. We look forward to your testimony.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE W. WHITMORE, CHAIRMAN, SIERRA

CLUB’S YOSEMITE COMMITTEE, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA

Mr. WHITMORE. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and staff. Thank you

for this opportunity. I am George Whitmore, Chair of the Sierra

Club’s Yosemite Committee.
102

I was born in central California and have been fortunate enough

to have lived there, near Yosemite, most of my life. I have experienced Yosemite intensively and extensively over many years, starting as a child in the 1930’s, and including many memorable years

in the 1950’s as a rock climber.

We agree with the stated intent of the Yosemite Valley Plan and

are pleased that the Park Service did respond to public comments

on the draft plan, to some extent, by cutting back on planned expansion at Yosemite Lodge and softening the draconian cuts in

lower-cost accommodations.

However, we still have some very large concerns. Those concerns

focus largely on transportation issues and on the impact which unceasing, infinite growth in day visitor usage has on a very finite

Yosemite Valley. These two concerns are obviously closely interrelated. Former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt’s often stated

view that, ‘‘there is room for everyone in Yosemite, they just can’t

bring their cars’’ was overly simplistic. Unfortunately, it was the

mandate the Park Service was given and it resulted in a flawed

plan.

The new Valley Plan has abandoned the concept of limits which

was in the 1980 general management plan. At the same time, no

program has been put in place to address the consequent problem

of ever-increasing stress on the visitor experience and on the natural resources. The only response to more and more day visitors

seems to be planning for more and more buses, without acknowledging that buses can become the problem instead of cars.

Buses obviously could be part of the solution. Our concern is with

the excessive focus on them which fails to recognize that they are

already well on the way to becoming a worse problem than the

cars.

There are several different bus systems serving Yosemite now—

the long distant excursion or tour buses, the regional buses, including YARTS, which operate from the gateway communities, the inValley shuttle buses, and those which transport people to other

points within the Park. In general, our comments apply to all types

of buses.

These existing buses are already having an impact which needs

to be reduced. They need to be cleaner, meaning fewer air-polluting

emissions. Quieter, smaller, to reduce the demand for wider and

straighter roads. And generally, less intrusive. There is a serious

need to convert from diesel to a less harmful technology, and that

is one area which probably would benefit from increased funding.

But especially in the absence of cleaner, quieter, smaller and less

intrusive, we object to the seeming acceptance of buses as being a

cure-all.

Of course, what is driving the demand for more and more buses

is the given parameter that ‘‘there is room for everyone in

Yosemite’’. The concept of limits is certainly not foreign to the public. We encounter it routinely in so many aspects of everyday life

and we adjust accordingly. To take an extreme example, even with

an operation such as Disneyland, in which large crowds and crowding are accepted, sometimes the demand threatens the quality of

the visitor experience, so the company takes steps to manage the
103

demand. It totally escapes us why this is considered not acceptable

for Yosemite Valley.

We believe that if the Park Service would try a reservation system for day use, they would find it accepted by most people, especially if some of the available space were set aside for those who

plan to visit at off-peak times or simply choose to take their

chances. Such a system would eliminate the need for degradation

of both the visitor experience and the natural resources which this

Plan would allow—a degradation, incidentally, which would be in

violation of the Park Service’s own Organic Act.

We feel that the concepts employed in this Plan, while undoubtedly well-intentioned, have generally been taken too far. The zeal

to improve the Yosemite Valley has resulted in a massive urban redevelopment plan. But this is not a city. It is the crown jewel of

our National Park System, the incomparable valley, a world heritage site, the holy of holy. It deserves much better of us.

I would be happy to take any questions you might have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitmore follows:]

Statement of George W. Whitmore, Chairman, Yosemite Committee,

Sierra Club

We offer our reactions to the final Yosemite Valley Plan.

We recognize that changes were made in the final Valley Plan in response to comments that we and many others made. We are particularly pleased that the Park

Service recognizes that ‘‘restoration of highly valued natural resources is a priority,

especially along the length of the Merced River.’’ We are glad to see there is now

essentially no net increase in number of accommodations at Yosemite Lodge. And

we welcome the decision not to move forward with the idea of constructing a new

parking facility at Taft Toe.

ASSUMPTIONS

However, we continue to question many of the assumptions that underlie this

Plan.

Because too many sites have already been degraded, we do not believe it is wise

to shift development to new areas (even if the overall footprint were to be reduced).

The Plan does not confine development to existing sites.

Moreover, the Plan is far from clear in limiting the factors that impose stress

upon the Valley’s environment. These stresses include vehicles, emissions, roads,

parking places, facilities, and unlimited visitors. While it would limit the space for

automobiles, it would leave open growth in bus traffic, particularly tour and YARTS

busses, and satellite parking in other areas of the Park. And after casting doubt on

the validity of the 1980 General Management Plan’s (GMP) visitor limit, this plan

would look to a future Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) process

to define new parameters, which might, or might not, be more effective in protecting

the visitor experience and natural resources.

We feel it is a serious mistake to have eliminated the 1980 GMP’s approach to

the ever-increasing demand for access to Yosemite Valley without having some other

mechanism in place to deal with it. Unless the problems created by infinite stress

on a finite resource are resolved, the Organic Act’s mandate for enjoyment by the

public while leaving the resources unimpaired will be violated.

And the plan for restoration in the Valley is far from clear. The Plan does not

enable one to see what the aims are for each parcel to be restored, nor to what

standards these areas would be restored, nor how fragmentation would be overcome.

Furthermore, it appears that much of this restoration should move forward regardless of whether other parts of the Plan are ever implemented.

Finally, we are disappointed that this plan was developed in such haste, before

it was clear that a legally compliant plan for the management of the Merced Wild

and Scenic River was in place. The River Plan, which should stand as the foundation for all planning in the Valley, is still under litigation. Questions still exist as

to whether adequate planning has been done to identify, enhance and protect outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) for the river. And the Valley Plan seems to

confound these ORV values with Highly Valued Resources, which seem to stand in

their place. We strongly recommend that the Park Service recognize the possible
104

need to make relevant changes in the Valley Plan if court decisions require revisions

of the River Plan or a new River Plan.

CHANGES FROM THE DRAFT

However, we do note changes, some of them for the better, that were made in developing the final Plan. We are glad to see that, overall, there will be twenty fewer

lodging units than in the draft Plan, and the number at Yosemite Lodge would go

down by 135 (though that would still. constitute six more than are there now). And

we welcome the effort to retain more low-cost units at Curry Village and Housekeeping.

We also note, however, that some elements in the final Plan are less satisfactory

than in the draft. More bus trips would be expected each day during peak periods

(285 instead of 231), while the saving in energy use would be less (37% instead of

52%). And more employee beds would remain in the Valley (723 in contrast to 683).

VALUABLE GOALS

But we do recognize that the Plan would be designed to achieve some very important goals compared to the existing situation:

—A reduction of nearly 300 overnight lodging units (with 164 to be removed from

the flood plain);—A reduction of 554 employee beds in the Valley;—And a net gain

of 71 acres that would be restored in the Valley (though we regret the loss of 75

acres of undeveloped land in the process.)

We applaud plans to remove unnecessary developments and facilities, including:

—The Cascades Diversion Dam;—Rip rap, along the banks of the Merced River;—

The village garage;–The concessionaire headquarters; and—The tennis courts at the

Ahwanhee Hotel.

PROBLEMS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

But, nonetheless, we see some problems in the Plan that still need to be addressed in a satisfactory manner.

(1) DIESEL BUSSES

While we welcome the pledge to use ‘‘the best available fuel and propulsion system technology to minimize noise and air pollutant emissions,’’ additional busses

should not be added until satisfactory technology which will reduce air and noise

pollution is in hand and will be used for existing and any new busses. We recommend immediate replacement of existing shuttle buses with new buses with

much lower emissions. We note in Table 4–31 (p. 4.2–123) that if diesel fuel is used

that NOx emissions in 2015 would be worse with the shuttle bus system to remote

sites than under the ‘‘No Change’’ alternative. NOx emissions would increase by

32%.

We cannot agree with any change that would increase, rather than decrease emissions and produce worse air quality or move impacts to new-or expanded areas. The

discussion in the EIS of air quality is conspicuously silent on the question of whether air quality standards would be met with this increase in NOx emissions. Diesel

fuels are also high in sulfur content. Both NOx are precursors of ozone. Exceedances

of air quality standards for ozone have occurred in recent years in Yosemite Valley.

Moreover, diesel fuel emissions contain deadly carcinogens as well as dangerous

small particulates, and few diesel engines are operated with any serious emission

control systems. Unlike cars, which have gotten cleaner, diesel busses have not.

We continue to urge that busses bringing visitors into the Valley need to use clean

fuel technologies. Fuel cells or propane seem to be the most promising technologies

along this line (see table 4–31). The door needs to be closed on the growing number

of busses using dirty fuels, rather than be opened. We believe that there should be

a moratorium on the growing number of tour and YARTS busses, and their arrivals

need to be scheduled at appropriate intervals.

And busses coming into the Valley need to be less noisy. Some of them now

produce noise at 16 times the natural sound level (for those standing within 50

feet). Moreover, the noise they produce can be heard within nearby wilderness areas

of the park (on valley cliffs and on the rim).

Finally, such busses need to be smaller so that they fit within the design parameters of the existing road system. Otherwise, the growing number of such busses

will exert constant pressures to build larger and larger roads, to the detriment of

park values and visitor experience.

(2) UNCONTROLLED GROWTH.

As indicated earlier, the Plan fails to come to grips satisfactorily with the growth

in the factors that stress the environment of Yosemite Valley. Limits are addressed

only indirectly, with the question deferred for up to five years while the VERP process is pursued, with no conclusion being promised even then.
105

This is particularly so with respect to growth in bus traffic. Busses can bring far

more visitors to the Valley than can cars. Total visitation via car is more easily limited by congestion and limited parking space. But if busses displace cars, the potential number of visitors is far greater. They can suddenly produce crowds that overwhelm special places. And as their numbers increase, so also will the pressures for

more accommodations, facilities, and infrastructure. While we suspect that the carrying capacity of Yosemite Valley is likely currently exceeded only a few days during

the year, without an analysis and setting of limits those days could increase rapidly

over time.

Once remote parking lots are built, it will be all too easy to expand them. New

centers of development can all too easily sprawl out around these lots. Not enough

research or planning has been done to determine whether sites can safely be developed at Hazel Green or Foresta. One rare plant and one plant of federal concern

are found at Hazel Green, as well as habitat for the California Spotted owl, which

is under consideration for inclusion in the federal endangered species list. Even

Badger Pass is problematic because of its inadequate sewage system.

We are quite concerned with construction of a bus depot with 16 bays being developed in the heart of Yosemite Valley. This does not fit in with the goal of reduction

in impacts nor of increasing the quality of the visitor’s experience of the natural values of Yosemite. The Plan assumes that the number of bus bays will de facto limit

the number of busses arriving from out of the Valley. But pressures will grow from

tour companies and outside commercial lodge owners to increase the number of such

bus bays. Such bays might be taken from either the allocation for day use auto visitors, or from habitat.

Once again, we urge the National Park Service to establish a moratorium on

granting permits for any more tour busses or YARTS busses, and to establish limits

on the number of busses entering the Valley, as well as for automobiles. Under the

Plan, at peak periods a bus would be expected to arrive at the visitor center every

1.3 minutes. Busses would be arriving practically in convoys.

These limits would be the necessary counterparts of limits on overnight lodging

units, camp sites, parking spots, and employee housing. All of these sources of pressure need to be controlled simultaneously to prevent pressures from transferring

themselves from one point to another. Busses can be part of the solution, but unless

their numbers are tightly controlled, they will also come to be the problem.

Work on satellite parking facilities should not go forward until limits have been

established on bus traffic into Yosemite Valley, and even then only if siting problems have been resolved (in terms of limiting environmental impacts and containing

sprawl at the sites).

(3) SOUTHSIDE DRIVE AND OTHER ROADS

We remain concerned about the plan to shift traffic entirely to Southside Drive.

Closing Northside Drive to traffic will not produce any habitat gain, merely seasonal

respite from noise. But it will result in habitat loss along Southside Drive as all

traffic pressures focus on it. The EIS informs us that the park does intend to widen

it, with ‘‘the extension of pavement over strips of habitat alongside the road’’ [p.4.2–

54]. We understand that the plan is to improve it to the same level as accomplished

in rebuilding the E1 Portal road, which was so controversial. Moreover, if the proposed traffic check station is built at E1 Capitan crossover, then even more habitat

will be lost.

Moreover, we do not agree with relocating Northside Drive along the south side

of Yosemite Lodge (closer to the river), and building a new bridge across Yosemite

Creek. Again, this will produce a needless loss of habitat, with little, if any gain

in the visitor experience.

We do not understand how this plan advances the restoration agenda. Very little

is gained, while a lot is lost.

(4) SEGMENT D

We understand that attention will not be given to the issue of Segment D of the

El Portal Road until the Cascades Diversion Dam has been removed, the river bed

has stabilized, and until compliance with environmental laws has been pursued.

(We ask that Cascade Dam be removed in an environmentally responsible manner,

with appropriate scientific appraisals of the best manner in which to remove the

dam completed first.)

We do want to observe that, while widening of Segment D is not necessary, there

may be a desire by the Park Service to engage in roadbed stabilization, intersection

redesign, sewer repair, paving, or other types of construction activity. In such an

event, compliance with environmental laws should be pursued in good faith, with

an appraisal of the potential impacts of various alternative designs helping to guide

the Park Service to the least harmful alternative. Because of obligations under the
106

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, that design should be aimed at keeping construction

out of the bed and off the banks of that river. The EIS admits that stabilization

materials are now in the river channel ‘‘and interfere with the free-flowing condition

of the river’’ [table 4–39, p. 4,2–167].

We are troubled by the ambiguities of the Plan with regard to whether good faith

compliance will be attempted. Many comments are made that suggest no more than

pro forma compliance and a definite intent to re-construct regardless of what is

found. The EIS actually states that the non-conforming material will ‘‘remain in the

river channel after the-road is constructed’’ [table 4–39, p. 4.2–167]. The Park Service seems to assume that study, and notice of intent to obstruct a wild river’s freeflowing condition under Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, will meet the

requirements of the Act. But we assert that the administering agency has a positive

duty to keep obstructions out of the bed of such rivers. We share hopes expressed

in the plan that it will be found feasible ‘‘to design and construct the road in a manner that would avoid direct and adverse impacts on the values for which the river

was designated’’ [p. 4.2–175]. We hope that deficiencies in legal compliance will not

continue to shadow whatever additional work on this road may be proposed.

We note that all the above concerns would be vastly reduced if the Park Service

would recognize that Segment D does not need to be widened. The combination of

gradients and curves that were felt to be a problem on Segments A, B, and C do

not exist on Segment D. The problem appears to be one of blind insistence on uniform standards as an end in itself.

IN CONCLUSION

It strikes us that the tasks ahead ought to be tackled in a certain order. At the

outset, priority should be given to resolution of the court case regarding the Merced

Wild and Scenic River plan and developing a legally compliant River Plan since that

provides the basis for so much else. Next, we urge that a process be initiated to promulgate a moratorium on issuing any more licenses for tour busses entering the valley, and any other busses which would create additional air, noise, sprawling impacts, or runoff pollution.

Then various relatively non-controversial tasks ought to be pursued: downsizing

the level of accommodations in the Valley, continuing to move non-essential facilities out, and increasing the pace of restoration work. At the same time, efforts

should be made to clean up the emissions of existing busses that enter the valley

through establishing a schedule for conversion to cleaner fuels. And upgrading and

renovating the sewage system for the Valley would seem to-be relatively non-controversial, especially if it diverts money from more harmful projects.

Over the next few years, further efforts should be made to set limits on all of the

sources of stress on the valley’s environment. Limits should be adjusted based on

containing and decreasing, not increasing, the existing stress on the Valley’s environment after an analysis on the capacity of the valley to withstand various

stresses. We are not entirely clear on whether the contemplated VERP process is

everything that is needed, but we urge use of a pragmatic process that tests various

levels of management to see whether desired improvements ensue, with adjustments to get needed results.

Finally, we urge that any further consideration of satellite parking lots be placed

on hold until clean, quiet, non-intrusive alternate transportation is in place, operational, has secured funding, and has proven to be successful. And, even then, it

should be considered only if some mechanism is in place to limit ALL vehicular traffic, including busses of all kinds, based on the carrying capacity analysis. And that

is assuming problem-free sites can be found.

We look forward to working toward a process of better protecting the very special

values of Yosemite Valley and the Merced River.

Mr. RADANOVICH. All right. Thank you very much for your testimony as well.

Mr. Hardy, I would love to ask you a couple of questions regarding this Plan. You were here and I think heard much of the testimony of the Park Service when they were here before. A couple of

things I would like to ask you about.

Two questions with regard to the upper and lower river campgrounds. You had mentioned that those campgrounds, as well as

others, serve the mental health of the public. Can you elaborate on

that?
107

Mr. HARDY. Certainly. The family unites, a chance for the family

to come together and gather in those areas, has been traditional,

historic, and it’s a respite from coming out of the city life or wherever they came from, and gather in a family unit. I believe that it

truly helps.

I think Yosemite Valley is really like a giant ‘‘couch,’’ and the

people working there are the ‘‘shrinks’’, and the chance to send people home restored is important. Those campgrounds played a major

role in that.

Mr. RADANOVICH. You have long been an advocate of the reopening of those campgrounds. In fact, in your testimony, as you just

said a minute ago, it requires a little bit of maintenance to go in

and get rid of the sand and rocks that were deposited by the increased water levels and then move on.

But we have become aware, or at least you are aware, that the

Park Service has said both campgrounds are entirely within the

flood plain of the river and it comes within the Wild and Scenic

designation. How do you figure overcoming something like that in

order to get them restored?

I support reopening the campgrounds. Maybe a barrier of 100

feet, 150 feet, from the river—the historic edge, not the flood edge,

but—

Mr. HARDY. First of all, I think they’re kidding themselves, anyone is, who think that people aren’t going to use the river by declaring it a flood plain.

Secondly, the Congress wrote the law that created the flood

plain. Let’s adapt it, let’s make some meaningful adjustments and

fine-tune the Plan and allow the people that own the Park the ability to continue to use it.

Mr. RADANOVICH. There are a lot of lawsuits prolonging the

thing. I mean, that’s what you’re up against basically, an onslaught

of lawsuits.

Mr. HARDY. I really feel that when you leave the 4,000 foot level

of Yosemite Valley and you go to other parts to impact other parts

of the Park, you’re doing the preservation side of the Park management plan a disservice. This is already impacted. It gets washed

periodically. That’s even better. But I would stick with trying to

find a way to adapt the law to reopen those campgrounds, and

Wawona the same thing.

Mr. RADANOVICH. A lot of the controversy in planning this thing

is the number of parking spaces in the Valley. Can you kind of give

us some idea of what has been there historically and where we’ve

been heading with the issue of parking spaces?

Mr. HARDY. Well, if you want to go back far enough, there were

periods of times when we parked at Mirror Lake. In fact, there was

a boat dock and boats and Easter service was done out on the lake.

You could drive all the way there. Of course, there was parking in

front of the post office for many, many years. There was parking

in back of the post office for many, many years. Both of those are

not available at this time.

The parking throughout the Valley has been diminished by thousands. I notice that someone said 3,300. When I was there, we

counted 6,000 that had been torn out since the 1960’s. I don’t believe you ought to put all those back, but I do believe in small sat-
108

ellite parking lots along the shuttle bus route, 30 to 80 cars in a

spot. The areas where you pull in, like where the old Chinese laundry was, there are several spots along that side of the Valley, you

just cover them with pine needles. I’m not talking about black top.

You don’t need them when it’s wet and sloppy and the weather is

bad. The public doesn’t come anyway. So you don’t need mud and

snow management or snow removal.

But in the summertime, when the Park is heavily visited, they

use the Curry dump site, small satellites along the shuttle bus

route, all managed with pine needles—and, of course, Camp 6—and

a reorganization of the areas around the village store. I believe you

could put parking back in very nicely without impacting new areas.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Hardy.

Mr. Szefel, as you are well aware, the flood of January 1997 created some problems. It also impacted your employee housing needs.

I’m curious to know how you dealt with that and how this Plan

may affect your ability to house your employees and what your concerns are with regard to employee housing in this Plan.

Mr. SZEFEL. Well, since the flood, we lost quite a number of employee housing units. We have had to make do with several temporary—actually, they are miner camp portable outlets that created

small villages. They are temporary at best, and they are certainly

not the way we would like to be able to house our employees for

going forward.

As I stated in my prepared remarks, that’s a concern with the

Plan, the impact on employees. I think there’s a lot of advantage

to having employees live in the Valley. That’s a part of the allure

of the job. Many of them walk to work, bicycle to work. So that’s

an issue that clearly we see as something that requires conversation as we go forward with the Park Service.

I would just reemphasize that our ability to work with them

throughout all of this process has been terrific. I’m sure we’ll be

able to resolve it. But it’s an issue that is uppermost in our mind.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Do you have involvement with the gateway

communities? Is there discussion—For example, the concessionaire

administrative functions being moved to gateway communities, or

some of your employee housing, especially with the opportunity of

YARTS being there, is that something you have discussed or is in

planning?

Mr. SZEFEL. We now have our entire central reservation system,

that does our reservation work not only for Yosemite but for all of

our other properties, in Fresno. We also do a number of our administrative support functions out of that building already, and that

clearly would be an area that might make some sense for us to do.

But we do some of it already.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Are you concerned about any loss of employee

housing as a result of this Plan, or—

Ms. SZEFEL. Oh, sure. That’s one, as I mentioned. Again, we have

a good experience working with the Park Service, through some

pretty catastrophic occurrences, and I’m sure we’ll get through the

planning process with them as well. But employee housing is uppermost in our mind.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Szefel.
109

Mr. Watson, you heard the comments that there were probably

up to as many as 6,000 parking spaces in the Valley, and we’re

looking at a plan that has about 550, and then the idea of busing

the rest into the park—at least that being the focus for day-use

visitors.

Where is your line? Is it 550 spaces, or would you like to see

zero? Could you accommodate 1,200? What are your thoughts?

Mr. WATSON. I don’t believe there were 6,000 parking spaces in

Yosemite Valley. If there were, that would equate to about, I think,

80 acres of asphalt. I don’t think 80 acres of asphalt has been removed from Yosemite Valley.

In addition to the 550 car parking lot for day use, you know,

there are—I’m going to say over 1,000 parking spaces for campgrounds and overnight units, that sort of thing.

I think the reduction to 550 day use parking spaces in the Valley

itself is of critical importance, but it will only work if either YARTS

is in operation or, if YARTS isn’t in operation, then those out-ofvalley parking lots are constructed at each of the entryways into

the Park, each of those corridors. Obviously, you have to provide

people a way to get into the Park, and that’s either in their own

automobiles to their overnight units, to a day use parking lot, or

to a satellite lot, and then on a clean fuel shuttle into the Valley.

But I think 550, you know, is somewhat of a magic number, because it’s large enough to accommodate off-season visitation levels

without any reductions in those. So that’s sort of the magic number.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I see.

Mr. Whitmore, the Sierra Club has been, I guess, a pretty outspoken opponent of the Plan, particularly in the area of YARTS. I

know Mr. Brower, who is now deceased, prior to that had mentioned a real objection to relying on diesel buses or relying on a

Park plan that requires more people to go on diesel buses in order

to enjoy Yosemite.

If I’m accurate in that description, and I think I am, what would

be your plan, knowing that if you don’t rely on a busing system,

instead looking at 550 spaces, if you’re less reliant on one, you’re

looking at more parking spaces in the Valley.

Mr. WHITMORE. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.

I would like to clarify one point. The Sierra Club has actually

never taken a position on YARTS, as such. We like a regional approach to things, and to the extent that YARTS is a regional program, we think that it’s a good idea to approach it that way. So

we never— Mr. RADANOVICH. I stand corrected, then.

Mr. WHITMORE. We never endorsed YARTS, as such, even though

we were asked to, because we didn’t know what they would come

up with. They then came up with a fleet of diesel buses.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Were Mr. Brower’s comments basically his

comments?

Mr. WHITMORE. Those were his personal comments, yes. And

then when they came out with a fleet of diesel buses, this was one

of the things we had feared. That can be changed, I presume.

As far as what we would like to see to deal with the problem,

we have limitations on practically everything I can think of in
110

Yosemite, except for day use. My impression is that this was Mr.

Babbitt’s fixation, that we are not going to limit day use. Well, if

you don’t limit day use, you’re going to end up with more people

than you can handle at certain times. Eventually, maybe that

would be a very large amount of days out of the year. Currently,

it’s a rather small number of days out of the year.

So we feel that most of the year you don’t have a problem.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Right.

Mr. WHITMORE. And during those times that you do have a problem, I think you have to accept the idea that Yosemite Valley is

finite and you are probably going to have to implement a partial

reservation system. I don’t think it should be totally reservation,

because this is a little too restrictive. I don’t think people are ready

for that. But just as with the wilderness permits, there are advance

reservations for some of it and then some of it is on a walk-up

basis. I don’t know why that couldn’t be done with people who

drive up to the gate.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Did the Sierra Club support the concept of gate

closures, that when there was a certain amount of people in the

Park, they would shut the gates?

Mr. WHITMORE. I wasn’t on the scene at the time, but I have

seen enough congestion in the Valley at peak times during the

summer that I can well imagine the problem got out of hand. There

were too many cars in the Valley at one time, so the Park Service

had to do something.

I think their way of handling it left something to be desired.

They should not have done it so abruptly. I think there needed to

be more public education, more advance notice. It doesn’t make

sense that you have large lines of cars waiting at the gate because

it has been closed unexpectedly. That leads to the matter of congestion in the Valley itself, not just at the gate. But there are a lot

of things the Park Service could do to relieve congestion in the Valley, simple things that would not take a lot of money.

We find it inexplicable that the Park Service has not done a lot

of planning for traffic management in the Valley. There are some

problem intersections that could be redesigned. There is too much

confusion over this business of, well, is it a one-way loop, or are

we putting the northside traffic back on southside temporarily, and

if so, at least cover up the signs that say get in the left lane if

you’re going to cross over Stoneman Bridge. If you do get in the left

lane, you’ll have a head-on collision. I have run into that personally

twice. Just the most elementary things that display a certain level

of adequate management.

Mr. RADANOVICH. To me, the obvious example is rerouting the

road around Yosemite Lodge and getting it on the same side as

Yosemite Falls, lower Yosemite Falls, where your parking is there.

You could relieve easily one bad bottleneck in the Park.

Mr. WHITMORE. Yes. I’m not sure that the Plan the Park Service

is talking about now, for running the road around the south side

of the lodges, is the best way to go. But certainly that intersection

is one of the major problems and it needs some thought about how

to redesign it to deal with that situation.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much.
111

Mr. Hardy, would you comment on one thing for me. You know

that there is already money that is appropriated for the implementation of this plan to the tune of about $140-145 million. By what

you’ve been able to gather from the hearing, not holding you to it,

do you agree with some of the things the Park Service would like

to do right now with that money, except for the river campground

issue?

Mr. HARDY. I think their utility upgrades are a must, and to improve some of the roads and continue to maintain them, I think

that’s going the right way.

I’m glad there is not money in there to remove the bridges.

That’s a plus. So I’m amazed at that huge pot of money. I mean,

in all my years working with the Park Service, they never had that

kind of funding. In the past, the funding that did come to the Park

Service came through you, as elected officials, and now so much of

it comes from other routes, such as they talked about entry fees,

campgrounds, special events, concession moneys, Yosemite fund,

the Yosemite Association, Yosemite Institute. There’s millions of

dollars coming to the Park Service without any elected officials

oversight.

I would say it would be nice to have that instead go to a general

fund, just the opposite of what the Park Service spoke of today,

that they’re relieved it doesn’t go to the general fund. I believe it’s

a public park and it does need elected officials oversight on what

money and how it’s spent.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Well, I can rest assured that the rest of the

$441 million will have to be appropriated, so we’re looking forward

to having some say in how the balance of this might be spent, if

it’s spent at all.

Gentlemen, I want to thank you for being here and for your testimony. With that, I will go ahead and conclude this hearing. Before

that, people have up to 30 days to submit recorded remarks.

Again, thank you all very much. We are adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1: 10 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]

[A statement submitted for the record by the Natural Resources

Defense Council follows:]
112
113
114

Æ