U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

86-612 PS 2003

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 

YOSEMITE VALLEY PLAN

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, 

AND PUBLIC LANDS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

Tuesday, April 22, 2003 in Yosemite National Park, California

Serial No. 108-16

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 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman 

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

Don Young, Alaska 

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Ken Calvert, California 

Scott McInnis, Colorado 

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming 

George Radanovich, California 

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania 

Jim Gibbons, Nevada, 

Vice Chairman 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Greg Walden, Oregon 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona 

Tom Osborne, Nebraska 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana 

Rick Renzi, Arizona 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Devin Nunes, California 

VACANCY 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Calvin M. Dooley, California 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Tom Udall, New Mexico 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Anı ́bal Acevedo-Vila ́, Puerto Rico 

Brad Carson, Oklahoma 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Dennis A. Cardoza, California 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas 

Joe Baca, California 

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk 

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director 

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel 

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, 

AND PUBLIC LANDS 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California, Chairman 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands, Ranking Democrat Member

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming 

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania 

Jim Gibbons, Nevada 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Richard W. Pombo, California, ex officio 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Tom Udall, New Mexico 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Anı ́bal Acevedo-Vila ́, Puerto Rico 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Dennis A. Cardoza, California 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia, ex officio 

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on April 22, 2003 .............................................................................. 1

Statement of Members: 

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

Virgin Islands ............................................................................................... 5

Nunes, Hon. Devin, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 5

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

of California ................................................................................................... 1

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

Statement of Witnesses: 

Abshez, Allan J., Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles, California .................. 61

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 64

Kelly, Kevin, Chief Operating Officer, Yosemite Concession Services 

Corporation, Yosemite National Park, California ...................................... 44

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 45

Mainella, Fran P., Director, National Park Service, U.S. Department 

of the Interior ................................................................................................ 6

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 11

Minault, Paul, Northern California Regional Coordinator, The Access 

Fund, San Francisco, California .................................................................. 55

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 57

Mosley, Peggy A., President/CEO, The Groveland Hotel at Yosemite 

National Park, Groveland, California ......................................................... 40

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 41

Watson, Jay Thomas, California/Nevada Regional Director, The 

Wilderness Society, San Francisco, California ........................................... 67

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 69

Welch, Stephen R., Executive Vice President, The Pines Resort, 

Bass Lake, California .................................................................................. 26

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 28

Whitmore, George, Chairman, Yosemite Committee, Sierra Club, Fresno, 

California ....................................................................................................... 71

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 73

(1)

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE YOSEMITE VALLEY 

PLAN 

Tuesday, April 22, 2003

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands 

Committee on Resources 

Yosemite National Park, California 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., Yosemite 

National Park, California, Hon. George Radanovich [Chairman of 

the Subcommittee] presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Good morning. The Subcommittee on National 

Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands will come to order. My name 

is George Radanovich from Mariposa, proudly, and I am joined 

here with Representative Donna Christensen and Representative 

Devin Nunes for a hearing regarding camping spaces in the valley. 

And I do want to mention just before we get started—and I have 

a written text to read as we are doing this—to remind everybody 

that this is not a town hall meeting, but rather a hearing, a formal 

congressional hearing where issues get on the record. And I would 

ask, so that we can do this in an orderly fashion, that we have 

order in the room. 

As you may know, you know, a lot of these congressional hearings are for us to get comments and such in the record. And we 

are going to be having three panels of witnesses today to talk about 

the issues regarding Yosemite as it relates to camping spaces. This 

hearing doesn’t necessarily cover parking spaces or any other 

issues regarding the management plan or any other issues about 

Yosemite. They do mainly cover, or almost solely, the issues of 

campgrounds in Yosemite Valley. 

As you know, the floods of 1997 took out Upper and Lower River 

Campgrounds and created some damage in the park, and we want 

to know more detail about the plans as it relates to that. 

So, we are restricted to comments from the witnesses that are 

going to be in the three panels today, and at the end of each panel, 

and some have one person, some have a number of people, Donna 

and Devin and I will be allowed to ask them questions. And again, 

2

the main reason for this is to get it in the Congressional Record. 

And we feel very strongly that we—well, obviously the three panels 

consist of every view that we can assemble on this issue. 

So I want to welcome you here today, and thank you for coming. 

You can take the snow back. It looks like my friend Donna, who 

is representing the Virgin Islands, is going to get all four seasons 

in a very short time. So we are glad to have the snow, but I was 

glad to see the blue sky when we woke up. 

So welcome here. I thank you for this. And help us get all this 

information out and into the record so that we can make sure that 

Yosemite stays a great place to be. 

So with that, I am going to read my prepared text, and then we 

will get on with this hearing. 

Before I read this statement, I would like to thank Superintendent Mike Tollefson, Mike Reynolds, and Don Quellos, Steve 

Shackleton, and the entire park staff for putting together the secondary hearing site of the Subcommittee in less than 24 hours. As 

you know, we were hoping to have the hearing out by the Superintendent’s house outside, but the weather caused some real problems, so we had to move it indoors. 

I would also like to point out that this is an official Subcommittee hearing where the witnesses who are here today are invited by the Subcommittee. It is not a town hall meeting. And for 

those not testifying who wish to submit something for the record, 

though, the hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks. And we 

have left a box outside in the back of the area for you to submit 

written comments. If you would like to send your comments to the 

Subcommittee, please see Casey, our Subcommittee clerk. 

Casey, do you want to raise your hand? 

This is Casey, everybody, and if you do want to do some—write 

out your comments and submit them that way, we would be happy 

to take them, and they will go into the Congressional Record. And 

I think we have a period of about 2 weeks for you to submit something to Casey or send back to the Committee in Washington. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]

Statement of The Honorable George Radanovich, Chairman,

Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands 

Good morning. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public 

Lands will come to order. 

Before I make my opening statement, I would like to thank Superintendent Mike 

Tollefson, Mike Reynolds, Don Coelho, Steve Shackelton and the entire Park staff 

for putting together this secondary hearing site for the Subcommittee in less than 

24-hours. As many of you know, we had originally planned to have the hearing outdoors near the old superintendent’s residence with Half Dome in the background, 

but Mother Nature had other plans. 

I would also like to point out that this is an official Subcommittee Hearing, where 

witnesses here today were invited by the Subcommittee. This is NOT a town hall 

meeting. For those not testifying and who wish to submit something for the record, 

the hearing record will remain open for two weeks. We have left out a box on the 

table to the back of the area for you to submit written comment. If you would like 

to send your comments to the Subcommittee, please see Casey, our Subcommittee 

Clerk (Casey, please raise your hand), following the hearing and he will give you 

the address for the Subcommittee. 

As many of you know, I have had the pleasure to represent the Valley and Yosemite Park since entering Congress in 1994, as well as previously, when I served as 

a county supervisor for Mariposa County. I started coming to this magnificent and 

wonderful place when I was a child and to this day, I hike various parts of the park 

3

every summer with my family. I say all this because I believe it is very important 

for everyone to know just how I feel about this Park and this Valley—I want all 

of its grandeur to be available to anyone wishing to experience it first-hand, as I 

was able to do. 

I envision this Valley and the Park continuing to be open to all, consistent with 

the Park Service mission to ‘‘provide for the enjoyment’’ of parklands. To me, this 

means that we provide to the public what they want to have—including recreational 

activities such as camping, backpacking and horseback riding, AND roads for those 

who wish to see the Park from the family minivan; to provide access to back-country, AND to provide amenities such as rooms where families can stay; to provide 

a natural sanctuary for the contemplative, as well as the more mundane parking 

spaces for those who wish to stay for a while and explore and enrich their lives. 

Let me make it clear, as long as I represent Yosemite National Park and this 

beautiful Valley, I will not allow it to become an exclusive retreat available only by 

tour bus, nor a natural preserve which you can get to only on foot. Neither of these 

alternatives are solutions for the future of Yosemite. 

Today, I have brought the Subcommittee to the Valley not to discuss not the 

Park’s past, but its future. As we all know, a number of constituencies believe that 

the 1997 Merced River Flood was a sign from above to the National Park Service 

to reverse course in the Valley—to remove roads, buildings, and opportunities and 

access from the public, and restore the Valley to a ‘‘wilderness zone’’ where only low 

impact hiking would be permitted. 

While the 1997 Flood certainly brought a crisis to the Valley, it should not seen 

as an opportunity to limit access by the public. The Valley and Park belong to over 

285 million Americans, not a select few. 

I have asked my good friend, the Director of the National Park Service, Fran 

Mainella, to update the Subcommittee generally on the implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan and to specifically address the recent NPS campground study as 

well as the status of parking spaces in the Valley. I do wish to state my frustration 

that a study of out-of-valley camping that was completed last year was only made 

available to me or to the public last week. The study shows that 204 campsites can 

be relatively easily constructed outside of Yosemite Valley, ostensibly to replace 

campsites in the Valley that were lost in the flood and in the subsequent planning 

process. It is my opinion that campsites outside of the Valley do not replace in–Valley campsites. Meanwhile, I had asked for a separate study identifying the costs and 

availability of campsites at Upper and Lower Rivers. That study shows that were 

setbacks from the river equal to the setbacks identified in the Merced Wild and Scenic River Study, 144 campsites could be installed at Upper and Lower Rivers while 

restoring a significant riparian corridor.Opposition to this proposal is based on the 

fact that the campgrounds would be in a flood plain. I cannot think of a better use 

of flood-plains than campgrounds. 

I am most interested in how and when the Park Service will be restoring campgrounds in the Valley to their pre–Flood numbers, particularly in the Upper and 

Lower River campgrounds. 

I also look forward to hearing the testimony of our other witnesses, especially 

those who have been coming to this park for many years and can speak to their 

experiences and what they see is the future for this Valley and the Park. 

I now turn to the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Donna Christensen of 

the U.S. Virgin Islands, for her opening statement. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. And as many as you know, I have had the 

pleasure to represent the valley of Yosemite Parks in Congress 

since 1994, and previously when I served as Mariposa County supervisor, I enjoyed using Yosemite very much. And I say all this 

because I believe it is very important for everybody to know just 

how I feel about this park and its valley. I want all of its grandeur 

to be available to anyone wishing to experience it firsthand as I 

was able to do and am able to do. 

I envision this valley and the park continuing to be open to all, 

consistent with the Park Service mission to provide for the enjoyment of parklands. To me, this means that we provide to the public 

what they want to have, including recreational activities such as 

camping, backpacking, and horseback riding; and roads for those 

who wish to see the park from the family minivan, or to provide 

4

access to the back country; and also to provide amenities such as 

rooms where families can stay, provide a natural sanctuary for the 

contemplative, as well as the more mundane parking spaces for 

those who wish to stay for a while and explore and enrich their 

lives. 

I want to be very clear that as long as I represent Yosemite 

National Park and this beautiful valley, I will not allow it to become an exclusive retreat available only by tour bus, nor a natural 

preserve where you can get to it only on foot. Neither of these alternatives are solutions for the future of Yosemite and Yosemite 

Valley. 

Today, I brought the Subcommittee to the valley not to discuss 

the park’s past, but its future. As we all know, a number of constituencies believe that the 1997 Merced River flood was a sign 

from above to the National Park Service to reverse course in the 

valley, to remove roads, buildings, and opportunities and access 

from the public, and restore the valley to a wilderness zone where 

only low-impact hiking would be permitted. 

While the flood of 1997 certainly brought a crisis to the valley, 

it should not be seen as an opportunity to limit access by the public. The valley and the park belong to over 285 million Americans, 

not a select few. 

I have asked my good friend, Director of the National Park Service, Fran Mainella, to update the Subcommittee generally on the 

implementation of the Yosemite Valley plan, and to specifically address the recent National Park Service campground study as well 

as the status of parking spaces in the valley. 

I do wish to state my frustration that the study of out-of-valley 

camping completed last year was only made available to me or the 

public last week. The study shows that 204 campsites can be relatively easily constructed outside of Yosemite Valley, ostensibly to 

replace campsites in the valley that were lost in the flood and in 

the subsequent planning process. It is my opinion that the campsites outside the valley do not replace in-valley campsites. 

Meanwhile, I had asked for a separate study identifying the cost 

and availability of campsites at the Upper and Lower River Campgrounds. That study shows that for setbacks from the river equal 

to the setbacks identified in the Merced Wild and Scenic River 

Study, 144 campsites could be installed at Upper and Lower Rivers 

while restoring a significant riparian corridor. Opposition to this 

proposal is based on the fact that the campgrounds would be in the 

flood plains. I can’t think of a better use of the flood plain than 

campgrounds, quite frankly. 

I am most interested in how and when the Park Service will be 

restoring campgrounds in the valley to their preflood numbers, particularly in the Upper and Lower River Campgrounds. I also look 

forward to hearing the testimony from our witnesses, especially 

those who have been coming to this park for many years and can 

speak to their experience and what they see is the future for this 

valley, the park. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. I now would recognize the Ranking Member of 

the Subcommittee from the Virgin Islands, Mrs. Donna 

Christensen, Donna, for your opening statement. And welcome to 

Yosemite, Donna. 

5

STATEMENT OF HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN SLANDS 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset I really appreciate the hospitality of 

you and the National Park Service Superintendent Tollefson for my 

first visit to this wonderful park. And I have been in hearings with 

you in Washington, and we have had pictures and maps, but they 

certainly don’t do the park justice. So I am happy for the opportunity to be out here and see firsthand the magnificent resources 

and hear some of the challenges and opportunities that Yosemite 

National Park faces today. They are not unlike many that we face 

in my own district. 

The Yosemite Valley plan has been years in the making, I think 

about 20 years, and it entails a lot of work and public participation, 

a significant document for a significant area of great beauty and 

majesty. As one of our premier national parks, people from all 

around the country and the world really have expressed an interest 

and concern for Yosemite. The extent of the national news coverage 

that the Yosemite Valley plan has received over the years is a testament to the attraction that Yosemite has with the American public. 

Given the public’s spotlight on Yosemite, the National Park Service has its work cut out to meet the expectations that people have 

for this park as well as meeting the needs and concerns of the gateway communities. That challenge is compounded by the geology of 

the valley that we are in. Yosemite Valley is only 7 miles long and 

less than 1 mile wide. The floor of the valley is further reduced by 

rock falls onto the flood plain of the Merced River. Within this relatively small area, which I understand is the area that is really 

utilized most in Yosemite, about 3 to 4 miles by 1 mile, millions 

of people come annually to experience the nationally significant resources of the valley. How to protect these important park resources and still maintain the quality visitor experience has been 

a concern going back for many years. I am hopeful that today’s 

hearing can contribute to a better understanding of what we can 

and should do to provide for the long-term preservation and enjoyment of Yosemite National Park. 

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 insight on the subject of today’s oversight hearing. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Donna, very much. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. And also here today is a good friend and new 

Member of Congress from California, representing primarily Fresno 

and Tulare Counties, Mr. Devin Nunes. 

Devin, did you want to open up with anything? 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEVIN NUNES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. It 

is a pleasure to be here, being that this is very close to my district 

and has a special place in my heart. 

Some people may not know this, but the Ahwahnee Hotel was at 

one time a naval hospital, and my grandfather was in the Navy 

6

during World War II. He was injured not in the war, but actually 

broke his arm on leave, and was stationed here. He was relocated 

here for about a year, and he always said how wonderful it was. 

Then as a kid my family would bring me up here, and I hiked 

up to Vernal Falls, Nevada Falls, Half Dome, the top of El Capitan, 

the top of Yosemite Falls, and Glacier Point. And as you know, it 

is a really beautiful place. 

And it is an honor for me to be here today as a new Member of 

Congress. They send me on these missions, and a few weeks ago 

Chairman Pombo asked me if I would go up to the north slope of 

Alaska to take part in a field hearing, and I, you know, because 

as the new guy, said, sure. I got up there, and it was 50 below zero, 

and I wondered what I got myself into. And then last week, George 

had asked to me to come up here, and I thought, well, this is easy. 

Yosemite is real close. I got in a wreck on the way up here, and 

it snowed. And I don’t know, I am beginning to think they make 

freshmen Congressmen go on all these trips that no one else wants 

to go on, Mr. Chairman. 

But I look forward to the testimony today, and thank you all for 

coming. I know this is very important to Mr. Radanovich’s district, 

my district, the entire State of California and the Nation. So thank 

you very much. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Devin, and welcome to Yosemite. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. We are going to begin with our first panel, and 

if those members would like to come up. I see more signs, more different folks. 

Fran, do you want everybody up here? 

Ms. MAINELLA. Yes, Mr. Chairman. And if I may, if I could bring 

up our Superintendent Mike Tollefson to come forward; also, Jon 

Jarvis, our Regional Director; and also my Deputy Director Randy 

Jones. If they may join us. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much. 

Fran Mainella is, of course, Director of the National Park Service; Mr. Randy Jones, who is with the National Park Service as 

well back in Washington; Superintendent Mike Tollefson; and Mr. 

Jon Jarvis, Regional Director. Welcome. 

And I am going to lay out a few rules for the red light, green 

light that you should be able to see. It is just like a traffic light. 

Green means go, yellow means speed up, and red means stop. So 

if we could, so that this does not drag out beyond a couple hours, 

and we want to conclude this hearing, if you would stay within the 

5-minute rule, it would be much appreciated. Say it that way. I am 

pretty good about making sure that everybody gets to say what 

needs to be said, so we will make some leeway if it is necessary, 

but it is important to stay in that rule if we can. 

STATEMENT OF FRAN MAINELLA, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK 

SERVICE, ACCOMPANIED BY MIKE TOLLEFSON, SUPERINTENDENT, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK; RANDY JONES, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE; AND JON JARVIS, REGIONAL 

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

Ms. MAINELLA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. I really appreciate all of you being here and taking the time out of your 

schedule to visit, particularly here on Earth Day and part of 

7

National Park Week, to be here in Yosemite, one of the key cornerstones of our National Park System. I really appreciate that all of 

you took the time to do that. 

Also, I am going to ask if I could have my written statement put 

into the record. I am going to do a summary and hopefully be able 

to stay within that 5-minute period. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. There being no objection, so ordered. Frankly, 

that is the better way to do it. 

Ms. MAINELLA. Thank you, sir. 

I do want to mention, though, before I get into some actual comments on our issues that we are going to be working on, I just want 

to make sure—and I talked to some of the folks here in the audience as I arrived and things to make sure everyone knows that we, 

under this administration, the focus of what we like to do, and it 

matches up so well with your gateway bill, Mr. Chairman, that you 

are working on, is that it is very, very important, in fact it is mandatory in our Park Service now, to be working with gateway communities and reaching out to partners, environmental leaders, 

recreation users. And this is not just something nice to do, it is 

something expected to do. 

And, in fact, I brought Mike Tollefson in, and I got a lot of nasty 

letters from Smokies because—from those communities saying that 

I pulled him away. But he is here because of his ability to work 

so well with the communities. And I think that is an important 

message that I hope we can send out throughout, no matter what 

issues we talk about, that communication is absolutely important. 

I think you know Secretary Norton has really always focused on 

what she calls her four Cs, which is communication, which is cooperation, and consultation, all under the service of conservation. 

And I think that, again, this is important for us, and you will see 

that constantly demonstrated through the National Park Service as 

we go forward. So I would just really appreciate that acknowledgment of all that we are working on. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, I am just very pleased to be here and to 

be able to talk about where we are in the implementation of the 

Yosemite Valley plan. And I know that this is so important, as you 

know yourself the memories and the values that come when you 

visit Yosemite. Once someone is here, there is an ownership that 

all of us take because it is so significant. And we want to make 

sure that everyone knows that the National Park Service is not trying to ever keep people away. We want to encourage folks to visit 

our parks, and we want to emphasize that as we go forward not 

only here at Yosemite, but at so many of our parks, 388 in fact, 

as we address visitation. 

Now, one thing that is unique here in Yosemite, particularly, I 

think, from about over the last couple of decades there has been 

a major change in Yosemite, is that we have gone from a number 

of decades ago where it was 20 percent of the visitation was day 

use—in other words, just coming in for the day and leaving—and 

80 percent was overnight stays. What has happened now, though, 

is a major change, and this is not unique to Yosemite—we are seeing it across our national system both not only in national parks, 

but in State parks and others—is a switch to a much heavier 

8

visitation by our day use visitors. In fact, it is actually completely 

swapped. It is now 80 percent day use and 20 percent overnight. 

And this is something that what I hope that you will see in the 

plan that we are working on is in further enhancing, and, in fact, 

as we look at some of the campground areas and things like that, 

emphasizing more day use on some of those, and increasing and 

welcoming our visitors to the park and making sure they understand that we do have opportunities here, and we welcome our visitors to this to Yosemite, and not—and all our national parks 

throughout. 

Again, as you know, we are currently working on 15 major 

projects—and all of you in Congress, particularly your leadership, 

Congressman Radanovich—for us to be able to move forward in 

this first implementation. And, in fact, we expect that this first 

implementation—and later we can have Mike or others go over 

some of the details of that implementation plan—be able to make 

sure that by December hopefully—our goal is to have the majority 

of the work done by December of 2004. It may overlap a little bit 

into 2005 if we have more snowstorms, but this is something that 

we are really working to do. 

And these are major changes that will help traffic flow. It will—

in fact, we will be working not only to get some of these projects 

done, we are always going to be working on one or two additionals 

that weren’t on that list. As you know, in fact, I think, starting tomorrow, we are going to actually be working on some areas that 

will further enhance on some projects that will actually displace 

some parking, but in doing so we are actually going to increase 

parking in other areas so that we have no net loss of parking in 

the valley, particularly over the next 5 to 7 years as we work forward, and then we will continue to readdress that. And we will do 

what we call adaptive management, Mr. Chairman, and we will be 

looking at where that leaves us as far as the parking situation. So 

I just wanted to give you that heads up. 

Also, as you know—and you have helped us work forward on the 

transportation system for Yosemite. And the YARTS system really 

has increased 20 percent over the last 2 years. We do expect to see 

it continue to increase. But again, we want to emphasize heavily 

to make that the enjoyable way and the way to work with the gateway communities so some of the business not only stays here in the 

park, but also in those gateway communities. And we will look forward to further enhancing that. 

We are going to be working on energy efficiency, and we talked 

about some of that yesterday, Mr. Chairman, on how we could be 

more environmentally friendly and work forward with our transportation. And as you know, we are looking at possibly a dieselelectric hybrid engine, and we rode on one this morning to see an 

example, the quietness and everything. So we are going to be working on that as well, and we hope to have that moving forward. And 

this will help us also in our air quality, which not only helps the 

park, but helps all our communities. And also in the YARTS, it is 

in its 4th year, and again would be increased. As we work on the 

technology, we hope to further make it the method of choice as people come in, but still make available parking opportunities within 

the park. 

9

On the subject of campgrounds, which I notice has been such an 

important one, and I apologize to you for that report getting to you 

only a few minutes before—may I continue? I am out of time. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Please do. 

Ms. MAINELLA. OK. I talk a lot. Yeah. But on the subject of 

campgrounds, I apologize for that report coming in. In all honesty, 

we had to make sure it went within a format that was appropriate 

within, and many eyes looked at that as it went up. So I just want 

to make sure you know it was important, it was high on our radar 

screen. And this is the first report I am talking about is the one 

that the Appropriations Committee asked us to work on, but I 

know you had worked with them. 

Looking at more of the out-of-valley campgrounds, and to make 

sure that we looked at what opportunities we have, I think at this 

point—and Mike, correct me—we have over—we are close to 1,500 

campsites in the park today, but only about 475 are actually in the 

valley at this moment. But out-of-valley, that report indicated 788 

additional campsites could come in. 

Now, to be able to move forward quickly on that, of that 788, 204 

actually match all requirements. And if we can get some additional 

funding to move forward on that or work with partners in that, we 

can move forward on that very rapidly. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Can you run through those numbers again 

quickly? 

Ms. MAINELLA. Yes. What we have right now—and help me, 

Mike, if I go astray, please—is that we have right now, I think, 

close to 1,500 campsites. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. That is preflood? 

Ms. MAINELLA. No. That is now. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Now. 

Ms. MAINELLA. Throughout the park now, right now, 1,542. 

Thank you. He whispered in my ear. And of that, of that 1,500 

plus, is 475 that are in the valley itself. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Preflood or now? 

Ms. MAINELLA. No. Now. The prefloods were higher numbers; it 

was close to 800 in the valley. 

We are able to add in with that 204, that out-of-valley, an 25 additional in-valley that would match up with the management plan. 

Those are things that we could be doing now that is compatible. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Two hundred four out-of-valley? 

Ms. MAINELLA. Two hundred four, yes. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Twenty-five in-valley? 

Ms. MAINELLA. Twenty-five in-valley, right. So that would jump 

us up to 1,700 plus campsites at Yosemite, at the park as a whole. 

And so we would be able to move very rapidly on that. Again, it 

would match up with all the plans, and we just would need to do 

some additional funding opportunities. But those are some things 

that I think we can work on and find, again, as we work with different individuals, partners, and other things, there may be other 

opportunities for us to move on those very quickly. 

The in-valley assessment—and remember, you asked us to do a 

report on the in-valley assessment of campsites separate from the 

out-of-valley that the Appropriations Committee—they identified 

144 sites possible. And that is remembering in the valley originally 

10

there was about 3—it was 828 originally; we have got 475, and 

adding another 25 and 50 leaves—the 144 is the part that at this 

point it would be possible. 

Now, in doing that, though, that possibility does not match up 

with the plans. So that is where we have a concern: It does not 

match up with the plans. 

Also, if you go back to my initial comment about 80 percent of 

our visitation now—and by the way, over that two decades, even 

though we had a little drop since September 11th and things of 

that nature, we have actually increased from two decades ago, 

which we were 2.5 million. We are now at 3.4 million visitors to 

the park today, and—but that we really feel we need to emphasize 

those day use visitors and find a way in that area, in the valley 

areas where we had some of the campsites, to make it so that that 

larger group, the 80 percent, can be better served through opportunities through—and we would be working through an EA, environmental assessment, to work with our partners and all the folks, so 

many of the folks here we would want to include, to talk about 

what opportunities we could do there, but still be respectful of 

being in a flood plain. 

But the big thing is reaching out, trying to serve, and parks 

change as to the use, but I am seeing that, across our national 

parks as a whole, a greater visitation day use. And it is because 

a lot of the gateway communities are really jumping forth to help 

us with accommodations. And also the visitations to park used to 

be—remember, we used to do vacation a week to 2 weeks; now you 

looking at the majority being much shorter. And I don’t have all 

the statistical numbers, but when I served on the Commission on 

Tourism in Florida, we had watched those numbers drop to 4 to 5 

days as a typical visitation. And possibly our folks from—a concessionaire can maybe verify what that number drop is. Again, we 

want to emphasize biking, hiking, picnicking, and many other activities. 

And then I would like to work with our partners, our communities again, and see if there is any opportunities for us to work 

in adjacent communities to provide some additional camping or 

other accommodations, which I think began—most of my experience at other parks, both in State parks and even here in the Federal system, most communities like to get the housing and overnight accommodations in their communities, and actually the normal opposition we receive is, don’t build in the parks. Make that 

the day use, the area for people to come; have some minor accommodations that draw people there, but then put a great emphasis 

on the outside of the park. And that is more of a standard in a lot 

of our areas and to be having that request. 

I am ready to close because I know I am way past my time, but 

I just think that there is so many exciting things we could be 

doing. And again, I want to just reach out to all the communities 

and all the people that are here as well as all of you to realize that 

we have a commitment. And I guarantee you that we will be working much more aggressively in communication across all this area, 

and we are doing it not just here, but in all our parks. I think Delegate Christensen knows that we are really working hard on that 

in the Virgin Islands. And, Congressman Nunes, I guarantee you 

11

we are going to continue to work with you on some issues at Sequoia and others that we need to talk about. But the biggest thing 

is we need to reach out and make sure we are communicating. And 

that is a commitment on my part, and this team that is sitting 

here at the table have that same commitment. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Director. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Mainella follows:]

Statement of Fran P. Mainella, Director, National Park Service,

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your Subcommittee 

at this oversight hearing on the Yosemite Valley Plan here at Yosemite National 

Park. I am accompanied by Durand Jones, Deputy Director; Jon Jarvis, Regional Director for the Pacific West Region; and Michael Tollefson, Superintendent of Yosemite National Park. 

It is a pleasure to have you and the Subcommittee here at the park, and we appreciate the opportunity you have provided for us to update you on the important 

projects that are being undertaken here. These include the park’s transportation 

plans and the identification of potential additional campsites for park visitors. 

I would like to begin by discussing visitation here at Yosemite National Park and 

how it fits with the implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Two decades ago, 

annual visitation at Yosemite was about 2.5 million, and about 80 percent of the 

visitors stayed overnight while 20 percent came for the day. Now the park receives 

about 3.4 million visitors annually, and the proportion of overnight versus day-use 

visitors is the reverse: 80 percent are day users while 20 percent stay overnight. 

We believe this change has occurred largely because more visitors are using lodging 

in Yosemite’s gateway communities. The Yosemite Valley Plan recognizes this trend 

and seeks changes that will accommodate the higher day use of the valley and the 

park while improving the experience of all visitors to Yosemite and protecting the 

park’s resources. 

At the same time, the Yosemite Valley Plan also seeks to respect the traditions 

and strong connections many visitors feel with Yosemite. We know from surveys 

that fully half of the park’s visitors are making return visits. The public comment 

periods for the Yosemite Valley Plan and the Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan, both of which were completed in 2000, drew more 

than 22,000 comments, demonstrating an extraordinary level of public interest in 

the park’s future. This public involvement helped guide the National Park Service 

toward adoption of final plans that we believe will preserve and enhance the essence 

of what so many people find special about visiting Yosemite. 

First Phase Projects 

We are making significant progress on 15 projects that comprise the first phase 

of implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan, as reported to Congress last year. 

These are listed on the chart we have labeled as ‘‘Exhibit 1’’ and are identified in 

this statement by numbers that correspond to the chart. This chart, which includes 

a timeline for the projects, is also attached to this statement. 

The Yosemite Falls Project (1) is a tremendous public-private partnership, funded 

predominately by the Yosemite Fund. As a project in which the park is working 

closely with the private sector and local communities, it exemplifies what Secretary 

Gale Norton refers to as the ‘‘4 C’s’’: consultation, coordination, and communication 

all in the service of conservation. The major trail improvements have begun and the 

main portion of the project, the relocation of the parking lot and restrooms out of 

the primary view of the waterfalls, will be completed in the fall of 2004. 

We will be removing the Cascades Diversion Dam (2) this fall. We are beginning 

Phase I of the Yosemite Lodge Project (3), which includes improvements for visitors 

enjoying the lodge in Yosemite. We are also designing the expansion of Camp 4 (4) 

and improvements to traffic flow on Northside Drive (5). 

In addition, we have been working closely with the American Indian Council of 

Mariposa County in another important partnership to design an Indian Cultural 

Center (6) here in the Valley. This fall, the new Curry Village cabins (7) and employee housing to replace housing lost in the 1997 flood (8) will be completed. These 

projects will include new utility services, which will be the start of the valley-wide 

Master Utilities Upgrade that will vastly improve conditions for modern electrical 

and other utility needs in the valley, while consolidating these functions in 

12

roadways and other previously disturbed areas so that sensitive resources in the 

park will be preserved. 

The National Park Service will also be making important campground improvements in the eastern end of Yosemite Valley (9). These campground projects are especially important in meeting our goals of maintaining levels of camping opportunities consistent with the Yosemite Valley Plan, the Merced River Plan and the 1980 

General Management Plan. They are a key component of the goal to eventually have 

500 campsites available in the valley, 25 more than are currently available. 

In addition to these critical projects, Yosemite has removed the Happy Isles 

Bridge (10), and is developing plans for the construction of an office building in El 

Portal to replace office space in the valley that was lost in the 1997 flood (11). 

We are also developing an important strategy to restore degraded and lost riparian and wetland areas along the Merced River in former campground areas damaged in the 1997 floods (12). These riverbank areas and riparian zones are highly 

threatened components of the valley ecosystem within Yosemite and throughout the 

Sierra Nevada. Because of the unique value of these areas along the beautiful 

Merced River, enhanced visitor use is being integrated with restoration plans to 

offer more visitors opportunities to use these areas for a variety of activities, such 

as picnicking and hiking. 

Shuttle Bus Replacement and Transportation 

The transportation system for Yosemite will take a major step forward this year 

when the park orders the new valley shuttle bus fleet for use starting in 2005 (13). 

This new fleet will meet modern goals of fuel and emissions efficiencies and provide 

reliable alternative transportation. This is fundamental to reducing congestion, accommodating more visitors in the park, and improving the visitor experience in the 

valley. 

After listening to our gateway communities and park visitors and conducting extensive analyses, the park decided to purchase new buses that use a proven technology known as a ‘‘diesel-electric hybrid’’ engine. The National Park Service studied 

many alternatives looking for ease of visitor use, reliability, and a reduction of emissions. We believe this hybrid design will meet the concerns of the public for the visitor experience, noise reduction, and improvement of air quality in Yosemite and the 

region. In addition to this new bus fleet, we are developing new shuttle bus stops 

(14) to accommodate the new buses and to improve the overall transportation experience in Yosemite Valley. Eventually these will be linked to the improved parking 

area at Yosemite Village (Camp 6) and other valley destinations. 

On the subject of improved transportation, I would like to mention that the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) is now entering its fourth 

year of providing visitors, gateway communities, and Yosemite employees an alternative to driving their own vehicles to Yosemite. YARTS provides excellent service 

and connections to broader transportation systems such as Amtrak. Visitor usage 

of YARTS has increased by about 20 percent in each of the last two years. Although 

ridership and revenues are increasing, in order to become fully functional, YARTS 

is still in need of strong support to help it expand and provide quality service. We 

are grateful to you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership in the development of 

YARTS, and to the many partners in the communities adjacent to Yosemite that 

have funded and continue to manage and support the YARTS system. 

While we anticipate that visitor use of alternative transportation will continue to 

grow, I want to note that over the next five to seven years, while Yosemite Valley 

Plan projects are underway, the availability of parking for day visitors will not be 

curtailed. As the various implementation projects are undertaken, some parking 

areas will change but during this time there will be no net loss of day use privatevehicle parking spaces in the valley. 

Campground Planning Studies 

Mr. Chairman, the final item on our list is the Parkwide Campground Planning 

Study (15), recently prepared in response to the House Appropriations Committee 

report on the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations for 

Fiscal Year 2002. The report directed the National Park Service to undertake a 

study of the potential for expanded opportunities for additional camping in Yosemite 

National Park. 

There are currently approximately 1,490 campsites within Yosemite National 

Park, including 475 within the valley. This study looked at 13 different areas outside the valley, determined the number and type of campsites that could be reasonably accommodated at each location, and estimated the costs of constructing the new 

campsites. It identified 788 potential new campsites of various types within these 

13

areas. The study is a useful starting point for planning additional campsites, but 

it is not a formal decision document or a compliance document. 

In reviewing this study, the park found that constructing the majority of these 

new sites would require extensive compliance along with amendments to the 1980 

General Management Plan, as modified by the Yosemite Valley Plan, and the 

Merced River plan. However, the park could develop 204 of the identified sites while 

still complying with approved plans. If the additional 25 sites planned for Yosemite 

Valley are added to that number, that would increase number of planned campsites 

by 229, to a total of 1,719 for the park. Yet placement of campgrounds would still 

be limited to areas of Yosemite that were found through the planning process to be 

capable of withstanding the impacts of development. 

In addition to the campground study requested by the House Appropriations Committee, the park has also prepared a report at your request, Mr. Chairman, on replacement of campsites in the Lower Pines, Lower River, and Upper River campground areas in the valley. This report identified the potential for some campsites 

in these areas. However, using these areas for campgrounds that serve a limited 

number of overnight visitors would preclude making them available for greater 

numbers of day visitors to enjoy for hiking, picnicking, bicycling, and other activities. And, developing campsites in these areas would require extensive compliance 

and amendments to the park’s three approved plans, which would be very costly. 

We share the concern of this Subcommittee about the need to accommodate more 

visitors who wish to camp at Yosemite. The public’s keen interest in camping has 

been demonstrated in many ways, including the fact that more than 1,400 of the 

22,000 comments we received on the Yosemite Valley Plan and the Merced River 

plan addressed camping in some form. As we work to increase the availability of 

campsites within Yosemite National Park, we are also cooperating with our gateway 

partners, as well as other Federal and state agencies, to increase the capacity for 

providing camping opportunities outside the park. 

Mr. Chairman, to conclude, the projects underway at Yosemite are designed to 

serve more visitors in better ways, and to enhance the experience of everyone who 

visits this magnificent park, now and in the future. They represent some of the most 

exciting projects we are engaged in anywhere in the National Park System today. 

We look forward to moving ahead with these projects with the involvement of our 

neighbors and partners, and with your continued interest and support. We would 

be pleased to answer any questions you or the other members of the Subcommittee 

may have. 

[An attachment to Ms. Mainella’s statement follows:]

14


86612.001
15

Mr. RADANOVICH. So all three of us can begin to get a little more 

detail about the parking plan and such, I did want to ask, since 

the flood and since the reduction of campground spaces particularly 

as to Upper and Lower River Campgrounds, there has been a concern, I think, for myself and a lot of people with the reduction of 

that in the Yosemite Valley plan that calls for a reduction of parking spaces down to about 550 spaces. 

Moves like these since the flood and the adoption of the plan at 

closing hours at the administration has led me to be convinced of 

the Park Service’s responsibility to be balancing environmental 

protection with public access and in the development of their plans 

that it is too skewed toward environmental preservation and 

does—particularly in the parking spaces, which we are not going 

to get into today. But the fact that a satellite bus system from satellite parking lots, and turning people back to park there, and then 

get bused in, as it was set up, for 9 months out of the year, and 

that is how we got our 550 spaces to me was a—you know, anybody 

who has been in Yosemite knows that any time there is heavy traffic in the valley in Yosemite is during the Memorial to Labor Day 

weekends, and then only a short time during those—you know, 

peak hours during those times. So even if someone could justify a 

satellite parking system for heavy times of traffic, it would only 

need to operate 3 months out of the year, not 9 months. And that 

is what has led to my conviction that there is a concern about 

blocking people out of the park. 

And as it relates to campgrounds, there is some concern—you 

know, I have got a real concern about that being the case as well, 

even though there are some real tough issues about preservation 

and what we think we should be doing with the flood plain in Yosemite, particularly Northside Drive and Upper and Lower River 

Campgrounds and how does all that— the increasing camping 

spaces, how does that affect traffic in the Yosemite Valley as it 

stands right now. 

So, I want to make sure that I get all these questions in my mind 

out so that you can answer them. But in the course of—at least my 

concern as far as the camp spaces—that I am approaching this as 

a no land loss from preflood stages, and if we have to look at locating some of them outside the valley, that is fine. I want as many 

of them as can be to remain in the valley, and that is why that 

the controversy over these two campground spaces is with us right 

now. 

As I mentioned in my opening statement, if there was a line 

drawn 150 feet from each side of the Merced River as it relates to 

campgrounds, and camping spaces were allowed to be replaced, you 

would probably have 144 spaces, which is close to—let us see how 

I can say this—close to the commitment of no net loss camping 

sites, if you add that to the 204 that could be located outside the 

valley. 

So I am not real interested in opening up the general plan for 

Yosemite, because I think that it would stop a lot of projects that 

are going right now that I think are very good. If before we leave, 

too, if you can have yourself or one of the staff enter publicly in 

the comment—for right now, if you can briefly list the different 

projects that are moving forward right now, that would be really 

16

helpful because I think it is important that these were all consensus projects that are moving on very well. 

[The information referred to follows:]

Mr. RADANOVICH. Let me start the questioning. The value of the 

Yosemite whole plan is valued at—can you tell me? 

Ms. MAINELLA. Four hundred plus million. And actually, Mike, 

you want to jump in, feel free to do so. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Yes. How much is available now from the 

money that was obtained shortly after the flood as appropriated 

from the Congress? 

Ms. MAINELLA. Right. As I say, I am going to turn to Mike. But 

we have about 105 million yet to be spending. 

Am I doing that right? 

Mr. TOLLEFSON. That is correct. We have added some of the fee 

money and funds from other sources in to get some of these 

projects done as well. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. And that money can cover the 15 or so projects 

that have been started right now? 

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Fifteen projects are funded to get them done in 

the next year and a half. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK. And if you can, list me those 15. You want 

to do it now, Mike, if it is in your head, or when you can get the 

information, if you can? 


86612.008
17

Mr. TOLLEFSON. I can do it now. The projects, the first one that 

I will list is phase 1 of the lodge restoration, which is putting 90 

units back in the lodge area that many were lost during the floods. 

So this is moving to that. 

The second one which is under way and we are really excited 

about is the Yosemite Falls project, which is a partnership with Yosemite Fund. They are—actually private donations are paying for 

90 percent of the project, and the construction on that is under way 

as we speak. And we are real excited about the future of Yosemite 

Falls and the improved access to all visitors. 

Another one is design of the—redesign of Camp 4, the camping 

there. We are looking to double the amount of campsites available 

in Camp 4. And that is design only, which will be done in the next 

few months. 

Again, a design-only project is the Indian Cultural Center, which 

is adjacent to Camp 4, west of Camp 4, and we are doing that in 

partnership with the local tribe. 

We are redesigning the reroute of North Shore Road, and how we 

can eliminate that bottleneck and where the lodge is going to the 

falls, which is one of our major tracking problems in the park, as 

you know. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Right. 

Mr. TOLLEFSON. We are going to begin construction of 10 new duplex cabins in Curry Village. That is scheduled to start later this 

year. 

We are also doing the expansion and remodeling some of the existing campgrounds, improving those sites and building out in valley campgrounds where we camp, as we have talked about earlier. 

Hopefully next month we will be letting a contract to purchase 

new shuttle buses, hopefully 19 new hybrid electric-diesel buses 

similar to the one that is in the valley today, which will greatly improve—reduce emissions and reduce noise in the valley. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. And that is only for in-park transportation. 

Mr. TOLLEFSON. That is only for in-valley transportation. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. In-valley. Thank you. 

Mr. TOLLEFSON. We are also—much needed, we are going to 

begin the construction of Curry Village employee dorms for 219 

people. Again, that will be done by at the end of next year. 

We have already removed the Happy Isles bridge which was 

damaged during the flood. 

We will begin removal of Cascade Dam on the Merced River at 

the end of this summer. 

We are working on, as was mentioned, restoration plans and 

then the visitor use plans for the river’s campground area and how 

we would use that in the future, and that public process has started as well. 

And the campground study was one of the 15 which has been 

turned in to you now. 

And then the last of the 15 is to replace the flood—some flooddamaged offices with an office down in El Portel. Along with that, 

what was done with the 15, we are replacing a lot of the utilities 

as we move forward in that with FEMA, with the flood money. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Great. Thank you. 

18

Can you tell me, Mike, is any of that money being used for satellite parking systems or— 

Mr. TOLLEFSON. No. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. —North Side Drive or for any of that? 

Mr. TOLLEFSON. No. North Side Drive, while we don’t have that 

final plan yet, we may reroute it around the lodge, and that will 

be a public review process that will start later this year. But the 

satellite parking is off in the distant future, I want to say 10 years, 

before we really look at that. And we need to see how opportunities 

like YARTS works out over time. That may eliminate the need for 

satellite parking. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. And so that any funding for any project that 

was not mentioned by you just now that is in the plan will have 

to be appropriated by the Congress? 

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK. 

OK. I am going to turn it over to you, Donna. I have got a lot 

of questions still, but I figure I have to chair a little bit here. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thanks, George. 

Well, I will start out by saying I see a lot of progress having been 

made since our hearing in March of 2001, And it also makes a lot 

more sense now that I have seen Yosemite. 

Two quick questions. How many campsites were there before the 

flood? Probably everybody else knows that. 

Mr. TOLLEFSON. In the valley, there were 828 campsites. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. And on the parking spaces, in reference to 

the 500 parking spaces, but that does not include parking spaces 

at the campsites or the lodge; am I correct? That is just— 

Mr. TOLLEFSON. That is for the day use. It is not for the lodge 

or overnight use. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. So it is actually more than 500 parking spaces 

that would be available? 

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Yes. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. The plan has had at least 18 public meetings, 

14 of them in California, and I am assuming that some of those 14 

were with the gateway communities. How would you rate this plan 

in terms of the opportunities for public comment? It seems to me 

that there was like a great deal of opportunity for public comment. 

Mr. TOLLEFSON. We received about 22,000 comments on the plan. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Is that about average? Is that high? 

Mr. TOLLEFSON. I would say with the advent of Internet, we get 

more comments. But I think my review of the plan—I have only 

been here 3 months, but my review of the plan is that many of 

those comments were very substantive and high-quality comments 

as opposed to a mass mailing on e-mail. So my impression is that 

the outreach to get input was good. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. And as a follow-up to that, is that the end of 

the comment process? I believe you said that you intend to continue this process. I want to, just for the record, clarify that that 

is not the end of the discussions and collaboration with the 

community. 

Mr. TOLLEFSON. It is definitely not the end of the discussions. 

They are ongoing and beginning. But it is also not the end of the 

formal opportunity to comment. There is many of the—even some 

19

of the 15 plans that I just outlined, while they were identified in 

the valley plan, the specifics of them were not. So as we go through 

the specifics, we are doing environmental assessments that are 

open for public comment. And, in fact, tomorrow we have a public 

meeting in this room to talk about some of those plans, and that 

will be an ongoing process. The best end result is when we have 

the opportunity for a wide variety of people to get involved in conversation. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. And just if I may follow up, one of the things 

that I expect of Mike and Jon and, you know, as they work 

throughout the parks in this whole region is that this communication is not—we may have some issues specifically we are focusing 

on, but we want to get into, where we have regular ongoing what 

I call non-crisis-oriented or nonspecific projects, regularly communicating and getting together. And I think already you brought on 

a staff person to help us in that effort right now. 

Ms. MAINELLA. Right. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. I had had a question which I think you had 

pretty much answered in your opening statement, Director 

Mainella, about the importance of the gateway community relationship, because those are concerns that were raised in our meeting 

or our hearing back in 2001 that perhaps this relationship was not 

as it should have been. Do you want to make any further comment? 

That sounds like it is pretty well— 

Ms. MAINELLA. Again, we have brought forth through this administration a greater emphasis on working beyond your boundaries, as we call it. And, in fact, we do not hire a superintendent 

anymore unless they know how to work in partnership with our environmental leaders, with our recreation users, with our communities. They must go beyond. And very shortly a finalization of the 

Director’s order, Mr. Chairman, that we talked about before on specific engagement and public involvement will be forthcoming that 

hopefully we all can do together, because it spurred from a Committee meeting that we had back some time ago to make sure that 

is very clear throughout the whole National Park System. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. A question that might go directly on the 

campsites, the ones that would be near the river, the ones that are 

not being planned to be replaced. You know, we have been going 

through discussions in Washington and the Congress about the 

flood insurance program, and there are many Members of Congress 

who have—well, there are some who have said, you know, maybe 

we ought to repeal it, because what happens is people keep rebuilding back in the flood-prone areas. So to me it sounds not only a 

matter of maintaining the ecology and allowing that to flourish, but 

isn’t safety a big concern and consideration in not replacing those 

campsites there? 

Ms. MAINELLA. Well, the safety of our visitors is paramount and 

as well as safety of our employees, and we really need to continue 

to look at, you know, how we can make sure anything—even as we 

look at the recreation increase that we like to see in that area, to 

make sure that those are done in a safe manner, and also facilities 

that are placed in there are either able to be quickly removed and 

moved to higher ground in a quicker action, or be able to address 

again how we can best take care of those flood plain areas. 

20

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Donna. 

Devin. 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Mainella, in your statement you said about 20 years ago 

there was 2-1/2 million visitors, and 80 percent of them were overnight users. Today there is 1,500 campsites in the entire park, and 

there is—I want to get the number here—5-—or less than 500 

postflood; there used to be 820 campsites preflood. I am interested 

to know how many campsites were available 20 years ago when 

you had more overnight visitors. 

Mr. TOLLEFSON. I will have to get that for you. I don’t know off 

the top of my head. 

Mr. NUNES. Does anyone here know? I am asking this question 

because, if you do the simple 20, 80 percentage that you talked 

about, that means there was 500,000 day visitors approximately 20 

years ago, and 2 million visitors who stayed overnight. Today, 

there is only 680,000 visitors that stay overnight and 2.7 million 

that come during the day. And so something doesn’t add up to me 

because it seems like there shouldn’t be a shortage of campsites if 

we are only getting a third of the visitors that we had 20 years ago. 

Ms. MAINELLA. I think part of the issue, too, is the fact that, remember, we had the lodging as well, of the lodges like here in the 

park which contribute to the overnight accommodations, and for 

the most part—in fact, part of our project is actually enhancing 

that and trying to increase or at least make sure that everything 

is in good shape there. But we can go back and do some further 

analysis on that. But, you know, again, going back to the trend 

across the Nation, what I see, though, is people still would like to 

stay in parks, but at the same time the gateway communities have 

been a great boost for us. And that may be what you are also seeing in that change, because many communities here had already 

started moving forward with accommodations maybe in a quicker 

basis. But again, we will give you a full analysis because we don’t 

have exactly that whole breakdown, but I know that is the switch. 

Mr. NUNES. Sir, do you have that number? You are raising your 

hand. 

Mr. MINAULT. I have the total weekend sites in the park in the 

1980 general management plan. That number is 2,200— 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Sir, I am sorry. Can you state your name for 

the record? 

Mr. MINAULT. I am sorry. Paul Minault with The Access Fund. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK. Yeah. If you can quickly then give the information. 

Mr. MINAULT. Twenty-two hundred. 

Mr. NUNES. And the reason I ask this is we are here discussing 

parking spots, and at some point we have visitors that are coming 

and going daily, but it used to be that visitors would come and 

park, and they had to park somewhere. I am just trying to do the 

math to figure out where these people are parking, trying to get 

an historical perspective as to what they are doing. Now, if you 

would get that information to me, I would appreciate it. 

21

But I have one more question, and that is that what percentage 

or how many people per year are using the current bus transportation that we have in and out of the park on a daily basis? 

Mr. TOLLEFSON. It is about 60,000 people. 

Mr. NUNES. Sixty thousand people. 

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Yes. And it is in the last 2 years the visitor ridership on that each year has grown 20 percent. 

Mr. NUNES. OK. 

Mr. Chairman, I think that is it. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Devin. 

I want to get into specifics of the campground study here briefly, 

but I do want to get a couple questions answered on the plan for 

you, Fran, if you would. 

Can you tell me if the Park Service and the Bush administration 

believe that cars must be removed from the valley, and that only 

mass transit or only public transportation should be used to bring 

people into and out of the valley? 

Ms. MAINELLA. Mr. Chairman, we never see a time when all cars 

are removed from the valley or anything like that. We do want to, 

though, through a bit more businesslike marketing approach, 

bring—have the desired method of entry into the park to be one 

that, again, works with our gateway communities to be as much 

mass transportation as we can do. 

One of the things that we recently did, like in Glacier National 

Park, the red bus has returned, and that has become a very 

popular way—in other words, interpretation opportunities, access 

in certain ways has really been enhanced because those buses come 

in; Zion National Park and others, a very similar scenario. So we 

have had a lot of success stories. But again, we need to try to be 

more businesslike, and you know we are working on that as well 

as partnership aspects, to make sure that we have the experience 

as people come in on the buses and others have a part of the total 

experience rather than just a method of transportation. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Very good. Thank you. 

Director Mainella or Mr. Tollefson, those who strongly support 

the implementing of the Yosemite Valley plan have stated over and 

over their opposition to revisiting the Upper and Lower River 

campgrounds, campsite, or parking issues because it would force 

the Service to reopen the plan. Does the Park Service have to reopen the entire plan to address this issue? And has the Service 

made any changes to the plan in which it has not had to reopen 

the plan? 

Ms. MAINELLA. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that it 

would reopen the plan. And I will be glad to continue to work with 

you and discuss if there are any other alternatives. But all we 

know, and the counsel we received, it would require reopening of 

the plan. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Is there leeway for changes to the plan that 

can be made without reopening it? Can you give me some input on 

that? 

Ms. MAINELLA. Again, we can use adaptive management. For example, when we are going to start some construction coming up, 

and this is a parking-related one versus camping, is we are going 

to actually increase at Camp 6—at least our vision is to increase 

22

parking there while—because we are removing it during construction from other areas. 

So there is a lot of adaptive management opportunities, and I 

think, again, you know, we need to, in my mind, continue to move 

forward as best as we can with this plan, get things done, and succeed. And then if there are other issues as evolve through the 

trends and changes that we can use, then be ready to say if there 

is something else that needs to be further addressed, then we can 

do so. 

But at this point, my understanding, it would reopen the plan; 

in fact, not just this plan, but the Merced also, I think, and that 

would probably slow—almost slows down if not bring us to a halt 

on our projects we are working on now. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. On other projects as well? 

Recently, the Park Service commissioned a study that I had 

asked for that studies the former Lower Pines and Upper and 

Lower River Campgrounds. The conclusion of that study stated 

that 144 campsites could be accommodated based on a 150-foot 

river protection overlay or setback. Obviously, the 144 number is 

way short of the 361 sites that existed before the 1997 flood. Does 

the Service support at minimum building 144 campsites on the 

former campgrounds? 

Ms. MAINELLA. At this point we would not—we need to follow the 

plan at this point, and so we would not be recommending that 144. 

But again, we do feel it necessary to continue to increase the 

recreational opportunities in that in going after, again, the increase 

in day visitors as the way to better welcome people into the park, 

and then look at the out-of-valley opportunities, including even 

with our partners on this. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. 

Now, I would like to get some detail on a campground study that 

has just been released. If you could give me some of that detail, 

Fran. Also, as it relates to costs of—to me, the issues—that there 

were a multiple, I think, number of issues that relate to campground replacement, one being the possibility of more campgrounds 

in the valley as it contributes to—whether or not it does—to traffic 

congestion in the valley. The other was the cost of infrastructure 

replacement and the study of whether or not, if infrastructure was 

replaced, in particular water and sewer lines, it can be done in 

such a way that would not be affected by a 50- or 100-year flood 

in a minimum-use area like that, and I am hoping that the study 

addressed that. 

And then also the cost of infrastructure costs for locating these 

campground spaces, the 204 that you identified outside the valley. 

As you know, that there are, you know, water and sewage treatment and things, issues that need to be addressed on that, and give 

me an idea of the cost that would be associated that compared to 

the cost of replacing infrastructure at these campgrounds here in 

the valley. 

Ms. MAINELLA. I am actually going to turn this to Mike, and if 

Jon or anyone else has any comments. But one of the things I do 

want to mention is that we are not comfortable with any of the—

some of the numbers or things of that nature, numbers being dolVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:14 Aug 14, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\86612.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
23

lars and cents on some of the things that were in the reports. So 

we are definitely going to be wanting to revisit that. 

And, Mike, I am going to turn to you if you can talk about in 

more detail the plan of the report. 

Mr. TOLLEFSON. I assume we are referring to the out-of-valley 

campground studies. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Yes. 

Mr. TOLLEFSON. I think it is important to recognize, and for the 

folks here who haven’t had an opportunity to see it yet, that that 

is a study and is not a finalized plan; that we would have to go 

through the planning process, probably doing an environmental assessment, to move forward on that project. And that plan itself 

identified 788 campsites spread around throughout the valley off of 

the existing road system. And looking at the general management 

plan through the park, 204 of those 788 sites match the general 

management plan and could be, I will use the word, in-filled. They 

are sites that were identified in the general management plan that 

had never been built. And for the most part those are in existing 

campsites such as Wawona or Tuolumne Meadows or Grand Flat 

areas, areas like that where we could expand existing campgrounds 

and provide more additional sites. And that is where the 204 

comes. 

The other sites, the remaining 500 plus, would probably require 

an environmental impact statement, because those are sites that 

are outside of the existing general management plan that would require a change to that and require quite a bit of detail, looking at 

if it is physically possible to put them there because the sites are 

flat. But whether or not it is the right thing to do is not a question 

that the study went into in any way. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. And does the study include the cost of what 

the infrastructure replacement cost would be for Upper and Lower 

River? 

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Yes, it does. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. So that we have something to compare it to, 

correct? 

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Yes. As the Director said, the costs, we feel, 

might be a little bit high, so we would like to take some time to 

relook at those, but they are equal in their estimate right at the 

moment. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much. 

Donna. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Somewhere in the answers you may have answered this already, Superintendent. If so, direct this to you. Based 

on what Mr. Minault said, and my calculations of where we could 

get to was with 229 plus what we have now, we would be short 

about 485 compared to back in 1980. Do you anticipate that, given 

the shift in the 80-20, that you need to shoot for the 2,200 that 

were there before the flood, or is that your objective? 

Mr. TOLLEFSON. The general management plan, which is our 

overarching guide, identifies 2,262 campsites. That would be our 

ultimate goal. But if part of the equation as we move forward, and 

especially looking at out-of-valley campsites, is what might be offered by the private sector in either case, we are not charging 

ahead today on those. 

24

Mr. TOLLEFSON. We need to look at them as we move forward. 

If we were looking, for example, Foresta would be a place that 

would be considered for a campground, but there are a lot of issues 

and concerns around that, and we would want to partner with a 

lot of folks in conversation about that before we move forward. So 

while that number is our optimum number, whether or not we 

reach it really depends on future conversations and future planning. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Director Mainella, you mentioned, is it Zion 

Park? 

Ms. MAINELLA. Right. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I am not that familiar with it, but were the 

same kind of objections and concerns raised when they were planning the implementation of their shuttle system? And also the second part to that question, how is it working? 

Ms. MAINELLA. To my understanding, there were similar objections, but I am going to ask Randy Jones, our Deputy, who was at 

Rocky Mountain National Park at the time and could maybe speak 

to what was going on. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you. 

Actually our experience has been universal, but any time we initiate a new transportation system, there is a great deal of controversy and uncertainty as to its effects and how it will work. We 

are finding in places like Rocky Mountain and in Zion that as we 

are learning and developing, that actually there is a lot of public 

acceptance, and we are finding that we can get smarter and better 

as to how we manage and get people to the places they want to 

visit and, therefore, allow visitation to continue to grow and avoid 

situations of gridlock. 

And so we are learning, and we are growing. We are working 

with the Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, who are consultants in developing transportation 

systems, and the experience, especially at Zion, has been very 

successful. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. 

The transportation plan based on expanding the system is going 

to be phased in, the phasing out of parking is going to be coordinated, or do we anticipate that we will be losing parking spaces before the shuttle system is implemented? 

Ms. MAINELLA. This kind of goes back to our adaptive management. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Can you explain what that is? 

Ms. MAINELLA. I apologize. I got into park lingo, and I shouldn’t 

have. Adaptive management is a term that all of us are using not 

only national parks, but into our fellow State parks and local 

parks. This is where we look at situations and evaluate the pace 

for which removal of the parking spaces will take place. We commit 

that timing based on making sure that we do not decrease the visitors’ experience here. If it takes a little longer to get the enthusiasm and the marketability of the transportation system, then we 

will not be moving as quickly on removing parking until we make 

sure we have ourselves working forth, and that is the adaptive 

part. In other words, we may say, OK, here is the guideline we 

would like to work off of, but it adapts based on what is going on. 

25

I mentioned just the fact that weather can come in and change 

when we can actually develop something that is even on the list 

of 15, and we will not do things to hurt the visitation or to try to 

be negative to anyone’s experience here. We can adapt our management and decisionmaking based off of what is transpiring. It is the 

same way as if somehow a bad storm comes through and does 

something negative here or somewhere else, we adapt our management strategies and timing. It doesn’t mean, though, that we leave 

the plan in any way. It just means we do so in a time fashion that 

is friendly to our visitors. Thank you for asking that, though. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thanks, Donna. 

Devin? 

Mr. NUNES. I know that we are pressed for time, Mr. Chairman, 

so I will postpone any questions. Thank you. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. I am going to get something just briefly done, 

then we will move on to the next panel. I have got a lot of questions. Can you tell me, though, in any campground development or 

restoration, does the Park Service support the possibility of 

privatizing that function to a concessionaire? 

Ms. MAINELLA. The way we look at all our—again, I call it—it 

is we look at the business part of how is it best to be done in our 

park. Most campgrounds are run by the National Park Service because they are already existing and things of this nature. When 

you are building new campgrounds, then you need to be asking 

yourself the question, is it best that we do it? Do we work with one 

of our business partners or some others? And that is always an 

option. Or does one of our gateway communities somehow want to 

partner with us? 

We just—I don’t have the answer of how we best move forward, 

but the biggest thing that I want you to hear from us today is we 

have good communication lines open, and there is never an idea 

that we certainly can’t explore and discuss. This is what I would 

ask that we would do as we look at these different options. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. Thank you, Director Mainella. 

This concludes the questions for this first panel. Director, if you 

could make somebody from your staff available, though, during the 

time these other panels are testifying, I am sure some other questions are going to come up. Your expertise would be appreciated. 

Ms. MAINELLA. Thank you all. I appreciate your time. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thanks very much. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. With that, we will call on our second panel. 

The second panel represents people who provide accommodations 

both in and outside the parks, and while you are here, plan on 

going to either the Pines Resort in Bass Lake, California, the 

Groveland Hotel in Groveland, or stay here with the hosting of Yosemite Concession Services. I can say that because they are all 

wonderful constituents and fine people. 

Our second panel is Mr. Steve Welch, who is the executive vice 

president of the Pines Resort in Bass Lake, California. Welcome, 

Steve. Ms. Peggy Mosley, who is the owner of the Groveland Hotel 

in Groveland, California. You reach that by taking Highway 120 

out of the park. Bass Lake is Highway 41. Welcome, Peggy. Next, 

Mr. Kevin Kelly, who is the vice president of operations at YosemVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:14 Aug 14, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\86612.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
26

ite Concession Services Corporation here in Yosemite National 

Park. Welcome, Kevin. 

We are going to begin by everybody speaking for 5 minutes on 

your testimony. I didn’t set a fine example here by limiting ourselves to the 5 minutes, but we are going to try to get this thing 

over with at 12:30. So if you could limit your statements to 5 minutes, and then after that when the panel is done, we will open up 

the panel to questions from members here. 

Steve, again, welcome. It is good to see you. Please begin. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN WELCH, EXECUTIVE VICE 

PRESIDENT, THE PINES RESORT, BASS LAKE, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like 

to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your support of H.R. 620, the 

school bill, and also your support of 1014, the Gateway Communities Cooperation Act. I know we are not here to talk about that, 

but we do appreciate your support. 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, I 

thank you for this opportunity to provide oral testimony about the 

Yosemite Valley plan. I am here to present the views of Madera 

County. We believe the plan is detrimental to the gateway communities and the American public and will ultimately result in environmental degradation of Yosemite itself if implemented. Therefore, we urge you to set aside the Yosemite Valley plan, including 

YARTS, and to put a hold on future funding requests. 

I will focus my oral comments in two areas, one, parking spaces 

and, two, the camping issue. First of all, parking spaces. The valley 

plan we see as an urban and mass transit busing plan with all 

projects focused on the stated goal of ultimately eliminating private 

vehicle access to Yosemite valley. Parking spaces previously available to our residents and our customers, those known as day users, 

will be eliminated, and they will be forced to travel on buses to access their national park. Incidentally, in 1980 there were 2,500 

parking spaces for day users. The plan is calling for a reduction to 

550. 

What is the logic behind inconveniencing so many persons? The 

concept began in the 1970’s when there was legitimate concern 

with respect to vehicle emissions. However, since that time new environmental regulations and advances in technology have resulted 

in near zero auto emissions. The same cannot be said of buses. Yet 

the predetermined bus agenda is as entrenched today as it was in 

1980. The vision of the Park Service is to replace all clean cars 

with big, dirty buses. Bus traffic will replace car traffic with more 

noise, more glare, more sell, more visual intrusion and significantly 

more environmental degradation. 

Imagine a business today relying on a business plan with flawed 

functions that go back 25 years. What chance would it give of providing good direction today? So with this plan. An urban style system with massive park-and-ride lots, more than 500 daily round 

trips, and a 22-bay transit center as the point of arrival in 

Yosemite Valley hardly seems environmentally superior. 

How about the social considerations? Most of our visitors live in 

urban areas and come to the mountains to get away from the 

citylike environment in search of freedom and flexibility. This sysVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:14 Aug 14, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\86612.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
27

tem unnecessarily complicates and delays the families’ visit. 

Herding visitors like cattle from place to place is the antithesis of 

a back-to-nature experience. The 1994 transportation study even 

stated the greatest drawback would be, and I quote, loss of visitors’ 

personal freedom to experience portions of Yosemite at their own 

pace and in their own way, end quote. 

We believe visitors should have the right to access their national 

park in any manner they choose. All should have a choice, not just 

those who can afford a $300 plus hotel room at the Ahwahnee. As 

presented, this urban mass transit plan promises to socially reengineer the national park experience. 

How about the economics of a mass transit system feeding the park? The initial estimated cost of buses alone is $28.2 million, followed by annual operating costs of $13 million. Who will fund this? 

If the true costs were placed on the riders, it would be a financial 

hardship on many of our lower-income citizens. If the U.S. Treasury assumes the burden, then it becomes a taxpayer-subsidized 

program. Congress needs to exercise proper fiscal restraint and 

oversight. Can this expenditure be justified at any time, let alone 

now with our current projected budget deficits? Any busing, we believe, should be voluntary and private, self-supporting and not subsidized. So we see from an environmental, social and economic 

standpoint if a mass transit system doesn’t make sense, why is it 

in the plan? 

We believe the plan process was fatally flawed and was a topdown plan driven by the prior administration with predetermined 

opinions. We ask now that you step back and sort through the 

rhetoric and apply common-sense judgments to the process. When 

you do, the answer becomes crystal clear: Maintain at least the 

current number of parking places; implement some simple, lowcost, low-impact traffic management measures; and scrap the unnecessary, costly and environmentally damaging mass transit system. 

No. 2, valley camping spaces. We support restoring valley campgrounds to the pre-1997 level. Camping is an activity enabling the 

visitor to enjoy nature up close and personal and is the consummate park experience, and it is at a very affordable cost. The reduction of driving sites in the valley from 828 to 330, that is a 60 

percent reduction, is unacceptable. These sites are very important 

for families, seniors and the physically challenged. Relocation out 

of the valley, which is the ideal elevation for camping activity, will 

only increase traffic as those campers will want to access the services that are already located in the valley. Closing the river campgrounds and popular picnic areas for the purpose of claiming restoration appears to negatively target young families and those of 

limited means. 

In conclusion, I will wrap this up. These are the views of Madera 

County and are shared also by the Yosemite Sierra Visitor Bureau 

and a majority of the Highway 41 gateway community. The valley 

plan will adversely affect the visitor experience in terms of access 

and affordability. If access is not affordable and convenient, visitation will decline further and cause more economic hardship in our 

gateway communities. We urge you to set aside the Yosemite 

Valley plan so we won’t cause irreparable damage to the environVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:14 Aug 14, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\86612.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
28

ment, waste hundreds of millions of dollars, 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. Thank you very much. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thanks, Steve, very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Welch follows:]

Statement of Stephen R. Welch, Executive Vice President,

The Pines Resort 

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 indicates that the purpose of this Public Hearing is 

to ‘‘examine the implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan.’’ Once again, we respectfully 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. 

Madera County continues to stand by our testimony presented at the 2001 Subcommittee Hearing in Washington, DC. We believe our comments are every bit as 

valid now as they were then—especially as we observe the negative impacts of the 

15 Valley Plan projects that have garnered the Committee’s support. Restating our 

position, we request: 

1) No funding be appropriated for this Yosemite Valley Plan (and YARTS) 

2) Set aside/rescind this Yosemite Valley Plan (and YARTS) 

3) All excess flood funding ($110 million) be returned to the U.S. Treasury 

4) 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 

As Congressman Radanovich has publicly stated in the press, ‘‘the preparation of 

the plan, in fact the entire planning process, has been fatally flawed.’’ To allow 

these Plans (Yosemite Valley Plan authorized by the Merced River Plan) to be implemented, as legally enabled by a Record of Decision, reflects the same lack of integrity as the corrupt process by which they were developed. We urge Congress and 

the Bush Administration to exercise jurisdictional oversight and demand agency accountability. 

And though we recognize that camping and parking issues are of particular interest today, they are only two isolated ‘‘symptoms.’’ The Committee needs to address 

the root ‘‘disease’’—the expired 1980 General Management Plan, the Merced River 

Plan, and the Yosemite Valley Plan—clear and compelling evidence of a planning 

process corrupted by a predetermined agenda. 

YOSEMITE NEVER HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR DECEPTIVE FLOOD 

REQUEST 

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 

29

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—even 

though in most cases there was no valid plan in place. 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 six years. 

Yosemite planning is driven by funding already received—money that is burning a 

hole in the agency’s pocket. 

AN URBAN BUS PLAN—PERIOD!!! 

Yosemite planning efforts since 1980 have obsessed about the ‘‘evil’’ of cars and 

plotted their ultimate removal from Yosemite Valley. 

The Carter Administration’s 1980 General Management Plan (GMP) advocated 

freeing the Valley ‘‘from the noise, the smell, the glare, and the environmental degradation caused by thousands of vehicles.’’ Insistent on removing all private automobiles from Yosemite Valley, it further stated ‘‘the ultimate solution...in parks generally and in Yosemite specifically rests upon integration with regional transportation systems.’’

The 1994 Alternative Transportation Feasibility Study, in response to Public Law 

102–240, recommended changes in Valley traffic circulation to facilitate implementation of a mass transit system: a shuttle transfer point and tour bus parking at 

Camp 6; elimination of visitor traffic on Northside Drive, except for emergency use; 

relocation/removal of Upper and Lower River campgrounds, restoring campgrounds 

to natural conditions; closing Stoneman Bridge road between Curry Village and Yosemite Village; widening Southside Drive for two-way traffic as major access to the 

Valley; removal of stables; and more. The goal was to restrict access to the East end 

of the Valley, routing traffic instead across Sentinel Bridge to the transit center. 

The 1997 Flood Recovery Action Plan states ‘‘the Draft Yosemite Valley Implementation Plan, must be approved before the transportation or campground replacement components of recovery can go forward.’’ What replacement components of 

recovery? There was nothing to recover! As stated in the Trip Report for the El Portal Field Hearing (3/26/97): ‘‘The cost to re-open the campgrounds would be far less 

than relocating them elsewhere within the floodplain. The concessioner expressed 

an interest in taking over the campgrounds and could ‘rehabilitate’ them at little 

cost to the Federal Government.’’ A review of the campground and transportation 

packages makes it immediately apparent that the flood was used as occasion to garner funding for the predetermined agenda. 

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 6 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. 

The 2000 Merced River Management Plan laid out the zoning blueprint that will 

ultimately forbid placement of camping or parking where it has existed for years. 

Additionally, the Plan eliminated air quality and natural quiet as Outstandingly Remarkable Values. The Plan has been steeped in litigation claiming a lack of scientific credibility and failure to quantify carrying capacity; that zoning decisions 

were made arbitrarily to accommodate plans that had been on the table for more 

than 20 years. (Appeal hearing was held March 11, 2003 with judgment to be rendered within 2–3 months.) Designed to amend the GMP, the River Plan laid the 

foundation for the ultimate busing plan—the Yosemite Valley Plan. 

The 2000 Yosemite Valley Plan alternatives were named by virtue of their bus 

staging areas and forecast more than 500+ roundtrip shuttles, 76+ tour buses, and 

30

an unspecified number of YARTS buses entering the park daily during peak season. 

Buses arrive at a 22-bay transit center near Camp 6, one every 1.4 minutes. Mirroring the 1994 Transportation study, the Upper and Lower River Campgrounds are 

gone, the stables are gone, Southside is to be widened for two-way traffic, and 

Northside closed to visitor traffic. And though the 1994 study refused to even consider remote staging areas for reasons of cost, visitor confusion, visitor delay, information challenges, management difficulties, and loss of personal freedom—remote 

staging areas are exactly what the Yosemite Valley Plan proposes. 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.’’

What we have is a planning process fiercely clinging to the goals of Carter’s 1980 

GMP—a plan which in its own preface states an expiration date of 10 years (or 

1990), and which violates the mandate of NPS Director’s Order 2 (Park Planning). 

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 cannot be said of buses. Yet no reevaluation has occurred. More 

than 20 years later, the ‘‘visionary’’ plans of the National Park Service are to replace 

clean cars with dirty buses; bus traffic will now replace auto traffic; buses make 

more noise, buses fill the air with diesel fumes; buses have expanded surface glare; 

and buses require massive amounts of man-made infrastructure which will result 

in significant and permanent environmental degradation. This is resource stewardship at its worst. 

A BUS PLAN WITH NO JUSTIFICATION 

One would think that after obsessing over buses and implementation of a mass 

transit scheme for the past 20 years, the National Park Service would have a welldeveloped plan, strongly supported by scientific documentation and validated by carrying capacity research to justify their case. 

In a recently released (11/15/02) report, ‘‘National Park Service: Opportunities to 

Improve the Administration of the Alternative Transportation Program,’’ a U.S. 

General Accounting Office (GAO) investigation reveals the lax and unsubstantiated 

manner by which the Park Service implements its busing mandates. Of the 20 

projects studied (which included two from Yosemite), only one (Mesa Verde) provided thorough analysis. 

Each busing proposal is supposed to address non-construction alternatives (i.e., 

simple remedies such as traffic management that would not involve road widening/

realignment, bus depots, etc.). Each proposal mandates park capacity data (i.e., carrying capacity) to guarantee that a bus won’t bring in more people than what the 

carrying capacity will allow. Each proposal is supposed to address total cost including operations and maintenance costs. Each proposal is supposed to address analysis of cost effectiveness. 

The first Yosemite project ($3,100,000) was to ‘‘expand shuttle service in the park 

to meet increasing demand.’’ When evaluating that project, the GAO determined 

that NO information was provided in any of the four categories mentioned above. 

The second project ($990,080) was to ‘‘develop a new traffic information system to 

help park address increased congestion and resource degradation.’’ The park provided information for only 1 categor—non-construction alternatives; the other 3 categories were left blank. 

A particularly revealing statement: ‘‘A major objective of the program [alternative 

transportation] is to improve the quality of visitor enjoyment by relieving traffic and 

parking congestion in parks. However, because the agency has not established performance goals for reducing such congestion or identified how congestion is measured, there is no effective means of evaluating performance to determine what, if 

any, progress is being made. In the absence of specific programmatic performance 

goals and measures, evaluating the results of the program, and individual projects, 

is based on the subjective judgments of program managers.’’

It appears we have a ‘‘force people out of their cars’’ program, a draconian measure that will forever transform the way the American public will visit their national 

parks. Personal freedom, privilege and responsibility will be removed; visitors will 

be herded like cattle onto an assembly line of buses; resource degradation will occur 

from diesel fumes, increased paving and infrastructure to accommodate massive bus 

fleets, as well as mass trampling at on/off stops. Congress continues to throw millions of dollars behind the program—and all the while there is no environmental, 

social, or economic justification. A savvy park manager who knows how to lobby can 

push a project through because those with approval authority apparently overlook 

requisite documented justification and analysis that identifies whether the project 

31

is even needed, park carrying capacity data, detailed operation and maintenance details and costs, or even a cost-benefit analysis. This is unacceptable. 

PARKING—now you see it, now you don’t... 

A 1998 letter from a 37-year park ranger, now an official park document, states 

‘‘it is estimated there are roughly 3050 parking places left in Yosemite Valley. In 

my most conservative opinion, that is probably a third of what the Park had in the 

early 1960s.’’

The 1980 GMP states there are 2,513 existing day-visitor parking spaces; the Plan 

proposes to reduce that number to 1,271. 

The 1994 Alternative Transportation Study states that the consultants were told 

by the National Park Service that there were 5,055 parking spaces in the entire 

Valley, including formal and informal lots and roadside areas. The consultants could 

only find 2,247 spaces available for visitor use, about ° of those available to day visitors. 

The Yosemite Valley Plan states there are approximately 3,500 total Valley parking spaces. Approximately 1,600 are used by day visitors: 904 spaces in the East 

Valley and 700 in the West Valley. It is the Plan’s intention to reduce the total 

number of day visitor spaces to 550 in one consolidated location at Camp 6. However, a review of park documents clearly suggests those 550 are only temporary and 

that the ultimate goal is to remove ALL day visitor parking from Yosemite Valley. 

• NPS Squad Meeting minutes, 5/27/99: ‘‘consensus that Camp 6 works well as 

a parking facility; better than Taft Toe...immediate dispersion, less stress on 

shuttle system. Reality is that buses for next 10–15 years will be limited to diesel fuels (technology not there yet to improve them)...Camp 6 enables us to pull 

back in phases and ultimately remove parking from the East Valley (meeting 

GMP goals) while bringing the public along.’’

• NPS Merced River Plan meeting and process notes—DEIS Workshop 4, 10/6/99: 

‘‘Camp 6 and/or Taft Toe would be destination hubs and would be the start of 

the regional transportation system, introduce transit. While still looking toward 

the long-range goal of GMP to reduce vehicles in valley, in the meantime still 

need to accommodate visitor vehicle—when elimination of private vehicle is accomplished, and it is not needed for transit, then would revert back to background zone.’’

• Draft Yosemite Valley Plan, 3/27/00: A total ban on private vehicles was 

‘‘recommended because it is considered an ultimate goal of the 1980 General 

Management Plan. However the General Management Plan also recognized that 

the goal was infeasible at the time of its initial approval, and that a phased, 

collaborative approach would be needed to ultimately achieve this goal. Collaboration is ongoing to develop a regional transportation system [aka YARTS] that 

would provide initial and developmental steps toward achieving the ultimate 

goal. It is not possible to project when it would be feasible to remove all private 

vehicles from Yosemite Valley.’’ (ES, page 2–28) 

• Final Yosemite Valley Plan, 11/13/00: ‘‘Potential wetlands at the proposed Yosemite Village parking site [aka Camp 6] would be addressed by future compliance.’’ (Volume 1B, page 4.2–17) 

The National Park Service has failed to disclose to the public that Camp 6 is a 

temporary parking area. Furthermore, they have structured the zoning in the 

Merced River Plan so as to forbid parking in any other locations. 

As stated previously: 

• THE YOSEMITE VALLEY PLAN IS A BUSING PLAN THAT CLEARLY INTENDS TO PHASE OUT DAY VISITOR PARKING COMPLETELY; ALL 

PROJECTS ARE DESIGNED AROUND ACCOMPLISHING THAT GOAL 

• REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION (aka YARTS) IS REGARDED BY THE NPS 

AS THE SOLUTION FOR REMOVING ALL PRIVATE VEHICLES FROM THE 

YOSEMITE VALLEY 

• THE ZONING IN THE MERCED RIVER PLAN LEGALLY ENABLES IMPLEMENTATION OF AN URBAN BUSING SCHEME RESULTING IN REMOVAL 

OF DAY VISITOR PARKING. 

FAMILY CAMPING AND PICNICKING—on the way out. . . 

As mentioned earlier, the Upper and Lower River Campgrounds were slated for 

removal in 1994 as a means of streamlining traffic circulation. If such an idea had 

been suggested then, the public outcry would have been deafening. However, the 

1997 flood provided the perfect opportunity to ‘‘take care of business.’’

It didn’t matter that camping is a resource-focused activity as opposed to the resource exploitation that occurs with lodging, restaurants, stores, and other commercial ventures. It didn’t matter that camping requires minimal permanent infrastrucVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:14 Aug 14, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\86612.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
32

ture; a flood can wash over a campground and merely cleans it—there is no permanent damage. In fact, in the case of the Rivers Campgrounds, the utilities were still 

intact following the flood; the damage resulted from the Park Service-constructed 

cement fireplaces that broke loose and battered everything in their path. It didn’t 

matter that camping requires no special guest services, as does lodging; therefore, 

there is no need for additional employees and no need for more employee housing. 

Camping is a low-impact activity. 

Interestingly enough, the National Park Service claimed in the 1997 Flood Recovery Action Plan, A Report to Congress that they needed $17,673,476 for three packages (920, 921, 922) dedicated to campground flood recovery. As you recall, the 

White House and Congress stipulated that flood funds were to ‘‘restore damaged 

property—that is, damage caused directly by the disaster—to its pre-damaged condition.’’ But since there was no real damage, the flood became the ultimate opportunity to fund the demise of the campgrounds. The Trip Report for the Field Hearing warned there were no plans in place for what was being proposed; it further 

made mention that what was being proposed would ‘‘result in the reduction of about 

300 campsites or about 40% below the level recommended in the General Management Plan’’ (the only valid(?) plan at the time). Yet Congress still appropriated the 

funding—plan or no plan—trusting that at such time as a plan was actually approved, the funding would be released. In effect, money already in hand poisoned 

the planning process; the agency had what they needed and public input was cast 

aside. 

The 2000 Draft Yosemite Valley Plan, the only plan in which the Park Service 

actually itemized costs, shows campground-related projects that total $11,407,000. 

What happened to the other $6 million from the original flood request? And why 

did Congressman Radanovich feel the need to appropriate another $2.1 million for 

a campground study? Why isn’t the National Park Service being held accountable? 

Adding insult to injury, the Yosemite Valley Plan reflects another sleight of hand. 

Making much ado about how they listened to public input, the final Plan increased 

the number of campsites from 475 to 500. But what escaped the public was that 

of the 500, only 330 would be drive-in sites. Compare that number with the 684 

drive-in sites specified in the 1980 GMP and the more than 800 drive-in sites that 

existed prior to the 1980 GMP. That’s a 60% reduction or a loss of more than 470 

drive-in sites that will directly impact families with children, seniors, low-income, 

and those with limited physical capabilities. That is unacceptable. 

Leveraging the media, the National Park Service with help from the Clinton Administration promoted the Merced River Plan and Yosemite Valley Plan as restoration plans—returning the Valley to nature. However, when the public protested the 

loss of campsites—an outcry to which this Committee is listening—it became clear 

that the Park Service needed to lay claim to the campgrounds and picnic areas to 

offer up any restoration at all. In a recent LA Times article (2/8/03), Jay Watson 

of the Wilderness Society revealed ‘‘This [removal of the River Campgrounds] is the 

heart and soul of the restoration effort in the Valley, and to renege on it would totally undermine the integrity of the plan.’’ In effect, the National Park Service has 

lied to the American people that the Yosemite Valley Plan is a restoration plan; follow the money—94% of the $441 million price tag is allocated for facilities, transportation/circulation, administration/infrastructure, and employee housing; only 6% is 

dedicated to resource stewardship. 

Meanwhile, popular picnic areas such as Swinging Bridge and Church Bowl are 

being closed while the remaining picnic areas will only be accessible by bus. As stated in the Plan: ‘‘The style of picnicking is thus likely to change for many visitors 

from car-based (grills, coolers, etc.) to daypack or box lunch picnics, with major adverse impacts. Some visitors might find it more convenient (and costly) to purchase 

food at food service facilities, losing the picnic experience.’’

It appears that any Valley Plan claims of restoration and preservation are on the 

backs of campers and picnickers. Is it because these populations don’t spend enough 

money in the park in relationship to their length of stay? This is unacceptable. 

To restate—the Yosemite Valley Plan is a busing plan. Removal of the Rivers 

Campgrounds and Swinging Bridge/Church Bowl picnic areas will consolidate traffic 

circulation for busing; less drive-in campsites and bus-only picnic grounds will mean 

less cars in the Valley. The 1980 GMP clearly states ‘‘a total ban on private vehicles’’ using a ‘‘phased and collaborative approach’’ is the ultimate goal (i.e., one step 

at a time). 

DO PARK PLANS FURTHER ECONOMIC DISCRIMINATION? 

Delaware North Parks Services, commenting on its successful entry into the parks 

concessions business, was quoted (Buffalo News, 10/3/99) as looking for ‘‘full service 

33

kinds of parks...don’t think we would be so interested in day-tripper kind of parks.’’ 

Yet Yosemite is 80% day visitors. 

The Merced River Plan states, ‘‘As required by the NPS Concessions Management 

Improvement Act of 1998, the NPS cannot deny the park concessioner a reasonable 

opportunity for net profit. Should the application of the management zoning prescriptions result in the potential removal of sufficient concession facilities to deny 

the primary park concessioner a reasonable opportunity for net profit (as required 

by law), this would constitute a major adverse impact to the concessioner under the 

socioeconomic impact analysis.’’

To avoid such a scenario, the Yosemite Valley Plan explores a combination of 

three mitigation options: increased prices for visitor services; entrance fee revenue 

to support facility use; and modify concessioner operations to improve profitability. 

Some interesting observations: 

Overnight opportunities 

Prior to the 1980 GMP, Yosemite Valley had 1528 lodging units and 800 drivein campsites for a total of 2,328 overnight accommodations. The 2000 Yosemite 

Valley Plan reduced the numbers to 961 lodging units and 330 drive-in campsites 

for a total of 1,291 overnight accommodations. Simple subtraction shows a reduction 

of 1,037 overnight accommodations. 

What does the 1,037 reduction include? 

• removal of 470 drive-in campsites (originally 800 sites) • removal of 200 tent cabins from Housekeeping (originally 300 units) • removal of 253 tent cabins from Curry Village (originally 427 units) • removal of 91 rustic cabins without bath at Yosemite Lodge 

It would appear that low-end, inexpensive accommodations are the bulk of this reduction. Tent cabins rent for approximately $50 per night; if room rates are raised 

$50, the financial difference can be mitigated with less work and greater profit. 

The Valley Plan states that ‘‘camping provides the lowest-priced accommodations 

in the park’’ and reductions will significantly impact a large user group (27%). 

Campers also tend to be a low-spending population. 

Conversion to bus travel 

The Valley Plan states ‘‘While in the park, about 35% of visitors arriving by private vehicle eat at a sit-down restaurant, 30% eat at a fast-food establishment, 30% 

buy groceries, 15% purchase books, 30% shop for souvenirs, and 15% shop for 

clothes. Except for grocery shopping, these percentages all increase for bus passengers.’’

Separating visitors from their private vehicles (i.e., rolling storage lockers) increases dependency on the concessioner resulting in a visitor experience that is 

more controlled, more costly, and more commercialized. Additionally, a 1988 report 

to Congress on the Feasibility of Increasing Bus Traffic to Yosemite recommended 

against any increase because ‘‘increasing the number of...buses allowed in the park 

would increase the number of bus passengers who represent an older, slightly 

wealthier, and a non-family unit, and would cause a resulting decrease in the number of traditional families, especially those with children, who rely upon an automobile to travel.’’

Minority and Low–Income Visitors/Environmental Justice 

The Valley Plan states ‘‘It is generally believed that low-income and minority visitors to the park are under-represented in the total visitor population. However, the 

overnight accommodation and recreation patterns of low income and minority park 

visitors have not been studied in detail. As a result, the impacts on low-income and 

minority overnight and day visitors cannot be analyzed quantitatively. It may be assumed that visitation patterns of low-income visitors tend toward the more inexpensive methods: day visits, camping, housekeeping, tent cabin rentals...’’ And yet with 

minimal socioeconomic data, the Valley Plan’s most significant changes are with respect to day visits, camping, and rustic/tent cabin rentals. That is unacceptable. 

In comparison, the Plan states ‘‘the largest percentage of visitors to Yosemite National Park (26%) have an annual household income greater than $100,000. The 

smallest proportion of visitors (5%) have an annual household income of less than 

$20,000. By contrast, in the State of California the largest percent of the population 

(37%) has an annual income below $20,000. The data illustrate that people from 

low-income households are largely underrepresented in the population of visitors to 

Yosemite’’ This is true on both a statewide and regional basis.’’

Perhaps that is why Yosemite recently sent representatives to the 16th annual 

International Travel Expo in Hong Kong to promote visitation to National Parks, 

including Yosemite within the Asian market. The National Park Service International Tourism Department chose this international trade show with 450 exhibiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:14 Aug 14, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\86612.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
34

tors from over 50 countries to reach the Asian tourists and various National Tourism Organizations. 

It apparently is all right for the American taxpayer to pay for our national parks; 

but as our parks transition toward becoming elitist enclaves, unaffordable to the average American, the National Park Service focuses efforts on recruiting visitors from 

overseas. Something is wrong with this picture. 

COMMUNITY IMPACTS OF ILL–CONCEIVED PLANNING PROCESS 

In response to the 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 acknowledgment 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. 

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 3.4 million visitors in 2002 to an NPS projection of 

3.1 million for 2004. 

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 

Valley 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. 

To date, the park has avoided conducting an independent 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 restauranteur 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. 

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 

As a Committee you have an invaluable opportunity to revisit a decision that was 

made in haste 6 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. 

35

To restate, we urge you to address the disease rather than dabbling with the 

symptoms: 

• 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 

In closing, we have attached a copy of a letter submitted by the Madera County 

Board of Supervisors to former Superintendent David Mihalic (6/27/00) for your review. This letter proposes a five-year interim plan during which time the park 

would focus on completing all necessary research up front rather than during the 

five years following the record of decision; such information (e.g., inventory/monitoring program, quantified carrying capacity, sociological studies on recreation patterns of low-income and minority populations, socioeconomic analysis of impacts on 

gateway communities, accessibility plan, etc.) is absolutely critical to an informed 

planning process. Additionally, this option outlines opportunities to embrace the 

value-added benefits of involving a diverse public in plan development rather than 

postponing their participation to the final comment period. 

[The attached letter follows:]

36


86612.002
37


86612.003
38


86612.004
39


86612.005
40

Mr. RADANOVICH. I really appreciate the enthusiasm of the 

crowd, but we can’t have the clapping. I apologize, but that is just 

not the way we have to run these hearings. 

Peggy, welcome to the Committee, and if you would begin your 

testimony, that would be terrific. 

STATEMENT OF PEGGY A. MOSLEY, OWNER,

GROVELAND HOTEL, GROVELAND, CALIFORNIA 

Ms. MOSLEY. Thank you very much. It is my pleasure to be here. 

Thank you for giving us this opportunity. Today I am representing 

Tuolumne County in total. I represent also the Visitors Bureau and 

the Chamber of Commerce. 

As you have previously stated, preparation of the plan, in fact 

the entire planning process, has been fatally flawed. This is particularly true in planning for the visitor experience. The national 

park belongs to every American, not just the rich who can afford 

to stay at the Ahwahnee or even the less expensive lodge or the 

Wawona. The draft Yosemite Valley plan states that the largest 

percentage of visitors to Yosemite, 26 percent, have an annual 

household income of greater than $100,000. The smallest proportion of users, 5 percent, has an annual household income of less 

than $20,000. This fact should be a major concern to the Congress 

who maintains vigil over the equity of resources in our great country. Perceived access to the park is a major contributor to the loss 

of visitation for the past 6 years. Visitation is now about 3 million 

people per year, down 25 percent from the peak 4 million. 

I have written a little scenario on the all-American family who 

decides to visit Yosemite on the YARTS system. I believe this provides the insight to the issues of limiting access to Yosemite, eliminating the nonaffluent Americans from the park, and the frustration of dealing with a bureaucracy. Please come with me and put 

yourself in the hearts and minds of this family, then please make 

your decision based on the Golden Rule. Imagine this scenario, and 

then decide if you really want to take a bus. 

It is 8:30 a.m. You, your spouse and two small children are totally excited about the prospects of visiting Yosemite for the very 

first time. You have debated about taking your own private vehicle, 

which could soon be forbidden, or leave the driving to them and 

take the bus. You elect to try the bus. You gather your family, your 

Yosemite freight, which consists of a stroller, diaper bag, picnic 

basket for lunch, camera bag, bicycle, clothing change for the kids, 

et cetera, open your wallet for the $28 fare for the four of you, remembering, of course, that the gate fee is $20 for a 7-day pass for 

as many people as you can safely put in your vehicle—for a sevenpassenger van, that is 41 cents per person day—and board the bus 

by 9 a.m. 

The bus arrives, and you load your freight on the bus. Since 

Buck Meadows, Highway 120, is the last pickup stop prior to entering the park, you rumble along the scenic highway into Yosemite. 

Perhaps your first stop will be Bridal Veil Falls, where you have 

heard about the spraying mist, the hike up the backside of the 

falls, et cetera. 

You arrive at Bridal Veil and get off the bus. Yes, you, your family and all your freight. Now what? The kids are antsy after the 

41

hour plus ride and need to stretch their legs, not to mention the 

adults. Where will you leave all your belongings while you experience the falls? Or what about that desire to hike up the backside? 

Someone must stay back to watch the freight. 

Now that you have done Bridal Veil, the next bus arrives to spirit you off to the next stop, maybe the big meadow for your picnic. 

You load your freight and family and head for the next stop, where 

you get to unload again, haul your freight to the picnic site and 

proceed to have lunch. One of the kids is fascinated by the cute little striped yellow thing flying around the clover. Bingo. Now that 

is some sting on the tender little finger that begins to swell amidst 

all the piercing screams of a child in great pain. What to do? Your 

vehicle with its trusty first aid kit is back at your hotel in Buck 

Meadows, and there is no YARTS bus in sight to take you for first 

aid. 

Finally, you get to the Visitor Center in the valley, and everyone 

needs a treat after the harrowing ordeal with the bee. Stop at 

Degnans for something and prepare to unload your wallet a second 

time. If you decide to take the 2-1/2-hour tour of the valley floor, 

expect to spend about $18 per person. If you get out for under $100 

for the day, consider yourself most frugal. 

It is finally nearing 5 p.m. and almost time to find the YARTS 

bus where you can finally load your freight for the final time and 

head back to your hotel, where you will arrive about 6:30 p.m. 

Wow. What a day. What a Yosemite experience. Do you suppose 

Teddy Roosevelt ever imagined he was creating such a monster? I 

don’t think so. 

Beyond that, I pulled up some information from the YARTS site. 

It seems as though the ridership of YARTS, and I heard it mentioned 60,000 for the last year, I think if you delved into the ridership component, you would find that probably 90 to 95 percent of 

these people are employees of either Yosemite National Park, the 

Yosemite concession or students who are using the service. I don’t 

believe this ridership represents visitors to the park. In fact, Route 

1 and 6 is not even open on weekends and holidays. Thank you. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much, Peggy. I appreciate 

that. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Mosley follows:]

Statement of Peggy A. Mosley, President/CEO, The Groveland Hotel at 

Yosemite National Park, Representing District 4, Tuolumne County, 

California 

Thank you, Congressman Radanovich, for the opportunity to address this Subcommittee on the implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan (YVP), regarding 

parking, personal vehicles and campsites in the valley. 

As you have previously stated, ‘‘the preparation of the plan, in fact, the entire 

planning process, has been fatally flawed’’.’’ This is particularly true in planning for 

the visitor experience. The national parks belong to every American—not just the 

rich who can afford to stay at the Ahwanee, or even the less expensive Lodge or 

the Wawona. The Draft YVP states that the ‘‘largest percentage of visitors to Yosemite (26%), have an annual household income greater than $100,000. The smallest proportion of visitors (5%) has an annual household income less than $20,000’’. 

This fact should be of major concern to the Congress who maintains vigil over the 

equity of resources in our great country. 

Access to the park is a major contributor to the loss of visitation of the past six 

years—visitation is now about 3 million people per year—down 25% from the peak 

4 million. 

What is contributing to this reduction? 

42

a. Frequent press releases by the National Park Service (NPS), that Yosemite is 

overcrowded, cars are being turned around at the gate and lack of parking in 

the Valley. These releases have continued, even though visitation has been reduced significantly.

The American Automobile Association (AAA) Tour Books (Northern and 

Southern California editions), even carried false information provided by NPS 

in their 2002 and previous issues, stating that ‘‘public transportation must be 

taken into Yosemite Valley’’.

I believe the major news media draw straws each Spring, to see who will carry 

the ‘‘Yosemite is Crowded’’ item! 

Response: The self-fulling prophecy of removing parking places in the Valley, contributes to the shortage of parking places. It appears the Valley parking inventory 

has been as high as 5000 in 1994 and has been reduced to something less than 1500 

now. 

Gate closures occurred only in 1995 and were not really needed then, had generally accepted traffic management systems been invoked. 

This flawed information was pointed out to the San Francisco AAA Office, who 

verified the status of private vehicles and made the correction in the 2003 issues. 

Unfortunately, these Tour Books are maintained by AAA members for many years, 

and it will take several years to get the correct message disseminated. 

b. The touting of YARTS (Yosemite Area Regional Transportation) by NPS and 

Yosemite Concession Services (YCS), as the preferred way to visit Yosemite has 

created major confusion among would-be Yosemite visitors. Dozens of calls are 

received by Visitor’s Bureaus, lodging properties, Chambers of Commerce, inquiring about reservations to visit the park, how to get into the park, etc. 

Response: The YARTS demonstration was scheduled to run for two years. Since 

it was so successful, it only ran for one year. It clearly demonstrated that most visitors to Yosemite WILL NOT ride a bus! The only park visitors who ride the bus 

are those few, who do not have their own transportation, with minimal luggage, who 

fly into regional airports, and take the train/bus to Merced. This is a very small minority of visitors. Please see the item, entitled, ‘‘Yosemite Freight and YARTS’’ at 

the end of this testimony. 

If ridership were viable, YARTS would not have to offer reductions in fares to entice riders. 

The YARTS system is operating primarily for the use of NPS and YCS employees, 

and students from Merced College and other schools, to points along the YARTS 

Route, up Highway 140. This is the only route operating and is heavily subsidized 

for these riders. 

A review of the YARTS financial statement, identifying revenue from the ridership by employee, student and paying park visitor would be most interesting and 

I strongly recommend this committee pursue this. Dollars from this demonstrated 

failure would be far better spent restoring the campgrounds, the crumbling sewer 

system, etc. 

If YARTS were intended to be used by visitors to Yosemite, it would operate all 

week. YARTS is not available on weekends or holidays—the times NPS says they 

need to get private vehicles out of the park! (This information was taken from the 

YARTS website, www.yarts.com) 

c. The Yosemite Experience has been evolving for many generations—from the 

days of arrival on horseback, to the hordes of ‘‘Tin Lizzies’’ seen in Yosemite 

parking lots in the 1920s, to today’s visitors in cars, campers, bikes and yes, 

even busses. This, too, has become a part of American life, with generations 

coming together to celebrate the most beautiful, spiritual place on earth. 

Response: The campsites along the Merced are a major part of the Yosemite Experience, and should be replaced. Camping along the river at Wawona is still intact. 

It would seem the cost of restoring the campsites along the lower Merced would be 

a great investment in the Visitor Experience. 

So, they have to be replaced every 50-100 years—doesn’t everything have to be 

replaced/maintained? The 361 campsites lost in the flood need to all be restored. 

For NPS to believe that building 788 campsites OUTSIDE Yosemite Valley is an 

option to the river experience is preposterous! This is another example of NPS trying to eliminate part of the Visitor Experience for all Americans. 

d. The Yosemite Valley is deemed to be overcrowded during the Summer months. 

There are thousands of acres of Yosemite not in the valley. No effort is being 

made to make visitors aware of these incredible areas to visit, thereby dispersing the visitors away from the Valley for Day Trips into other areas of the 

park, for an enhanced Visitor Experience. 

43

Response: I asked former Superintendent Mihalic why this issue was not being 

addressed, and more effort being made to educate visitors. His response was, ‘‘we 

don’t have any marketing money to do this’’. I suggested their contract with YCS 

should include the requirement for this information to be made available on a priority basis to visitors. 

It’s clear the reason YCS does not want to do this. They have no revenue generating sources in places like Hetch Hetchy and other ‘‘out of the way’’ places. 

Other Issues 

In addition to the access and Visitor Experience issues discussed above, another 

significant consideration is economics. The economic value of Yosemite National 

Park is felt throughout the United States. It begins with the local gateway communities, whose only source of revenue is the tourism industry. 

Thousands of jobs are created in this region. Many of them are entry level for 

high school students, just learning about the free enterprise system and the job opportunities being provided by individual entrepreneurs. Many tipped employees 

earn in excess of $20.00 per hour. Many management level positions are also created in this industry. The value of employment is major and should not be ignored. 

These jobs, in turn generate the much needed tax dollars needed for a strong 

economy. They provided income to the local community, state and Federal coffers. 

As an example, Mariposa County, recipient of all the Sales Tax and Room Tax from 

Yosemite, is the beneficiary of over $5 million annually. 

The tourist dollars also provide much needed revenue to the local businesses, but 

also contribute heavily to the local and state tax programs. 

Every tourist dollar received in a community turns over seven (7) times before it 

leaves the county. Example: Yosemite was closed for three (3) months in 1997 from 

the flood. My vet was in for dinner and discussing how his business had slowed. 

My kitchen staff had been cut severely and one of them had scheduled a cat spaying 

and then cancelled due to no work. The vet’s comments—I never realized that I benefitted from Tourism until now! 

The gateway communities have an extremely high number of welfare recipients. 

Every dollar earned by the local employees are dollars not required to be spent by 

welfare. 

Conclusion 

There are many issues with the YVP. All are important, but I believe, perhaps, 

the most significant is the devastating impact to the American People—the owners 

of Yosemite National Park, who will literally be locked out from their own sacred 

spot. 

Yosemite is not just a pretty place to visit—it has a spiritual value, that is special 

only to Yosemite! One cannot be in the park and not feel the hand of our maker—

a place of peace and solitude, that in today’s environment is absolutely priceless. 

Again, thank you, Congressman Radanovich, for the opportunity to address this 

Subcommittee. I hope you will consider the issues described here and put yourself 

on the bus with the All–American Family to experience the YARTS Experience vs. 

the Yosemite Experience! 

YOSEMITE FREIGHT AND YARTS

(YOSEMITE AREA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM) 

Imagine this scenario and then decide if you really want to take a bus. 

It’s 8:30 AM. You, your spouse and two small children are totally excited about 

the prospects of visiting Yosemite for the very first time. You have debated about 

taking your own private vehicle (which could soon be forbidden) or leave the driving 

to them, and take the bus. 

You elect to try the bus. You gather your family, your Yosemite Freight, (which 

consists of a stroller, diaper bag, picnic basket for lunch, camera bag, bicycle, clothing change for the kids, etc.), open your wallet for the $28.00 fare for the four of 

you, (remembering, of course, that the gate fee is $20.00 for a 7 day pass, for as 

many people as you can safely put in your vehicle—for a 7 passenger van, that’s 

41 cents per person day) and board the bus by 9 AM. 

The bus arrives and you load your ‘‘freight’’ on the bus. Since Buck Meadows 

(Highway 120) is the last pickup stop prior to entering the park, you rumble along 

the scenic highway into Yosemite. Perhaps, your first stop will be Bridal Veil Falls, 

where you’ve heard about the spraying mist, the hike up the backside of the falls, 

etc. 

You arrive at Bridal Veil, and get off the bus—yes, you, your family and all your 

‘‘freight’’. Now what? The kids are antsy after the hour plus ride and need to stretch 

their legs—not to mention the adults. Where will you leave all your belongings 

44

while you experience the Falls? Or what about that desire to hike up the backside? 

Someone must stay back to watch the ‘‘freight’’! 

Now that you’ve ‘‘done’’ Bridal Veil, the next bus arrives to spirit you off to the 

next stop—maybe the big meadow for your picnic. You load your ‘‘freight’’ and family and head for the next stop, where you get to unload again, haul your ‘‘freight’’ 

to the picnic site and proceed to have lunch. 

One of the kids is fascinated by the cute little striped yellow thing flying around 

the clover. Bingo!!! Now that is some sting on a tender little finger, that begins to 

swell amidst all the piercing screams of a child is great pain. What to do? Your vehicle with its trusty first aid kit is back at your hotel in Buck Meadows, and there’s 

no YARTS bus in sight to take you for first aid. 

Finally you get to the Visitor Center in the Valley and everyone needs a treat 

after the harrowing ordeal with the bee. Stop at Degnans for something and prepare 

to unload your wallet a second time. 

If you decide to take the 2.5 hour tour of the Valley Floor, expect to spend about 

$18/person. If you get out for under $100.00 for the day, consider yourself most 

frugal. 

It’s finally nearing 5 PM and almost time to find the YARTS bus where you can 

load your ‘‘freight’’ for the final time and head back to your hotel, where you’ll arrive 

about 6:30 P.M. 

Wow!!! What a day—What a Yosemite Experience!!! Do you suppose Teddy Roosevelt ever imagined he was creating such a monster? I don’t think so! 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Next up is Kevin Kelly from Yosemite Concession Services. 

Kevin, welcome to the Committee and if you would begin your 

statement, that would be terrific. 

STATEMENT OF KEVIN KELLY, VICE PRESIDENT OF 

OPERATIONS, YOSEMITE CONCESSION SERVICES CORPORATION, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Kevin Kelly, and I am the 

chief operating officer of Yosemite Concession Services, a division 

of Delaware North Companies Parks and Resorts. We operate lodging, food and beverage, retail, interpretive programs, recreational 

activities and transportation services for the National Park Service 

in Yosemite National Park. I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify today on the issue of campgrounds in Yosemite, 

particularly as it relates to our role as park concessionaire and our 

ability to provide quality services to guests of the park. Our role 

in Yosemite is to provide goods and services to park guests with 

the goal of enhancing their overall experience, while living up to 

our important role as a steward of the park. 

Our contract with the National Park Service in Yosemite began 

in 1993. In the 10 years we have been here, we have witnessed 

some of the most traumatic events in the park’s history, and have 

faced many challenges as a result. Over the course of our contract, 

the park has suffered rock slides, government shutdowns, wildfires 

that closed the park, a catastrophic flood, five different superintendents, and murders outside the park that generated unprecedented publicity around the world. At the same time, attendance 

figures have ranged from over 4 million visitors annually in 1996 

to slightly over 3 million per year this past year. 

The flood of 1997 brought forth a renewed endeavor in planning 

for the future of Yosemite within the new footprint that this historic flood left behind. After 5 years and several avenues of litigation, the Yosemite Valley plan was finally adopted as a blueprint 

45

to redevelopment and restoration of the park. We are in support of 

this plan and are proud to contribute to its ongoing implementation. 

We recognize from our very unique perspective and history in Yosemite the daunting task and complex processes that this document represents. We understand and we are in agreement with the 

need to preserve this resource for future generations and limit our 

impact on the ecosystem. 

Throughout our tenure, visitor access has remained at the forefront of our guest service initiatives, and we have worked as a partner with the Park Service to ensure that all Americans, as well as 

the many travelers from around the world who want to experience 

this national treasure, can come to know Yosemite. We believe that 

providing additional campsites to bring the park closer to its 

preflood level would go further toward making Yosemite accessible 

to people of all income levels. 

It is our opinion that providing a quality visitor camping experience in a manner that is consistent with the Yosemite Valley plan 

is a positive step for the park, and we look forward to reviewing 

the campground study. Having said that, we are not in favor of a 

scenario in which the valley plan itself becomes embroiled in a new 

round of revisions as to render it incapable of moving forward. We 

believe it would benefit no one for a plan that provides direction 

for the future of Yosemite to lie dormant rather than restoring and 

safeguarding the park as it was intended to do. For too long, improvements to infrastructure and facilities have been held up in 

this planning process, and having a plan in place after several 

years of uncertainty is a very positive step to move Yosemite beyond the flood. 

We are confident that given your commitment and the commitment of the leadership in Yosemite, the Yosemite Valley plan can 

move forward while certain elements may be modified to ensure 

the best possible balance between providing for visitor enjoyment 

of the park and protecting this irreplaceable national treasure. 

Consistent and reliable funding is paramount to delivering this 

goal. 

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. We thank the National Park Service for its continued efforts in establishing the best possible balance between the 

visitor experience and protection and preservation of this incredible 

landscape. 

Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelly follows:]

Statement of Kevin Kelly, Chief Operating Officer,

Yosemite Concession Services Corporation 

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is 

Kevin Kelly. I am the chief operating officer of Yosemite Concession Services Corporation, a division of Delaware North Companies Parks & Resorts, which operates 

lodging, food and beverage, retail, interpretive programs, recreational activities, and 

transportation services for the National Park Service in Yosemite National Park. 

I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify today on the issue of campgrounds in Yosemite, particularly as it relates to our role as park concessioner and 

46

our ability to provide quality service to guests of the park. Our role in Yosemite is 

to provide goods and services to park guests with the goal of enhancing their overall 

experience, while living up to our important role as a steward of the park. 

Our contract with the National Park Service in Yosemite began in 1993. In the 

10 years we have been here, we have witnessed some of the most traumatic events 

in the park’s history, and have faced many challenges as a result. Over the course 

of our contract, the park has suffered rockslides, government shutdowns and wild 

fires that closed the park, a catastrophic flood, five different superintendents, and 

murders outside the park that generated unprecedented publicity around the world. 

At the same time, attendance figures have ranged from over four million visitors 

annually in 1996 to slightly more than three million per year this past year. 

The flood of 1997 brought forth a renewed endeavor in planning for the future 

of Yosemite within the new footprint that this historic flood left behind. After five 

years and several avenues of litigation, the Yosemite Valley Plan was finally adopted as a blueprint to redevelopment and restoration of the park. 

We are in support of this plan, and are proud to contribute to its ongoing implementation. We recognize from our very unique perspective and history in Yosemite 

the daunting task and complex processes that this document represents. We understand and are in agreement with the need to preserve this resource for future generations and limit our impact on the ecosystem. 

Throughout our tenure, visitor access has remained at the forefront of our guest 

service initiatives, and we have worked as a partner with the Park Service to ensure 

that all Americans, as well as the many travelers from around the world who want 

to experience this national treasure, can come to know Yosemite. We believe that 

providing additional campsites to bring the park closer to its pre-flood level would 

go further toward making Yosemite accessible to people of all income levels. 

It is our opinion that providing a quality visitor camping experience in a manner 

that is consistent with the Yosemite Valley Plan is a positive step for the park and 

we look forward to reviewing the campground study. 

Having said that, we are not in favor of a scenario in which the Valley Plan itself 

becomes embroiled in a new round of revisions as to render it incapable of moving 

forward. We believe it would benefit no one for a Plan that provides direction for 

the future of Yosemite to lie dormant rather than restoring and safeguarding the 

park as it was intended to do. For too long, improvements to infrastructure and facilities have been held up in this planning process, and having a plan in place after 

several years of uncertainty is a very positive step to move Yosemite beyond the 

flood. 

We are confident that given your commitment and the commitment of the leadership in Yosemite, the Yosemite Valley Plan can move forward while certain elements may be modified to ensure the best possible balance between providing for 

visitor enjoyment of the park and protecting this irreplaceable national treasure. 

Consistent and reliable funding is paramount to delivering this goal. 

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. 

We thank the National Park Service for its continued efforts in establishing the 

best possible balance between the visitor experience and protection and preservation 

of this incredible landscape and look forward to being a part of the successful implementation of the Yosemite Valley plan. 

Thank you for the opportunity to come before you. I would be happy to respond 

to questions. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. I am going to open up with questions. Mike, 

can you tell me, is there anything in the valley plan that you like? 

I am sorry, Steve. Forgive me. Anything worth doing? 

Mr. WELCH. Frankly, I agree with the concept of moving on after 

the flood. What we are concerned about is what is stated in there 

is the ultimate goal of the removal of the automobile, and we think 

a lot of the things go toward that. I have submitted a detailed written testimony that hopefully will become part of the record and details a lot more, but many of the items of the 15 projects that were 

reviewed by the Superintendent this morning I would support personally, and I think many of the people in the entrances do. What 

47

we are most concerned about is the access and affordability issues 

for our customers and the day users, as I stated. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Which I agree with. The problem with the 

issue of stopping the plan is it puts in jeopardy some of the things 

that, frankly, I think once they are done, like rerouting the road 

around Yosemite Lodge, is going to solve the traffic problem. I have 

always believed that solving the traffic problem at Yosemite was 

going to be whatever made the most common sense and cost the 

least, which is rerouting some intersections, and doing some improvements in key places in Yosemite in my view is going to preclude the need for any satellite parking. 

The problem with getting a lot of this stuff done is that if we 

stop or reopen, lawsuits happen, and everything freezes. That is 

the counterbalancing concern I think that we are trying to work 

through. 

Mr. WELCH. Certainly I appreciate that. 

Could I respond? 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Certainly. 

Mr. WELCH. As a layman and a businessperson and a citizen, it 

is very difficult to understand these studies. They are pages and 

pages and reams and reams, and to understand the mechanics of 

whether it is better to amend the plan or modify it or reconstruct 

it or throw it out and start over is a judgment call that I would 

have to defer to you and your Committee and those who are part 

of this. 

I am personally less concerned with the mechanics of how it is 

accomplished, but the end result. Sometimes these things are insidious. There were 2,500 parking places in 1980. I am told there are 

somewhere between 12- and 1,600 today. That is what has caused 

a lot of the perceived overcrowding and congestion that occurs now, 

and to reduce that further would be a real problem, we believe. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Peggy, can you envision a YARTS being—I 

want to try to separate, if it is separable, the issues with YARTS. 

If there was assurance or there was knowledge as an absolute fact 

that YARTS was not going to be the first step in what will eventually be forcing everybody out of their cars and into buses, would 

you see the need for some supplemental alternative transportation 

to the park that a bus service would provide? 

Ms. MOSLEY. We have looked at this. I spent 5 years on the Citizens Advisory Council for YARTS. When I realized the vast cost of 

this system that would serve so few citizens and not employees or 

students, which was the original purpose of it, I find that there is 

absolutely no way that a system like this could be economically justified under any economic environment, particularly today. 

There are private bus companies that come into the park every 

day. I had a woman call me yesterday from Sacramento saying, 

well, I would like to be able to take a bus. There are bus systems 

like VIA, has operated for decades up and down the 140 corridor. 

Every now and then I can see one on 120. So I think that a private 

entity should be able to maintain this service for the number of 

people that will ride. 

Beyond ones that will ride it are the ones that were perhaps on 

it the day we did a demonstration ride for the YARTS group. We 

took a bus, a VIA bus, from Amtrak in Merced and went into the 

48

park. Besides the YARTS group that was on it, there was a couple 

from Napa Valley, and there were a couple who wanted to just take 

a train-bus experience for the day. They had a very small overnight 

bag. There was a couple from Japan who had a hotel in San Francisco. Again, they just wanted a day trip to Yosemite. There were 

two guys from Australia. They also were boarded in San Francisco. 

These are the kind of people that use YARTS. 

If you are going as someone who wants to visit the park, experience picnics, take cameras, we have some people in our local community who are photographers and artists. They love to come here 

for their painting and photography. They can’t begin to load all 

their art freight, if you will, on a bus. It totally eliminates the positive visitor experience if they are forced into that. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. If that is their only alternative or choice to get 

there— 

Ms. MOSLEY. If that is their only alternative, VIA does a wonderful service for bringing people into YARTS that want to use it. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. So the issues really are the possibility of it becoming the only alternative to get in the park, the only choice to 

get in the park, and the cost of the system itself. 

Ms. MOSLEY. That is right. And as a taxpayer, I totally resent 

having to pay for the subsidized transportation of employees. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. 

Donna? 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Just to see if we have some common ground 

here, I think, Mr. Kelly, you have been clear about your position 

with the plan. I would like to ask Mr. Welch and Ms. Mosley, are 

we in agreement on the five goals of the plan, reclaiming the natural beauty, reducing traffic congestion, allow natural processes so 

they will reduce crowding, promote visitor understanding and enjoyment? You are not opposed to the goals of the plan; am I correct? You support the goals of the plan? 

Ms. MOSLEY. I think the goals are pristine. I think it is how we 

achieve them that is significant. For instance, on Memorial Day 

weekend of 1999, it is a Saturday, when you would expect this 

place to be totally packed, our fourth district supervisor and one of 

our public county transportation people took a video, started at the 

top of Priest Grade going into Yosemite on 120. They came all the 

way into the valley, and they found very, very little problem. In 

fact, the parking issue was so minimal that the Park Service had 

pulled two trams—or a tram across two separate parking lots that 

were totally unavailable to the public. 

This is a self-fulfilling prophecy of transportation and parking 

problems. When you pull away all the parking places that we have 

seen go in the last 10 years or so, yes, you are going to have a 

parking problem. 

The other issue would be to invoke professional traffic management in the valley. We have also seen that work. After there was 

so much problem with the parking problems, the gate closures, et 

cetera, the Park Service did invoke professional management, and 

we saw a massive difference. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. So you are saying that there is—let me ask 

the question that I wanted to ask. You probably partially answered 

it, and I would ask it again to Mr. Welch and Ms. Mosley. With 

49

day users apparently increasing, you said, Mr. Welch, that there 

were 1,500 parking spaces in 1980? 

Mr. WELCH. In the general management plan, it indicates there 

were 2,500 in 1980. I am not sure, I have seen 1,200 and I have 

seen 1,600 in different places in print for what exists today. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Given the fact that the day user—the day 

user population is apparently increasing, to me that could mean 

that managing traffic, which has already been cited as being a 

problem, could be just impossible. Wouldn’t you agree that given 

the increase in day users, that we would need to have some other 

means of getting people around rather than being a greater number of people driving into the park? 

Mr. WELCH. I think a couple of things. Five hundred fifty parking places is the number that you would find in a small shopping 

center in any city in this country. It seems to me that in 7 square 

miles you could find a place for a handful of parking. I think the 

key is to properly manage. I think it is dispersed, and I think it 

is a management issue more than it is a space issue. As Peggy alluded to, the reduction in the last few years has caused a lot of 

these problems, and they are perceived problems. 

If I may address your first question about do we support the 

goals, absolutely. I support all the goals of the valley plan. The one 

phrase in there is a little misleading about overcrowding. Overcrowding is a very relative term. One person’s perception of crowding is not somebody else’s. The valley is about 5 percent of the Yosemite Park. There is 95 percent out there. There are thousands 

of acres of wilderness. If somebody wants a wilderness experience—

I don’t think the people visiting this national park want a wilderness experience, nor do they need to have one. They need the facilities and service, accessibility and affordability. Again, it seems that 

you could find in this beautiful place absent—I understand the 

flood plain and the rock falls and so forth, but there certainly has 

got to be someplace to have a handful of parking places properly 

managed and a few river campgrounds to accommodate the demand and still preserve this wonderful environment. 

I want to preserve it for my kids, too. I was here in a tent cabin 

when I was 10 years old. That was my first experience. Recently 

I have had the pleasure of staying in an Ahwahnee hotel room. 

That is wonderful, too. But we need all of it, and we shouldn’t be 

discriminating one over the other. 

I hope that helped to answer your question. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. On the campsites, wouldn’t the possible addition of new campsites along the road corridor address the demand 

for increased campsites and still protect the public from the flood 

areas that are likely to flood? 

Ms. MOSLEY. I think the fact that this is a 50/100-year flood is 

something that we really need to consider. This is not the kind of 

devastation that occurs on a regular basis, even every two or three 

decades. It is like a once-in-a-lifetime-type event. And I think that 

we all recognize that even in our own private residences, we put 

things in, we maintain them, and I think that the Park Service 

needs to look at these campgrounds in a similar sense. I believe 

that some of the things I have seen about the building of campsites 

in the outlying areas, outside the valley, the cost of these that I 

50

have seen, it seems to me they could build houses out there instead 

of campsites. And I think that we really need to look at the viability of what this means. And when I hear the Park Service ask for 

more money, I am devastated. I just can’t imagine. 

What we need to do is spend that money to repair the crumbling 

sewer system and some of the really important issues. And also on 

the congressional site that I had pulled up, there is mention of how 

the Park Service needs to spend their money on better prioritized 

lists. I really think we need to go back and look at that, too. I think 

the campsites are a viable part of this experience, and I think 

along the river is why people come into the park. 

And if I might address your earlier question to Steve about the 

80 percent-20 percent. This park has lost 25 percent or 1 million 

visitors a year over the last 6 years. They are certainly not coming 

into the gateways, because my business is down 25 percent as well. 

So I don’t think it is an 80-20 perspective just clear-cut across the 

line. I think the reason people are not coming is because I almost 

believe that every spring the media draws straws on who is going 

to write the Yosemite is closed part. It is something that deters 

people from coming. They are convinced they can’t get into the 

park. As a matter of fact, the Triple A tour guide last year in previous issues stated that you must take public transportation into 

the park, which is totally false. They did correct it this year because we helped them. I think that when this information is provided by the Park Service to an agency like Triple A that this entire country uses, it is wrong. It is wrong. Thank you. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. Thank you for your job. 

Devin? 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Welch, in your testimony you get to the question that I was 

asking the first panel, and that is essentially since 1980, according 

to your numbers, you have seen a 50 percent reduction in campsites, overnight lodging, and parking spots. Would you say that is 

correct? Using approximate numbers. 

Mr. WELCH. I believe for parking spaces that is true. I am not 

sure that the campsite reduction is quite that much. 

Mr. NUNES. I see the concern here, and that was my question to 

the first panel is that incrementally, over the last 20 years, you 

have seen a reduction in campsites, parking spots. I think the concern that you folks have, and you can correct me if I am wrong, 

is what is going to happen in the next 20 years? Are you going to 

continue to see another 50 percent reduction in parking spots and 

campsites? Is that accurate to your concern? 

Mr. WELCH. Yes, it is. 

Mr. NUNES. When you look at daily traffic, I remember when I 

came up into this area for the first time, my family had a 1978 

Ford Bronco that got about 7 miles to the gallon. We came up last 

night in a four-wheel drive pickup because of the snow that Mr. 

Radanovich didn’t tell me about. Anyway, it was a pickup that gets 

closer to 20 miles a gallon. 

I share the same concerns as you. I am confused by these strange 

numbers that seem to vary from testimony to testimony. I am wondering, are you satisfied with the process that this plan has been 

developed through, in the numbers? Are you satisfied with the 

51

numbers that have been used and the scientific system that accounts for these numbers? Would you say it has been adequate, inadequate? Would you like to see it looked at again? 

Mr. WELCH. We think the process was flawed and sort of finalized in the waning hours of 2000, which was the last administration, and I think the prior Park Service administration was not as 

receptive to gateway community input and disregarded a lot of our 

concerns. 

Visitation has declined 17 percent since 1996. My business is 

down. Peggy’s and many others are affected by this decline. The 

concessionaires’ business must be suffering as well. The population 

certainly in California, and I understand 75 percent of the visitation here comes from California, I can’t quote you the statistics, but 

I am sure there are more people in California now than there were 

20 years ago, and it is going to continue to grow, and we need to 

provide access in an affordable fashion for these folks to use this. 

We can’t do that by declining convenience and accessibility. 

Mr. NUNES. In your testimony, you are not asking to go back to 

1980 levels. You are just asking to go back to pre-1997 flood levels 

of parking and campsites. 

Mr. WELCH. In terms of camping, pre-1997 levels in the valley 

would seem reasonable and certainly a goal that could be achieved. 

Parking, I would like to see it increased more to what it was. I 

have had old-timers tell me there used to be 5,000 places in the 

valley, many undeveloped in dispersed areas and just used seasonally. I am not sure how environmentally wise some of those things 

were, but, again, we have a lot of people in this country, and we 

need to accommodate them in a practical, reasonable way. I would 

think somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,500 to 2,000 parking 

places for day users to bring in their camping gear and picnic gear 

and all the things that they want to come is not an unreasonable 

or unachievable goal. 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Welch. 

Real quickly, Ms. Mosley, could you quickly go over the busiest 

times of the year for your business? Either describe your weekends 

or periods of time. 

Ms. MOSLEY. Yes. Our busiest months are July and August. Obviously we have heavy visitation on Memorial Day, the Fourth of 

July and the Labor Day weekend. But July and August, absolutely. 

Mr. NUNES. And so if it is not July or August or Memorial or 

Labor Day, how is the traffic, how is your business? Are there plenty of parking spots available here? Isn’t the need for the surrounding areas and for the valley here to accommodate these hightraffic periods of time? 

Ms. MOSLEY. It is extremely limited, and it is limited to the holiday periods, and like I said, the July and August. Even in July and 

August I have been over here just to check it out, and, yeah, I had 

to drive around a little bit, but it wasn’t anything that was terribly 

frustrating. It was something that was accessible. 

I feel that we are sort of killing flies with sledgehammers with 

YARTS. It just doesn’t fit. 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Ms. Mosley. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Devin. 

52

Kevin, can you tell me, in this report, the campground study, you 

did mention the cost—and granted they have got to go back and 

refigure these numbers—the cost of relocating 144 campgrounds 

was quoted something like $18.7 million. You could build the 

Ahwahnee for that, I think. 

Mr. KELLY. You could build a Marriott hotel for that. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Exactly. 

Taking out the equation of the price tag—we are going to look 

at those numbers, we are going to talk a little more about that 

later with you as being the concessionaire to Yosemite—would you 

be interested as a concessionaire of possibly going in and doing the 

work on the campgrounds and running them? 

Mr. KELLY. Well, certainly we have expertise in running inventory like a campsite or a reservations system. Building campsites, 

we would have to look into it. And certainly if the Park Service, 

our client, came and asked us to take a look at it, we would be 

open to looking at it. Again, as it applies to the valley plan, though, 

it would be a concern that, again, it would stop these 15 projects 

that we have in the works right now, and that would be our greatest concern. 

As we talked about parking as well, I think the 1,600 places we 

have in place is what we had in 1997 as well. Our visitation has 

steadily gone down since then. I think that is in part because we 

are shooting ourselves in the foot here. We are telling everyone 

there are only 500 parking spaces. Don’t come to Yosemite. 

I think we need to stop having the negative press out there and 

saying, please come. You come here midweek in the summer, it is 

gorgeous. The water is wonderful in the river. There is plenty of 

parking. Come and visit. I think we need to stop being negative 

and say that there is plenty of parking, that we are not down to 

500, you don’t have to take YARTS. Drive your car and park and 

enjoy the park. It is a beautiful place. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. And I think the number is around 

1,600 spaces that are considered day use parking spaces that are 

in existence now. The issue is reducing it to 550. And so that you 

know, those numbers are tied to this satellite parking system, bus 

them in the park issue, and that is if you are going to use that satellite bus parking system for 9 months out of the year, you only 

need 550 spaces. If you are going to use it 3 months out of the year, 

you need 1,200 spaces. If you are not going to use it at all, you 

probably need 1,600 spaces. So they are connected. I appreciate 

those comments. 

I want to ask Steve and Peggy to respond to the same question, 

if you would, please, and, that is, Kevin in his opening statement 

went through a long litany of all these problems that have happened in Yosemite over the last 5 to 8 years, including the murders 

and the flood. Can you tell me why, give a reason for the decrease 

in business in both the Pines and the Groveland Hotel and also 

your idea of what the Park Service can do to contribute to an increased visitorship at your facilities? 

He said we need to get positive press rather than negative press, 

and every time I pick up the paper and see something about some 

devastating thing—or it does not even have to be real, but perceived—it creates problems. 

53

And, granted, the things that had happened, many of them have 

been natural, but the ones that really upset us are the ones like 

when Congress closes the park because there is no money. It is the 

things that are manageable that don’t have to be; and again I think 

media is where we are at. And I know that the people I talk to feel 

that the negative media is coming from the National Park Service, 

and we feel that they have major control over what goes out to the 

press; and we feel, at least in our neighborhood, that this has been 

a major contributor. Again, every time they see something that 

says the park is closed, the park is crowded, they don’t come because they don’t want to get embroiled in that kind of thing and 

my business started dropping off right after the 1999 flood. 1999 

was my best year, and it has continually decreased since then, but 

I feel that we could get major assistance from the Park Service. 

One other thing that I would like to— 

Mr. RADANOVICH. In communications it sounds like— 

Ms. MOSLEY. Yes. 

One other thing that I would like to mention that I think would 

help the, quote, ‘‘crowding in the valley’’ would be making the general public aware of all the magnificent areas outside this 7 square 

miles. When Superintendent Mihalic first came to town, he came 

to visit, we talked about that. He said we have no money to market 

that kind of thing, and he indicated that WCS was the marketing 

of the park, and it seems to me if that is the case, then perhaps 

something needs to be done to assist WCS in directing more of 

their marketing to the outside areas of the valley, even though they 

don’t have— 

Mr. RADANIVICH. You mean Tuolumne Meadows or that kind of— 

Ms. MOSLEY. Anywhere. But they don’t have revenue-generating 

sources there, so as an entrepreneur, I can appreciate their desire 

not to market a place that they can’t get into my wallet. So I think 

this is a major issue of how the message gets out. 

Mr. RADONIVICH. Thank you. 

Steve? 

Mr. WELCH. I would share Peggy’s comment about the press and 

the public perception. We—our visitor bureau goes to numerous 

trade shows up and down the State, and many people, their first 

question is, I understand I have to get on a bus. Other people say, 

gee, do I need a reservation? That idea was kicked around a few 

years ago and somehow it is still floating around, and these things 

are negative perceptions. At least, you know, they think it is overcrowded, they might need a reservation, they might have to get on 

a bus, et cetera, et cetera, and that all plays into this. So I think 

the Park Service and the media in general could assist getting out 

the proper image. 

There is one other factor that hasn’t been discussed today and that is the gate fee. In 1997 it was raised from $5 per car to $20. 

That is a quadrupling. I can’t imagine any business person raising 

his prices overnight four times and not expecting a decline. 

It was a demonstration program. I think there is something like 

$60 million out there from this. That really discourages our residents and the people from our county. 

We have 15 percent unemployment in our county. The San Joaquin Valley has double-digit unemployment, twice the Federal 

54

average. Those folks would like to come up and have a picnic. They 

would like to drive through, and maybe it should be $20 on the 

peak weekends in May when the people want to see the waterfalls, 

but how about Wednesday in March? Maybe that should be $5. 

Maybe it should fluctuate with our rates. All the businesses, 

whether you are in airlines or hotels or what have you, you base 

your rates on demand and maybe that is a concept that could be 

used in a positive way. 

But I think that has had a negative impact as well as the 

other—the press that has been mentioned. 

Mr. RADONIVICH. Thank you, Steve. 

Donna? 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, as I asked you, I think it 

would be good for us to get—and time won’t permit us to get it 

today, but to get some answers from the Park Service in response 

to Ms. Mosley’s concern about how the Park Service would attempt 

to pay for the maintenance and operation of the shuttle, whether 

it be taxpayer dollars, or how would they propose to pay for it; and 

also an answer or have them address the adverse impact on lowincome potential visitors to the park and maybe the issue around 

the media and the type of information that is sent out. 

I have one question, because Mr. Welch said that most of the 

visitors probably come from California; and in a letter from members of the California House delegation, they cited polls that show 

that 80 percent of people polled in California supported reducing 

cars in the valley to a shuttle system, that 71 percent oppose building new permanent parking lots, and 71 percent supported limited 

future development along the Merced River. 

And I would just like the panelists to comment on that poll and 

the results. That is my question. 

Mr. KELLY. Well, certainly when you look at coming to the Yosemite National Park and coming to the valley, we do have a shuttle system that exists here. We transport 2.8 million on that valley 

shuttle right now. You can drive here, park your car, and ride a 

shuttle. You don’t have to drive your car around this park. So I 

think that what the population is supporting is the fact that you 

come and park your car and still enjoy the parking, still get from 

point A and B on a transit system within the valley. 

Certainly, 80 percent of our visitation does come from California, 

and they are certainly an important constituent that we need to 

pay attention to. So on development, again I think there it is pristine valley, and I think people are always concerned about what 

you build where in this park. So I think that is the general statement as well. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Anybody else? 

Ms. MOSLEY. I would just like to have a little better definition. 

Eighty percent of, what was that again? 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. It said that 80 percent of people polled in 

California alone. 

Ms. MOSLEY. Where did they poll these people and how many did 

they poll? 

Mr. WELCH. I don’t know that I can comment on the study exactly, but I do know there is a big perception of crowding. When 

I go to the Bay Area or Los Angeles, that is where the crowding 

55

occurs, and a lot of the visitors, if they are polled there and they 

are given this mental picture of what they deal with on a daily 

basis is occurring in their national park, they probably would support those kinds of things. 

But I—we do support valley shuttle. We support the shuttle 

around the big trees. There are some really logical, great applications of that kind of thing. But we are back to the access issue of 

being able to get in here and then making your choice or making 

your choice freely if you want to come on a bus from Fresno or Bass 

Lake or San Francisco or wherever and do a private tour, that is 

wonderful. Some people prefer that, and it works well for them. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much. 

I think if you asked the polling question, if you were to drive up 

from Los Angeles and come into the park and on any given day be 

told once you got to the valley that you had to turn around and 

drive back 10 to 20 miles and park your car and get on a bus and 

come into the valley, the polling numbers probably would not be 

that high. 

Thank you very much for your valuable testimony. And with 

that, we will excuse our second panel and introduce our third. 

Thank you very much. 

Our third panel is Mr. Allan Abshez, camping enthusiast from 

Los Angeles, California; Mr. Paul Minault, Northern California 

Regional Coordinator of The Access Fund, San Francisco; Mr. Jay 

Thomas Watson, California/Nevada Regional Director of The 

Wilderness Society; Mr. George Whitmore, Chairman of the Sierra 

Club, Yosemite Committee, Fresno, California. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for taking 

the panel. I will ask, though I know it has been a couple of hours 

already, we are going to try to wind this hearing up as fast as we 

can, but, with you, still need to get all the information on the 

record. So if we can have it quiet, I would sure appreciate it. 

We will begin with you, Mr. Minault. Thank you very much and 

welcome to the Committee. You do have 5 minutes of not stopping 

you. So summarize up and take it for 5, please. Please begin. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL MINAULT, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 

REGIONAL COORDINATOR OF THE ACCESS FUND, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MINAULT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My name 

is Paul Minault, Northern California Coordinator for The Access 

Fund. The Access Fund is America’s largest national climbers organization. And I am pleased to submit this testimony for inclusion 

in the public record. 

Our testimony concerns the failure of the Park Service to provide 

campgrounds within Yosemite National Park as set forth in the Yosemite General Management Plan. The Access Fund respectfully 

recommends that the National Park Service replace campsites lost 

to flooding and bring the total number of campsites in the valley 

up to the level prescribed in the 1980 Yosemite General Management Plan. 

We submitted extensive comments on the Valley Implementation 

Plan, the Yosemite Valley Plan, the Merced River Plan and the 

Lodge Plan with a particular reference to the need for more 

56

camping opportunities in Yosemite. These comments were too long 

to attach, but I have brought copies of them with me for reference 

and for any member of the audience who would like to see them. 

We also submitted suggestions to the consultant team preparing 

the Parkwide Out of Valley Campground study. And much of our 

comment focused not only on the numbers, which we have talked 

about today, but on the values which support camping and which 

we feel were not adequately discussed in the valley plan or represented in the Park Service planning documents. 

In our letter to Chip Jenkins of the Park Service dated July 11, 

1999, which is a part of our package, we pointed out that the park 

is almost 1,000 campsites short of the number called for in the 

1980 General Management Plan with a shortfall in Yosemite—it 

will not be a shortfall after the plan is completed, but a shortfall 

in Yosemite Valley of almost 300 sites. We feel strongly that these 

campsites should be built as soon as possible to comply with the 

1980 GMP. 

Let me say something about the values which we feel support 

these numbers that we recommend. The National Park Service 

bible, the Management Policies 2001 version, states that it is the 

policy of the Park Service to encourage visitor activities that foster 

an understanding of and appreciation for park resources and values, or that promote enjoyment through a direct association with, 

interaction with, or relation to, park resources. 

In our comments of the Valley Plan, we listed the ways in which 

camping enhances the visitor experience and furthers these values. 

First, we pointed out that camping is a form of recreation unlike 

staying in developed accommodations which is a form of leisure. I 

think that is an important distinction. 

Second, camping promotes a closer relationship to park resources 

than any other form of overnight accommodation, furthering the 

park value which we discussed a moment ago. 

Third, camping distances the visitor from the commercial values 

of comfort and convenience, from the expression of social status 

through consumption that pervade American society. Camping 

brings the visitor closer to nature, the simple necessities of daily 

life, and the way people lived in the past. 

Fourth, camping is democratic. In campgrounds, social distinctions account for little, and camping has the potential to bring people together in shared appreciation of the natural surroundings in 

a manner that reduces social barriers. 

The Nation’s great parks present an opportunity to be a force for 

social equality. Unfortunately, the lodging picture in Yosemite preserves the social distinctions of the greater society rather than leveling them, which we believe should be a goal of the parks. 

Fifth, camping is inherently communal. Campers have an enhanced opportunity to associate with other people, develop new relationships, and broaden their social horizons. Unfortunately, the 

Valley Plan largely ignored these values with the result that camping suffered the loss of 300 campsites through the Valley Plan. Instead, the park now emphasizes exclusive and expensive lodging 

over traditional camping accommodations that are more in line 

with NPS management policies. 

57

We also pointed out the need for the Park Service to coordinate 

the development of new camping facilities with the national forests 

outside the park. In recent years the national forest has eliminated 

approximately 50 campsites along the Merced River west of the 

park, and just last fall Inyo National Forest closed all the informal 

camping areas along Highway 120 east of the park and along the 

road to Saddlebag Lake, eliminating about 100 informal overnight 

parking and camping areas. 

These actions have increased demand for camping outside the 

park and need to be taken into account in the park’s planning for 

new campgrounds. 

The Yosemite Valley Plan noted that over 1,200 new lodging 

units are proposed for construction outside the park. No new campgrounds were proposed, however. This suggests to us that the park 

should focus on developing new campgrounds and shift the provision of developed accommodations to the private sector outside the 

park. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Minault, I am enjoying your testimony. If 

you could submit, however, I promised I would stick to this rule. 

Mr. MINAULT. I am done. Thank you very much for the opportunity. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Minault follows:]

Statement of Paul Minault, Northern California Regional Coordinator,

The Access Fund 

Dear Chairman Radanovich and Members of Subcommittee on National Parks, 

Recreation and Public Lands: 

The Access Fund, America’s largest national climbers organization, is pleased to 

submit this testimony for inclusion into the public record regarding the implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Specifically, this testimony concerns the failure of 

the National Park Service to provide campgrounds within Yosemite National Park 

as set forth in the Yosemite General Management Plan (‘‘GMP’’). The Access Fund 

respectfully recommends that the National Park Service replace campsites lost to 

flooding and bring the total number of campsites in the Valley up to the level prescribed in the Yosemite GMP. 

THE ACCESS FUND 

The Access Fund is a 501 (c) 3 non-profit advocacy group representing the interests of approximately one million rock climbers and mountaineers in the United 

States. We are America’s largest national climbing organization with over 15,000 

members and affiliates. The Access Fund’s mission is to keep climbing areas open, 

and to conserve the climbing environment. For more information about the Access 

Fund, log on to www.accessfund.org. 

THE ACCESS FUND HAS BEEN ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN YOSEMITE 

PLANNING 

The Access Fund submitted extensive comments on the Valley Implementation 

Plan, Yosemite Valley Plan, Merced River Plan, and Lodge (Camp 4) Plan with a 

particular reference to the need for more camping opportunities in Yosemite Valley. 

These comments were too long to attach, but I have brought copies of them with 

me for your reference. We also submitted suggestions to the consultant team preparing the Parkwide Out of Valley Campground Study which are in your attachments 

YOSEMITE HAS A SHORTFALL OF 1,000 CAMPSITES, 300 OF THEM IN 

YOSEMITE VALLEY 

In our letter to the Chip Jenkins of the Park Service dated July 11, 1999, which 

is also attached, we pointed out that the park is almost 1,000 campsites short of 

the number projected for the park in the 1980 Yosemite General Management Plan, 

with a shortfall in Yosemite Valley of almost 300 sites. We feel strongly that these 

58

campsites should be built as soon as possible to comply with Yosemite National 

Park planning documents and National Park Service Management Policies 

CAMPING FURTHERS PARK MANAGEMENT POLICIES 

National Park Service management policy is to ‘‘encourage visitor activities that 

. . . foster an understanding of, and appreciation for, park resources and values, or 

will promote enjoyment through a direct association with, interaction with, or relation to park resources.’’ Management Policy 2001- 8.2 Visitor Use (emphasis added). 

In our comments to the Valley Plan, we listed the ways in which camping enhances 

the visitor experience, furthers park values, and promotes the enjoyment of Yosemite National Park through a direct association with park resources. 

• First, we pointed out that camping is a form of recreation, unlike lodging in developed accommodations, which is a form of leisure. 

• Second, camping promotes a closer relationship to park resources than any 

other form of overnight accommodation. 

• Third, camping distances the visitor from the commercial values of comfort and 

convenience and the expression of social status through consumption that pervade American society. Camping brings the visitor closer to nature, the simple 

necessities of daily life, and the way people lived in the past. 

• Fourth, camping is democratic. In campgrounds, social distinctions account for 

little, and camping has the potential to bring people together in shared appreciation of their natural surroundings in a manner that reduces social barriers. 

The nations’ great parks present an opportunity to be a force for social equality. 

Unfortunately, the lodging picture in Yosemite preserves the social distinctions 

of the greater society, rather than leveling them, which we believe should be 

a goal of the parks. 

• Fifth, camping is inherently communal. Campers have an enhanced opportunity 

to associate with other people, develop new relationships, and broaden their social horizons. Unfortunately, the Valley Plan largely ignored these values, with 

the result that camping suffered the loss of 300 campsites in the Valley. Instead, the park now emphasizes exclusive and expensive lodging over traditional camping accommodations that are more in line with NPS management 

policies. 

THE PARK SERVICE SHOULD COORDINATE CAMPGROUND PLANNING 

WITH NATIONAL FORESTS OUTSIDE THE PARK 

We also pointed out the need for the Park Service to coordinate the development 

of new camping facilities with the National Forests outside the park. In recent 

years, the Sierra National Forest Service has eliminated approximately 50 campsites along the Merced River west of the park. Just last fall, the Inyo National Forest closed all the informal camping areas along Highway 120 east of the park and 

along the road to Saddlebag Lake, eliminating about 100 informal overnight parking 

and camping areas. These actions have increased demand for camping opportunities 

inside the park and need to be taken into account in the park’s planning for new 

campgrounds. 

PARK PLANNING FOR OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS SHOULD FOCUS ON 

NEW CAMPGROUNDS AND SHIFT DEVELOPED LODGING TO THE 

COMMERCIAL SECTOR OUTSIDE THE PARK 

The Yosemite Valley Plan noted that over 1200 new lodging units are proposed 

for construction outside the park. Valley Plan at II–55 - II–57. No new campgrounds 

were proposed, however. This suggests to us that the park should focus on developing new campgrounds and shift the provision of developed accommodations to the 

private sector outside the park. Such a shift is supported by the values we discussed 

earlier. 

Chairman Radanovich and members of the Subcommittee on National Parks, 

Recreation and Public Lands, the Access Fund appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony on the Yosemite National Park Parkwide Out of Valley Campground 

Study. We hope you will acknowledge the problems caused by the 1000 campsite 

shortfall in Yosemite National Park and direct the National Park Service to construct new campsites. 

Thank you, 

Attachments: January 11, 1999 letter to Chip Jenkins 

59


86612.006
60


86612.007
61

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Abshez, welcome to the Committee and 

please begin your testimony? 

STATEMENT OF ALLAN ABSHEZ, CAMPING ENTHUSIAST,

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. ABSHEZ. Good morning. Before I start, I hope you have had 

a chance to take a look at the photographs I submitted, if you ask 

me about them in the Q and A. Also up there on the easel is a photograph of myself and my wife. My wife is not able to be here 

today, but that was shot on a 2-week backpacker in Tuolumne 

Meadows on the occasion we decided to become parents. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Terrific. We won’t go into detail. 

Mr. ABSHEZ. We won’t go there. 

Mr. Chairman and honorable Subcommittee members, thank you 

for inviting me to testify today. I am very honored to be part of this 

distinguished panel and sit side by side with The Wilderness Society, the Sierra Club and the Americans for Access. But I represent 

no organization and I am here only on behalf of myself, my family, 

my friends and people like me whose lives have been enriched by 

the spirit and tradition of Yosemite. 

We owe this place a great personal debt. I am making a small 

installment payment on that debt by urging you to ensure that no 

one constrains access to the valley through planning efforts that 

offer little real benefit, but would diminish the education, enjoyment, and enrichment of millions. 

I am appearing today as a typical Yosemite visitor, but I am no 

stranger to the complex issues you are facing. By profession, I am 

a lawyer and that is one of the reasons you have got to indulge me 

on the time limit here. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. I will hold you to it, though. 

Mr. ABSHEZ. OK. 

I am specializing in land use planning and environmental law. 

I also serve on a planning commission in Los Angeles, where I reside. One of my proudest professional accomplishments though was 

my representation of the Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust for 

several years. Ansel Adams was always a personal hero to me, a 

person whose image could equally express the awesome power of 

granite mountaintops and the aisle of willows along a sun-speckled 

street. 

I remember reading in his autobiography that Ansel first visited 

Yosemite when he was 14. My first visit occurred in 1968; I was 

12 years old, and it was my first visit to any national park. My 

family and I stayed at the Lodge. My grandmother was along. My 

family had no camping experience or inclination and my grandmother was elderly and not able to get around well. Had the accommodations at the Lodge not been available we might have 

passed over Yosemite entirely. 

I remember the feeling of walking to the Lodge cafeteria in the 

pine-scented air and looking up at the blue sky and amazing cliffs 

each morning. I felt as if I were standing in the most magnificent 

cathedral in the world. 

Why do I remember this feeling so vividly? Because it is the 

same feeling I experienced this morning and experience every 

morning that I wake up in Yosemite. It is an importance that 

62

deeply touches the soul. Members of the Subcommittee, I hope that 

you will ensure that we restore the facilities necessary to let people 

have that extraordinary experience. You can do that and protect 

the park. That is the point of everything in my testimony. 

While I was in high school, I attended the Yosemite Institute in 

the valley. When I was 16, my friends and I slipped our parental 

leashes and we rode the Greyhound bus here to camp at the upper 

river campground. As campers we were largely buffoons, but we 

were enthusiastic and were willing to tolerate a moderate level of 

discomfort. Camping in Yosemite Valley offered us the attraction, 

but more importantly, the opportunity to learn and mature. Like 

it was for Ansel Adams, like it is for so many others, Yosemite 

Valley was our schoolroom. 

During college, I visited the valley every year and sometimes several times a year. Sometimes I camped in the valley for fun. At 

other times it was all I could afford. Yosemite Valley became my 

jumping-off point to explore other parts of the park. I began with 

no experience or equipment to speak up of and made every foolish 

mistake in the book. 

In his autobiography, Ansel Adams tells the same story. During 

his first visit to the valley, Ansel Adams and his family lodged at 

Camp Curry. He later camped and made short hikes out of the valley. He was a beginner and had the same awkward misadventures 

as all beginners do. It was only in 1920 after several visits to the 

valley that he made his first high Sierra trip under the supervision 

of an early mentor, Francis Holman. 

I grew and took on greater challenges, too. When I was a sophomore at Cal, I thought I would try winter backpacking. That trip 

ended in my being carried out of the back country with hypothermia. I recovered, but I certainly learned a lesson in humility. 

By the time I graduated college, I took many wondrous destinations throughout the back country. 

Together with my family and friends, I have enjoyed most of the 

experiences the park has to offer and have stayed at every type of 

accommodation here. I learned how to ski at Badger Pass from 

Nick Fiori, another living legend. I cross-country-skied, snowshoed, 

rock-climbed, rafted, fished most everywhere that offered a decent 

prospect, skated on Glacier Point and swam every lake whose temperature I could tolerate. 

I have ridden into the back country on mules. Let us not forget 

mules and horses in all of this. I have had my food stolen by a bear 

in the upper reaches of Tuolumne Meadows even though I hung my 

sacks according to the Park Service guidelines, or so I thought. The 

rest of the trip was a hungry one and to this day I still resent the 

bear who stole my food. 

In 1985, I brought my future wife to the valley and proposed 

marriage. The park has since been the scene of many memorable 

experiences of our family life. 

The reason I relate these experiences is not just that they are 

important to me. They are the stuff that lifelong conservationists 

are built from and they are offered in a wholly unique combination 

and setting in Yosemite Valley. If we curtail the availability of 

these experiences or eliminate them, we not only deny people life 

enrichment, but we also destroy the future audience for our 

63

national parks and wilderness areas. We will tend to create bus 

tours who are content to be bussed in and bussed out instead of 

independent and self-reliant outdoorsmen and women. 

It is ironic that we in the conservation organizations, whose 

membership foundation is built upon people who simply enjoy the 

outdoors, would support reducing access to formative outdoor experiences. After all, Ansel Adams started as a basic family camper 

and became a conservation icon. Our goal should be to foster the 

creation of more people like Ansel Adams. Our goal should not be 

to shut people out of the valley and that is why this plan needs 

to be readjusted. 

It is true that the 1997 floods washed away some eyesores, but 

it is shocking that the preparers of the plan choose the word ‘‘opportunity’’ to describe the devastation they wreaked. The plan presents itself as increasing visitor accommodations, but that is a distortion of the picture and therefore the final EIS really contains little information that is useful to public discussion. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Abshez, I am sorry you have got to wind 

up. Please know in the audience we are cutting these people short, 

but their full written testimony is for the record. So your testimony 

is in there. 

Mr. ABSHEZ. Rigorous discussion and analysis reveals that the 

claimed benefits of the plan are questionable. It is true that the 

plan would revert certain areas to passive use, but if one seeks it, 

quietude in the valley has always been available in many wonderful places. And if it is true, as the preparers of the plan contend, 

visitation won’t be diminished, then there is no reason to assume 

that popular destinations such as trails and waterfalls will be any 

less congested during peak periods. 

Similarly, the ecological benefits of the plan are overstated. The 

areas formerly used for camping represent about 30 acres, less 

than 1 percent of the valley’s 4,480 acres, but they provide opportunities for about 19,680 families to camp in the valley every summer. 

People like me are relying on you to correct the plan by insisting 

the Park Service restore preflood camping and lodging opportunities while furthering resource protection. We can educate park visitors and plan to distribute valley campgrounds and sensitive riparian areas are respected. When asked to do so, people have acknowledged— 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Abshez— 

Mr. ABSHEZ. I am going to close it. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Are you closing? 

Mr. ABSHEZ. I am closing. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Good. 

Mr. ABSHEZ. OK. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. There will be plenty of time during Q and A. 

Mr. ABSHEZ. OK. Two more paragraphs. When I do visit the valley crowded with families and children and fumbling campers and 

hikers, I smile. I see my own experience reflected in theirs. I think 

we all do. And I would like to think that Ansel Adams would smile, 

too. 

64

This morning all of you enjoyed the soul-stirring experience of 

waking to stand in the most magnificent cathedral in the world. 

Let us restore that opportunity for others. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Abshez follows:]

Statement of Allan J. Abshez, Camping Enthusiast,

Los Angeles, California 

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Subcommittee Members: 

Thank you for inviting me to testify before the Subcommittee with respect to the 

implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan. I represent no organization, and will 

appear only on behalf of myself, my family, friends, and people everywhere like me. 

I will be testifying to repay a great personal debt to the place, tradition, people and 

spirit that are Yosemite Valley. I represent the many millions of people whose lifeexperience and life-outlook has been formed by their visits to Yosemite Valley and 

Yosemite National Park. We have a love affair with this place, and want as much 

as anyone to protect and preserve it. I hope my testimony on behalf of those people 

will provide a foundation for your oversight to ensure that no one constrains access 

to Yosemite Valley through planning efforts that offer little real benefit to the environment, and diminish the education, enjoyment, and enrichment of visitors to the 

crown jewel of our National Park system. 

Background 

I will be testifying as a typical Yosemite camper and enthusiast; one who today 

is a father, a husband, and a lawyer, and as one who has visited Yosemite many 

times as a student and a child. My law practice today focuses on land use planning, 

environmental law, and related litigation. I have been responsible for coordinating 

major planning efforts for university campuses, hospitals, art museums, movie studios, shopping centers, hotels, and residential and commercial developments. I have 

significant expertise in air, water quality, biotic, traffic and parking and historical 

issues. I serve on a community planning commission in Los Angeles, where I reside. 

One of my proudest professional accomplishments though, was my representation 

of the Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust for several years. In fact, the primary 

reason I chose the first law firm for which I worked was that one of their clients 

was the Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust. I figured that even though they were 

a ‘‘corporate’’ law firm (you must understand that I was a graduate of Boalt Hall 

at U.C. Berkeley), they couldn’t be all bad if they represented Ansel Adams. I was 

right. 

Ansel Adams was a personal hero. My father had passed on to me a love of photography and art, which I combined with a passion for the mountains and wilderness. Ansel saw many things as I did. As the Trust’s lawyer, I created its copyright 

protection program, and oversaw many of its licensing activities. 

Ansel Adams first visited Yosemite Valley when he was fourteen. My first visit 

occurred in 1968, when I was 12 years old. It was also my first visit to any National 

Park. My family and I stayed at the Lodge. My grandmother was along. My family 

had no camping experience and my grandmother was elderly and not able to get 

around well. If the accommodations at the Lodge had not been available, our visit 

would not have been possible, and we might have passed-over Yosemite entirely. 

I remember the feeling of walking to the Lodge cafeteria, breathing the fresh air 

scented with pine, and looking up at the blue sky and amazing cliffs surrounding 

me each morning. I felt as if I was standing in the most magnificent cathedral in 

the world. Why do I remember that feeling so vividly? Because it is the same feeling 

I experience every morning I have woken up in Yosemite. It’s an experience that 

deeply touches the soul. Members of the Subcommittee, I hope that you and the 

National Park Service will ensure that as many people as possible are able to have 

that extraordinary experience. We can preserve the opportunity for that experience 

and protect the Park. That’s the point of everything in my testimony. 

While I was in high school, I attended the Yosemite Institute in the Valley. That 

kindled my interest in mountaineering. When I was 16, my friends and I slipped 

our respective parental leashes, and rode the Greyhound bus to camp in Yosemite 

Valley. We camped at the Upper River campground. As campers and hikers, we 

were largely buffoons, but we were enthusiastic and willing to tolerate a moderate 

level of discomfort. Camping in Yosemite Valley offered us the attraction, but more 

importantly the opportunity to learn and mature. Like it was for Ansel Adams, and 

like it is for so many others, Yosemite Valley was our school room. 

65

I moved to Berkeley, California to attend college. Yosemite Valley became my 

jumping off point to explore other parts of the Park and the High Sierra. I visited 

the Valley every year, and sometimes several times a year. Sometimes, I camped 

in the Valley for fun. At other times, it was all I could afford. Because of its peaceful 

setting, Upper River was always my campground of choice, although I have probably 

camped in every campground in the Valley, including the Climbers’ Camp. 

I began exploring Yosemite National Park from the Valley base; hiking up and 

out of the Valley on every one of the trails beginning there. As a young backpacker, 

I made every mistake in the book. I began with no money and no equipment of 

which to speak. In his An Autobiography, Ansel Adams tells the very same story. 

During his first visits to the Valley, Ansel Adams and his family lodged at Camp 

Curry. He later camped and made short hikes out of the Valley. He had no real 

equipment or knowledge, and had the same awkward misadventures that I did. It 

was only in 1920, after several visits to the Valley that he made his first High Sierra trip under the supervision of his early mentor, Francis Holman. In the Valley, 

Holman could always be found at the river campground. 

As I became more experienced, I took on the High Sierra with extended backpacking trips throughout Yosemite, Kings Canyon and surrounding National Forest 

lands. I studied the mountains as a librarian’s assistant at the U.C. Berkeley Map 

Library. I camped in the summer and winter. When I was a sophomore at Cal, I 

was carried out of the backcountry with hypothermia one winter (boy, did I learn 

a lesson!). By the time I graduated college, I’d hiked to many wondrous destinations 

in the backcountry, which are infinite in number, and all of which I will never be 

able to see. I’ve hiked the marked trails and have navigated and clambered crosscountry as well. 

All of my friends had to suffer my passion for Yosemite and the mountains. Together with them, I’ve enjoyed most of the visitor experiences the Park has to offer 

and stayed at every type of accommodation here, including the campgrounds, Curry 

Village, Housekeeping, the Lodge, the Ahwanee, Wawona, and the High Sierra 

camps. I learned how to ski at Badger Pass from Nick Fiori, another living legend. 

I’ve cross-country skied and snow-shoed. I’ve rock climbed with the Yosemite Mountaineering school. I’ve rafted raftable portions of the Merced, and fished most everywhere that offered a decent prospect. I’ve skated in the Valley in the winter, and 

swam every lake whose temperature I could tolerate in the summer. I’ve ridden into 

the backcountry on mules, and plan to do a stock trip to the high county this summer with my family out of Red’s Meadow in the eastern Sierra. Horses and mules 

can be a wonderful experience, and are part of the mountain tradition. I’ve had my 

food stolen by a bear in the upper reaches of Tuloumne Meadows even though I 

counter-weighted the stuff-sacks and hung them ten feet from the trunk and twelve 

feet off the ground (or was it the other way around). I starved the rest of the trip 

(it was a solo hike), but refused to leave out of resentment against the bear. 

The reason I relate these experiences is not just that they are important to me. 

They are the stuff that life-long conservationists are built-from. And they are offered 

in a wholly unique combination and setting in Yosemite Valley. If we curtail the 

availability of these experiences or eliminate them, we not only deny people life-enrichment, but we also destroy the future audience for our National Parks and wilderness areas. And as a nation, we will tend to create tourists who are content to 

be managed and ‘‘bussed-in’’ and ‘‘bussed-out,’’ instead of independent and self-reliant outdoorsmen and women. It is ironic that organizations like the Sierra Club and 

Wilderness Society, whose membership foundation is built upon people who simply 

enjoy the outdoors, would now support reducing access to formative outdoor experiences. 

After all, the classic outings of the Sierra Club are described by Ansel Adams in 

his An Autobiography with great enthusiasm as anything but ‘‘zero impact.’’ Adams 

relates backcountry trips to magnificent settings featuring fifty or more mules, roaring bonfires, feasts, orchestras and plays staged in full costume. One would think 

that organizations with this rich heritage would be supportive of enhanced—not 

reduced—basic family and introductory camping. Ansel Adams started as a basic 

family camper and became a conservation icon. Our goal should be to foster the creation of more people like Ansel Adams. 

To briefly conclude, and then on to the Yosemite Valley Plan. In 1985, I became 

engaged to my wife at an outlook on the Snow Creek trail in Yosemite Valley. At 

the time, I couldn’t afford a diamond ring. In 1986, while on a two-week 

backcountry trip out of Tuloumne Meadows, my wife and I decided to become parents. I threatened to name my first daughter ‘‘Townsley’’ after the lake where we 

made the decision. Several years later we came back on a winter trip to the Valley, 

and I presented with my wife with a diamond ring in front of our kids during a 

day hike through the snow. When we lived closer to the Park, we celebrated my 

66

wife’s birthday (December 16th) at the Ahwanee dining room (the most beautiful 

dining room in California) every year. My kids (now 15 and 12) have grown up with 

the Park being a part of their life. My younger daughter, Natalie, caught her first 

keeper—an 18’’ rainbow—at Vogelsang Lake (at 10,500 feet). What a place to catch 

your first keeper. It was cooked-up for us at breakfast at Vogelsang High Sierra 

Camp. The whole dining room stood up and cheered Natalie when the fish was 

served. 

The Yosemite Valley Plan 

As a planner, a land use attorney, and a lover of Yosemite National Park, I’ve 

reviewed the plan before you today. The Yosemite Valley Plan contains many ideas 

that are commendable, but it is deficient in that it fails to restore sufficient visitor 

accommodations in the Valley. It is true that the 1997 floods washed-away some 

eyesores (floods always do), but it is shocking that the preparers of the Plan would 

choose the word ‘‘opportunity’’ to describe the devastation wreaked by the floods. See 

Executive Summary at Page 7. 

The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Plan presents its Preferred 

Alternative as increasing the amount of visitor accommodations in the Valley. As 

many commentors to the EIS recognized, this is only technically true and not useful 

to meaningful public discussion. 

The 1997 floods destroyed about 40% of the campsites in the Valley, and a significant number of hotel and cabin units as well. The Final EIS presents post-flood conditions as a baseline, and does not focus on what has been lost or what is necessary 

to replace it. Not even as an alternative. The Final EIS states that the Plan will 

increase the number of existing campsites in the Valley from about 475 to 500. But 

this is no increase at all. If you and the National Park Service implement the Preferred Alternative before you, you will permanently eliminate 40% of Yosemite 

Valley’s historic camping sites. 

The Plan’s treatment of the Lodge is similarly deficient. The Plan does not discuss 

pre-flood conditions. Before the floods, there were approximately 495 rooms at the 

Lodge. According to National Park Service information, today there are only 245. 

The Plan proposes 251 units. Thus, if the Plan is implemented, approximately half 

of the accommodations at the Lodge will be lost forever. 

The picture at Curry Village is not clear. Today according to internet information, 

there are approximately 628 guest accommodations (motel rooms, cabins and tentcabins) at Curry Village. The Preferred Alternative suggests 487 future units; an 

apparent reduction of 141 units. Similarly, Housekeeping Camp is described as providing 266 tent-cabin units. The Preferred Alternative proposes 100; a 62% reduction. 

If these assumed numbers are correct, the Plan will eliminate approximately half 

of the Valley’s historic visitor accommodation capacity; approximately 325 campsites, 385 units at the Lodge and Curry Village, and 166 units at Housekeeping 

Camp. 

I am fully aware that there are those who would affirmatively support reducing 

visitor access to the Valley because of their commitment to what they term ‘‘ecological values.’’ However, most of those who espouse this viewpoint know that their reasoning and objectives would never be accepted by the public or by Congress. We entrust the great men and women of the Park Service the stewardship of the Parks 

so that current and future generations can enjoy them; a noble mission. 

It is a shame then, that the Final EIS terms the 1997 floods an ‘‘opportunity.’’ 

The only apparent opportunity in what was in fact a tragedy, was the ‘‘opportunity’’ 

to avoid confronting a serious public policy decision—an affirmative decision to decrease public access to Yosemite Valley—a decision that would never stand up to 

meaningful public discussion or analysis. For this reason, the Final EIS conveniently assumes there will be no impact on visitation levels if the Plan is implemented. 

People like me are relying on you, as our elected representatives, to consider 

whether the Plan will in fact, reduce the access and enjoyment of visitors to the 

Valley. The only reasonable conclusion is that it will. Half of those historically able 

to experience an overnight stay in the Valley will be shut out and reduced to the 

status of ‘‘bus tourists.’’

You should be insisting that the Park Service investigate ways to restore and preserve the experience of a stay in Yosemite Valley while furthering resource protection. The Final EIS does not ask that question. For example, automobile management has been improved in the Valley over the past decades. We should be looking 

at and investing in more ways to reduce unnecessary automobile trips to Yosemite. 

We should be looking at ways to improve the Valley’s air quality (particulate emissions) by, for example, controlling visitor campfires. We can do these things without 

67

being anti-people. We can educate Park visitors, and plan and distribute Valley 

campgrounds, so that they respect sensitive riparian areas. When asked to do so, 

people have acknowledged and respected Yosemite’s resources. That’s part of Yosemite’s tradition. 

The Final EIS makes no real effort to analyze the planning, logistical and environmental issues that would be required for its Preferred Alternative to succeed (indulging the counter-intuitive assumption that the Plan would not cause visitation 

to be reduced). For example, there has been no real analysis of the ability of communities and areas outside of the Valley to successfully absorb the displaced level of 

overnight accommodations, or the environmental impacts of such displacement. 

Similarly, there has been no real analysis of the feasibility or timing of the transportation system (YARTS) that would be needed to successfully bring visitors to and 

from the Valley. The Final EIS simply states that these issues are beyond its scope. 

This is technical, but not true, planning. Hiding behind the procedural and scope 

limitations of the EIS process is just an excuse for failing to confront the obvious 

implication that if the Plan is implemented, many persons who would have otherwise visited the Valley will not come at all. 

Moreover, the real benefits of the Plan are questionable. It is true that the Plan 

would revert historic accommodation sites to a more natural condition, and create 

more areas for passive use in the Valley. But, if one seeks quietude in the Valley, 

it has always been available at wonderful places away from the Valley’s most notable features and destinations. Those who seek those places out know that. Further, 

if we indulge the Final EIS’ assumption that the Plan will not diminish visitation, 

then there is no reason to assume that popular visitor destinations (trails, waterfalls, etc.) will be any less congested during peak visitation periods. 

The real ecological benefits of the Plan, particularly as part of the bigger picture 

of the Park and regional ecosystem, are equally questionable. That is, of course, unless one assumes that the objective of the Plan is to decrease visitation to the 

Valley. Many areas to be restored are immediately adjacent, or proximate, to urbanized areas of the Valley. These areas will still both experience and be surrounded 

by visitation activity. The Valley is not and will never be a true wilderness area. 

Thus, it must be managed as most appropriate. While the appearance of certain 

areas of the Valley would admittedly be improved by the Plan, decreasing access 

cannot be truly justified on an environmental basis. 

Conclusion 

These days I do not often camp in Yosemite Valley. I am, in fact, somewhat 

crowd-averse and have learned to avoid the Valley during peak visitation periods. 

I also have acquired the interest and skill-set necessary to seek solitude and wilderness in other locations. Those who prefer to avoid Yosemite Valley’s crowds can 

make the very same choice. They need not pressure the National Park Service to 

shut people out of Yosemite Valley. When I do visit Yosemite Valley crowded with 

families and children and fumbling campers and hikers, I smile. I see my own learning, love, and experience reflected in theirs. They are ‘‘in school.’’ I hope they will 

go further into the outdoor experience and become life-long conservationists. I would 

like to think that Ansel Adams would smile too. 

On the morning of April 22nd, each of you will enjoy the soul-stirring experience 

of rising from your slumber to stand in the most magnificent cathedral in the world. 

Let’s restore the opportunity for that experience to as many people as possible. 

Please don’t relegate Park visitors to ‘‘bus tourist’’ status. Let’s recognize the value 

of Yosemite Valley as one of our nation’s most important school rooms. There are 

many more Ansel Adams coming along. Let’s put our resources and attention to 

work on solving Yosemite Park’s real environmental issues and challenges. A second 

Yosemite Valley sits not far away beneath a reservoir. Someday, I would like to 

stroll through its woodlands and meadows, maybe camp there, and ponder the problem of dealing with the throngs who will want to come to experience it. 

Thank you very much for your time and attention. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Please keep it to 5 minutes. I hate doing this, 

you guys, but we are going to be here until 4 o’clock. 

STATEMENT OF JAY THOMAS WATSON, CALIFORNIA/NEVADA 

REGIONAL DIRECTOR, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY 

Mr. WATSON. Chairman Radanovich, members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of The Wilderness Society, thank you for the 

68

opportunity to present testimony on the implementation of the 

landmark Yosemite Valley Plan. 

While the 1997 floodwaters of the Merced River disrupted local 

businesses as well as the expectations of park visitors, there was 

a silver lining to the storm clouds that produced those floods: the 

once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to transform into reality what had 

long been a grand but elusive vision for Yosemite. 

To its credit, the Park Service seized that opportunity by writing 

the Yosemite Valley Plan. Intellectual honesty, rigorous analysis, 

and extensive public participation characterized that planning 

process, including 18 public hearings, 11,000 comments and countless walk-throughs with Park Service staff regularly scheduled during the week. Virtually every newspaper in the State supports the 

Valley Plan including even today’s Fresno and Modesto Bees. 

The final plan was adopted on December 29, 2000. On that day 

the Park Service presented the American people a plan that struck 

an elegant balance between protecting Yosemite’s natural and cultural resources and providing the visitor use and enjoyment. The 

Wilderness Society is pleased to see the Park Service moving forward on implementing the plan, but more must be done still. Staffing assignments, preplanning, and sequencing of decisionmaking 

must be initiated if longer-term transportation and parking 

changes are to be realized. 

With respect to upper and lower river campgrounds, the habitat 

restoration opportunities presented there are the single largest restoration component of the plan, and it would restore some of the 

most biologically productive habitat types found in Yosemite 

Valley, as well as providing new and different day-use opportunities. 

Similarly, the reduction and centralization of day-use parking at 

Camp 6 is a vital component of the plan. Indeed, habitat restoration and transportation changes are the heart and soul of the 

Valley Plan and neither should be compromised. 

In adopting the final plan, the Park Service showed its responsiveness to public comment. Both campgrounds and lodging best 

demonstrate that responsiveness. Under the final plan, assuming a 

2-night stay during maybe the most crowded 4-month period in the 

summer, 94,000 families can camp inside Yosemite National Park, 

but the Park Service isn’t stopping there. They have found a way 

to locate another 204 sites outside the valley, boosting total camping opportunities to over 106,000 in just 4 months. We support the 

addition of those additional sites outside of the valley. 

Similarly, in direct response to public comment, the Park Service 

restructured the mix of total overnight opportunities in the plan to 

emphasize accommodations at the lower end of the cost scale. 

Under the plan, out of 1,461 total possible overnight stays in Yosemite Valley on any given day, a total of 1,179 are campsites, rustic tent cabins; and economy-scale cabins are 81 percent of all overnight accommodations. 

Because of the Park Service’s success in developing the Valley 

Plan, the future of Yosemite is bright. Some of the park employees 

that produced that plan are still here at the park. Others have 

moved on to other parks like Fort Clatsop, Channel Islands, and 

69

Mt. Lassen. Wherever they are, the folks who produced this plan 

should be deeply proud of what they accomplished. 

It has been 23 years since the Park Service set forth the vision 

for Yosemite and saw it embraced by the American people. Yosemite’s time has come. Let us get the job done and done right as set 

forth in the final Yosemite Valley Plan. Reopening it and changing 

individual components of it will simply turn it into a house of cards 

or a set of dominos; the whole thing will come tumbling down because all the different components that we have talked about today 

are linked together. If you change one, it’s going to affect another. 

Just like John Muir said years ago, everything is hitched together, everything is hitched together in the Valley Plan, and like 

I said earlier, it did strike a delicate balance that has long been 

needed in Yosemite; and we look forward to its continued implementation. Thank you. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Watson. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Watson follows:]

Statement of Jay Thomas Watson, California/Nevada Regional Director,

The Wilderness Society 

Chairman Radanovich, members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to have the 

opportunity to join you here today in this Incomparable Valley. You have picked 

quite a location for this hearing—Half Dome as a backdrop, the sound of water 

rushing over Yosemite Falls—it is indeed a pleasure to present testimony on behalf 

of The Wilderness Society on the implementation of the landmark Yosemite Valley 

Plan. 

It is hard to believe that it has been more than six years since the floodwaters 

of the Merced River passed through Yosemite Valley. While the 1997 flood caused 

a lot of damage, disrupting the lives and economic well-being of local residents and 

businesses, as well as the expectations of park visitors, there was a silver lining to 

the storm clouds that produced those floods—a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to 

transform into reality what had long been a grand, but elusive vision for Yosemite. 

Realizing that vision has indeed been elusive since it has been 23 years since it 

was first articulated to the American people in the 1980 General Management Plan 

for Yosemite National Park. The vision is captured in five key goals: 

• Reclaim priceless natural beauty 

• Allow natural processes to prevail 

• Promote visitor understanding and enjoyment 

• Markedly reduce traffic congestion 

• Reduce crowding 

In other words, a more natural Yosemite, where hydrological and other natural 

process operate freely, a Yosemite with less asphalt, fewer automobiles, less development, less congestion, a Yosemite with an improved and enhanced visitor experience. 

Fortunately, the National Park Service seized upon the opportunity presented by 

the floods by launching a three-year planning process that culminated in the adoption of the Yosemite Valley Plan and the Merced River Plan. Intellectual honesty, 

rigorous analysis, and extensive and open public participation characterized these 

planning processes. At the end of the trail, on a bright but chilly November day, 

the Final Yosemite Valley Plan was formally announced by then Secretary of the 

Interior, Bruce Babbitt. 

It is important to note that more than 10,000 comments were received on the Yosemite Valley Plan. In addition to public comments, the planning process was characterized by 18 public hearings and meetings in 18 locations and cities, regularly 

scheduled on-the-ground tours led by Park Service staff, written planning updates 

and newsletters, and extensive media coverage. 

In other words, the Final Yosemite Valley Plan was the product of a comprehensive, open, and honest process that offered unprecedented opportunities and avenues 

for public review and input. To this day, the Park Service and the planning team 

deserves credit and applause, not only for the process they undertook, but also for 

the product they developed as well. 

The Final Yosemite Valley Plan was duly adopted through a signed Record of Decision dated December 29, 2000. On that day, the National Park Service bestowed 

70

a gift upon Yosemite Valley. Moreover, on that day, the Park Service showed that 

it had struck an elegant balance between protecting Yosemite’s natural and cultural 

resources and providing for visitor use and enjoyment of a popular national park. 

Accordingly, The Wilderness Society is pleased to see the Park Service moving forward with vigorously implementing the Yosemite Valley Plan. We support the 

projects currently moving forward—particularly the Yosemite Falls Project, the Cascades Dam Project, the acquisition of clean fuel shuttle vehicles, and the restoration 

to natural habitat of the area currently known as Upper and Lower River Campgrounds. 

I would also like to state clearly that The Wilderness Society is unalterably opposed to reopening the plan to changes, particularly in the area of campgrounds, 

parking, and transportation. 

With respect to Upper and Lower River Campgrounds, the habitat restoration opportunities presented there not only are the single largest restoration component of 

the entire plan, they also would restore some of the most biologically productive 

habitat types found in Yosemite Valley—riparian, wet meadow, and Black oak. 

With respect to the proposed reduction and centralization of day-use parking to 

a 500-space lot at Camp Six, please understand that this also a vital component of 

the Final Yosemite Valley Plan and is of elemental importance if congestion is to 

be reduced in Yosemite Valley. It is not only an answer to those handful of days 

when gridlock is achieved, it is also an answer to the countless number of days during the visitor season when automobile congestion, while short of absolute gridlock, 

renders a visit to Yosemite Valley an exercise in frustration. 

Indeed, habitat restoration and transportation changes are indeed the heart and 

soul of the Valley Plan. Neither must be compromised or undermined. 

In adopting the final plan, the Park Service also showed its responsiveness to 

public comment by making significant changes in moving from draft to final. Two 

issues that continue to be hot topics perhaps best demonstrate this responsiveness—

campgrounds and lodging. 

Under the final plan, there would be 500 campsites in the valley. Assuming a twonight stay, that is enough for 30,000 families or groups of friends to camp out over 

a four-month summer camping season. Add in the 1,065 other campsites within the 

boundaries of Yosemite National Park, and there is enough for a total of 94,000 

camping opportunities during a four-month period. 

But the Park Service isn’t proposing to stop there, the agency has found a way 

to locate another 204 sites in the park, yet outside the valley—boosting total family 

camping opportunities to 106,140 two-night stays over a four month period. 

Similarly, in direct response to public comment, the Park Service restructured the 

mix of total overnight opportunities in Yosemite to emphasize accommodations at 

the lower end of the cost scale. 

Under the final plan, there will be a total of 1,461 total overnight accommodations 

in Yosemite Valley. Out of this total, 1,179 are campsites, rustic tent cabins, and 

economy-scale cabins, or 81 percent of all overnight accommodations. Only 282 beds 

so to speak, or 19 percent would be at the upper cost levels. 

In other words, the Park Service has more than adequately found a way to accommodate camping and low cost overnight accommodations in Yosemite. While we support this effort, we will vigorously oppose any modifications to the Yosemite Valley 

Plan to increase camping any further in Yosemite Valley. 

It is time to realize that Yosemite Valley is a finite place. Over the years, far too 

much development and infrastructure was crammed into the valley. The Yosemite 

Valley Plan sought to reverse that trend. It is exciting to see it being implemented. 

But more work needs to be done. In addition to the implementation activities currently underway, I would like to touch on several other efforts that must be started 

sooner, rather than later. 

As I mentioned earlier, changes in transportation and parking are vital to the success of the Valley Plan and to the future of Yosemite. Staffing assignments, preplanning activities, and up-front analysis, and sequencing of decision-making must 

be initiated now to facilitate a smooth transition to centralized parking and reduced 

day-use parking. 

Similarly, with the help of this committee, the National Park Service must see 

its authorities expanded by legislation to enable fuller engagement in the Yosemite 

Area Regional Transportation System or YARTS. While the Valley Plan is not dependent on YARTS, the success of YARTS could significantly reduce overall implementation costs. Several factors are converging during the next few years that will 

increase ridership on YARTS—the ramping up of UC–Merced, employees moving 

out of Yosemite Valley into surrounding communities, reduced day-use parking in 

the Valley, and the increased activities of the UC Merced/Sierra Nevada Research 

Station. 

71

YARTS was a homegrown idea that continues to deserve support. To this day, I 

applaud Mariposa, Merced, and Mono Counties for having the courage of their convictions to stick with YARTS. Their belief that local, state, and Federal Governments can work together to solve a common problem or serve a shared purpose is 

an inspiration. And yet, additional funding is needed through TEA III legislation, 

as are additional Park Service authorities similar to what the agency has at Zion 

National Park. 

Because of the Park Service’s success in developing the Yosemite Valley Plan and 

the Merced River Plan, the future of Yosemite is bright. Think about it, in just a 

short time, an unsightly and dangerous dam will be removed from the Wild and Scenic Merced River, a parking lot removed and the Lower Yosemite Falls area restored and made accessible to people with disabilities so they can feel the spray of 

Yosemite Falls in their faces, the clean fuel shuttle fleet expanded, congestion relieved, and one day soon, vital habitat restored along the Merced River. 

There is much to cheer about. There is much to be thankful for. And there are 

people in the National Park Service who are true heroes of public service. Some of 

them continue to work at Yosemite, some have moved on to other parks like Fort 

Clatsop, Channel Islands, and Mt. Lassen Volcanic. 

Wherever they are, the folks who produced this plan should be fiercely proud of 

their accomplishment. I am pleased to see the Park Service embrace and implement 

the plan. On behalf of The Wilderness Society, I ask that the Park Service, with 

the full support of this committee, do even more by acting now on the tasks necessary to realize the full promise of the Valley Plan—promises that will only be realized when the full Yosemite Valley Plan is implemented, not just those components 

represented by the fifteen or so projects currently under way. 

It has been 23 years since the National Park Service set forth a majestic vision 

for Yosemite and saw it embraced by the American people. Yosemite’s time has 

come. Let’s get the job done and done right as set forth in the Final Yosemite Valley 

Plan. Thank you. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Whitmore, welcome to the Committee and 

please begin your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE WHITMORE, CHAIRMAN,

YOSEMITE COMMITTEE, SIERRA CLUB, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WHITMORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Subcommittee, for having invited us to testify here in the Yosemite 

Valley, the heart of the crown jewel of the entire national park system. You will be glad to know that I have truncated my summary. 

I will hit just the major points in hopes of encouraging more questions. 

From the very beginning, we have found some things in the 

Valley Plan which we like and some things which we believe are 

not desirable. Being human, we tend to focus on the negative, 

which you will find in our written testimony. But something we 

need to make clear is that we believe the plan can be improved 

without throwing it out and starting over. 

Using the plan as a starting point, we need to move on, evaluating individual actions on their merits. We need to implement the 

less controversial provisions first, leaving the more questionable 

ones for later consideration. The point has already been made; we 

would like to emphasize that we agree with it. 

There are a lot of simple, inexpensive, low-impact measures that 

would significantly reduce the perceived need for massive, costly, 

and harmful actions called for in the Valley Plan. And some examples have been given, like redesigning both intersections and better 

directional signing. 

There has been relatively little mention of a day-use reservation 

system. For us, that is a major issue. We think that it would go 

72

a long way toward dealing with the problems, both real and perceived. By directing people away from the peak periods, we feel will 

it would vastly reduce the perceived need for massive parking lots 

and bussing systems that probably would result in a net increase 

in annual visitation because people would be assured of getting in 

and would find their visit more enjoyable. But that does assume 

that a reasonable number of slots would be set aside on a firstcome-first-serve basis, ensuring that people would usually get in 

even if they did not have a reservation. 

We feel that North Side Drive should not be closed because this 

would lead inevitably to the widening of South Side Drive, and we 

find the widening of South Side Drive totally unacceptable. As I 

think anyone who looks carefully as they drive along there would 

realize, it cannot be widened without massive damage. 

One point that might seem minor, but I will mention it because 

I think it is symptomatic of a lot of the problems that are occurring 

and will occur in implementing the Valley Plan, we feel that the 

realignment of North Side Drive in the Yosemite Lodge vicinity is 

not necessary. It would have been possible to design or redesign 

the problem for a wide intersection without the damage which is 

being done by the Lower Fall project and without moving overnight 

accommodations closer to the rock falls as is being planned. 

Just to go on the record, we do support efforts, including those 

by organizations such as YARTS, to address regional transportation issues which affect Yosemite, provided those efforts advance 

the goals of the 1980 General Management Plan. 

One of the biggest deficiencies of the Valley Plan is its failure to 

address the ever-increasing demand for access to the valley by 

highly polluting and noisy tour buses. It is inconsistent to focus on 

getting rid of cars while doing nothing to prevent the polluting intrusion by buses of all kinds, including tour buses. 

Expansion of the valley shuttle routes to the west end of the valley, as called for in the Valley Plan, should be implemented sooner 

rather than later and most certainly before making it even more 

difficult for people to use their cars. We strongly feel that no more 

day-use parking should be removed without providing suitable alternatives to use of the private automobile. 

And as far as campgrounds, my last point, we support the decision to restore the Upper and Lower River campground sites to 

natural conditions. We also support the expansion of additional 

camping outside Yosemite Valley as suggested by recent studies. 

Providing free shuttle service for outlying campgrounds into the 

valley would greatly enhance the appeal of these campgrounds and 

would fit well with expansion of the valley shuttle to the west end 

of the valley. 

So again we thank you for the opportunity to testify and I would 

be happy to take any questions. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. I thank the panelists. Thank you, Mr. 

Whitmore for your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitmore follows:]

73

Statement of George W. Whitmore, Chairman, Yosemite Committee, Sierra 

Club 

INTRODUCTION. 

We appreciate having been invited to testify before the Subcommittee. 

OVERVIEW of the Valley Plan and associated problems. 

A. Too much is being done too quickly. 

A chaotic situation has been created wherein so much is being attempted so 

quickly that it seems inevitable that one project will end up conflicting with another, or simply create more problems because other things should have been done 

first. 

As an example, we cite the Lower Yosemite Fall project. Replacement parking for 

the tour busses ultimately is supposed to be created behind the Village area, but 

that project is not even being mentioned. In the meantime the tour busses will be 

shunted from one temporary site to another in the Lower Fall area because their 

previous parking is being removed. And, continuing a long tradition, more automobile parking is being removed without any improvement in the Valley shuttle bus 

service to facilitate a transition to less reliance on private autos. 

B. Problems with public notification and input. 

Adding to the chaos, the Park Service keeps asking for public input, but it is difficult for the public to be aware of what is happening. So it’s hardly surprising that 

they don’t have enough information to comment in a rational manner. 

The Park Service has been conducting a series of Open Houses on their planning 

and projects. These offer an immense amount of information and are very useful. 

But they have almost all been during the week and during the day, so very few people would be able to attend them even if they were aware that the event was occurring. (There will be another one on Wednesday, the day after this hearing, from 2:00 

p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) 

The Park Service relies excessively on their web site. Many people simply are not 

in the habit of getting their information this way. There needs to be more use of 

mailings to update the public on projects, planning, and comment deadlines. 

C. Potential problems because of litigation. 

Another reason for slowing the pace of development in the Valley is because litigation over the Merced River Plan still has not been resolved. It is currently before 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the likely outcome is not at all clear. The 

River Plan is supposed to provide a foundation for the Valley Plan (as directed by 

a District Court judge), and projects now underway might have to be placed on hold 

if the Circuit Court should find even one problem with the River Plan. Particularly 

if that one problem happens to be the failure to ‘‘address user capacity’’ as called 

for by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. That issue alone could pull the 

underpinnings out from much of what is in the Valley Plan. 

D. Simple measures would yield large results. 

Much of the development called for by the Valley Plan would not be necessary 

if simple steps were taken to deal with congestion. There are a few problem road 

intersections which have been allowed to fester for decades. Why not redesign those 

intersections instead of turning the whole Valley upside down? Again, inadequate 

or confusing directional signs has been a problem for decades. Instead of providing 

better signs, the Park Service points to the confused drivers going around and 

around and says the solution is to get rid of the drivers and their cars. 

E. Day-use reservation system: simple and effective. 

And the most obvious solution of all to deal with the congestion which occurs a 

relatively small portion of the year would be to implement a day-use reservation 

system with a portion of the slots being available on a first-come-first-served basis. 

That way those who need to be assured of getting in on a specific date would have 

that assurance, while those who prefer a more spontaneous approach would probably still get in. Most of the time there is simply not a problem of too many people 

or too many cars. 

There is much anecdotal evidence that many people don’t come because they think 

it is crowded, or they won’t be able to get in, or they won’t be able to drive their 

car in. A reservation would ensure their getting in, and would steer them away from 

the times that do tend to be crowded. We suspect that a reasonably implemented 

day-use reservation system would actually reverse the continuing decline in annual 

visitation, as well as improve the quality of the visitor’s experience. 

74

We hasten to point out that the Valley Plan actually moved AWAY from the concept of a day-use reservation system. The idea was implied in the 1980 General 

Management Plan, but that seminal beginning was deleted by amendment through 

the Valley Plan process. It is one of the reasons that we are less than enthusiastic 

about the Valley Plan. 

This action of the Valley Plan was actually in contravention of the Park Service’s 

own regulations, which direct that every unit of the National Park System address 

the carrying capacity issue. This requirement was brought out in the General Accounting Office’s November 15, 2002 report on transportation projects in the 

National Park System (‘‘National Park Service: Opportunities to Improve the Administration of the Alternative Transportation Program’’). 

OTHER TRANSPORTATION ISSUES in addition to those mentioned above. 

A. South Side Drive widening and North Side Drive closure. 

While it is not on the table yet, we dread the day that the Park Service starts 

widening South Side Drive in anticipation of closing North Side Drive. At present, 

South Side Drive (as well as North Side Drive) provides two lanes of one-way traffic, 

making for the safe and pleasant movement of movement of different types of vehicles in one direction. Faster and slower—autos, busses and bicycles—all are accommodated smoothly. 

In order to move traffic as well if it were two-way, as called for in the Valley Plan, 

four lanes would be required. Huge numbers of trees would have to be removed, and 

an ugly swath of asphalt inviting high speeds would take their place. The very idea 

is an abomination which never should have found its way onto paper. To keep it 

at two lanes (one in each direction) would result in gross traffic congestion, a high 

accident rate, and an unpleasant visitor experience. 

And all this because someone thought it would be a good idea to close North Side 

Drive to traffic. JUST LEAVE THINGS ALONE! This is a prime example of failure 

to anticipate that ‘‘restoration’’ of North Side Drive would inevitably result in gross 

destruction of natural values and quality of the visitor experience on South Side 

Drive. 

B. Realignment of North Side Drive in vicinity of Yosemite Lodge. 

Again, why can’t it just be left alone? Because the Lower Fall project has already 

committed the Park Service to another project which doesn’t make sense. The fourway problem intersection could easily have been fixed without a massive realignment of North Side Drive, or moving overnight lodging closer to the rockfall zone. 

The entire Lower Fall, Lodge redevelopment, and North Side Drive realignment 

complex of projects is an example of planning run amuck. A massive urban redevelopment project, without regard for the fact that this is a national park. 

C. Segment ‘‘D’’ of the El Portal road (Highway 120/140 junction to Pohono Bridge). 

While it is not on the table yet, and the environmental reviews have not been 

started, it is quite clear that the Park Service has every intention of raising this 

segment of road to the same standard as the newly completed section. And this is 

in spite of the fact that the gradients and curves that provided the rationale for the 

other construction do not exist on Segment ‘‘D’’. Although portions of the road require stabilization because of flood damage, this could be accomplished without the 

massive impacts to the landscape that would be required if the road were reconstructed to the same standard as that already done. Rather than a blind insistence 

on uniform widths just for the sake of uniformity, we ask that the road not be rebuilt except as necessary for safety. 

D. YARTS. 

Because there continues to be misunderstanding as to the Sierra Club’s attitude 

toward YARTS, we wish to make it clear that we support efforts, including those 

by organizations such as YARTS, to address regional transportation issues which affect Yosemite provided those efforts advance the goals of the 1980 General Management Plan. Those goals include reduction of traffic congestion, reduction of overcrowding, and promotion of visitor enjoyment. 

We should also add that we strongly urge that transportation systems be implemented in such a way as to make progress toward cleaner air. 

E. Tour (excursion) busses. 

One of the biggest deficiencies in the Valley Plan is its failure to address the everincreasing demand for access to the Valley by tour busses. The Plan makes much 

of the problems which are perceived to be caused by autos, with Draconian restrictions on their use. Yet it simply ignores the potentially far worse problem which will 

be caused by unlimited numbers of highly polluting and noisy tour busses. 

75

It is our understanding that the Park Service has the authority to regulate tour 

bus access to the Park, and could require that the busses meet specific emission 

standards as a condition of entry. If the Park Service does not have that authority, 

it seems that enabling legislation would be appropriate. If they already have the authority, it seems that they need to be encouraged to move in that direction. 

And, to the extent that tour busses are carrying day-use visitors, our comments 

above regarding the wisdom of a day-use reservation system would apply to tour 

busses also. 

F. Fuel cells. 

We appreciate Mr. Radanovich’s interest in seeking cleaner air for Yosemite, and 

we support a fuel cell project provided the goal is to make progress toward cleaner 

air in Yosemite. Apparently the project would not necessarily be for a bus; if it is 

for a stationary facility, we suggest Crane Flat because the electricity supplied there 

now is from a diesel generator. 

G. Valley shuttle busses. 

We would like to see the present fleet of old and polluting diesel busses replaced 

with vehicles which would match former Western Regional Director John Reynolds’ 

vision of ‘‘the cleanest busses in the world’’, as articulated by him before this Subcommittee on March 27, 2001. 

We are not convinced that a diesel powered electric hybrid bus would meet that 

vision. We would like to see a comparison of the alternatives, including propane 

powered electric hybrid, gasoline powered electric hybrid, and straight propane powered. If emissions data shows that diesel powered hybrids would be the cleanest and 

otherwise suitable, we could support that. But diesels have such a bad reputation 

that it seems hard to believe they would prove to be the cleanest just because they 

are put into a hybrid application. It seems as though the others would also be cleaner in the hybrid application, still leaving diesel at a relative disadvantage. Like I 

said, we would like an opportunity to review the comparative data, but have been 

having some difficulty getting the information. 

H. Expansion of the Valley Shuttle Routes. 

It would seem that this is one of the less controversial actions called for in the 

Valley Plan, and has the potential for reducing congestion and facilitating visitor 

access. Yet we see no indication that the Park Service has any plans for taking it 

up in the foreseeable future. We believe they have indicated that they would first 

have to build a series of stops complete with rest rooms, so they are looking upon 

it as a massive undertaking. 

It seems self-evident that people drive all around the Valley now, stopping and 

getting out of their cars, at countless places where there are no rest rooms. We see 

no reason why public transportation could not be provided on the same basis. 

I. Day-use parking. 

As alluded to above, we find it highly inappropriate for the Park Service to continue to remove day-use parking without first providing suitable alternatives to the 

use of the private auto. Much of the congestion which actually occurs is the result 

of removal of parking, which has been ongoing for at least the last twenty years. 

We are usually in favor of removing asphalt, but not if it is simply going to get laid 

down somewhere else (as called for in the Valley Plan), and not if it results in degradation of the visitor experience (as called for in the Valley Plan) 

IV. CAMPGROUNDS. 

We support the decision in the 2000 Yosemite Valley Plan to restore the Upper 

and Lower River Campground sites to natural conditions. We also support the expansion of additional camping opportunities outside Yosemite Valley as suggested 

by recent Park studies. In particular, we support the 1980 General Management 

Plan provision that there be ‘‘in kind’’ replacement of camping opportunities to compensate for those which are removed from Yosemite Valley. 

We note that there has been a continuing long-term process of reducing camping 

opportunities throughout the Park. It appears to be part of the pattern of phasing 

out lower-cost accommodations, and putting in higher cost accommodations, which 

has manifested itself so clearly in the Yosemite Valley Plan. Recognizing that it is 

difficult to find suitable locations for new camping opportunities in the Valley, we 

feel there is all the more reason to make every effort to find appropriate locations 

as near as possible outside the Valley. 

Another way of compensating for the loss of campgrounds within the Valley would 

be to provide adequate shuttle service into the Valley from outlying campgrounds. 

76

V. CONCLUSION. 

We thank you for the opportunity of testifying. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. We will move to the asking of questions by the 

panel. 

Let me begin by asking Mr. Minault—thank you for being here—

in your testimony, you stated that based on the 1980 General Management Plan, the valley has a shortfall of over 300 campsites. I 

am wondering how you would reconcile that with Mr. Watson’s belief that the 500 campsites slated for the valley is sufficient. 

Mr. MINAULT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our feeling is that the 

overnight accommodation pattern in the valley is skewed toward 

developed lodgings and that really the purpose of a park is to provide a recreational experience, that campgrounds do that, that developed lodgings are a form of leisure, as we have stated, and that 

there should be a shift to have a greater number of campgrounds 

and a gradually reduced number of developed lodgings. 

And it is hard to identify a perfect number, and we won’t attempt to do that, but in our comments on the Valley Plan we did 

show that there was room for increased campsites east of the 

Ahwahnee, and in fact, we would love to see the Ahwahnee cabins, 

which are the valley’s single most space-consumptive and most expensive lodgings and which were untouched in the Valley Plan 

while campsites were radically reduced—we would love to see those 

cabins removed and the part of the valley east of the Ahwahnee 

made into a Royal Arches campground so that east of the side valley where you have the most sun and the Ahwahnee has its own 

waterfall could be shared with some of the riffraff who have enjoyed camping, like myself. 

And, incidentally, we also believe that the Park Service’s goal of 

adaptive management requires that they be a little bit more on the 

balls of their feet in handling NEPA documents, environmental 

documents, and that it is not necessary to bring the Valley Plan 

to a grinding halt in order to consider some of these campground 

options, that supplemental and environmental documents can be 

prepared and will have to be prepared as the plan goes on and as 

the concept of adaptive management is implemented and that additional campgrounds can be developed under those sorts of documents. 

Thank you. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. 

Mr. Abshez, we appreciated your testimony, what I have gotten 

from it, and I am sorry to have to cut all of you off, or most of it, 

on this, but I do have a question. I want to ask you, you mentioned 

in your testimony the discrepancies in the final Yosemite Valley 

Plan regarding the number of campsites. Can you elaborate on that 

for me? 

Mr. ABSHEZ. Well, when I was referring to discrepancies, I was 

referring to the baseline, the assumed baseline of post-flood conditions. 

One of the alternatives which was not included in the discussion 

was the alternative of restoring the level of accommodations and 

campsites. So we are 40 percent down in campsites. I think we are 

77

approximately 500 units down in lodging, and yet there is no alternative that addresses restoration. 

If you look at campsites alone, using the map that was developed 

by The Wilderness Society, which looks like a good map, the 

campsites that were lost represent opportunities for 19,680 family 

camping vacations every summer. And with regard to camping opportunities outside of the valley, there are lots of camping opportunities outside of the valley. They are available all over the Nation. 

The valley is unique. There is no substitute for a camping experience in the valley. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Watson, I do have a question. It is my understanding that the mission of The Wilderness Society is to deliver to future generations an unspoiled legacy of wild places with 

all the precious values they hold, such as biological diversity, towering forest, rushing rivers, and safe, sweet, silent deserts. 

Assuming that you stand by the mission, how can a family truly 

experience all that the Yosemite Valley and the park have to offer 

without somehow disturbing nature? Can you reconcile those 

things for us? 

Please, no more comments from the audience. I have got to tell 

you it is just not appropriate for a congressional hearing. 

Mr. WATSON. The Wilderness Society is fully supportive and 

thinks one of the highest and best uses of the national parks is for 

the public to visit them. That is in large part their purpose. It is 

balanced with sort of a dual mission in the organic act of protecting 

the underlying resources, but we do believe that restorative visits 

to the public lands are one of the highest and best uses of the public lands, including the parks. 

We all have impact. Backpackers have an impact. I am not saying we can’t have any impact in the Yosemite Valley. Clearly, there 

is impact. There is impact in the back country from a backpacker. 

So I recognize that there is impact through that use, and that is 

just the way it is. 

It is the purpose of agencies to try to minimize that use, but not 

at the expense of locking people out, and I don’t believe the purpose 

of the Valley Plan in any way is to lock people out of this park. 

It was to find a balance between habitat restoration and conservation and public use and enjoyment. Sure, you could have more people camping in Yosemite Valley. You could tear down the Lodge 

and build a campground and you wouldn’t have as many hotel 

units. Under the plan it is interesting to note that while 300 campsites are being removed, lodging is decreasing by 262 units. So 

there is less of everything in the Yosemite Valley Plan, and camping has not been targeted for reductions at the expense of everything else. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. 

Donna? 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Just two brief ones. Mr. Chairman and panelists, the goal here is sometimes difficult to achieve, but I want 

to commend you, Mr. Chairman, on the balance of the testimony 

that we have had here this morning. 

Mr. Whitmore, both the Chairman and I have felt that our desire 

to improve the gateway community process, gateway process—in 

your written testimony you stated you didn’t feel that it was adeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:14 Aug 14, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\86612.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
78

quate. I thought we had established that with the 14-plus hearings, 

town meetings that were held around this particular plan, that it 

had been a very open process and there has been a lot of 

opportunity. Yet you don’t seem to think the process has been as 

it should have been or provided the opportunity it could have. 

Mr. WHITMORE. I don’t recall having said that recently, but we 

have been involved in the past—well, in fact, currently—with litigation challenging basically the planning processes on both the 

Merced River Plan and the Valley Plan—well, not the Valley Plan 

yet; that was perhaps a Freudian slip. But the Merced River Plan 

and a couple prior to that, we were actually the plaintiffs on two 

prior lawsuits, but we are not on the current Merced River litigation. 

So, yes, we did have some concerns with the process, but it mostly had to do with the internal procedures of the Park Service. I do 

not think that we ever felt that there had been an inadequate opportunity for the public to make its feelings known. 

And I do feel that while I realize it may be beyond the purpose 

of this hearing, but I think that I should point out that we do feel 

the Park Service was quite responsive to public input following the 

close of comment period on the draft Valley Plan. The final Valley 

Plan as it came out was substantially improved over the draft 

Valley Plan, and probably largely because of the input from the 

public which the Park Service listened to and acted upon. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. 

Just one last question. Mr. Minault, in your testimony, and you 

said it in response to a question also, that the National Park Service plans for lodging in the valley is geared to the upper end of the 

income scale. 

In contrast, Mr. Watson, in your testimony, you noted that 81 

percent of the overnight accommodations are economically minded 

campsites, tent cabins, et cetera, with 19 percent at the upper cost 

levels. 

I am trying to reconcile that. So my question is, what is the lodging situation? Do you feel that a broad economic range of options 

is being offered, or is it really geared to the upper end? I am just 

trying to reconcile those two views. 

Mr. MINAULT. My feeling is that the park has an affirmative obligation to create a situation of social equality in the parks, not simply to accommodate the social distinctions which exist in the greater society and which— 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. And you— 

Mr. MINAULT. —which any careful observer will see are increasing as the society matures. 

I think we need to be compressing the distance between people 

socially in the parks rather than just reflecting the distance between classes that we have in our society now. 

So my feeling is—also the parks are a recreational resource. My 

feeling is, we should not be using the parks as a place where people 

come and enjoy leisure. This is a place for recreation, and campgrounds, more than developed lodgings, foster leisure. And I also 

believe that the lodging situation we have in Yosemite right now 

reflects the history of Yosemite when there were not accommodations outside the park and the park needed to have accommodaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:14 Aug 14, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\86612.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
79

tions geared toward guests. That is increasingly changing, and I do 

not think the plan that we have now recognizes that change. So— 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Even though the number of lodging units are 

also decreasing? 

Mr. MINAULT. Yes. I don’t think they are decreasing as fast as 

I would like to see them decrease. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Watson? 

Mr. WATSON. Yes. Thank you. 

In my calculations, what I do is combine five categories. There 

are campsites, there are rustic tent cabins, there are economy-level 

cabins, mid-scale lodge units, and upscale, the Ahwahnee. So I included the three at the lower-end campsites, rustic tent cabins and 

economy cabins would probably cost less than motel unit outside 

the valley and added those all up and that is how I came up with 

81 percent. 

You could perhaps count it a different way, but that is how I 

chose to do it. I think it was accurate and fair. 

You know, The Wilderness Society would certainly support more 

campgrounds in the Yosemite Valley, but there is only so much 

room. Something else is going to have to come out, and I guarantee 

you whatever comes out to replace campgrounds has a local constituency for it, just like everything else. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thanks, Donna. 

Devin? 

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Watson, assuming that the 1980 baseline is correct, that there are 2,500 campsites, do you agree with that number? 

Mr. WATSON. You know, I really don’t know. I would have to go 

back and look at documents in my office. But assuming it is— 

Mr. NUNES. Assuming it is— 

Mr. WATSON. Let us just assume it is. 

Mr. NUNES. —and we are down to 50 percent of that number 23 

years later, where do you think that number should go over the 

next 20 years? 

Mr. WATSON. Well, I am assuming that other types of facilities 

have, in part, replaced some of those campsites that were lost. Perhaps others have been—have become natural habitat. I tend to 

kind of doubt that. I think, if anything, the trend in the valley over 

the years was to cram on more stuff in here. 

You know, I think if the Park Service could find a way, like they 

have in this study, to locate 204 some-odd sites outside of the valley, that is a terrific start. I am assuming that those would be attached to existing campgrounds, and that is why they would be 

easier to do through a regulatory process that is less complicated 

to add on to an existing site than build a brand-new campground 

somewhere in the park. 

There is one location for an additional campground, though, and 

that is on a piece of private land that is currently on the market 

called Hazel Green. It has been eyed for resorts and for ecoresorts 

in the past by a company that went out of business. So it is now 

on the market. That could be a relief out there for additional camping and that is something that we would be more than interested 

80

in looking at because we fully support camping in Yosemite 

National Park. 

Mr. NUNES. Those are not on the valley floor? 

Mr. WATSON. They are not on the valley floor. That is correct. 

Mr. WATSON. You can certainly have more camp sites and they 

would fill up, but then they would compromise other aspects of the 

plan. I mean, there was a balance between providing for visitor use 

and enjoyment, allowing natural processes to prevail and restoring 

scenic beauty. Those are three goals that date back to the 1980 

plan. So it was a balance between those, and I know ‘‘balance’’ is 

a loaded word. It means something different to everyone. But I believe they have struck that now. Like I said, if there is a way to 

find additional camp sites outside of the valley, we will have to 

allow the Congress to make the money available to build those. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Abshez, could you answer that same question from the 1980 baseline in comparison to now? Where do you 

think, as a hiker and an avid user of the park, where do you think 

the numbers should go? 

Mr. ABSHEZ. I think we need to bring back up the number of 

camp sites throughout the park. I personally know that there are 

many cases when I have sought to come in places other than the 

valley where camp site accommodations have not been available, 

even that other than peak seasons. And I personally am familiar 

with many camp grounds that have been abandoned. There might 

be good reasons for abandoning those particular camp grounds. 

In the valley, I agree with Mr. Radanovich, that their use of 

floodplains for a campground is a good use. In fact, if you would 

examine the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in First Evangelical 

Church versus County of Los Angeles, you will see that the County 

of Los Angeles once took the position that they would prohibit 

building in floodplains but that the property owner could still make 

viable use of it for camping, which is an interesting point. And I 

am informed that the camp sites after the 1997 floods were not destroyed by the floods, but they were damaged, but they were removed after the floods. 

So I think we—you know, there is a lot of reason to look at responsibly planning the reintroduction of the camping in the valley 

and increasing the camping in other parts of the park so that people can enjoy it. They are being denied that visitation, and sometimes when you can’t get in it is not an option to stay outside the 

park. Often that is a good option, I want to support the gateway 

communities, but other times people would just pass on because 

they feel they can’t visit their destination. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. 

Mr. ABSHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, gentlemen. 

Mr. Abshez, can you tell me—tell me, help me to reconcile this. 

Do you believe that the Park Service must reduce access in Yosemite to save the valley for future generations? 

Mr. ABSHEZ. I don’t know that the Park Service believes that. I 

certainly don’t believe it. We look at the history of human development in the park. We have seen that there has been—previously 

there has been much more intensive use of the valley as a city, as 

farmland. There have been bowling alleys and pool halls in the 

81

valley. We have had much more parking here previously. We had 

driving all over the valley. There was reform and the valley is a 

lot better for that today. 

I think we have the tools to have intelligent land planning and 

management in the valley and enable all sorts of people to come 

here, stay in all sorts of accommodations. I like to camp but I have 

nothing against people who don’t like to camp and would rather 

stay in a lodge. My grandmother was an example. I like economy 

accommodations. I have stayed in them. Sometimes I was flat 

broke. I love the chance to stay in Ahwahnee. I wouldn’t deny that 

opportunity to anyone. Let’s get the access for people. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Minault, can you—you represent through 

the access fund and promote the need for camping. Does that type 

of camping go anywhere from minimal-use, walk-in campgrounds to 

the 40-foot RV, beer-popping camper that likes to fish and everything else with him when he goes camping? Do you have some parameters as to what you support and what you don’t support or—

well. 

Mr. MINAULT. Well, I am afraid I do. You know, climbers are famous for being able to subsist on very minimal conditions. And we 

have many climber campgrounds in the United States with no 

water, no trash facilities, no really developed facilities, simply 

minimal toilets. And in Yosemite we have recommended in the 

outer valley parkwide—I have to remember the name of this—

parkwide out of valley campground study—that there be development of those type of campgrounds, walk-in campgrounds that 

serve climbers and backpackers and people who are able to live 

successfully in a campground with less developed facilities as a balance to the more developed campgrounds. 

And frankly, you know, I have to say personally, an RV to me 

is really—is not really a campground use. It is a movable building 

and doesn’t really belong in a campground in a place like Yosemite 

where there’s so much competition for space. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. If somehow some camping sites were to go 

back into upper- and lower-river campgrounds, without reopening 

the general plan or creating havoc, what kind of campgrounds 

would you like to see? 

Mr. MINAULT. We would like to see some group sites which are 

missing or lacking in the valley, walk-in sites that allow people 

to—basically get more people in a small space, fundamentally—and 

a mix of regular family and car camping sites. And the political reality is you would have to have some RV sites as well. 

But I think if I could just speak for climbers, we are content with 

less. If less is what it takes to get us in the valley and housed here, 

then less is what we will be happy to take. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Can you define for me this idea of group camp 

sites? Is that some like Boy Scout group or is that—what do you 

mean by group camping? 

Mr. MINAULT. Right. They are group sites like those in Tuolumne 

Meadows Campground. There may be groups sites in the valley 

that were. I think they were lost in the floods. But there are a half 

a dozen group sites in Tuolumne Meadows Campground where you 

have school camps, church camps, Boy Scouts, that kind of thing, 

and you may have 20 or 30 people. 

82

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. 

Mr. Whitmore, thanks for your testimony. And I am interested 

in your support of the North Side Drive staying in, and Mr. Watson 

had mentioned there is always—you know, this plan is so interconnected; one thing out, one thing in has some pretty dynamic effects to the whole plan all together. 

How do you reconcile, though, the issue of North Side Drive is 

the fact that it is in the floodplain, Stoneman Bridge down to Yosemite Village, the idea of removing that which is in the floodplain 

of the river, as are the campground spaces; how can you reconcile 

leaving a road in there and removing—but removing the campgrounds? 

Mr. RADANOVICH. They are both in the floodplain. It is a floodplain issue that drives both of these, and yet if you are respecting—or of the opinion that they should be removed because they 

are in a floodplain, why would you allow one and not the other? 

Mr. WHITMORE. Well, I don’t think that we can use presence in 

the floodplain to be an absolute standard in Yosemite Valley as to 

whether something is permitted or not. If you wait long enough you 

will get a very giant flood; and, potentially, practically all of the 

valley floor is a floodplain. And so I think you are going to have 

to make compromises just with everything else. 

I think that having a road in a floodplain is probably a little 

more practical than having buildings or structures or restrooms, 

other constructed facilities. But actually as far as closure of North 

Side Drive, I was referring to the section from Yosemite Lodge and 

Camp 4 to the west, to the El Capitan crossover where they are 

proposing to make that into a walking and bicycle trail. A lot of 

that does get flooded. 

But I think the main reason that—their main rationale, I believe, for proposing that to be closed to autos was simply to make 

more of the valley more natural, which is normally something we 

would support. But in that particular case, I think the impact on 

South Side Drive would be so immense and unacceptable that we 

just cannot see that it is feasible to close North Side Drive. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK, thank you. We may be closing down on 

our questions. 

I have got to ask this thing because this has really been in my 

craw for a long time. During the plan—and I guess I can direct this 

to you, Mr. Whitmore, because it is regarding the Le Conte Memorial. Why was there no consideration—or was there—to removing 

the Le Conte Memorial and getting it out of the valley for habitat 

restoration? It just bothered me that that building is still there 

and, you know, John Muir would be turning over in his grave to 

have something built in his memory that is a man-made object in 

the valley. And I—why is that? I mean, it seems to me if we are 

really interested in habitat restoration, it ought to be in areas that 

affect us, not other people, and I have got to ask this question. 

Mr. WHITMORE. Well, it is not in its original location, as I understand it. I don’t know where it was first built. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. It was somewhere else. 

Mr. WHITMORE. It was somewhere else and it was relocated to 

where it is now. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Right. 

83

Mr. WHITMORE. And it is my understanding that it is considered 

to be a national historic site, and so that immediately invokes a 

bunch of rules that don’t apply to other things. I think it is sort 

of like the Ahwahnee in that regard. It is sort of a landmark structure, and it may be inconsistent with the natural scene but it is 

there and it is one of the things we live with. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Right. It troubles me that—it just seems to me 

that it is for a special interest group in some ways, and if we are 

willing to shut down certain areas for habitat restoration, it seems 

to me that that would be an ideal spot. And it is where it affects 

perhaps your interest group as well, and maybe not others—other 

interest groups. And I just—I see a double standard there and I 

don’t, you know—it troubles me. 

Mr. WHITMORE. I think it would be well to note that there is 

some question as to ownership of the building. The title has been 

sufficiently obscure over the years; that it is my understanding 

that the Park Service and the Sierra Club just came to an understanding: We will talk about management and never mind who 

owns it. So it is not known that it belongs to the Sierra Club, it 

may belong to the Park Service. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Right. 

Mr. WHITMORE. And so basically the Sierra Club operates it as 

a tenant of the Park Service, you might say. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Right. Which to me—yeah. That just chaps me, 

I have got to tell you. I think this should go because of that. And 

I—it is mainly because what I want to make sure, you know, that 

everybody has—if we are going to limit access, we should do it for 

everybody. And I just want that on the record. I am sorry, but that 

just really troubles me. 

Mr. WHITMORE. I would hasten to note that the Sierra Club is 

not favoring limiting access. We favor a reservation system in order 

to spread out the access and manage it better. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Right. 

Mr. WHITMORE. So that the experience becomes more pleasant 

and is more predictable, and my feeling is it probably would result 

in a decrease in annual visitation by removing the uncertainty that 

we have now— 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Right. 

Mr. WHITMORE. —as to whether someone will get in or not. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK. Well, it is that question of balance, and 

their results probably seems to be different in everybody’s mind. So 

I think that is what we are trying to get here, so—Donna, any 

more questions, or Devin? 

Well, listen, I want to thank everybody for being here. I know it 

went a little bit longer than what we thought, but I think that we 

got out all the issues out on the table. I think that we have adequately addressed them for now. This is going to be a long process. 

And I appreciate you being here. And with that, the hearing is 

closed. 

[Whereupon, the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ