U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

40–739 CC WASHINGTON : 1997

YOSEMITE RESTORATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC

LANDS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE PLANS FOR RESTORATION OF YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK FOLLOWING

THIS WINTER’S FLOODING

MARCH 22, 1997—EL PORTAL, CA

Serial No. 105–11

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(
(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

GEORGE MILLER, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

SAM FARR, California

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman

ELTON, GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

RICK HILL, Montana

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

ALLEN FREEMYER, Counsel

STEVE HODAPP, Professional Staff

LIZ BIRNBAUM, Democratic Counsel
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held March 22, 1997 ................................................................................. 1

Statements of Members:

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, a U.S. Senator from California ................................... 2

Radanovich, Hon. George, a U.S. Representative from California ............... 5

Statements of witnesses:

Cann, Kevin, Chief, Maintenance and Engineering, Yosemite National

Park ................................................................................................................ 7

De Bell, Garrett, Yosemite Guardian ............................................................. 33

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

Fischer, Gerald D., President, Yosemite Motels ............................................ 26

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 40

Fraker, Gary, President, Yosemite Concession Services ............................... 17

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 68

Griffin, Barbara Jo, Superintendent, Yosemite National Park .................... 7

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 54

Huse, Brian, Pacific Region Director, National Parks & Conservation

Association ..................................................................................................... 31

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 43

Kukulus, Peggy, Executive Director, Yosemite Sierra Visitors Bureau ....... 20

Monteith, Dick, a State Senator in California’s 12th District ...................... 14

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 38

Parker, Garry, Supervisor, Mariposa County (CA), District 4 ..................... 15

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 38

Reilly, Patti, Supervisor, Mariposa County (CA), District 1 ......................... 24

Urness, Tiffany, Research Program Manager, Califoria Division of Tourism .................................................................................................................. 19

Wallace, Linda, Chair, Yosemite Committee of the Sierra Club .................. 35

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 49

Additional material supplied:

After the Flood in Yosemite ............................................................................. 86

Eastern Madera County Report of Economic Impact Due to Flood Closure

of YosemiteNational Park ............................................................................ 79

Nature’s Agenda in Yosemite .......................................................................... 85

Opportunity at Yosemite .................................................................................. 84

Opportunity in Disaster ................................................................................... 83

Yosemite’s Flood—A Chance for Renewal ...................................................... 82

Communications submitted:

Urness, Tiffany: Letter of March 22, 1997, to Hon. James V. Hansen ........ 80

Williams, Margie: Memorandum to Steve Hayes on day use reservation

system ............................................................................................................ 66

Young, Hon. Don: Letter of March 12, 1997, with attachment to Hon.

George Radanovich ....................................................................................... 52
(1)

YOSEMITE RESTORATION

SATURDAY, MARCH 22, 1997

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS, COMMITTEE

ONRESOURCES,

El Portal, CA.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 12:30 p.m., in Cedar

Lodge, 9966 Highway 140,El Portal, California, Hon. George

Radanovich, presiding.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Good afternoon and welcome to Cedar Lodge.

We are here for, of course as you know, the House Committee on

Resources’ Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands

oversight field hearing on the Yosemite restoration.

Before we officially open the hearing, what I’d like to do is invite

Senator Monteith to make a presentation as somebody in the community who has done a remarkable job in aiding those who did not

benefit so well from our recent visit by Mother Nature on January

1st.

Dick, please, come on up.

Senator. MONTEITH. Jerry Fischer, would you step forward,

please?

Jerry, it is my pleasure to present to you a resolution from the

State Senate of California for the tremendous service that you’ve

done the people. During a difficult time in this area where we had

the flood and the problems, he opened up his lodge to all the people

in the surrounding community and afforded them an opportunity

to have a warm bed, a place to sleep in, and realize that they were

important.

And so, it is with a great deal of pleasure to present this resolution to you to prove once again that the people in the Sierra and

the people of California have the strength to raise up, to rise up

to the occasions that we’re confronted with and continue on and

our life will be a success, and it gives me a great deal of pleasure

to present this to you at this time.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Many of you may know I was a County Supervisor in Mariposa County for about four years. What you may not

know is that during that tenure my associates presented me with

a plaque before I left the Board of Supervisors that, basically, said

I could do whatever I wanted to do in a 24-hour period. And, I did

want to say, this is my first opportunity to be able to run a meeting

without even four other members of the Board of Supervisors to

worry about. So, it’s a real pleasure and honor to be back home.

We are very, very fortunate to be joined by Senator Barbara

Boxer, who will be giving testimony and then joining us on the
2

platform to hear the concerns of the local citizens with directing

the future of Yosemite National Park.

So, Senator Boxer, you are very welcome here and thank you for

coming today.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BARBARA BOXER, A U.S.

SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA

Senator. BOXER. Thank you, Congressman. I won’t be able to join

you up on the stage there today. What I will do is stay to hear

some of the testimony. I must, unfortunately, drive to Fresno and

take a flight to Los Angeles, so I wish that I could join you up

there, but you are doing a great job, and I wish you well as the

hearing proceeds.

Mr. Chairman, I’m happy to be back. In the tough times we have

to work together. I was right here in Cedar Lodge in January, ‘96,

after the government shutdown, and I know how difficult that was

for the local community. And, this time it’s Mother Nature who

caused the shutdown, and we have to work together to pick up the

pieces and bring this park back to its pristine condition.

According to the National Park Service, over 350 damage assessments have been completed by engineers, architects, resource specialists and other technical experts.

Their first damage assessment report shows serious damage to

the four main routes leading into the park, major electrical and

sewer systems, 224 units of employee housing, over 500 guest loading units, over 350 campsites, 17 restoration projects and over ten

archeological sites.

Mr. Chairman, I know full recovery will take a long time, but

there is no reason that we can’t put our heads together and get

these roads up and running. We did it at the Los Angeles earthquake, and we must do it here.

If there is any truth to the rumors that I hear of some kind of

a permanent year shutdown of our roads, that is unacceptable, and

I am very hopeful that our wonderful B.J. Griffin will put our

minds to rest on that score.

I want to commend her, as well as all the Park staff and local

community leaders, all of your efforts have been herculean, to help

people who have been devastated by floods, and we—State Senator

Monteith just honored one of these wonderful people.

It is to your credit that the Park has already reopened. Understanding there has been an enormous amount of progress, let’s remember that there are many outstanding issues that need to be

dealt with in the days ahead. We need to redouble our efforts to

improve and nurture communications between the National Park

Service, our local community, and the general public.

To further the work done so far, the Congressional appropriations of emergency funding is urgently needed. And, Congressman,

I’m so pleased I can be now on the Appropriations Committee, so

after you do your fine work on the House side, we’ll get it over on

the Senate side, we can team-up to get this done.

On March 19th, President Clinton announced his emergency request to Congress for $177.8 million for the National Park Service

to repair and replace facilities at ten national parks, including Yosemite. We will have to see whether this proves to be sufficient. It
3

may not be. The current National Park Service estimates of the

cost of recovery at Yosemite alone is approximately $178.5 million,

and damage assessments have still not been completed.

Congressman, I want to really congratulate you on your leadership in putting together a bill that we must have. Last week, I introduced a bill called the ‘‘Yosemite Emergency Restoration and

Construction Act.’’ The primary purpose of introducing my bill is to

set a benchmark for recovery and clean-up efforts at Yosemite.

This is what the bill does:

It authorizes emergency funding.

Second, it authorizes a specific amount—$200 million in emergency funds in fiscal year 1997.

Third, it specifies that funds shall only be spent in a manner

that is consistent with the Yosemite General Management Plan,

the Concession Services Plan, and when adopted, the Yosemite Valley Housing Plan, and the Valley Implementation Plan.

Fourth, it specifies that funds spent on repair and rebuilding of

concessions facilities shall be recovered by the Secretary of Interior

to the greatest extent practicable according to the Department of

Interior’s contracts.

Fifth, it authorizes emergency grants to satellite communities

around Yosemite to provide mass transit visitor transportation into

the park during repair and restoration activities on access roads.

Sixth, it authorizes emergency appropriations for other California parks that suffered flood damage including Redwood National Park, Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park and others.

Seventh, it authorizes $7 million to be appropriated in fiscal year

1998 and such sums as may be necessary for each fiscal year thereafter, for the establishment of a mass transit system for Yosemite.

I know that you are working on this, I know that it’s extremely important to all the people here and to these communities. It is also

very important to preserve our environment.

The importance of emergency funding for Yosemite cannot be

overstated. I know you and I agree on this point. It is a unique national treasure, recognized all over the world for its spectacular

natural beauty. We have 1.4 million people visiting the Park every

year, including tens of thousands of international visitors who travel to California for the sole purpose of staying in the Park to experience this incomparable nature.

John Muir, one of our nation’s founding leaders of environmental

conservation, first encountered the majestic Yosemite Valley in

1864 and immediately realized the importance of preserving its

natural wonders. His foresight and passion resulted in the establishment of Yosemite National Park in October of 1890. At its

onset, the Park included 60,000 acres of scenic wild land.

Today, some 106 years later, the park embraces over 761,000

acres of granite peaks, broad meadows, glacially carved domes,

giant sequoias, and breathtaking waterfalls. I don’t think anyone

who has ever visited ever forgets that first visit. It is awe inspiring,

and it is our responsibility to work together to assure that it stays

so.

So, we will work together to ensure that we repair our treasured

Yosemite as quickly and as intelligently as possible.
4

Congressman, I want to make one more important point here,

which I hope you will agree, but we haven’t had a chance to discuss

this. We all know our Federal budget must be balanced, and, of

course, that puts great pressure on us to carry our concerns to our

colleagues at this time, and convincing them that these funds are

so important that they’ll absolutely have to cut funds elsewhere to

make these repairs.

I also know there are several questions surrounding park policy,

such as Dames Reservation Plan, parking garage and other very

contentious issues. I have a strong message for my friends at the

National Park Service, for whom I have the greatest respect, let us

not adopt any new policy or program without the broadest consultative process, and let us see that if the surrounding communities

are unhappy we lose the key component of a successful and efficient park operation.

I strongly advise all of us to concentrate our efforts toward getting this appropriations bill through for Yosemite. It will take all

of our focus and cooperation. What we are seeing we can do now

is to turn this appropriations thing into an argument about park

policies and issues that are divisive. Let us pass this appropriations to fund the things that all of us agree are crucial to Yosemite’s future.

That is what I told Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, just Thursday, on the phone; I am very pleased that he is coming to Yosemite

tomorrow, that is my understanding, because it shows his commitment to this magnificent place. But, again, I want to say to you

that we are moving together as a team across party lines. I can’t

stress how important this is, because we have many colleagues to

convince on both sides of the aisle, Working together, I am convinced we can do this.

Thank you so very much for this opportunity to appear before

you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Senator, for being here today, too,

and I would like to thank you for the introduction of your legislation on the Senate side.

I think that working together to convince the other Members of

the House and the Senate to support this emergency appropriation

is certainly something you and I can do, and also in working together we can help bridge whatever gaps there might be between

the Park Service and the outlying communities into developing a

mutual solution that’s a win/win for both, too. So, I look forward

to working with you on that, and very much appreciate you being

here at the hearing.

You are welcome to join us, or, I know I understand you are on

a time schedule.

Senator. BOXER. Thank you very much for the invitation to join

you. I will sit here as long as I possibly can, and, again, my deepest

thanks for including me in this hearing.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, you are welcome.

Before I read my statement, I do want to mention, too, that the

Chairman of the Resources’ Subcommittee on the National Parks

and Public Lands, Congressman Jim Hansen from Utah, was planning on being here with us as well.
5

Unfortunately, he had a leg injury that kept him from doing very

much traveling, other than going from his office in the Rayburn,

back down to the Floor to vote. So, he was very limited in his ability to walk and could not be here this evening.

I’ve got a statement, I’m going to read it, it’s going to take a little

bit of time. I hope you’ll understand, but by the way that we do

these hearings it’s very, very important to get our information

down into a record, which is the best way to reflect what was said

and done here, and the concerns of the citizens, the concerns of the

Park system with regard to Yosemite, so that it can be equally expressed amongst the other 435 Members in the House of Representatives and the other 99 Members in the Senate.

So, if you’ll bear with me, I would like to do that, but I also want

to say thank you to the National Park Service and also the members of the communities. In addition to Jerry Fischer doing such a

wonderful job during this disaster, there were many other people

in this community who dealt with this, and put the best face on

what was a natural disaster. And, I think that we can all speak

to it with a great deal of pride, that we are dealing with this problem in a positive way and not in a negative way.

And, B.J. Griffin, from the Park’s standpoint as well, I appreciate

your concerns for the welfare of the outlying community and also

your concern for getting the park up and running just as soon as

you possibly can.

So, with that, I’m going to read my very, very long statement,

and then after that we’re going to invite up four different panels

to give testimony into the record.

So, that is the way these hearings work, and I will go ahead and

start off with mine.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GEORGE RADANOVICH, A

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much for coming today to this

hearing of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands

to discuss the National Park Service plans for the restoration of

Yosemite National Park following this winter’s flooding.

Before we begin, I would like to thank my colleague, Jim Hansen, the Subcommittee Chairman, for recognizing the importance of

this hearing. I know that Jim had planned to be here today, but

unfortunately, he could not make it. I would also like to thank and

recognize, as I did, Senator Barbara Boxer, for taking the time to

be here, and look forward to her support on the other side of Capitol Hill. Finally, I want to take the time to thank B.J. Griffin for

her leadership in this critical time for the park. I’m looking forward

to our continued excellent working relationship.

As everybody here is aware, the record flooding of late December

and early January has caused extensive damage to Yosemite National Park. Normally calm, the Merced River blazed a path of destruction along its banks as raging waters swept up campgrounds,

sewer lines, employee homes, roads, and other facilities. This event

resulted in the Park Service feeling compelled to shut down Yosemite for the longest consecutive timeframe in its 107 year history.

The effects of this shutdown have been dramatic. More than

1,000 employees of Yosemite Concession Services were laid off,
6

with only 400 returning to work in recent days. Nearly 350 rooms,

over 400 campsites, and miles of backcountry trails remain closed.

In addition, the concession service, from whom we will hear today,

has reported losses between $8 and $10 million. This has been the

third major shutdown since 1995.

Equally devastating are the impacts borne by the gateway communities surrounding the park, many of which I represent and live.

Small business owners and their employees are suffering an unprecedented amount of hardship due to the closure and the limited

access caused by the damaged portions of Highways 120, 140, and

41. As of the end of January, estimates of the impact show a 40

percent decline in lodging projections, 15 percent for dining, and an

over 25 percent decline in retail expenditures. In short, the problems experienced with the shutdown of Yosemite are continuing for

the surrounding communities.

But, with every cloud there is a silver lining. Out of this disaster

comes a rare opportunity to address many of the long overdue

changes identified in park plans and the relationship of the park

to the surrounding communities. Moving campsites out of the floodplain and onto higher ground, for example, is the right thing to do.

In addition, using the resources to reduce the backlog of rehabilitation and reconstruction of substandard facilities is also a laudable

goal. Finally, money from the Emergency Relief for Federally

Owned Roads fund, commonly referred to as ERFO, along with additional sources, can be used not only to repair existing road damage, but also to address some of the long-term stabilization needs,

including the widening of Highway 140 and helping to implement

a regional busing plan, as a step toward the long-term solution of

reducing congestion in the Yosemite Valley.

However, just as there exists a number of positive benefits to be

derived in the aftermath of this tragedy, so too is the potential for

problems. Addressing the long-term transportation needs of the

park and the surrounding communities is an issue that can, and

should, be included in the restoration of Yosemite. However, the

proposal to implement a day-use reservation system as a means to

reduce traffic in the park is a subject of great concern. Already the

effects of this proposed system have been felt. The mere mention

of restricted vehicular access to the park has triggered cancellations of a number of reservations in nearby hotels. This has, in effect, produced a negative double whammy for our communities who

have come to depend on the increased tourism that the summer

months bring.

I express my concern for day-use reservations not because I fail

to recognize the need for a reduction of the congestion both during

construction and afterwards in Yosemite Valley, but because I believe that there is a better way to achieve these reductions without

the loss of visitorship to the region.

The Administration, as part of its supplemental appropriations

request, has suggested spending $21 million to address short-term

and long-term transportation needs in the Valley. The combination

of a day-use reservation system and a parking facility in the Taft

Toe region is essentially how they intend to spend this money. I

say there may be a better way.
7

In the short-term, there is no need for a day-use reservation system. Instead, the Congress, the Park Service, the State of California, and the surrounding local county officials should work together to construct and implement a transportation plan that addresses the needs of the park and the local communities without

reducing people or paving the Valley floor.

Given the importance of developing a regional transportation system which includes both local communities, the State, and park

needs, we will work to ensure that any funds that are saved due

to the construction efficiencies will be retained by the park as a

commitment toward the ongoing regional and in-park transportation systems. It is important that both the regional and park

needs are addressed with these funds.

I challenge the Clinton Administration today to drop its day-use

plan and work with the stakeholders to ensure that America’s park

is accessible to all Americans all of the time.

On Wednesday, the Congress received the long-anticipated emergency supplemental appropriation request from the White House.

I look forward to a thorough review of this plan and to working

with the Administration as this process moves forward in the coming weeks.

Thank you all, again, for coming here today. I look forward to

hearing your testimony, as well as that of the elected officials and,

most importantly, the citizens of the surrounding communities on

the single most important issue facing our community today, the

restoration of Yosemite National Park.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much, and with that I’d like

to invite the first panel to come before us, and all we need on that

first panel is one person, and that’s B.J. Griffin, who is Superintendent of Yosemite National Park. B.J., it’s all your’s.

Oh, let me do one thing, too, before we start. You’ll notice there’s

three light bulbs on the counter here, they are all different colors.

The green is for go, the yellow is get ready to stop, and red means

stop. So, at best we can do, we’d like to adhere to that. I will not

be real demanding on that, unless things would get out of hand,

and I’m sure they won’t. So, I would ask that you do your best to

abide by the clock, and that would be on every panel that comes

up here.

STATEMENT OF BARBARA JO GRIFFIN, SUPERINTENDENT, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK; ACCOMPANIED BY KEVIN CANN,

CHIEF, MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING

Ms. GRIFFIN. Thank you very much, Congressman. It is, indeed,

a pleasure to join you today to talk about the needs of Yosemite

National Park, a park which is so near and dear to all of us certainly in this region and to the Nation.

Joining me at the table, and would be ready to answer any detailed questions maybe in better detail, is Bob Andrews, Chief

Ranger at Yosemite, and Kevin Cann, Chief of Maintenance and

Engineering, but is also now acting as our Recovery Team Manager.

As 1996 came to a close, Yosemite had a particularly heavy

snowpack. On January 1st, a warm tropical storm moved into California. Heavy rains fell throughout the park. The combination of
8

the rain and the warm weather and that deep snowpack resulted

in one of the largest floods that the park has had. We have had

many comparable events over the last 100 years, but this was the

largest one in the last five. There were 900 park visitors in the

park and 1,200 employees that were trapped on three islands within the Valley. Employees and residents in El Portal, the primary

administrative support facility for the park, were also isolated and

cut off from the Valley and received significant damage.

The natural environment of the park is adapted for periodic

flooding. The structures and the infrastructure we have built in the

park are not so well adapted. We lost major utility systems, we lost

our sewer lines, there’s a photograph of that up on the mantle, we

lost the lift station that is associated with that sewer system, the

water supply for the park was destroyed, and only one of three access roads was available to us at the time. We had a precarious

electrical system and we were definitely in a tenuous and emergency state.

In El Portal, the water system was severely damaged, and residents had to use bottled water. The sewer line to the housing and

trailer village was destroyed. Highway 140 leading to the park and

to Mariposa was impassable, and, indeed, is under construction as

we speak today. Several other roads were severely damaged, but

we have been able to repair those, and we reopened the park on

March the 14th, using Highways 41 and 120.

Late on January 3rd, 900 visitors in the park were evacuated by

convoy. Then we began to understand the full magnitude of what

we were facing. We did three things. We called in a Type 1 Incident Command Team to deal with the emergency that faced us. We

could not get many of our employees to the park, because they

were trapped in El Portal. The second thing we did was we began

to talk with the leaders of the community and congressional delegation and showed people the extent of the damage, because we

knew we were in for a long haul, and we wanted people to understand what we were faced with doing, and what it was going to

take to mend it. The third thing we did was evacuate 500 of the

Concession employees that were not directly involved in the emergency recovery effort. The problem we had with people that were

not in the Valley employed on the emergency was the fact that it

overburdened the non-functional sewage system and the water system, and we had to get down to minimum numbers in order to survive. By the end of the first week of January, the population in Yosemite Valley was reduced to about 300 emergency personnel.

From this point one of our main goals was to make the park safe

for a reopening. On January 21st we did, indeed, open the southern

end of the park. Shortly after that, Cinquapin and Badger Pass,

and then the northern end of the park up to Crane Flat. And, as

I said, on March the 14th we were able to open Yosemite Valley

to visitors. Highway 140, however, was so damaged that the reconstruction of that road is going to take quite a while. We will work

on it until Memorial Day weekend when we’ll have two temporary

lanes in, then we will be able to have normal traffic, and then

there will not be a one-year closure, we will always have controlled

traffic on Highway 140, when after Labor Day we will start the

permanent fix of that road.
9

Mr. RADANOVICH. B.J., say what you need to say, don’t worry

about that yellow light, we’re going to just turn that thing off.

Ms. GRIFFIN. The one thing I know that everybody is concerned

about is the day-use reservation system, and it is not the way that

we would go about business in designing the system that we are

considering. Because of the emergency, we were not able to get out

to the communities and take public comment as we would on any

major policy change. I welcome the opportunity to mention the details of the system so that people will better understand what we

are talking about, but I think the important thing for people to understand is that we are not trying to reduce the numbers of visitors

to Yosemite National Park, we are trying to reduce the number of

vehicles. Because of the recovery effort and the parking problem,

we will not be able to recover as fast if contractors are not able to

get around on the roads. We have to do something to limit the

numbers of vehicles that are on the congested areas of the Valley.

We don’t intend also to, like I said, limit visitors, because the

main thing we want to do is let people come in on a bus if they

can’t get a reservation to bring their vehicle in. Also, we are looking into a weekend reservation system only, rather than the sevenday, full-time reservation system that we had originally thought

about.

This is a lot of money that we are asking for, and we recognize that. Some of the money, probably over $90 million of it, represents

constructing facilities in the proper place, rather than going back

into the flood plain and repeating mistakes of the past. It is a lot

of money, I appreciate everyone’s support, and I think we all can

agree that Yosemite is worth it.

I do have a statement to enter for the record, and I’m happy to

answer any questions that you might have.

[The statement of Ms. Griffin may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. RADANOVICH. Great, thanks, B.J., and I’ve got a number of

them just to lay a few things down in the record, and then wanted

to bring up a few others, perhaps. A number of concerned citizens

have suggested that the appropriations request, at least in the

emergency legislation, is inflated. Can you provide data that shows

what you used to develop your request, so we can back it up and

verify it and provide it for the record?

Ms. GRIFFIN. Yes, absolutely.

As I mentioned, we brought in professional engineers, architects,

road engineers and resources people immediately to start looking

at some 350 separate facilities that needed to be repaired. We had

some very good estimates, because pre-flood we had been working

on the Valley Implementation Plan, some elements around the rim

here, and we had just had those facilities estimated, many of which

were damaged in the flood. So, we had very fresh and good estimates on that.

Fifteen to 20 percent of it is a normal remote site factor that

would go into any of our estimating. We have used 30 percent, and

the reasons for that are that California, the extent of the flooding

in California has caused widespread demand for contractors and

materials, and that makes a difference. The remoteness, again, is

a problem here in Yosemite. When the roads are impassable and

contractors loaded with materials have to wait to get through for
10

convoys and things like that, it adds to the cost. So, we have used

a 30 percent remote factor. Of the $176 million, $123 million is previous flood—due to previous floods for various projects and plans, like I said, it was estimated, so a good majority of it had professional estimates, even

pre-flood.

Thirty-one percent of the money is for the supervision and contingencies that we put on all of our projects, so we’ve built in the

remote factor and the factor of the lack of competition that’s out

there right now because of what’s happened to California statewide.

Mr. RADANOVICH. B.J., what if, you know, down the road we get

this appropriation approved, it’s in the law, you got the funds that

you requested, I guess my question is what happens if any of those

funds are not used for a particular project, can they be set aside

for, perhaps, designated purposes, like a Yosemite transportation

system or something that is a use that stays within the park but

can be used for such projects that might lead toward the solution

of the day-use traffic problem or the congestion in the park, is

there any set-up to do that right now, or what’s the possibility of

being able to do something like that?

Ms. GRIFFIN. The budget process in Washington is one that I

don’t know the fine points of. However, normally what happens is

that each of these is treated as a line item in itself, and that if we

didn’t do a project, or it came in under bid, then that money would

just go back to Washington. So, it could be that something would

need to be written into the appropriation to allow for that.

Mr. RADANOVICH. And, if it was written in the appropriation, you

would support, I’m sure, funds to be used for—that would work toward the overall solution of the traffic problem in Yosemite.

Ms. GRIFFIN. Oh, absolutely, that’s our goal in all of our planning, and has been for the last 17 years.

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK.

What incentives are you intending to include in any proposed

contracts to ensure that the proposed work is completed on time,

or sooner, and within budget or below budget, are there any special

incentives that you will be offering to contractors in order to speed

the recovery along a little quicker?

Ms. GRIFFIN. We will take advantage of any opportunities and

authorities that we have for sole source, design/build, things of that

nature, but Kevin Cann can probably speak to that in more detail.

Mr. CANN. Well, specifically, for the larger projects, and the road

projects in particular, we are trying to build in contractor performance incentives, which have proven, as our report referred to earlier in the Northridge earthquake, to cut project development and

performance times as much as in half. So, we have built that into

our estimates right now.

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK.

Mr. CANN. On the larger projects, not so much for the $15,000.00

projects.

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK.

Time incentives as well, in order to give bonuses for earlier due

dates, those kind of things?

Mr. CANN. Time incentives primarily.
11

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK, very good, thank you.

What portion of the proposed funds are for the recovery from the

January flood, as opposed to improvements proposed under the

GMP or related documents? Do you have a figure, a percentage figure, as to what goes where?

Ms. GRIFFIN. About $94 million of the money is to build things

according to the General Management Plan that were damaged by

the flood. In other words, instead of going back in and repairing in

place, build them outside. There’s about, as far as the Valley Implementation Plan, which is the Valley portion of the General Management Plan, there’s about an estimate of about $299, call it $300

million, to complete that General Management Plan detailed study,

and probably—there’s about $108 million in this request, so you

are accomplishing about a third of what the General Management

Plan called for to happen in the Valley.

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK, thank you.

Also, recognizing that the General Management Plan was developed about 17 years ago, at least that was the beginning of the

General Management Plan, are there any changes that have happened since then, and do you see a need to—in your belief, does

the General Management Plan affect or incorporate the outlying

communities of, perhaps, Sonora, Oakhurst and Mariposa, as being

means of solving problems like transportation, do you think that’s

adequately addressed in the GMP, or is it something that if it’s not

do you propose ways to incorporate the outlying communities into

some of those solutions?

Ms. GRIFFIN. Yes.

Mr. RADANOVICH. For example, traffic.

Ms. GRIFFIN. Right. The General Management Plan, go back to

that, talked about having parking lots, used examples, Crane Flat

in the park, El Portal, and remote sites that were within the

boundaries of Yosemite National Park.

The refinement of that thinking over the last several years has

been that we would love to be able to get day-use automobiles

eventually out of Yosemite National Park. Therefore, we would look

to a regional transportation system that’s now being studied by

YARTS, Yosemite Area Regional Transportation Strategy, to deliver people to Yosemite National Park, and then we would put

them on a Valley shuttle system so that we would have an automobile free park. That would be the vision.

Mr. RADANOVICH. B.J., too, in discussions we had even earlier before this meeting, there was discussion and relative consensus, I

think, can be reached between the outlying communities and the

Park Service as to the overall traffic solution and transportation solution to Yosemite Valley inside the park, which would be a combination, I think, of improvements that would be developed through

this emergency appropriations for you to solve your traffic problems

inside the park boundary, but also something—and would be done

in such a way that would dovetail with the regional transportation

program developed by the outside communities, for example,

through YARTS, and one would dovetail with the other, that would

in the long run provide an answer to probably one of the most difficult problems facing the park, and that is congestion, particularly

during Memorial Day and Labor Day weekends.
12

And, I guess not so much as a question, but as a statement, that

I think that we are in sync with the development of a long-term

plan such as that. When I was confronted by some of my constituents in communities that had a problem with the imposition of a

day-use reservation system immediately, was that the short-term

solution, by using a day-use reservation system, may lend to further devastating the economies of Mariposa and Oakhurst,

Mariposa and Madera Counties in particular, because of the immediate impact.

And, while I think that there’s consensus on the development of

a long-term program, which I know we can work toward, there is

the problem of how do we take care of the park’s needs, being limited by the damage from the floods, but also the community needs

of Mariposa and Oakhurst, by making sure that they can recover

just as quickly as possible from the park closure of January 1st.

I guess my question is, are you willing to take a look at this and

give some flexibility in negotiating over these next couple of weeks

to ensure that we can devise a plan that meets the needs of the

Yosemite Valley, but also can enhance the economies at the same

time in Mariposa and Madera Counties?

Ms. GRIFFIN. Yes, I think there’s two things that I’d like to talk

about. The reservation system that we are considering, and it

should be mentioned here that the transportation element that’s in

the funding leads us to that long-term goal, albeit a phased approach, the Valley Implementation Plan will be a full public involvement planning process. That will include the transportation

plan and how to solve it in Yosemite, and we’ll have a range of options that we will lay before the public some time in May, that will

go through the normal process in reaching a consensus conclusion.

And, I think the communities will definitely be a part of the dialog

and a part of the solution.

As far as the day-use reservation system is concerned, what we

are faced with is, basically, two options. We can do a reservation

system, as we have talked, and be happy to talk about the details

of that, or we can fall back on what was not a very satisfactory

process that we’ve used in the past, and that was gate restrictions.

In other words, when the numbers of car that can be tolerated before you get complete gridlock passed through the gates, then we

just simply closed the gates, and the unfortunate thing about that

is that’s also economically devastating to the communities.

So, we were trying our very best to deliver the best service to the

visiting public, which I think really is the win/win for everybody

here, and in doing the reservation system, we felt that the public

would be better served by knowing before they left home if they

were going to have to take a bus into the park or if they were going

to be able to bring their automobile in.

And, yes, there are many details and aspects of restricted access

to the park that, again, is for vehicles, not for people, that we can

talk about.

Mr. RADANOVICH. B.J., we were discussing the possibility of providing an emergency bus system actually this summer, as a means

of, you know, in approaching the National Park Service and saying

that, why don’t you use an emergency bus program, rather than a

day-use reservation system, as a means of alleviating the traffic
13

concerns, but, in turn, being able to bring as many people into the

park and enjoy the park on a daily basis.

What if we were able to develop a bus system tomorrow that

brought all these people in and turned them loose in the park,

would you be able to handle a facility like that?

Ms. GRIFFIN. No, that’s actually what the extra money, between

the $178 original proposal, and the one that’s before you that the

White House introduced, is for, because the fact that if you were

to bring in all visitors, day-use visitors into Yosemite on a bus, you

would, basically, drop them at the village, right there, you would

put them in that parking lot.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Right.

Ms. GRIFFIN. At the Village Store, and there they would be with

their bicycles, and their coolers, and their rafts, and all the things

that they bring for a day visit, and no place to put them, no place

to get them around on shuttle buses. We are not equipped on this

end yet to deal with busing people in total into Yosemite, and

that’s one thing that would be solved by the extra money. It would

put a facility in place that could deal with the bus traveler and everything that they bring.

Mr. RADANOVICH. But, you agree, too, that once your transportation situation is fixed inside Yosemite, that the best way to deal

with the traffic problem is by complementing your interior system

by a well-developed regional system along the outside of the park

boundaries.

Ms. GRIFFIN. We agree on that.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Exactly, OK.

Now that we agree on the long-term solution for the park, I

guess the question is how to best meet the needs of the outlying

communities and the park’s traffic problems during this upcoming

tour season, and, frankly, I can’t tell—I could not say whether gate

closures would be better than day-use reservation systems, hopefully, we’ll hear that from members of the community as we begin

to work forward to develop the best, the very best solution that we

possibly can for the park and the outlying communities for these

next six, seven months.

So, with that, I thank you very much for your testimony, and appreciate your being here.

Ms. GRIFFIN. We look forward to hearing from that.

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK, fine.

Thank you, and I will now call the next panel up, that consists

of Senator Dick Monteith, Senator from the State of California

from the 12th Senate District; Garry Parker, Supervisor, Mariposa

County, District 4, a familiar one to me, and those are our two witnesses. And also I would like to recognize other members who are

here, Assemblyman George House, the 25th Assembly District,

George, if you’d like to be recognized, and also the 4th District Supervisor for Tuolumne County, Mark Thornton. Mark, you are here

somewhere, I think, and also, Harry Baker, Supervisor of Madera

County. Harry, welcome.

Dick, do you want to get things rolling?
14

STATEMENT OF SENATOR DICK MONTEITH, STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, 12TH SENATE DISTRICT

Senator. MONTEITH. Congressman, I want to thank you for the

opportunity to be involved in this forum. As you know, the Yosemite area is a very important portion of the 12th Senate District, in

fact, all the entrances, except for one, are in the 12th Senate District. And, we are aware of the value of the park, everybody in the

surrounding communities, everyone in the State, and I believe everyone in the Nation is aware of the importance.

What we are concerned about is the economic situation involving

the people in the surrounding communities. We have concern, and

I have concern with the daily-use reservation system, as what has

been discussed slightly before. I do understand that we need longterm planning. One concern that I have is the fact that, are we

going to have to come up with a plan before we let people in? Is

this long-term planning going to prevent people from participating

within the park for a year, two years, three years? Tourism is set

up on an annual basis, and as time—people feel they do not have

the accessibility, tours are set up into other portions of the State,

so we are not looking at just a viable situation for six months. Six

months can mean that people will not be back for another two

years, so we have some feelings and questions of how long that

may take.

Everyone is concerned about restoring Yosemite, and we are concerned about how the appropriations are going to go, we are concerned about the long-term benefits of the park, and the surrounding communities. We also have some concern about the traffic

plan, and we believe that in all of these concerns that I’m mentioning that the surrounding communities should be involved. I’m

hoping that we don’t end up in a situation where it’s an either/or

situation, which means this is how it’s going to be done, take it or

leave it. I believe that we should realize it is a partnership with

the park and surrounding communities, so that we can address this

as a unit together, and not end up in squaring off, if I may use that

term, but to work beneficially, and I think that’s extremely important.

There, perhaps, may be several different goals, as far as the park

is concerned, and maybe some of the goals as far as the communities, but the basic goals are the same, that we all realize that the

value of Yosemite Park is extremely important, and everyone is

trying to look out for the best interests of the park, but I believe

with that is included in the interests of the community, because

whether or not some people want to recognize it or not they are

part of the park today. It’s not a question of if they will be, but

they are. And so, those are the major concerns that I have and people that I’ve talked to, and we are hoping that with this hearing,

and the possibility of sitting down and discussing various solutions

to the problems, that we’ll be able to go forward and work in a cooperative partnership manner.

Thank you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Senator.

[The statement of Senator Monteith may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. RADANOVICH. Garry, welcome.
15

STATEMENT OF GARRY PARKER, SUPERVISOR, MARIPOSA

COUNTY, DISTRICT 4

Mr. PARKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, before I begin, we have submitted a long version

of our testimony, with supporting documentation, due to the time

restraints I’m going to give yourself, the panel, a shorter version

of that, so if I might just read this.

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Oversight Committee.

Welcome to Mariposa County, home of Yosemite National Park.

My name is Garry Parker, and I’m a Mariposa County Supervisor. I represent District 4 and the majority of the town of

Mariposa.

The floods of 1997 have been devastating to Mariposa County, as

well as Yosemite National Park, particularly the economy of our

County and its residents. For your information, in Mariposa County, on an annual basis, the transient occupancy tax derived from

tourists staying in lodging facilities represent 14 percent of our

County’s total budget, which is about 50 percent of the County’s

discretionary income. There are a number of issues being proposed

by the Park Service that could potentially be as devastating as the

floods themselves, to the economic well-being of the surrounding

counties. The primary issues which are creating a tremendous adverse effect on the surrounding communities are: (1) The Park’s announcement of a day-use reservation system to be effective in May,

although it is clear that there is no organized plan for a day-use

reservation and there was no plan of any kind for the day-use reservation system at the time the announcement was made; and (2)

The proposed restriction on use of Highway 140 by the public.

Park Service officials have stated that surrounding communities

should not be dependent upon Yosemite Valley for their economic

survival. It appears that without substantial tourist-oriented investments in the surrounding communities there would be overwhelming pressure to change the very nature and use of Yosemite

National Park to better cater to the visitors within the park boundaries. In truth and in fact, the surrounding communities are partners with the Federal Government, relative to Yosemite National

Park. It is time the Park officials recognize this fact and act upon

it. It is time the Park officials take into consideration the impacts

their decisions have on surrounding communities, and it is time to

stop making decisions without appropriate input. I believe that the

Federal Government does have a responsibility to ensure park officials do not make arbitrary decisions which have had no public

input and which adversely affect our citizens.

Regarding the proposed day-use reservation system, which is

being highly publicized, there are presently no answers to the questions of implementation. I do not believe that Park officials have

the understanding of the tremendous adverse effect their statement

that a day-use reservation system will be implemented by May has

had on the surrounding communities.

On March 11, 1997, the Mariposa County Board of Supervisors

unanimously adopted a resolution taking the following position: (1)

opposing the fast track implementation of a day-use reservation

system in the immediate future and offering to work with the Park
16

Service for future implementation so that it can be a viable project;

(2) supporting an incentive for public transit such as a $2.00 entrance fee per person riding a public transit vehicle; (3) Highway

140 should be open to all traffic by use of a private car system

every day of the week for a two hour period in the morning and

again in the evening, with a suggestion of keeping the highway

open until 8:00 a.m., commencing on March the 15th, and continuing until Highway 140 is open to unrestricted traffic; (4) a commitment that the County will continue to support public transit alternatives and lobbying for long-term funding for a transit system,

whether it be in support of YARTS or any other mechanism; and

finally, (5) requesting a meeting with Park Service officials that

have authority to make decisions and provide answers with local,

State and Federal representatives. The March 11 action shows the

total commitment of Mariposa County to work with the Park Service to resolve these problems in the best interests of, not only Yosemite National Park, but the surrounding communities as well.

Mr. Chairman, what we are asking for is not unreasonable. We

are simply asking to be included in any major decisionmaking process that directly affects our citizens. No agency or department

should be allowed to become an entity unto itself. We must all

work together to achieve a united goal.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to address our

concerns.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Garry.

[The statement of Mr. Parker may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. RADANOVICH. Let me ask a couple questions. A bus with 30

people, it probably is not going to have the same impact as 15 cars

with two people in them each on Yosemite Valley, would you agree?

Mr. PARKER. Right, I would agree.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Right, and so, if currently the entrance fee or the gate fee is $20.00 per vehicle in the Yosemite National Park,

you would see an incentive if that fee was, perhaps, maintained on

vehicles, but at the same time be a token, little or no, fee for buses

that take people in the park eventually.

Mr. PARKER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, as long as that was tied in to

an actual transit system.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Right.

Mr. PARKER. The incentive, of course, would be to get people out

of their vehicles in the surrounding communities and get them on

to a public transit, so they can come in and enjoy the park.

Also, the issue there is what to do with the vehicles, the buses,

once they are inside the Valley. If it’s a well-organized transit system, those buses will not just be brought in and parked as a tour

bus might be, it would actually be making routes and so forth. So,

I could see that where it would be of tremendous benefit to the

park, as well as the surrounding communities.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Another issue, Garry, then is with regard to

day-use reservations or the day-use reservation system. Do you

agree that it’s not so much the consideration of the day-use reservation as it is it’s a consideration of the day-use reservation system during this upcoming tour season, and I guess my question is,

if you agree, is that, the idea of implementing a day-use reservation system may not be a bad idea if it were, perhaps, started next
17

summer instead of this summer, or after this upcoming tourist season, which is so critical to everybody after the park being closed

down. Do you agree with that?

Mr. PARKER. Yes. Mr. Chairman, yes, I do. To expand on that a

little bit, I think what I’d have to say is, it’s very confusing to the

public out there. They really don’t understand. It’s very difficult for

the lodging industries to try to book tours, if that’s what it comes

to. They don’t have any answers to give anyone. I think that, ultimately, we could move in toward that kind of a system, but it

needs to be a well-planned system.

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK.

Mr. PARKER. And, instead of implementing it immediately, I

would much rather see us work together and come up with a program that is workable for all, and if that takes a year, so be it.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Yes, and it could be that a day-use reservation

system is the answer.

Mr. PARKER. It could very well be.

Mr. RADANOVICH. But, we need the time to be able to work into

it, and certainly not when it impacts us starting Memorial Day of

this year.

Mr. PARKER. Absolutely.

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK, great.

Senator, thank you so much, Garry, thank you very, very much.

Mr. PARKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator. MONTEITH. Thank you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK.

With that, we’ll call panel three, Gary Fraker, President, Yosemite Concession Services; Tiffany, if I’m correct, Urness, Research

Program Manager for the California Division of Tourism; and also

Peggy Kukulus, please correct me if I’m wrong, Executive Director

of the Yosemite Sierra Visitors Bureau.

Peggy, did I get your last name right?

Ms. KUKULUS. Kukulus.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Kukulus, sorry.

Ms. KUKULUS. Close.

Mr. RADANOVICH. And, Gary, welcome. I do want to point out,

Gary Fraker, as well, has done a remarkable job, being severely

impacted and having to lay off an incredible amount of people, the

service that you provided during the disaster of January has just

been remarkable as well, and I really want to mention that to you

now as you begin your testimony, but you are much appreciated by

a lot of people, and we thank you very much.

Gary, you may begin.

STATEMENT OF GARY FRAKER, PRESIDENT, YOSEMITE

CONCESSION SERVICES

Mr. FRAKER. Yosemite Concession Services is the primary concessioner in Yosemite National Park. Prior to the flood, we employed

1,800 people in peak season and generated nearly $100 million in

annual revenues. This is the third year of a 15-year contract with

the government to provide a variety of services.

Without a doubt, our company and its employees have suffered

and continue to suffer direct and staggering losses as a result of

this flood. Up to this point, we’ve lost approximately $10 million in
18

revenue over the course of this event. Over the course of the year,

we stand to end up between $30 and $40 million less than our projected revenues. Our future revenues are even more alarming. The

bulk of our earnings are derived from overnight guests.

We knew coming into this contract that there would be changes

in operations, and we embraced those as part of the contract, but

the understanding, I think, was always that we would probably

build and we would use the old facilities until the new were built,

then we would move into the new and we would remove the old facilities. Well, obviously, that can’t happen here, so it has the impact of having a kind of a double knock-out punch, a reduction in

our facilities and at the same time a lengthy wait before replacements are built. Combined with anticipated reductions in day use,

the potential earnings are a shadow of what we expected in our

contract.

On the human side, many employees suffered great personal loss,

250 lost everything but, literally, the clothes on their back. The

majority of these employees were mostly hourly, paid between

$6.00 and $8.00 an hour, and most were uninsured. Compounding

their personal losses was the loss of their jobs. In less than a week,

our staff went from 1,100 employees to 100.

Fortunately, after these ten weeks have passed, 750 of these employees have returned to work. Others are still waiting, some I

doubt if we’ll ever have jobs for. We estimate that our peak summer work force will be about 1,300 employees this year, which is

about 70 percent of normal.

The impacts to our operations are so wide ranging it’s very difficult to summarize. We have purchased 84 modular employee

units that we are transporting into the park and will be erected in

the next couple of weeks. This will help juggle with some of the

problems in housing that we have, and which jobs will be necessary.

In addition to this, we estimate that we are going to need about

100 to 150 guest facilities to house our employees on this temporary basis for the next year or two. This will come out of existing

facilities in Curry Village.

Due to the uncertain conditions of Route 140, many of our employees that are available to us as commuters no longer can depend

on that as an option. We feel that that’s going to have an impact

and reduce our labor pool.

On top of that, just the psychological impacts of the flood have

been significant as well. We’ve lost many fine managers and employees as a result of this that have found other employment, and

they’ve just decided to stay out of the park, and I think many employees are just so worried about all the unknowns that they have

just made the choice not to return.

In lodging, nearly 250 guest rooms and cabins at the lodge, half

the property’s inventory, 20 percent of our park-wide rooms were

affected by the flood. In addition, 400 campsites in Yosemite Valley

will not open this year. We don’t manage the campgrounds, but the

reduction in overnight guests will translate to fewer people enjoying the restaurants, the tours and the shops, facilities that recently

we spent, in conjunction with the Park Service, millions in refurbishing.
19

At this time of the year, our reservations office would be answering thousands of calls a day,guests trying to book rooms for spring

and summer. Since 250 of the rooms that are normallyavailable

and booked are out of service, in addition to 10009150 rooms that

we’ll have to use foremployee housing that belong to guests normally in Curry Village, our reservations agents areplacing calls to

guests with reservations to help them adjust to the changes. We estimate that200,000 guests will be impacted this year alone. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in refunds arepresently being processed and returned to guests that we’re canceling reservations for.

The high country, as you all know, with the average snowpack

and the amount of water so far above where it was before, we don’t

know what’s going to happen up there. That could impact another

10,000 guests.

In recreation, many of the guests are asking, what can we do.

Trails and bridges destroyed, which reduces recreational opportunities, the stables operation will not open in Yosemite this year, or

Wawona, due to the heavy snowpack we don’t know at this point

what will happen in Tuolumne. We’ll not be able to offer bicycle

rentals probably until April 1st, due to the condition of some of the

bike paths and the repairs that are ongoing right now.

In summary, we are just, we, like everyone else, are faced with

many challenges—many factors that affect our operations are undecided. It’s extremely difficult for us to develop an operating plan

and to keep our customers informed. Our immediate goal, within

the confines of our agreement with the National Park Service, and,

of course, all the plans that are involved, is to just return to providing a full array of services for the park guests as quickly as possible.

Thank you.

[The statement of Mr. Fraker may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. I’m going to reserve questions until

the whole panel is done speaking, so with that, Tiffany, welcome

to the hearing.

STATEMENT OF TIFFANY URNESS, RESEARCH PROGRAM

MANAGER, CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF TOURISM

Ms. URNESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The California Trade and Commerce Agency, Division of Tourism, acknowledges Yosemite National Park as one of the State’s

most renowned and cherished attractions. We consider it one of

California’s most memorable icons, and recognize it as a world

treasure that deserves special protection.

We appreciate the efforts to repair flood damages and restore

public access to the Park, and express thanks to Superintendent

B.J. Griffin for her considerate response to affected communities in

the aftermath of this disaster. Fortunately, not all the consequences were negative. Nature has washed away facilities that

were planned to be phased out anyway.

But, we are very concerned about the suddenness of their removal and the effect this will have on California visitors, communities and businesses that are dependent upon access to Yosemite

National Park.
20

Our two principal concerns today regard the eventual restoration

plans and their implementation. First, we urge that in planning for

immediate Park operations every consideration be given to the impact on surrounding communities and counties. Communities along

each access route to the Park have had close economic ties to Yosemite even before its establishment as a National Park, serving as

a source of supplies, guide services, emergency services, food and

lodging, public services and communication with the outside world.

Many decisions that are well within the discretion of Park management can affect thousands of jobs and businesses in outlying regions as well as important local services that are supported by tax

revenues generated by people traveling to and from the National

Park.

Our purpose in testifying is not to tell the Park Service how to

manage its facility. Our emphasis here is that since the Park Service affects the lives of so many beyond Park boundaries, the needs

of the surrounding communities must be taken into account. We

feel that by working and planning in consultation with these communities, their needs can be accommodated without significant detrimental impacts on sensitive resources.

Second, we are concerned about the effect of this disaster on

businesses which arrange and facilitate travel bookings, such as

tour and motorcoach operators. The travel and tourism system depends on good communication and advance planning on the part of

numerous parties. Booking contracts are typically made two years

or more ahead of the travel seasons. If this system is interrupted,

disrupted, or appears unpredictable, tour operators could very well

decide to book elsewhere, resulting in significant economic losses to

the entire State. This is because Yosemite is often a key itinerary

element in multi-destination tours. Operators will not want to risk

developing and promoting a tour which includes Yosemite unless

access to the Park can be guaranteed. If these advance guarantees

cannot be given, through a system of booking advance reservations

for rooms and park admissions, communities and businesses in the

immediate vicinity and many hundreds of miles away, which otherwise would have been on a six or 14 day California itinerary, may

become victims of the cancellation of these tours.

We support the need for controlled access. Our concern is for how

it is implemented. There needs to be coherently, considerately, and

consistently-applied policy, that will give assurance to hotels, motels, and motorcoach operators that their guests will have reasonable access to Yosemite.

Thank you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much.

Welcome, Peggy.

STATEMENT OF PEGGY KUKULUS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

YOSEMITE SIERRA VISITORS BUREAU

Ms. KUKULUS. Thank you for allowing me to speak on behalf of

our Supervisor, Harry Baker, District 5.

I submitted a document which outlines the losses of the Madera

County area, which would be the Oakhurst Area, Highway 41 Corridor has experienced over the last 90 days. Basically, we’re missing about 20,160 tourists that would have generated about
21

$919,000.00 in lost revenues for domestic travelers, and our international, which is a big concern to us, we’re missing about

$532,000.00 that they would have spent in the area.

I also agree with Tiffany, in that the tour operators often will

book National Park sequence, and I am very concerned if they lose

one of the parks that there would be an inclination, I’m sure that

they would, perhaps, not experience the whole tour.

I’d also like to read briefly from a letter that was submitted to

you by Steve Welch, which is basically in agreement with what we

are feeling. Two recent articles, one in the recent Fresno, and one

in last weekend’s USA Today stated a day-use reservation system

will be implemented this season in Yosemite, but the Park Service

still does not know how it would actually work.

Apparently, they have ignored logic and the many pleas from the

surrounding communities to at least postpone the implementation

of a system until an adequate shuttle alternative is in place and

there is sufficient lead time to notify all the affected visitors.

The Park Service’s insistence on a hastily thought out day-use

plan creates an emergency in itself and creates the impression that

they are seizing on January’s natural emergency to implement

their own agenda at the expense of the park visitor and the surrounding communities.

For various political and fiscal reasons, most provisions of the

1980 Master Plan have not been implemented. Are we going to be

forced now, under the guise of an emergency, to accept a solution

thrown together in a few months, when one has not been completed

in the last 17 years?

With the funding that you have proposed, this is an ideal opportunity to find an overall comprehensive solution to the vehicle

problem in Yosemite that will serve the visitor, the surrounding

communities, the concessionaire and the Park Service. However, a

simplistic, last minute day-use reservation system for this season

is not the answer, since I believe it will create more problems than

it will solve.

For the sake of all of us in the surrounding communities and the

thousands of unrepresented visitors, whose stay will adversely be

affected by this, we would appreciate your continued opposition to

a day-use reservation system this year.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much.

Gary, I do have a question, and that is, given the problem the

Park Service has this summer, due to the fact that the damage will

exist in the Park for a while, and so, therefore, need to limit the

traffic in the Valley, do you support the 5,100 per car limit in

there, or do you have suggestions of how the Park Service might

be allowed as many people as they possibly can to come and enjoy

the services of Yosemite Concession Service, while not, you know,

overburdening the infrastructure, the damaged infrastructure

that’s there. Do you have suggestions? Do you support the 5,100

per car limit, or do you have other ideas of how they might be able

to do it?

Mr. FRAKER. Well, I support overall the guidelines that have

been in place for some time, and I think those numbers are pretty

much holding.
22

What we, of course, didn’t realize, like everybody else, is that we

would be looking for some reduction to that in conjunction with all

the construction that’s going on, and also in conjunction with the

waiting until Tuolumne Meadow opens to get back up to that

count. So, that certainly will have a negative impact, yes.

Mr. RADANOVICH. And, the existing policy was basically the

swing the gate policy or the gate closure policy, as it reached a certain amount of cars. I think prior to that it was up around, if I’m

not mistaken, about 7,000 vehicles, now being reduced to 5,100,

once that was reached then the gate would close?

Mr. FRAKER. Well, I think originally it was based more on the

people, as opposed to cars, and so you have to come up with a formula to equate it to cars, and I think what the Park Service has

done is—the formulation appears to me to be sound, so it looks like

the numbers are approximately the same as what was in those

plans.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Would you agree to a gate closure policy rather

than a day-use reservation system?

Mr. FRAKER. I personally think that we should be looking toward

the longer range, and looking toward a day-use reservation system.

I have concerns, like the surrounding community, with regards to

the speed of bringing in a temporary system, but when I look at

the alternatives, i.e., you come to a certain point in the morning,

10:00, 11:00, and you slam the gates shut, well, that’s not a very

good alternative either.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Right.

Mr. FRAKER. So, I would think the longer range solution is to try

and come up with a more effective plan.

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK, thank you.

Tiffany, as a reaction, I think, to some of the frustration the lodging industry is feeling right now, they are booking, as you may

know, through the Office of Tourism, motels generally book their

rooms in advance by three, four, five months sometimes with tour

groups that are either coming in overseas and such. Do you agree

that with a day-use reservation system that it would make it very,

very difficult for the lodging industry to be able to guarantee their

residents, who are coming in to see Yosemite, that, in fact, they

would be able to see Yosemite?

Ms. URNESS. I don’t think we are going to comment on the specifics, but if you are working in consultation and coordination with

the surrounding communities, and with the affected businesses,

that will be the best way to come up with a plan.

We know what the characteristics of a system would have to be:

it would have to be predictable and it would have to allow for advanced bookings. It would have to allow for visitors that are some

distance away to know ahead of time that they are going to get in.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Right, and that’s—which, basically, outlines

the need of a typical lodging industry, they work things far in advance, and so they need those guarantees, I think, going in.

Ms. URNESS. Right.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Peggy, I did have a question, if you were given

a choice of swinging the gate at 5,100 cars, or a day-use reservation

system, what would you think would be better for the citizens of

Oakhurst, and, of course, Goldfish Camp?
23

Ms. KUKULUS. That’s really a tough one, because I was at a recent community meeting where probably two thirds of the folks in

attendance said we’d rather you swing the gate. I can’t personally

say I believe that. I believe, as Gary said, that I think that we

should look more for the long-term, but we aren’t seeing the visitors, they just aren’t here. I mean, the gates are open now and are

counts, from what we can tell, our early counts are awfully down.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Tiffany, as reference to that, too, it was mentioned by John Palmer, who I think is with the Office of Tourism,

and he’s a good person, knows the area well, had mentioned that

the Office of Tourism was there ready to help once the Park got

open in promoting, and I’m not referring particularly to that, but

in the more effective communication of whatever restrictive use

policy might be adopted by Yosemite National Park.

I think sometimes in the past the wrong impression has been

given to the visiting public that the park was closed, you know, periodically or sporadically any time during the year when, in fact,

it was only—the gate was closed about nine times over the last couple years.

Does the Office of Tourism stand ready to be able to help us develop whatever system that we develop, a better way to communicate it to people, so that they are actually discouraged from coming away during those—or, coming to the park during those peak

periods, but are rather encouraged to be up there during the nonpeak periods, like the middle of the week and off-season times?

Ms. URNESS. Certainly with regard to whatever plans are adopted, we will work with the visitor bureaus and with all affected entities, to get the word out through the media and through our overseas contacts; we have direct liaison with the Visit USA Committees in most of our major markets. Our media relations manager

makes press visits, talking with media all over the country. So, in

these ways we would support all the efforts to get the word out.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Right, OK, thank you.

Also, Peggy, I had a question, and that is, do you believe that

there’s the possibility of developing a system that might be a combination of bus use, gate closure and days reservation system, say,

for example, requiring days reservations for Memorial weekend,

July 4th weekend, and Labor Day weekend, perhaps, the parking

subject to gate closures during the day, but then also moving forward toward the long-term solution, which in my view is a regional

bus through YARTS system, and working at all three at the same

time and thereby maximize the use of the motel industries and

tourist industries outside the park?

Ms. KUKULUS. I think that’s—it’s an excellent solution, which is

where we all should be focusing, on the transit systems into the

park, and we are all working on those right now. One of our biggest concerns, and if we could get the additional funding, would be

to look at how we would work with the staging areas, which are

very much needed.

I think the important thing we can say to all of our visitors is

that no matter what, you can see Yosemite National Park, and I

think we can live with that bus system.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Right.
24

And, I think if the lodging industry might be able to put together

a bus system, their own systems, with the park agreeing to let the

buses in, at least with those amount of numbers, then the lodging

industry may be able to guarantee their visitors the opportunity to

see the park.

Ms. KUKULUS. That’s what we are working on right now.

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK.

Gary, I do have one more question, and that is, kind of off the

wall but I’m going to ask you, Yellowstone manages campgrounds

as well, and I know that Yosemite National Park and Yosemite

Concession Services does not. If you could manage the existing

campgrounds that are under about five feet of sand right now,

would you go in and fix them up and have them operational this

year?

Mr. FRAKER. Tomorrow.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Is that right?

Mr. FRAKER. Yes.

Mr. RADANOVICH. All right.

Well, thank you very much, I appreciate this.

On the next panel, I would like to invite up Patti Reilly, who is

the Supervisor for Mariposa County from District 1, and also Jerry

Fischer, who is President of Yosemite Motels.

Welcome, Patti, you are welcome to start off.

STATEMENT OF PATTI REILLY, SUPERVISOR, MARIPOSA

COUNTY, DISTRICT 1

Ms. REILLY. OK, thank you.

I am Patti Reilly. I serve as the Supervisor of the First District

of Mariposa County, which includes Yosemite Valley and El Portal

where we are meeting today. I am Chair of the Mariposa County

Local Transportation Commission and the Yosemite Area Regional

Transportation Strategy group (YARTS). It’s in my capacity as

Chair of the YARTS group that I make my comments to you today.

In the aftermath of the flood, transportation to and from Yosemite is a critical issue, both in the immediate future and in the longterm for the surrounding communities, the National Park and the

traveling public.

A few years ago, my predecessor on the Board of Supervisors

spoke to another Federal committee stressing the importance of

transit planning for the Yosemite area, advocating for an innovative regional approach and encouraging the funding of such an effort. I’m glad to report that today it’s generally understood that the

need for a transportation system does not end at the park boundaries. Collaboration with the National Park Service, gateway communities and the regional transportation planning agencies is essential to developing and implementing a transportation system

which can manage the visitor travel demands within the region

without adversely impacting the natural resources of the park. This

approach was strongly endorsed by the transportation experts at

last year’s Yosemite Transportation Symposium.

YARTS was formed to provide the structure for such collaborative efforts. The policy board includes elected officials from the

counties surrounding the park and the Yosemite National Park Superintendent, and is supported by technical staff and citizen advi-
25

sors. Funding was appropriate by Congress to accomplish the first

phase of this transportation planning effort.

There are five points I’d like to make regarding the funding for

park restoration and transportation:

1. Funding must be provided for repairs and long-needed improvements to Arch Rock Road (Highway 140). All routes into the

park must be a viable transportation corridor. Failure to fund the

improvements will result in a significant barrier to implementing

a near-term transportation plan.

2. Superintendent Griffin has a vision of Yosemite emerging as

an even better place in the aftermath of the January flood. Her approach is the right one ad deserves your support. Transportation

and traffic management must be a focus of all park planning efforts. The transportation plan that provides attractive alternatives

to the private automobile for both the visitor and employees, and

improved visitor experience, an alternative to building parking infrastructure in Yosemite Valley, and economic viability in surrounding communities cannot be developed by the Park Service

alone. We ask for the continued support of the YARTS process to

ensure this coordination of effort.

3. In announcing its plan to implement a vehicle reservation system, Park management has stated that the goal is to limit automobile entry as needed, but not public access to Yosemite. This can

only be accomplished if a viable transportation system is available

as an alternative. Short term or long-term, this can only be accomplished through coordination planning and adequate funding.

We believe an expansion and enhancement of the transit system

similar to the one currently being provided by Mariposa County

can be the basis of a short-term solution.

We suggest that the best type of transit system to implement

near-term is one that consists of clean-fueled, rubber-tired, well appointed rolling stock utilizing the existing highway system:

It has very little environmental impact, being able to rely to a

large degree on existing resources and infrastructure including existing parking facilities in surrounding communities.

It is relatively cheap in the near-term and can provide the foundation of a more advanced system in the future if that’s what is

desired.

It can be designed to be equitable to all entrance communities

and be adaptable to each community’s needs as well as to the

needs of Yosemite National Park.

4. It must be understood that policy decisions, including those

made in Washington, are pivotal to the success or failure of local

transportation planning efforts. Decisions on access and entrance

fees are prime examples. YARTS provides an existing proven institution to coordinate such policy decisions with the overall transportation planning efforts.

5. Funding for transportation must be as integrated as the planning. We seem to be playing a new game with old rules. We know

that the transportation plan which is most likely to accomplish the

park’s goals will extend beyond the park boundaries, but yet are

told that funding cannot. We need a seamless, convenient, cost efficient system that will get people from where they are, home, hotel,

satellite parking center, to where they want to be, Yosemite Na-
26

tional Park. This must be done in a manner that is respectful of

the natural resources of the whole area. If funding dollars cannot

cross jurisdictional lines, we will require unnecessary transfers and

unnecessary dollars spent for transfer facilities. Quieter, cleanfueled vehicles are no less important outside the park boundary

than in, and should be funded accordingly. In short, I urge you to

help provide funding and a funding mechanism for a transportation

system that best accomplishes the goals of Yosemite National Park,

that is most cost efficient, and which strengthens the economic viability of the surrounding communities while they contribute to

these important efforts.

Thank you very much.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Patty.

Gerry?

STATEMENT OF GERALD D. FISCHER, PRESIDENT, YOSEMITE

MOTELS

Mr. FISCHER. Thank you.

Eight weeks ago today, this conference room was vacated by the

Vietnam Veterans, who had been running the Evacuation Center

for El Portal. I think it’s interesting to see the progress that’s been

made in that length of time. It’s only been 11 weeks since I went

up to the great entrance here with my children and watched much

of the property called Yosemite View Lodge being destroyed by the

floods, and we’re close to restoring it and anxious to be back in

serving the public.

All of this brings me to a topic of conversation, as opposed to

day-use, but I’m going to combine the two if I may. It seems to me

that when we talk about the day-use reservation system, we talk

about it as if it’s the foundation of a new Yosemite visitation program, and I think instead it’s more the roof. The foundation of any

successful system, I think, is going to require that we have a good,

solid shuttle system within the park, and the ability to get there.

To put the day-use system in front of that I think jeopardizes the

concept of the day-use system, because we all sell a successful visit,

we sell the idea that you have a satisfied guest, one who appreciates what he’s just seen, and to go into the park and not have

access to reasonable transportation destroys that notion. We must,

first, I think, build that shuttle system.

The conversation about day-use reservation has centered around

the need to do it immediately, and I appreciate the need for some

action quickly, but it seems to me that the conversation has been

based on the build-out, requirements for a staging area. I know too

much about staging areas recently, and I have an appreciation for

how much room it takes to begin a new structure or to restore one,

and it seems to me, if we look at those areas that are now accessible to us, the upper campground, the lower campground, camp

six, the Ozone, the stables, Curry Down, and look at utilization of

those areas as a staging area for the proposed construction, which

is contemplated now over a period of three or four years, that we

may, in fact, be able to provide the staging areas and keep the existing level of parking.

And, during that time period, that we can work toward an effective day-use reservation system that will serve, ultimately, to tie
27

into the system of shuttle service that we need and regional transportation.

I would propose to you that our industry, and I’ll speak for

Mariposa County in terms of the fact that I serve as Chairman of

the Lodging Group, would support the concept of a day-use reservation system if, in fact, we have a transportation system in place in

the park, and the opportunity to take another one to it. That’s critical, I think, to any conversation we would have.

Lastly, I would like to say that I also want to recognize the efforts that the Park Service has put in place throughout this community and in working with us, I think we are challenged sometimes to recall the good things that happen, and we get way too

focused on the problems that we have. The level of cooperation I

saw in this building, in this community, directly after the floods,

with B.J., with Hal, and, particularly, with Harry Steed and his

staff in implementing what needed to happen, was very positive,

and I could tell you honestly, the biggest single story that was

missed, I think, in the flood was the level of cooperation that was

shown day in and day out. We literally couldn’t find anything to

complain about, and I commend them for that, and I commend

B.J., for the level of support that she’s given us in trying to communicate. And, I think the road that she has taken us on, since she’s

been here, has been the right one. I think she’s worked to bring

new levels of communication to our outlying communities.

The flood seems to have temporarily interrupted our ability to

communicate on a regular basis. I appreciate that, I appreciate all

that she’s been put through, and I hope we can get back to the period of time when we can adequately discuss these things and get,

if you will, onto the positive side of things again. I look forward to

that day.

[The statement of Mr. Fischer may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. RADANOVICH. Gerry, thank you very much.

Patti, I’ve got a couple questions for you. I personally want to go

on record as thinking that YARTS is the best thing since sliced

bread. I think that that is going to be a remarkable concept for providing the longest solution to the longest problem in this area, and

that has been traffic congestion in the Yosemite Valley.

I understand, and after being briefed and such, you know, that

it will be a while before the Valley is in a position to be able to

dovetail into what might be developed by the Yosemite Regional

Transportation Plan.

I guess, one thing is, how fast can you plan for us? I mean, how

quickly can this group get together and start putting something

substantial, so that we can be a viable solution to this problem?

Ms. REILLY. Well, not—we are not going——

Mr. RADANOVICH. How much money do you need?

Ms. REILLY. Currently, we have just started the first stage, first

phase of evaluating different alternatives long-term, and which

would arrive at three to five different options, and we hope to have

that done by September. That’s, obviously, not fast enough. But,

those are the more long-term.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Right.

Ms. REILLY. That takes us on the road there.
28

But, and I must say, even in looking at long-term, I think that

what we are looking at is a phased approach, where you can start

off using a lot of your existing resources, looking at a flexible system that can be built upon in the long-term.

There’s many, many ideas for transportation plans for Yosemite,

as you well know, but those are—many of them are costly and they

will take longer to develop. So, if we can have a phased approach

and build on those, that’s, you know, probably where we want to

go.

But, in the meantime, I think we can probably take the approach

that Mariposa County took as we started this process many years

ago, in looking at both short-term and long term, and what

Mariposa County did was put the Yosemite connection service in

place, a transit service that to some degree allows people to get—

they can travel by train even to Merced and then get a connection

to Yosemite, it serves the employees and visitors from the hotels

and so forth.

I think short-term you could use that as a basis, and expand on

that, expand that into the different communities.

But, I think bottom line, short-term or long-term, you have to

have—you have to coordinate those efforts. I mean, what we can’t

do is have someone standing at Buck Meadows Lodge waiting for

the bus to Yosemite and be told, no, that’s the Tuolumne County

bus, you’ve got to wait for the Mariposa County bus.

And also, what I think won’t work is to have the park planning

an internal transit system with the idea of, once we get it done

we’ll tell you guys what it is, and so you can connect up to it. We

really all need to be at the table at the same time to do the most

integrated system.

But, we found, I think, all the communities have shown a commitment to getting a transit system on ground as quickly as possible, especially in reaction to the days reservation proposal, but we

were somewhat stymied because there were too many missing

links. You know, we need to be able to, just like we need to be able

to tell people how a days reservation system would work, we need

to tell them what would happen when they get on the bus, where

are they going to go, how are they going to get to where they want

to go, if they want to go to Glacier Point, how do they get there

on our bus.

And, if you separate the entities all doing their own things, you

have constant missing links. It also takes money to do that.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Right.

Ms. REILLY. And, that’s been a substantial problem.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Do you agree that a well-thought-out, and a

plan, a regional plan that was integrated with the needs and dovetailed with the plan inside the National Park Service would probably be the very best way of alleviating the traffic problem in Yosemite?

Ms. REILLY. Yes, I believe it would be, and I think there’s some

argument about how much option you can give people, but I think

ideally what the American people want are alternatives. And, if we

can put a good, attractive transportation plan in place, that serves

the needs of many of the visitors, and yet, allow some options for
29

those that might not serve the purposes, I think that best serves

the American public.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. Right now, the Park Service is requesting approximately $21, perhaps, a total of $35 million, for the development of what could

be either a parking structure in Yosemite Valley, or, which could

very well be the case if there is not a regional transportation plan

built and put into place, if it is it would serve as an inter-connector

of two bus systems, one being the inter-park bus system, and the

other being a regional park bus system. I would like to see it that

way, but in order for that to happen, YARTS has to be something

that’s funded, we have to come up with a workable bus plan to

allow the Park Service to encourage, eventually, all of the day-use

traffic be directed to buses, so that there would be no person in the

park enjoying the park for a day that didn’t come there and leave

on a bus.

All of that depends on the development of a working transit system outside the park, and, I am fully convinced that it should be

under the YARTS structure.

Currently, in the emergency appropriation, all of that $21 to $35

million is allocated for park interior transportation uses. Now,

what we would like to do is to do two things. One is to make sure

that in that study there was money appropriated in a particular

fashion, also to speed the development of YARTS and the outside

regional bus plan. If it’s not specifically mentioned, what we would

do is encourage incentives to the National Park Service and give

B.J. the ability on money saved to be able to redirect that as well

to regional park structure, so that this might be the Federal commitment to a problem that does solve the traffic problem with inside Yosemite National Park. Would you be supportive of either one

of those initiatives, Patti?

Ms. REILLY. Well, absolutely. I would be supportive of that.

I would just like to add, though, just to reiterate the comments

that I made, I think what needs to be funded is the overall plan

that serves the needs of everyone, and I would caution again

against the Park Service doing a plan, predetermining what the regional plan has to be. That may be the solution, but maybe by all

working together we could find some alternatives for even a more

integrated plan that might not necessarily require a Taft Toe parking area.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Right. But, ideally, what you’d want to do is

move both the park plan and the YARTS plan together incrementally, so that they both become a working unit at the end.

Ms. REILLY. Yes, absolutely. I mean, I believe that’s what has to

happen, in order for the plan to be successful.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Very good.

OK, Gerry, now that we have the long-term problem solved, how

do we solve the short-term problem of providing some kind of a system. I would imagine it would be a combination of, perhaps, gate

closure, reservation, maybe not. I don’t know, what are your

thoughts, Gerry?

Mr. FISCHER. Well, Mariposa County made one proposal that was

that, as the park reached, if you will, a saturation level, that

guests would be notified that they could be diverted to a temporary
30

parking area outside the park. Several were projected as potential,

one was the idea that on 41 Badger Pass might be used as—the

parking area there could be used as a temporary staging area, so

cars would be diverted to that area, and then a shuttle would be

put in place that would take them from that location to the Valley

in time for the existing shuttle. Another proposal was to take the

Rush Creek site, which is located just outside the park on Highway

120 and do the same thing. As they got to the gate, if the parking

levels were too high, if the car count was too high, that they would

be turned around, which is approximately one mile, and be diverted into a shuttle that would tie into the existing park system.

One issue that came up very quickly was money. The other one

was whether or not we could put the system in place with lease

buses. The county contracts with VIA, Curtis Riggs is in the back

of the room if you want to pick on him. Curtis said he thought it

would be possible to lease enough buses to consider staffing those

routes.

The third highway, and the one, quite frankly, that we saw as

the most challenging, was Highway 140—140 being challenging because it’s more difficult to find a reasonable parking site that we

can divert cars to, so we looked on 140 as utilizing existing hotel

parking lots, like the one here at Cedar, and then tying back to a

temporary location in Mariposa, which would increase the cost because it’s a further commute.

But, we do think that that would be possible, and that would

allow us effectively to tell people they are assured access to the

park. They may not be assured that they can drive into the park,

but they would have assured access, and there would be no reason

then to go to the day-use reservation system.

If I could, let me just try and explain one of the challenges with

the day-use reservation system, Bob Andrews has done a good job,

I think, of determining that there are companies out there that can

develop the hardware and the software to put a day-use system in

place. But, what happens is, there are a great number of people

that have to interpret it to the public. There are the reservations

that would be under contract with whoever is running that system,

there’s the employees for the Park Service, there are the people

that work for the concessionaire who field many calls, there’s our

staff, but then there’s the travel professionals locally and statewide

throughout the Nation and the world, and these people are all sold

into existing systems.

In my company, which does 700 rooms outside the park, is tied

into more than 20 reservations systems worldwide. Comfort Inn

and Best Western are two of those. The Sierra Services is a company that we deal with, so we are actually tied to the concessionaire. But, each one of those people feeds a certain level of information into that computer, which is referred back to their guests

and their agents, and when you talk about creating a new system,

such as is being discussed, and then disseminating all that information out to each of these people, having it fed into that system,

and then having that further explained to the guests that they

bring into the system, it’s a very, very challenging prospect. We

need, more than anything else, time if we are going to develop a

system like that.
31

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, thank you very much, Gerry.

Just one last question before I let you all go home, you are not

necessarily opposed to a day-use reservation system, and I think

I’ve heard you say that previously, but rather, as long as it fits in

later, as long as it’s not imposed too soon, as long as it’s not imposed on this, and you’d be very open to work to develop, if the

day-use system that we think might get imposed this summer were

lifted, you’d be at the Park Service’s beck and call to work up a system that both serves your needs and the lodging industry’s needs,

as well as meet the limited access to the park.

Mr. FISCHER. We would be happy to be at the park’s doorstep tomorrow morning to work on that. I think what I have said pretty

consistently is that in order for us to look at a day-use reservation

system, you have to have in place those key elements, and I think

that the master plan, I think the park staff have felt all along that

you have to have a better shuttle system than we have.

One of the exciting things that’s happened in the last five or six

days has been that we see Senator Boxer, as well as your legislation, and President Clinton’s comments, calling for additional funds

to make that happen.

If that’s the case, and the shuttle system can be built, I think

that the day-use system will work fine, given adequate time to prepare it and put it in place.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Great. Thank you very much, Gerry. Thank

you so much, Patti.

Ms. REILLY. Thank you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Before we call our next panel up, I want to

mention that the Highway Patrol is ready to take a convoy right

now for those people who need to get back up there, so you are all

welcome to stay, but you may be spending the night.

Our next panel is Linda Wallace, who is the Chairwoman of the

Yosemite Committee of the Sierra Club; Brian Huse, Pacific Region

Director of the National Park and Conservation Association; and

Garret De Bell, Executive Director of the Yosemite Guardian.

OK, we’re going to need to get some order here. Brian, welcome,

Garrett, thank you for coming, and also, Linda, thank you for being

here. Brian, if you’d like to start off, please.

STATEMENT OF BRIAN HUSE, PACIFIC REGION DIRECTOR,

NATIONAL PARKS AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION

Mr. HUSE. Thank you, Congressman.

My name is Brian Huse. I’m the Pacific Region Director for the

National Parks and Conservation Association. NPCA is America’s

only private, non-profit citizens group dedicated solely to protecting

and preserving and enhancing the National Park System. Today

I’m speaking not only on behalf of NPCA, but the Wilderness Society and Yosemite Restoration Trust. Together, our organizations

have been working continuously to protect Yosemite National Park,

and have over 810,000 members nationwide.

To be sure, the flood event took a significant toll on the developed areas in Yosemite Valley and seriously disrupted people’s

lives. In addition, the resulting closure has impacted local economies, stressing many small businesses to the breaking point. We’ve

heard in great detail today the tremendous devastation that has re-
32

sulted from the flood, as well as the tremendous opportunities that

are now awaiting us to restore the park and help bring better partnerships between the Park Service and the local communities.

I think a lot of things have been said today that point to tremendous opportunities to build these relationships between the National Park Service and the communities, and I don’t want to repeat things that have already been said, but I would like to point

you, sir, to a few opportunities that might have been missed. Our

written testimony goes into them in greater detail, but starting

with infrastructure in the developed areas of the park.

I just want to reiterate the need to use the planning processes

that are already in place. The GMP developed in 1980 has set forth

an appropriate vision for Yosemite National Park. I think the Valley Implementation Plan and the housing plans that are now in

production can help us fulfill that vision, if we use the money wisely to allow the Park Service to finish this process.

If we were to simply determine what gets built and what doesn’t

through earmarking of these funds, we may end up ten years down

the road having to do a lot more redevelopment at significantly

greater expense to the Federal Government and the taxpayer.

In the area of transportation, I think we are unanimous in our

desire for a regional transportation system. I think many people

have spoken very eloquently today for using YARTS as the vehicle

to develop this, and I think the funds that you, sir, Senator Boxer,

and the President have afforded for transportation can help make

that a reality.

I would also hope that along with any new ideas, such as your

desire to, perhaps, use extra money or leftover money to go in your

regional plan, that we leverage these Federal dollars with ISTEA

money and use those to also move this process more quickly along,

and we may be able to resolve some of the issues with the day-use

reservation system that way as well.

With respect to employee housing, I think another economic opportunity exists here in the communities. Right now, the public is

reviewing a draft amendment to Yosemite Park’s Employee Housing Plan. It calls for doing some significant development here in El

Portal on both sides of the river, but last year, as Congress was

closing, in the 1996 Omnibus National Parks and Public Lands

Management Act, some new authorities were provided to the Park

Service to work with the local communities outside of parks to develop and lease housing in the private sector. I think this would

be a tremendous boom to these economies which have been hit so

hard in the past few years with closures and disasters, and I urge

the committee to direct the Park Service to using these new authorities under Section 814, I believe, of the Omnibus Parks Bill,

to further along the need to remove the housing from Yosemite

Valley and remove some of these jobs.

It would be inappropriate to conclude without talking about the

Organic Act, because as important as it is to use this as a tool to

help restore the park and to improve the community’s relationships

with the park, we must all remember the Organic Act is the mandate the National Park Service must uphold to preserve the resources unimpaired for, not only ourselves, but for future generations. And, we urge this process to allow the Park Service to use
33

our parks, not as economic engines, but as the repositories of our

national and cultural heritage.

[The statement of Mr. Huse may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. RADANOVICH. Great, thank you very much.

OK, Garrett.

STATEMENT OF GARRETT DE BELL, YOSEMITE GUARDIAN

Mr. DE BELL. Hi. Do I get the green light?

Mr. RADANOVICH. Don’t start until it’s green. I’m sorry, go ahead.

Mr. DE BELL. Thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in this oversight hearing on the important topic of the restoration of Yosemite.

My name is Garrett De Bell, and I am Executive of the Yosemite

Guardian, a project of Earth Island Institute.

We work to ensure the continued existence of Yosemite’s magnificent forests and meadows with their biodiversity intact. The environmental issues that concern us most include the need for an adequate control burn program, and we’re very happy to see a burn

going on as we speak now, to protect and restore the mid-elevation

forests and the need for a research and restoration effort sufficient

to understand and reverse the alarming disappearance of frogs

from the wilderness of Yosemite.

We bring up these issues today in the context that these important needs continue to receive inadequate attention, while issues in

the developed area of Yosemite Valley and its fabled gridlock receive the lion’s share of attention and money.

We are thrilled with your efforts and Senator Boxer’s efforts to

introduce bills for more funding. We fully support that. We fully

support the idea of doing more to implement the General Management Plan. We are concerned that this part of the General Management Plan, the Natural Resources Plan, has not gotten as much

attention as the part dealing with facilities, that’s our main mission, or one of our main missions, as we work on Yosemite issues.

Secondly, we vigorously support the right of access to the park

by visitors without undue restrictions, and in terms of process we

advocate a completely open decisionmaking process which allows

all people, and, particularly, all stakeholders, a voice in the decisions that affect them.

We are very heartened by this hearing today, as part of that

whole process, and we are working to expedite that process and

maintaining a web site to make it easier for people to participate

in this process. We’ve had a very heartening response from people

throughout, particularly, the immediate Yosemite region, from

Oakhurst to Sonora.

We applaud, as I stated, your efforts to get more money for Yosemite. $200 million is a lot of money, even more could be spent,

if you support spending more, to do all the things that Yosemite

needs to bring it to the excellence it should have in infrastructure,

facilities, guest services and, most importantly, environmental protection. But it is important to us that this money be spent wisely,

and it’s important that any restrictive measures, such as the dayuse reservation system, that restrict visitation and may harm the

surrounding communities are not implemented casually, and,
34

again, have the full input at all stages of the planning process of

the affected stakeholders.

We are alarmed with the rapid rush by the Park Service to implement a day use reservations system without public hearings or

input as well as the rush to go forward with some new changes

that aren’t proposed in the GMP and are part or part of the new

housing plan and Valley Implementation Plan, which have just

been spoken of.

While the GMP authorizes many of these actions, the ones that

tread new ground concern us. These include the closing of the Rivers Campground, which is not called for in the 1980 GMP, and the

proposed Taft Toe parking area and the related elimination of the

excellent one way loop road that was one of the major accomplishments of the recent past. But the push for reservations seems particularly misplaced. We realize these projects are well intended, we

fully recognize the good intentions of the Park Service, and they

want to help reduce Yosemite’s automobile congestion. We know

they are well-intentioned, but we are afraid some of these things

will be counterproductive.

The hasty imposition of a reservation system will certainly harm

the surrounding communities, as we heard very much already

today. These communities provide accommodations and other services outside the boundaries, as called for specifically by the NPS

and its visionary General Management Plan. These communities

should be viewed as partners by the Park and included in the planning. It is necessary to remind ourselves that the GMP clearly

states on page ten the goal of ‘‘encouragement of private enterprise

outside the Park’’ as a key element in providing accommodations

outside, rather than inside, Yosemite’s boundaries.

We would like to also stress other alternatives. We favor alternative views, voluntary ways of reducing overcrowding of vehicles

in the park. Some of the alternatives we support can be put into

place without high cost and without the regimentation of a proposed reservation system, and some of the proposed changes can go

along with the Taft Toe parking lot.

A real and very important long-term need is to reduce the number of cars driving to Yosemite, we think this should be done by

providing quality and voluntary alternatives that people will use,

similar to the successful Valley Shuttles and the Badger Shuttle,

which are funded by add-ons to various fees such as lift tickets,

these could let many visitors leave their cars in Mariposa, Fish

Camp, Buck Meadows or other logical points on the three highways, by taking the shuttle instead of the cars.

We’ve included other measures in our written comments, and

we’ll leave those in the interest of time.

We concentrate particularly on the transportation issues in the

Park, because they divert attention from the ecological threats

which we think need more attention if Yosemite is ever to be truly

protected. If the transportation issues could be dealt with in the

most common sense and cost effective manner then there would be

money left over to restore Yosemite’s forests and protect its wildlife. We look forward to participating in this process. Thank you.

[The statement of Mr. De Bell may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Garrett.
35

Hi, Linda.

STATEMENT OF LINDA WALLACE, CHAIR, YOSEMITE

COMMITTEE OF THE SIERRA CLUB

Ms. WALLACE. Thank you, Congressman, for the opportunity to

speak here today.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Linda, just one second, though. Can everybody

hear Linda? OK, we need to adjust that mic, too.

Ms. WALLACE. Thank you, Congressman, for the opportunity to

speak here today.

I’m Linda Wallace, I chair the Yosemite Committee of the Sierra

Club, which is a volunteer committee.

I’d like to begin by echoing the support that Mr. Fischer expressed for the Superintendent and her staff. I’d like to extend that

also to Mr. Fraker and his staff. Members of my committee have

been particularly impressed with how rapidly the Park Service and

the concessionaire have worked to get the park open again, to assess the damage and let the public know much of what had happened. So, we appreciate all their good work to date.

The flood along the Merced River in January of ‘97 served as a

wake-up call for all those who care about Yosemite National Park.

Since the park’s visionary General Management Plan was adopted

in 1980, we have let 17 years slip by, doing very little to solve the

problems of overdevelopment and traffic congestion it addresses.

Yosemite is now at a crossroads. Because of the river’s decisive

action, Congress, the Administration and the National Park Service

can now act to turn this disaster into an opportunity. We can make

the visitor’s experience of Yosemite a better one than what we’ve

experience during this decade.

The legislation proposed by Congressmen Radanovich and Doolittle, Senator Boxer and the Administration’s request for supplemental funding demonstrate that there is bipartisan support for

putting things right in Yosemite. This funding was originally called

for when the GMP was adopted back in 1980 and that hasn’t occurred. The flood has now provided us with a physical opportunity;

the legislation provides the political opportunity to make now the

right time to implement the GMP.

It will not be enough, and not fair to the American public and

our international visitors, if we simply repair and replace the development that was in the flood plain. This would be a poor use

of our tax dollars. We need to invest for the long-term with the appropriation that comes to Yosemite. This must be about protecting

the natural resource and providing a better experience of this natural setting for the American public to whom this park belongs.

Because it is important to open all of the park to the public as

soon as possible, the needs assessment and cost estimates are

being developed very rapidly. While we enthusiastically support the

proposed funding measures, we also believe it is necessary to give

the Park Service flexibility to spend the funds where they are really needed when the flood-related damage is better known. We recommend that the legislation not mandate or prohibit any specific

details about Yosemite restoration; rather, the details of implementation be developed through a collaborative planning process involving public input.
36

It is very important for the Park Service to be open to public

input about the planning and implementation of changes. At the

same time, let us not become mired in arguments about specific details of the restoration and lose this long overdue opportunity.

What I’ve heard today suggests that that’s not what’s happening.

There’s a lot of common ground among us all, and it’s been gratifying to hear that expressed today. Let us keep our eyes on the objective of protecting and enhancing this national resource. At the

same time, we think that the economies of the gateway communities will also benefit and thrive by providing more visitor services

than they currently do.

As a component of the legislation Sierra Club urges Congress to

include funding for resource management and interpretation.

Interpretation is an essential component of the quality of the

visitor’s experience.

It has become increasingly obvious in the 90’s that the answers

to managing the crowding and congestion of the park revolve

around how we manage private vehicles. Sierra Club advocates a

regional transit system which includes a shuttle bus system from

gateway communities and a day-use reservation system for vehicles

as options to solve the congestion problem.

Congestion has grown steadily in Yosemite ever since the GMP

was adopted in 1980. In 1996, in spite of the Park closure during

the government shutdown, overall visitation was still up from ’95.

Every indication is that the numbers will climb as America’s national parks continue to be a prime destination of people from

around the world.

Private vehicles actually compete with people for space in the

Valley. If people use mass transit instead of private vehicles to

enter the Valley, then they can enjoy Yosemite without congesting

it.

The YARTS group, a collaborative effort of local governments, is

already in place to administer a regional transit system. But they

will have to move quickly and decisively now to capitalize on the

opportunity afforded them in the wake of the flood.

Although some suggest that a day-use reservation system for vehicles will scare people away, Sierra Club believes such a system

would provide insurance that visitors will not be turned away at

the gate, or have to sit for hours waiting in line for parking paces

to be freed up, losing hours they could have spent enjoying the

park.

In the long-term, a day-use reservation system has the potential

to be better for visitors and to provide for a more stable economy

in the neighboring communities. People and their dollars will be

brought to the gateway communities. A day-use reservation system

for private vehicles can also help pave the way for a comprehensive

mass transit and shuttle system between Merced, Fresno, the gateway communities, and Yosemite.

In conclusion, Sierra Club trusts that the 105th Congress will

heed the warning sounded by the flood, and provide the full appropriation for the crown jewel of the National Park System. We urge

flexibility in the use of these funds, an open public planning process, funds for resource management and interpretation, a day-use
37

vehicle reservation system, and the planning and implementation

of a regional transit system.

Overdevelopment in Yosemite, increasing congestion and crowding need to be addressed now. We must take advantage of this window of opportunity afforded by the flood.

Thank you.

[The statement of Ms. Wallace may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much.

I have one question to ask all of your, basically, the same question, before I ask B.J. back to provide a few brief remarks before

we close, and that is, it’s very hard to imagine a multi-level parking structure in Yosemite Valley. It just doesn’t seem to fit. But,

would you support an intermodal facility that was actually connected to a regional well-designed and laid out regional transportation facility that received buses from outside the area and connected with the interior Park transportation facility? Would you

support something like that, Brian?

Mr. HUSE. Since we are already on record as supporting an intermodal transit transfer station, if you will, yes, we would, so long

as that was on the smallest scale possible, and placed in an appropriate place within the outer-most portion of the Valley.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Great, thanks.

Garrett?

Mr. DE BELL. I agree generally with Brian. The only thing I

would say is, I’d maintain an open mind on these things, but I’d

want to see the whole system.

What worries me is piecemeal advocacy of little parts and pieces,

you have to see the whole system to know if you support it or don’t

support it.

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK.

Mr. DE BELL. But, I would say an open-minded approach, again,

full public participation.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Very good, thank you.

And, Linda?

Ms. WALLACE. Sierra Club also supports the idea of a transfer facility. I think the question is how it’s done and where it’s placed.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Where it’s located, all right.

Thank you all very, very much for coming.

B.J., I wanted to invite you back up, if you wanted to make a

few remarks before we close.

Ms. GRIFFIN. Thank you, Mr. Congressman.

There were a couple things mentioned that probably bear a little

clearing up. The vehicle reservation system, it seemed to me that

some of the testimony indicated that buses would be somehow restricted or subjected to reservations. That is not our thought.

In considering the system, we have wanted to encourage the use

of bus transportation in the Park as much as possible. So, under

the system we have considered, the people riding buses, whether

tour buses or transit buses, would not be subjected to a reservation.

We have also requested consideration from Washington for fee

incentives that would allow people riding buses to be encouraged

to do so.

The other thing, I heard a lot of reference to Taft Toe parking

lot today, and I just wanted to reiterate one more time that the
38

Valley Implementation Plan that will go out for full public review

this summer will talk about options for transportation solutions.

There is nothing in the requested money before you that predetermines any of those decisions. That will be subject to the full

planning process.

I appreciate the hearing today. I am very interested in the comments, and I want to thank Tuolumne, Madera and Mariposa

Counties for their help throughout this very special challenge.

Mr. RADANOVICH. All right, thank you very much, B.J., and,

again, I appreciate everybody from the community for coming out,

and the hearing is closed.

Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 2:38 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned; and

the following was submitted for the record:]

STATEMENT BY SENATOR DICK MONTEITH, 12TH DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA

First I would like to thank all of the Members of Congress who are members of

the Subcommittee on National Parks & Public Lands for allowing me to testify

today on behalf of my constituents.

Yosemite National Park is an important geographic area in the 12th Senate District of California which I represent. All of the access points leading into Yosemite

are in the 12th Senate District except for the Eastern entrance in Lee Vining. For

that reason, I would like to comment on some of the issues my constituents and I

feel are important for the future of Yosemite and its surrounding communities.

The first issue is that of the proposed ‘‘day-use reservation system.’’ I feel that

there is a need for more community input into this proposal. The ‘‘day-use reservation system’’ could possibly affect our local communities that depend on Yosemite

visitors for their economic wellbeing. I am strongly opposed to any proposals to implement the day-use reservation system program this year, and likewise, I strongly

urge the National Park Service and Congress to include the local communities in

any future plans of implementing any programs such as this.

The second issue I am interested in is how the money to restore Yosemite National Park is going to be appropriated. These decisions must be carefully thought

out. Number one, we must restore the natural beauty of Yosemite. However, there

are other important decisions to consider. We must make certain that the appropriation of these funds will have long-term benefits for Yosemite as well as the communities that surround it. Equally important is to make certain the funds are not used

as a vehicle to deny public access to Yosemite by the tax-payers of our nation.

Again, we must consider the economic ramifications that are possible if the funding

is not appropriated in a rational manner.

And finally, I would like to comment on the ‘‘traffic plan.’’ Again, this plan needs

community input as it could have a direct economic impact on our local communities. There needs to be a joint effort between legislators and communities to be

certain the economic ramifications are adequately addressed. I have spoken with officials from all the communities in the 12th Senate District that surround Yosemite,

and they have all expressed their grave concern of their economic vitality and future. Additionally, I have received letters from all the Chambers of Commerce and

Tourism Bureaus in these ‘‘Gateway Communities’’—including large communities—

and they are all concerned that due to the economic and tourism depression prevalent in these areas, there is a need for a program of ‘‘Total Access’’ from all areas

surrounding Yosemite.

Again, I would like to thank the Subcommittee on National Parks & Public Lands

for giving me the opportunity to testify and express the views of the 12th Senate

District, and the need for our legislators to make every effort and insure that taxpayer funds are appropriately spent.

TESTIMONY OF GARRY PARKER, MEMBER, MARIPOSA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Oversight Committee.

Welcome to Mariposa County, home of Yosemite National Park, and thank you

for this time.

My name is Garry Parker, and I am a Mariposa County Supervisor. I represent

District 4 and the majority of the town of Mariposa.
39

The floods of 1997 have been devastating to Mariposa County as well as Yosemite

National Park, particularly the economy of our County and its residents. For your

information, in Mariposa County, on an annual basis, the transient occupancy tax

derived from tourists staying in hotels, motels and bed and breakfasts represent

fourteen percent of the County’s total budget, and a whopping fifty percent of the

County’s discretionary income. It has been estimated that the losses to our local

business community as a result of the closure of Yosemite National Park, including

restrictions caused by day use reservations, will be as high as sixty-three million

dollars. In a county with a population of sixteen thousand, those figures are staggering. These are not just cold statistics but represent real problems for real people

in Mariposa County and the surrounding communities. To put this on a personal

note, I will give the Committee an example of the devastating economic effect, the

flooding and the Park officials’ reaction to the flooding has caused residents of

Mariposa County: The local Chevron service station, located in downtown Mariposa,

is owned and operated by the LeDuc Family. Before the closure of Highway 140 into

the Park, the LeDuc’s employed ten people and the station was open twenty-four

hours a day. The business now operates on a reduced hourly schedule and employs

only five people, all family members. This is typical of what is happening to our

businesses throughout the County.

There are a number of issues being proposed by the Park Service that could potentially be as devastating as the floods themselves to the economic well-being of

the surrounding counties. The primary issues which are creating a tremendous adverse affect on the surrounding communities are: 1) The Park’s official announcement of a day use reservation system to be effective in May; although it is clear

that there is no organized plan for a day use reservation system, and there was no

plan of any nature for a day use reservation system at the time the formal announcement was made; and 2) The proposed restriction on use of Highway 140 by

the traveling public both from now until Memorial Day, and from Labor Day for the

next one year or longer. Those two issues will be more fully discussed below.

Park Service officials have stated that surrounding communities should not be dependent upon Yosemite Valley for their economic survival. The Park Service has

consistently over the years refused to acknowledge that the tremendous economic

investments made by business persons in the surrounding communities is every bit

as important to the survival of the Park as the Park’s presence is to the survival

of the surrounding business communities. It appears to me to be elementary that,

without the substantial tourist-oriented investments in the surrounding communities, there would be overwhelming pressure to change the very nature and use of

Yosemite National Park, to better cater to the visitor within the Park boundaries.

In truth and in fact, the surrounding communities are partners with the Federal

Government relative to Yosemite National Park. It is time that Park officials recognize this fact and act upon it. It is time that Park officials take into consideration

the impacts of their decisions which directly affect those surrounding communities.

It is time for the Park service to treat the surrounding communities as full partners

and allow its partners full and complete participation in decision making, it is time

to stop making decisions without appropriate input. I believe that the Federal Government does have the responsibility, not only to Mariposa, Madera, Tuolumne and

Mono Counties, but to the State of California itself, to ensure that Park officials do

not make arbitrary decisions which have had no public input and which adversely

affect citizens of the surrounding communities and citizens of the State of California.

Regarding the proposed day use reservation system which is being highly publicized, there are at the present time no definitive answers to the question of implementation. Even as we sit here today, I do not believe that Park officials have any

fundamental understanding of the tremendous adverse economic effect their formal

statement that a day use reservation system will be implemented in May has had

upon the surrounding communities of Yosemite National Park. To have made such

a formal representation to the general public without a plan of some kind to go

along with the announcement was unfortunate. As I am sure this Committee understands, a day use reservation system which by necessity, will involve well over four

million visitors per year, will also have to handle many times more than four million

inquiries, is a system that cannot, and should not be designed by Park officials behind closed doors. A day use reservation system that works for Yosemite National

Park, the surrounding communities, the State of California, and the citizens of the

United States of America must be a well planned, well reasoned system with much

public input. Lodging reservations, which is addressed by another speaker, Mr.

Jerry Fischer, is a complex and finely tuned business tactic and art. To formally announce that a day use reservation system will be implemented in May without any

information or plan to go along with that announcement has had, and will continue
40

to have incredible adverse economic effects to all of the surrounding communities,

lodging industry and other tourism industries. The manner in which Park officials

handled, and continue to handle, the proposed day use reservation system makes

it impossible for anyone in the lodging industry to provide accommodations to the

visitor because they are unable to assure them access to the Park. The Mariposa

County Board of Supervisors was prepared to institute a public transportation system to guarantee lodging industry clientele entry into the Park. However, because

the Park officials have absolutely no idea, or if they do they are not sharing it with

Mariposa County, how the day use system is proposed to be implemented, it is absolutely impossible for Mariposa County or any other surrounding community or county to prepare a workable public transit system under these circumstances.

On March 11, 1997, the Mariposa County Board of Supervisors unanimously

adopted a resolution taking the following position; 1) opposing the fast track implementation of a day use reservation system in the immediate future, and offering to

work with the Park Service for future implementation so that it can be a viable

project; 2) supporting an incentive for public transit such as a $2 entrance fee per

person riding a public transit vehicle; 3) Highway 140 should be open to all traffic

by use of a private car system every day of the week for a two hour period in the

morning and in the evening, with a suggestion of keeping the highway open until

8:00 A.M., commencing March 15, 1997, and continuing until Highway 140 is open

to unrestricted traffic; 4) a commitment that the County will continue to support

public transit alternatives and lobbying for long range funding for a transit and

transportation system, whether it be in support of YARTS or any other mechanism;

5) requesting that a meeting be scheduled with the Park Service officials that have

authority to make decisions and provide answers with County representatives, our

Congressmen, Senators Boxer, and or Feinstein or their representatives, our State

legislative delegation, and with representatives from the lodging industry, Yosemite

Concession Services, and VIA Adventures. A copy of that Board action is attached

hereto marked Exhibit ‘‘A’’ and by this reference incorporated herein. I believe that

the action taken by the Board of Supervisors on March 11, 1997, shows the total

commitment of Mariposa County to work diligently with the Park Service to resolve

these problems in the best interest of not only Yosemite National Park, but of the

surrounding communities themselves.

Relative to Highway 140 closure, we now hear that Highway 140 is scheduled to

open to unrestricted traffic on Memorial Day of this year, and that the Highway will

then be closed again in September. Just as Mariposa is struggling to recover, the

gates will close again. We’ve also heard that Highway 140 may remain closed with

restricted access for up to 18 months. This would further devastate the local economy. We protest that these decisions have not occurred during an open public process. While we fully support the repair and rehabilitation of areas within the Park

boundaries, we believe this can occur only through a reasonable and joint effort of

all affected parties. We must take into consideration the impact every decision we

make has on our citizens.

In conclusion, I would like to say to the Committee that what Mariposa County

in particular, and the surrounding communities in general, is asking does not seem

to me to be in any way unreasonable. We are simply asking that all of the affected

parties be consulted and be treated as equal partners in the decision making process

that directly effects those parties. Additionally, the public itself should have full

input relative to major decisions such as a day use reservation system. We ask that

you assist us in being treated as full partners, the status which we hold, with the

Park Service relative to the decision making process which directly affects us and

other surrounding communities. No agency or department should be allowed to become an entity onto itself, we must all work together to achieve a united goal.

Thank you Mr. Chairman for this opportunity to address our concerns.

STATEMENT OF GERALD FISCHER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, YOSEMITE MOTELS

Thank you for allowing me to participate in this oversight hearing on Yosemite

National Park.

My name is Gerald Fischer. Twenty years ago my family and I purchased a 12

unit motel in El Portal called the Rapids. Little did I know that our future would

become so entwined with Yosemite National Park. Over the years, we would purchase existing motels and develop new ones to now operate over 700 rooms in the

gateway communities surrounding Yosemite National Park. Last year we had over

310,000 guests enjoy Yosemite using our properties as a base. I feel a need to represent those public interests as well as my own. Certainly, any issue that involves
41

the Park affects the livelihood of my family, our over 150 employees and our vendors and lenders.

During this 20 year period, we have faced many challenges, some man-made and

some at the hands of nature.

The recent floods provide such an example. Damage done at one of our properties, Yosemite View Lodge, is estimated to exceed $2 million. In a matter of hours, we

watched the water rise and remove concrete decks estimated to weigh more than

20,000 lbs. tossing them like pillows in the air. A concrete spa large enough for 8

persons was lifted as a single unit and moved nearly 50 feet away. These most visible signs of damage are also the most easily corrected. By the end of this month,

we shall have either removed or repaired all damaged buildings. A new restaurant

is currently under construction to replace the one destroyed by the flood.

The more challenging task is to recover from the larger issue of Park wide damages, its closure and projected impacts of continuing construction.

Prior to addressing these issues, I would like to state, as I have many times before, that the performance of the combined local, state and federal agencies during

the emergency was extremely impressive. I have never seen a better example of cooperation in action, and I have no doubt that significant benefits came to the local

communities as a result. B.J. Griffin, Hal Grovert, and their staff, under the immediate supervision of Harry Steed, were wonderful. I believe the El Portal community

in particular benefited from close cooperation during this crisis.

For me, the most significant story of the 2 or 3 week period after the initial incident may be in what did not happen. As a company, we did not have a single complaint to voice about the attitude, performance or priorities of those on the ground

in El Portal. From flagman and law enforcement officers to social services, Park

Service and FEMA wonderful things happened. Those local state and federal agencies and their staff deserve great praise for their efforts, particularly in those first

few difficult days.

More significant obstacles developed for us and our industry as the Park worked

towards a possible solution for the challenges they faced both in the valley and on

issues of access. The most significant challenge came with the news in early February that the Park was planning to implement a Day Use Reservation System.

While I accept the Park’s explanation that this announcement was inadvertent, it

was the first of a series of statements that has caused our industry great anxiety.

Over the last 4 or 5 weeks, significant numbers of cancellations have come in. Call

volume is down nearly 30% and the calls we do receive are answered inadequately

as we don’t have reasonable information. Obviously, we searched for answers.

One of our first concerns was how the establishment of necessity was reached. As

explained in several area meetings, a shortage of parking areas would require such

an action. This parking area shortage was reported as two fold. First, it might be

needed as a site for alternative housing for concessionaire employees, and second,

as a staging area for construction. Several alternative areas were suggested for potential housing and staging areas that would not require loss of parking or alternatively could provide replacement parking. These areas included camp six, the area

known as the O-Zone, the upper and lower campground areas, the stable area,

which is closed for the current season and the Badger Pass parking area. We were

told that no budget existed to allow for an evaluation of these areas or of the total

staging area that would be needed. It appears then, that a worst case scenario was

developed in anticipation of maximum construction needs, and this number has

driven the issue of Day Use Reservation. I would suggest that funding be allocated

to identify the staging capacity of each of these sites and any others that may be

identified and as well the staging area needs, for each proposed construction project.

If, as has been stated, these projects are to be developed over a 3 or 4 year time

span, it seems likely that the potential need for staging areas have been overstated.

If in fact these alternative staging areas are more than adequate, the cost and

confusion associated with a temporary DURS can be averted. This study deserves

serious consideration and is one that can be developed quickly and at a reasonable

cost.

The Day Use Reservation System that is being referenced publicly exists only as

a vague concept for us. I am not aware of any document that has been made available for review either to the press, the public, or Congress for that matter that allows for reasonable comment. At the public meetings I have attended, there have

been numerous and sometimes conflicting statements from National Park Service.

Our industry has offered up many comments of their own. Absent a specific proposal

this is an inadequate process. We are reduced to commenting in general terms about

something that has its power in the specifics.

B.J. Griffin was quoted as saying that one reason she can’t answer major questions about how such a plan would work is that as of Friday, March 14th, she still
42

hadn’t seen the proposals from the private consultant under contract to design the

short term system. In this respect, we share her problem. We are unable to answer

to our customers as to what impacts will result. The list of unanswered questions

runs the gamut from how will handicapped visitors be allowed entry to what can

be done about reservations already booked. We have been asked if the 7 day ticket

allows for 7 days entry, or if you now need 7 day use passes. Will those scheduled

to enter on one highway and exit on another be allowed to do so? Will translators

be available, at least by phone, to deal with those who cannot understand the new

policies or need assistance in booking.

Quite simply, no one can say. As a result, we spend a great deal of time on the

phones without success trying to interpret a policy, a direction or a system that is

unclear. This damages our credibility as well as that of the National Park Service.

Supporters argue that nearly 8 out of 10 Americans support a Day Use System.

I will take a leap of faith and suggest to you this is based on the premise that such

a system will work. I am unaware of any place in the world where such a proposal

has been implemented within similar time frames. Aside from the relatively simple

issues of software and hardware, on-site locations need to be generated in local communities with hours of operation established, signage and staffing arranged. Do you

expect all this to happen and to be producing a quality product within the next 30

days? Nothing in my life experience supports such optimism.

If such a plan is to succeed and be accepted by the Yosemite visitor, it must be

effective from day one. I believe the issues I raised and many others create too great

a risk. We must face the fact that many travel professionals and tourists will evaluate not only Yosemite but the entire National Park Service by the effectiveness of

the program. The value of this system should not be judged only by its ability to

limit guest visitation. I am confident it will be successful in that regard. We should

look to this as a demonstration project for how we might choose to deal with autos

in the future.

The Park Service will be able to establish clear policies and procedures for a

DURS in time. Hopefully, our industry will have time to properly evaluate and comment on the plan. But for those policies to be effective they need to be clearly understood and presented not only by the day use reservationists as contracted for by National Park Service but also the National Park Service staff, those employed by the

concessionaire, the hospitality industry of the gateway communities and those travel

professionals, wholesale and retail throughout the state, the nation and the world.

Given the time constraints that is unreasonable. The resulting confusion will be rising numbers of dissatisfied visitors, and a strong argument against a future DURS.

There is simply not adequate time to prepare.

Before any DURS can be effective we must first enhance the current shuttle system, both with an updated and expanded fleet and with longer hours of operation.

In addition, we need a wider area of coverage, particularly during peak season. To

maximize the benefits of this system will also require shuttle service from outlying

communities and incentives to move into alternative transportation. These incentives need to include such things as oversize lockers and reasonable rest areas. The

concept, ‘‘Build it and they will come’’ has value. If we create a user friendly transportation system, a DURS can be implemented to provide a positive guest experience and over a relatively short period of time we can guide people into a new way

to see the Park. People will choose this alternative, not be forced to accept a lessor

option as a last alternative.

The perception exists on the part of many that private sector and the Park Service are miles apart on most issues. I strongly disagree. I know that B.J. and her

staff place a high priority on a positive guest experience. Certainly we do. Preservation of the Park is a Park Service responsibility. For us it is an economic necessity.

We too cherish the Park.

The continuing challenge over my 20 years in El Portal has been to bring to the

table those whose long term goals are for the most part in sympathy one to the

other, and deal with the very real short term issues that can often polarize.

More commonly, we seem to intuitively know the position, we assume antagonistic, of others and speak about each other, rather than to each other.

This serves no one. The 1980 Management Plan clearly calls for the gateway

areas to have a role in the future of Yosemite when it calls for encouragement of

private enterprise outside the Park.

This requires of the gateway communities a constant presence and concern. To

often we only react to emergencies or park actions, rather than attempt to actively

participate in the Parks on going planning process. This involvement must go beyond narrow self interest and extend to long term issues.

The Park Service must also look to the gateway communities in a different light.

We are by nature an independent lot, often outspoken, and seldom organized to full
43

effectiveness. At the same time we can be instrumental in preparing guests to be

sensitive Yosemite visitors. We can become an effective arm of the Yosemite interpretive services.

The National Park Service should continue to work towards a more public review

of proposed policies. It should more fully involve the gateway communities early on

in those issues that will have significant impacts.

The more public the process the more likely it is to be ultimately accepted. Superintendent Griffin has made tremendous strides in this direction. They must be continued and receive the full support of her staff in order to produce maximum benefit.

TESTIMONY OF BRIAN HUSE, PACIFIC REGION DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARKS AND

CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION

Introduction:

My name is Brian Huse and I am the Pacific Region Director of the National

Parks and Conservation Association. I am speaking today on behalf of the National

Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA), America’s only private non-profit citizens organization dedicated solely to protecting, preserving and enhancing the National Park System. I am also speaking on behalf of Yosemite Restoration Trust and

The Wilderness Society. Together, our organizations have worked continuously to

protect Yosemite National Park with the support and backing of over 810,000 members nationwide.

We would first like to thank the subcommittee for holding this hearing today.

This gathering represents the culmination of the first phase of Yosemite’s recovery—the immediate stabilization of the Valley’s infrastructure, assuring public safety, and reopening the park to visitors. We can now begin the next phase, which is

planning for and implementing the restoration of the flood damaged areas.

To be sure, the flood event took a significant toll on the developed areas in Yosemite Valley and seriously disrupted many people’s lives. In addition, the resulting closure has impacted local economies, stressing many small businesses to the breaking

point. The continued economic vitality of these gateway communities needs to be addressed as a part of this committee’s review, and we stand with the subcommittee

in our commitment to assist the communities in regaining their footing. But along

with this upheaval, the New Year’s flood has provided an unparalleled opportunity

to address some long-standing issues facing Yosemite in a way which will result in

a healthier park and, thus, a higher quality park experience.

I am pleased to offer testimony today detailing our perspective on how the Administration’s supplemental funding request can be the catalyst for a visionary and

comprehensive restoration program which not only corrects the damage from the

flood event, but also helps achieve many of the goals long envisioned in the park’s

1980 General Management Plan. Given appropriate goals and the latitude to involve

the public in a comprehensive planning and environmental review process, the National Park Service will be able to apply this authorization in such a way as to resolve many of Yosemite’s outstanding issues including: 1) transportation systems

within the park, 2) the relocation of jobs and employee housing outside the park,

and 3) the restoration of Yosemite Valley’s natural processes. Moreover, we feel that

these goals can be accomplished in a way which will bolster gateway communities’

economies and strengthen these localities’ partnerships with the park.

In 1980 the public affirmed a new direction for Yosemite. Through the General

Management Planning process, we committed to goals for a more natural national

park experience. By decreasing the developed footprint, reducing the impact of the

private automobile, and moving nonessential jobs and services outside the park

boundary, the Park Service will enable the visitor to better appreciate the resources,

both subtle and spectacular, for which this park is renowned. Though terribly destructive, this year’s flood places many of these long-standing goals on the table for

consideration and implementation now. The subcommittee is to be commended for

seizing this opportunity. In helping bring the necessary funding to achieve these

goals, it has shown both vision for a better Yosemite and the understanding that

this authorization, if well spent, is an investment in the future.

Infrastructure and Development:

The New Year’s flood resulted in substantial damage to campgrounds, concessioner facilities, employee housing, and much of the Valley’s infrastructure, demonstrating the risks of building facilities in the Merced River flood plain. From a

functional perspective, redevelopment of facilities within the flood plain will result
44

in future damage to park facilities and disruption of visitor services, requiring regular expenditures for rehabilitation and reconstruction of water damaged facilities.

Drawing on guidance from the 1980 General Management Plan, the Park Service

has been engaged in the development of a Valley Implementation Plan. Though the

alternatives are still being finalized, each alternative recognizes the need to reconfigure development in the Valley by siting facilities in the safest, least environmentally sensitive areas. The original plan would take many years to implement.

Now, using the recent demonstration of the extent of the flood plain as a guide,

these funds will facilitate a more rapid and more environmentally sensible plan for

implementation.

We therefore urge the members of the committee to provide the flexibility necessary to complete the planning and public review process for the Valley Implementation Plan. Don’t provide for specific earmarks for separate development projects.

Direct the Park Service to pursue a planning process with time-lines and goals for

each phase of planning, public review and implementation. We are concerned that

any development projects authorized outside this Valley Implementation Plan process could impede this larger planning effort. Moreover, the construction of poorly

planned projects will likely result in the need to redesign, reconfigure, or remove

development at unnecessary additional cost.

Transportation:

Access and visitor circulation issues remain both a serious management problem

and a flash-point for conflict between the park and the gateway communities. Although there is little disagreement over the need to reduce impacts on resources and

the visitor experience that result from private automobile congestion, there are innumerable, firmly held opinions on how the park should address them. Years of

study, however, have shown that Yosemite’s transportation needs are inextricably

linked to the surrounding counties. In 1994 the Congressionally mandated Alternative Modes Feasibility Study stated:

‘‘The National Park Service recognizes the value of integrating the planning of

transportation systems within the parks with the efforts of surrounding communities to address transportation issues.’’

Happily, approaching transportation from this perspective is already underway

within the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation Strategy (YARTS). YARTS is a

joint local, state and federal planning effort directed to find remedies for the region’s

complex transit needs. Recent advances within the YARTS should remind us that

the potential exists to develop a true regional transit system designed with Yosemite day use visitation in mind. The study further states:

‘‘Undoubtedly, many opportunities will be available to enhance the economic development potential of gateway communities and to reduce the impacts of transportation on park resources by providing innovative transportation systems based in

gateway communities.’’

With the Administration’s supplemental funding request, just such an opportunity

exists. We urge you to make funds available to facilitate comprehensive regional

transportation planning. This will fulfill two purposes. First, a regional transportation solution will eliminate the need to build unnecessary transportation-related

facilities inside the park boundary. Properly implemented, a regional system can

provide staging, visitor orientation, and mass transit into the park, while focusing

facility development outside the park boundary. Second, by focusing development

opportunities in the gateway communities, local economies will more directly realize

the benefits of their location adjacent to the park boundary, concentrating tourism

directly on those communities. This approach will provide a badly needed boost to

the local economies after two consecutive years of park closures.

In addition, this subcommittee should support the provisions of the Administration’s legislation to reauthorize ISTEA, that would allow the Park Service to use its

direct appropriations, as well as its Federal Lands Highway Program funds, to

match state ISTEA allocations for non-park transportation projects that benefit the

parks.

Employee Housing:

The concept of relocating nonessential jobs and housing was initially expressed in

the Yosemite 1980 GMP and was developed in the 1992 Yosemite Valley Housing

Plan. Currently a draft amendment to that plan has been circulated for public comment. As is the case with visitor facilities and infrastructure, the supplemental request has the potential to leverage this existing plan to relocate jobs, and the housing associated with them, outside the park. The relocation will reduce the developed

area inside the Valley and allow for restoration of natural areas enhancing the resources of the park and improving the visitor experience.
45

In addition, Section 814 of the Omnibus Parks and Public Land Management Act

of 1996 has provided added incentive to accelerate the implementation of this important goal. Section 814 grants new authority to the National Park Service for improving the quantity and quality of housing for field employees by: •expanding alternatives available for construction and repair of essential government housing; •allowing the private sector to finance or supply housing to maximum extent possible, in order to reduce the need for Federal appropriations; •ensuring that adequate funds are available for long-term maintenance needs of

field employee housing; and •eliminating unnecessary government housing and locating such housing as is required in areas which minimize impairment of park resources.

By taking advantage of this new authority, the Park Service will be able to develop resourceful partnerships with the private sector, reducing or eliminating the

need to construct and maintain new employee housing at significantly greater expense. The savings should be directed toward more projects or activities which benefit the public and improve the visitor experience. We recommend that members of

the committee direct the Park Service to work cooperatively with local governments

to research the relevant issues and develop a plan to house as many NPS and concession employees as feasible in gateway communities.

Protection of Park Resources:

In providing funding for Yosemite’s Restoration, however, this committee, the Appropriations Committee and the National Park Service itself must all be vigilant in

observing the Organic Act to preserve park resources unimpaired. A fundamental

precept of the 1980 General Management Plan was to reduce the amount of development inside the park and restore natural habitat. This precept is incorporated into

the recommendations we offer today. The relocation of facilities outside the Valley

or in more appropriate places within the park will allow for the rehabilitation of

the Merced River’s riparian habitat. Establishing a regional transit system will

eliminate crowding and congestion of private automobiles and therefore require

fewer roads in Yosemite Valley. As development is reduced and natural processes

are allowed to return, the public will benefit by a higher quality park experience.

Conclusion:

As disastrous as the New Year’s flood itself was for Yosemite National Park and

for the surrounding communities, it has left in its wake opportunities for restoration

of the park and revitalization of the communities unparalleled in the park’s 133

year history. The redevelopment which should proceed under the guidance of the

1980 GMP and this supplemental funding can and should be a model for future

park planning in which the needs of the park, the needs of the visitor and the needs

of the surrounding communities are simultaneously addressed in a manner which

leverages none of these against the interest of another.

In closing, however, we should all recognize that these plans for proactive redevelopment have not appeared overnight. The General Management Plan which forms

the basis for implementation was written 17 years ago by park professionals, and

carefully considered through a public review process. It carries a vision for the park

which many of us are only now beginning to appreciate. Similarly, the Valley Implementation Plan had been developed over years, prior to the flood. What the flood

provides is opportunity. If we have even a glimmer of the vision of the original planners in 1980, we will seize this opportunity and make the New Year’s flood of 1997

remembered not as a disaster for the park and the surrounding communities but

as the beginning of a new paradigm of economic success, resource protection and

skilled park management.

STATEMENT OF GARRETT DE BELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE YOSEMITE

GUARDIAN—A PROJECT OF EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this oversight hearing on the very

important topic of the restoration of Yosemite.

My name is Garrett De Bell and I am Executive Director of the Yosemite Guardian, a project of Earth Island Institute.

Introduction:

Yosemite Guardian works to protect Yosemite and to achieve fair and considerate

treatment for visitors and area residents. We work to ensure the continued existence of Yosemite’s magnificent forests and meadows with their biodiversity intact.

The environmental issues that concern us most include the need for an adequate
46

control burn program to protect and restore the mid-elevation forests and the need

for a research and restoration effort sufficient to understand and reverse the alarming disappearance of frogs from the wilderness of Yosemite. We bring up these

issues today in the context that these important needs continue to be ignored while

issues in the developed area of Yosemite Valley and its fabled, but exaggerated,

gridlock receive the lion’s share of attention and money when simpler measures

could manage the problem.

We vigorously support the right of access to the Park by visitors without unnecessary restrictions.

We advocate a completely open decision making process which allows the people

a voice in the decisions that effect them.

We are heartened by this hearing today, as we recognize a need to increase Congressional oversight of NPS plans and actions as well as to increase the level of informed public involvement. We are working to ensure that both these avenues of

‘‘quality control’’ stay open.

Our views, information resources, and new programs to help citizens become better informed and more powerful supporters of Yosemite can be found on our web

site at http://members.aol.com/YosemiteOL/

The fresh attention to Yosemite and possibility of more money, following on the

tail of the new infusion of money from increased entrance fees, the new concession

contract, and the continued success of Yosemite Fund efforts, makes it very important that we see the money is spent in ways that best achieve the NPS mandate

of preserving Yosemite for all time while providing for its use and enjoyment by

present and future generations. $178 or $200 million is a lot of money—even more could and should be spent to

bring Yosemite up to the excellence it should have, in infrastructure, facilities, guest

services, and most important environmental protection. But it is important that it

be spent wisely. It is also important that restrictive measures that unnecessarily restrict visitation and harm the surrounding communities are not implemented casually. The details of the NPS’s request have not been made public, so we cannot

comment on the details—and this is an issue.

Without access to reliable and official NPS cost estimates, I will concentrate on

a few of the major items that seem to be ‘‘on the table’’ currently, but first I will

briefly summarize my background and set forth some overall concerns.

Background:

I am a biologist with primary interests and concerns in the ecology of plant and

animal communities. My training was at Stanford and U.C., Berkeley. I have been

privileged to work with some of the great ecologists including Starker Leopold

whose work still is the foundation of much NPS wildlife and wildland policy. I have

a home near Yosemite part of which is rented on a nightly basis to Yosemite visitors—perhaps the smallest rental unit in the area.

I have been in love with Yosemite from childhood. I hiked the High Sierra Loop

many times in my early teens and hiked from Mt. Whitney to Yosemite Valley on

the John Muir Trail by myself when I was sixteen. I have climbed many of the walls

and peaks of Yosemite, skied the trails, and kayaked the rivers. My wife and I were

married in a snowstorm on Henness Ridge overlooking the Merced River and its

South Fork.

After finishing graduate school at U.C. Berkeley, my first major work was with

David grower, who asked me to put together The Environmental Handbook, which

was the unofficial handbook for the first Earth Day. The NPS bought many copies

to help their managers to better understand increasingly complex environmental

issues—and they have grown much more complex since then.

As an environmental consultant for the Curry Company, I was privileged to be

able to play a key role in many lasting environmental projects in Yosemite. Some

of these were the establishment of a comprehensive recycling and beverage container deposit program, elimination of CFC containing products from the Park, ensuring protection for the Merced River in the Wild and Scenic River System, removing many obsolete structures, and writing the environmental assessments for major

projects including the removal of the sewer plant from the west end of Yosemite

Valley.

Concern with the rush to implement Reservations and other restrictions on use:

We are alarmed at the rapid push by the NPS to implement a Day Use Reservations System without public hearings or input as well as the rush to go forward with

other newly proposed major changes in Yosemite Valley. While the GMP authorizes

many of the actions, many others are treading new ground and require public review and NEPA compliance. We are including here the closing of the Rivers Campground which is not called for in the 1980 GMP, and the proposed Taft Toe parking
47

area and the related elimination of the excellent one way loop road that was one

of the major accomplishments of the recent past. But the rush for reservations

seems particularly misplaced. We realize these projects are intended to help reduce

Yosemite’s automobile congestion. We know they are well-intentioned, but nevertheless we feel they will be counterproductive.

What is the need for a day use reservations system, in normal times or in this

year of ‘‘highwater’’? In spite of the rhetoric about Yosemite ‘‘having reached its

saturation point’’ etc., the fact is that even Yosemite Valley is rarely ‘‘full’’ as defined by the NPS car counts and the capacities set by the NPS after a comprehensive planning process. In fact the Valley should never be full unless the NPS goofs,

because the Day Use Traffic Management Plan cuts off access in the rare event that

the Valley capacity is approached—only a few days at most a year.

Perhaps there is a temporary need for reservations this year, due to the flood, but

this is not obvious. One would assume that visitation will be down due to the publicity and the closure of some campgrounds and many overnight units—eliminating

all those cars from the roads, trail heads, and parking lots.

The ability to accommodate these day users wouldn’t seem to be a problem. The

problem with the broken sewer has been fixed, the wells work—at least on manual

control. There should be plenty of parking for the reduced number of visitors.

What is the problem that requires the reservations system? The justification from

the Park has been very sketchy and it sounds like another ‘‘closure for the convenience of the government’’, a trend that has been growing over the past decade which

has seen many closures, such as when the government shut down. But there is a

rash of less extensive closures: closing the Glacier Point road to Badger pass until

the ski area is declared open; denying people the right to hike or ski on the trails

in early and late season, and the closure of the river to kayakers below El Cap

Bridge for no apparent reason, and the closure of campgrounds along the Merced

River.

But if there are reasons the NPS should tell people what they are and formulate

their policy publicly and work with the stakeholders, with all concerned constituencies, to minimize the unintentional harm done by a poorly conceived system. The

goal and result of public involvement is better policy. Yes it takes time, but it is

fundamental to a free society.

The hasty imposition of a reservation system is certain to harm the surrounding

communities which provide accommodations and other services outside the boundaries as called for by the NPS and its visionary GMP. These communities should

be viewed as partners by the Park and included in the planning. It is necessary to

remind the Park of its own GMP which states on p. 10 the goal of ‘‘encouragement

of private enterprise outside the Park’’ as a key element in providing accommodations outside, rather than inside, Yosemite’s boundaries.

Any reservation system should be imposed only if there truly is a need and the

system should be designed to be minimally harmful to visitors and the region. There

are options that could make the system less burdensome on visitors and the community—we shouldn’t make visitors regiment their Yosemite experience unless it is

really necessary and simpler and less restrictive measures have been tried and

failed.

Is the system mandatory or voluntary? A voluntary system—to assure a visitor

of entrance even if capacity is reached—might be no big problem. But if a reservation is required in order to enter the Park, whether it is full or not, then the system

will be very harmful, and unnecessarily so, to visitors and the community. Popular

restaurants admit guests without reservations whenever they are not ‘‘full’’. You are

never ‘‘required’’ to have a reservation.

What is the number of Cars and busses allowed? A reservations system should

not be used to arbitrarily lower the number of vehicles allowed without a public

process.

What will the fee be? Will it be in addition to the entrance fee, which has just

been quadrupled, or part of it? Will the fee be charged to all, or just those who want

guaranteed admittance. Will a visitor staying in the nearby communities need a day

use permit for each day, or one for the entire visit? Will the hotels in the gateway

communities be able to issue reservations—acting as agents for the reservations system?

What provisions will be made for those who do not have credit cards to purchase

a reservation by phone, or who don’t speak English? Will there be options such as

pay at the entrance if reservations are available? If not why not?

Alternatives:

There are alternative ways to reduce crowding and automobile use without the

high cost and regimentation of the proposed reservation system and proposed
48

changes in the Valley. A real and important long term need is to reduce the number

of cars driving to Yosemite, but we think this should be done by providing quality

and voluntary alternatives that people will use. The free or low fare shuttle proposed by local businesses, on a funding model similar to the successful Valley Shuttles and Badger Shuttle (which are funded by add-one to various fees such as lift

tickets) could let many visitors leave their cars in Mariposa, Fish Camp, Buck

Meadows or other logical points on the 3 highways. By taking the shuttle instead

of cars everyone wins. Reducing or eliminating completely the counterproductive $10/passenger entrance

fee for bus passengers seems essential to the goal of encouraging use of public transit.

Incentives and disincentives used elsewhere to smooth peaks in use should be

tried—develop a tiered fee structure with higher peak day fees and lower off-peak

along with a carpool incentive to waive the fee for carpools of 4 or more occupants.

This will create a powerful, but voluntary, incentive for people to carpool for day

trips—particularly on peak days.

Provide a free shuttle or free passage on regional transit for commuting employees, saving them money while getting their cars off the road.

Improve the existing information system to provide consistently accurate information on park access regarding capacity, closures, etc. so people can plan their visits

knowing if the Park is ‘‘full’’ or not. It usually is not.

And implement common sense measures to eliminate the 7 or so bottlenecks

where most of the ‘‘gridlock’’ occurs—the 3 western entrances and 4 key intersections in the Valley. Adequate staffing of entrance stations and someone directing

traffic would do a world of good. The media frequently prints the sensational photographs of the long lines at the entrance station on holidays like Memorial Day—

not telling the whole story that it is just a bottleneck that could be easily opened.

Valley transpiration issues:

We believe that the major transportation need in Yosemite is to encourage more

people to voluntarily leave their car and take busses or shuttles—and Yosemite benefits most from the visitor who takes public transportation all the way to Yosemite

from home—Amtrak to Merced and then the bus to Yosemite. Leaving a car in the

Gateway communities to take a shuttle is highly advantageous as well—in terms

of air pollution and energy use as well as the congestion, parking, and ‘‘gridlock’’

issues.

We understand that the concept of a parking area at Taft Toe at the west end

of Yosemite Valley is about to surface again as the restoration effort and the interrelated Valley Implementation plan goes forward. Compared to the benefits of the

shuttles from the gateways and beyond, we see no benefit to this proposal which

would have people drive all the way to the West End of Yosemite Valley only to

be forced to transfer to a shuttle for the last three miles of their trip. The costs and

inconvenience will be huge, the environmental impact large, and the benefits small

and largely symbolic.

Ecological issues:

We concentrate so much on the transportation issues in part because they divert

attention from the ecological threats which we think need more attention if Yosemite is ever to be truly protected. If the transportation issues could be dealt with in

the most common sense and cost effective manner then there would be money left

over to restore Yosemite’s forests.

We have an ongoing concern that the major ecological threats to Yosemite’s forests, meadows, and wildlife get short shrift as attention always focuses on the real

but very infrequent ‘‘gridlock in Yosemite Valley’’. As the flood recovery goes forward we are seeing clear indications that the NPS wants to implement actions that

will make it more difficult or expensive to visit Yosemite—with no clear reason.

We hope the Congress and the Park will look at the big picture of the need to

protect and restore Yosemite, all of it, not just the developed areas. And the costs

for some of the major programs needed to protect and restore the wilderness are

minor compared to many of the items on the table because of the flood, or soon to

be on the table as the VIP or Valley Implementation plan finally goes public.

Let me take one very important specific. The mid-elevation forests of Yosemite

have been put at risk by well-intentioned, but misguided management actions, just

as the floodplains should not have had employee tent housing, the forests should

not have been protected from fire for 50 years. The tragic result of this overprotection has set the stage for ecological and human disaster.

In 1990 Yosemite saw the disastrous Steamboat and Arch Rock Fires which

burned from highway 140 to Badger Pass on the South and almost to Crane Flat,

consuming most of Foresta on the way on the North side. The stage is set and gets
49

worse each year in the remaining forests mid-elevation forests. The NPS understands these issues very well, and is very competent at conducting the controlled

burns to restore the forests, but the money or the will isn’t there to treat the acres

that need it.

While the focus today is on spending money to do the right thing in the flood plain

and damaged infrastructure, and we support that, we also believe this is the time

to widen the focus to correct the dangerous and environmentally harmful impacts

in the forests. Either more money should be appropriated or at least an oversight

process set that ensures that any funds left over after the flood damage and restoration is complete goes to the highest priority items.

The need is to burn a total of about 140,000 acres on a ten year rotating cycle

or 14,000 acres per year. At a cost of about $100/acre to prepare and management

the burn—costs which decline as the forest is restored and becomes less of a ‘‘dog

hair thicket’’ ready to explode—we are looking at $1,400,000 per year, maybe more,

maybe less—but the number is probably as good as many in the damage assessments.

Compare this to the costs in the NPS housing plan to move each employee from the Valley where they work now to El Portal of over $300,000 per employee including moving offices and duplicating infrastructure. As we implement money to restore Yosemite we need to ask questions about how best to spend the money. If a

tent village such as the Terrace or Boystown were improved and retained, the savings over building upscale dorms, whether in the valley or El Portal, would be

enough to fund unmet environmental needs.

Summary and concern with oversight:

In summary we hope these hearings will lead to increased ongoing oversight by

the committee, as was common years ago when staffers Dale Crane and Clay Peters

made frequent visits and kept in touch by phone in between. It is only through

democratic give and take and oversight by Congress and citizens that government

can do its best. Yosemite needs vigorous and well informed discussion to ensure that

the best and fairest decisions are made with full public involvement.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment. For more information contact: Garrett

De Bell Executive Director The Yosemite Guardian, a project of Earth Island Institute YosemiteOL@aol.com http://members.aol.com/YosemiteOL/ 415 991-0102

STATEMENT OF LINDA WALLACE, CHAIR, YOSEMITE COMMITTEE, FOR THE SIERRA

CLUB

A Window of Opportunity

The flood along the Merced River in January of 1997 served as a wake-up call

for all those who care about Yosemite National Park. Since the Park’s visionary

General Management Plan (GMP) was adopted in 1980, we have let 17 years slip

by, doing very little to solve the problems of overdevelopment and traffic congestion

it addresses.

Yosemite is now at a crossroads. Because of the river’s decisive action, Congress,

the Administration and the National Park Service can now act to turn this disaster

into an opportunity. We can make the visitor’s experience of Yosemite a better one

than what we’ve experienced during this decade.

After natural disasters there is often a window of opportunity for change—for example, the removal of the Embarcadero double deck freeway along San Francisco’s

waterfront after the Loma Prieta earthquake, which had been previously discussed

by the public, has now opened up views of the Bay from the City without major traffic impacts. Because of this and other experiences, we believe that the public is now

open to seeing us change the way things work in Yosemite.

The legislation proposed by Congressmen Radanovich and Doolittle, Senator

Boxer and the Administration’s request for supplemental funding demonstrate that

there is bi-partisan support for putting things right in Yosemite. This funding was

originally called for when the GMP was adopted back in 1980 and that didn’t occur.

The flood has now provided us with a physical opportunity; the legislation provides

the political opportunity to make now the right time to implement the GMP.

It will not be enough—and not fair to the American public and our international

visitors—if we simply repair and replace the development that was in the floodplain.

This would be a poor use of our tax dollars. We need to invest for the long-term

with the appropriation that comes to Yosemite. This must be about protecting the

natural resource and providing a better experience of this natural setting for the

American public to whom this Park belongs.
50

Flexibility and Collaborative Planning

Because it is important to open all of the Park to the public as soon as possible,

the needs assessment and cost estimates are being developed very rapidly. While

we enthusiastically support the proposed funding measures, we also believe it is

necessary to give the Park Service flexibility to spend the funds where they are really needed when the flood-related damage is better known. We recommend that the

legislation not mandate or prohibit any specific details about Yosemite restoration;

rather, the details of implementation be developed through a collaborative planning

process involving public input.

It is very important for the Park Service to be open to public input about the

planning and implementation of changes. At the same time, let us not become mired

in arguments about specific details of the restoration and lose this long overdue opportunity. Let us keep our eyes on the objective of protecting and enhancing this

national resource. At the same time, we think that the economies of the gateway

communities will also benefit and thrive by providing more visitor services than

they currently do.

Funding for Resource Management and Interpretation

As a component of the legislation Sierra Club urges Congress to include funding

for resource management and interpretation.

Resource management will allow the Park to return to a more natural state while

promoting an improved visitor experience. Specifically, we want to see funds for

habitat restoration, scientific study, and ecological research. These are the types of

activities that we believe are highly important to protection of the resource but

which have not been adequately funded.

Interpretation is an essential component to the quality of the visitors’ experience.

Managing Vehicles in the Park

It has become increasingly obvious in the 90’s that the answers to managing the

crowding and congestion in the Park revolve around how we manage private vehicles. Sierra Club advocates a regional transit system which includes a shuttle bus

system from gateway communities and a day use reservation system for vehicles as

options to solve the congestion problem.

Congestion has grown steadily in Yosemite each year since the GMP was adopted

in 1980. In 1996, in spite of the Park closure during the government shutdown,

overall visitation was still up from 1995. Every indication is that the numbers will

climb as America’s national parks continue to be a prime destination of people from

around the world.

Private vehicles actually compete with people for space in the Valley. If people

use mass transit instead of private vehicles to enter the Valley, then they can enjoy

Yosemite without congesting it.

The Yosemite Area Regional Transportation Strategy (YARTS), a collaborative effort of local governments, is already in place to administer a regional transit system.

But they will have to move quickly and decisively now to capitalize on the opportunity afforded them in the wake of the flood.

Although some suggest that a day-use reservation system for vehicles will scare

people away, Sierra Club believes such a system would provide insurance that visitors will not be turned away at the gate, or have to sit for hours waiting in line

for parking spaces to be freed up, losing hours they could have spent enjoying the

Park.

If we provide a number of options for how to enter the Park, people will choose

the one that works best for them. If it is to drive our own vehicle, we’ll need to

make a reservation. We already make reservations for lodging in the Park, the gateway communities, for campgrounds and for restaurants. A reservation option eliminates the risk that we’ll get to Yosemite and be turned away. There are ways to

design a reservation system so that those who are staying in gateway community

lodging, park lodging, or using buses are guaranteed entry.

In the long term, a day-use reservation system has the potential to be better for

visitors and to provide for a more stable economy in the neighboring communities.

People and their dollars will be brought to the gateway communities. A day use reservation system for private vehicles can also help pave the way for a comprehensive

mass transit and shuttle system between Merced, Fresno, the gateway communities,

and Yosemite.

Let’s keep in mind also that there is the possibility in the next decade that California will begin building a high speed rail system serving the Highway 99 Corridor

between the San Francisco Bay Area and San Diego, including a stop in Merced.

This rail system has the potential to deliver an enormous number of visitors without

vehicles to Yosemite. This argues for planning now to bring a comprehensive shuttle
51

bus system to the Park and for having it up and running before high speed rail is

in place.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Sierra Club trusts that the 105th congress will heed the warning

sounded by the flood, and provide the full appropriation for the crown jewel of the

National Park System. We urge flexibility in the use of these funds, an open public

planning process, funds for resource management and interpretation, a day-use vehicle reservation system, and the planning and implementation of a regional transit

system.

Overdevelopment in Yosemite, increasing congestion and crowding need to be addressed now. We must take advantage of this window of opportunity afforded by the

flood.
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86