[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
YOSEMITE VALLEY PLAN
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
March 27, 2001
__________
Serial No. 107-8
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
71-353 DTP WASHINGTON : 2001
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250
Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Greg Walden, Oregon Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Hilda L. Solis, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Brad Carson, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Betty McCollum, Minnesota
C.L. "Butch" Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado, Chairman
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands Ranking Democrat Member
Elton Gallegly, California Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Samoa
George Radanovich, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Tom Udall, New Mexico
Carolina, Mark Udall, Colorado
Vice Chairman Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mac Thornberry, Texas James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Chris Cannon, Utah Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Hilda L. Solis, California
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 27, 2001................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate to Congress from the
Virgin Islands............................................. 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Doolittle, Hon. John T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Hefley, Hon. Joel, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Map of Yosemite Valley submitted for the record.......... 3
Summary of Yosemite Valley Plan submitted for the record. 4
Radanovich, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana, Prepared statement of.................... 11
Statement of Witnesses:
Balmain, Doug, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, County of
Mariposa, California....................................... 60
Prepared statement of.................................... 61
Gilbert, Gary, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, County of
Madera, California......................................... 49
Prepared statement of.................................... 51
Hardy, Ed, Owner and Operator, Bass Lake Lodge, Bass Lake,
California................................................. 90
Prepared statement of.................................... 92
Oliver, Gregory J., Tuolomne County Counsel, Sonora,
California................................................. 63
Prepared statement of.................................... 66
Reynolds, John J., Regional Director, Pacific West Region,
National Park Service...................................... 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Szefel, Dennis, President, Delaware North Parks Services,
Inc., Buffalo, New York.................................... 93
Prepared statement of.................................... 96
Watson, Jay Thomas, California/Nevada Regional Director, The
Wilderness Society......................................... 98
Prepared statement of.................................... 100
Whitmore, George W., Chairman, Sierra Club's Yosemite
Committee.................................................. 101
Prepared statement of.................................... 103
Additional materials supplied:
McConnell, Nancy, President, Board of Trustees/Education,
Mariposa County Unified School District, Letter submitted
for the record by The Honorable George Radanovich.......... 19
Ratzlaff, Don, Vice-Chairman, Tuolomne County Board of
Supervisors, Letter submitted for the record............... 67
Wald, Johanna H., Director, Land Program, Natural Resources
Defense Council, Letter submitted for the record........... 112
THE FINAL YOSEMITE VALLEY PLAN AND SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT
----------
Tuesday, March 27, 2001
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Joel Hefley
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. Hefley. The Committee will come to order.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE JOEL HEFLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Hefley. Good morning. Welcome to the hearing today.
This morning, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation,
and Public Lands will hear testimony on the National Park
Service's Yosemite Valley Plan and its accompanying
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
At this point, I would like to ask unanimous consent that
Congressman Doolittle be permitted to sit on the dais to give
his statement and to participate in the hearing. Is there any
objection? Hearing none, so ordered.
We actually shouldn't do that, Representative Doolittle,
after you deserted our Committee to go somewhere else, but--
Mr. Doolittle. I was kicked off, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hefley. Well, then that's rightly so. So we'll move on.
On December 29th, 2000, the National Park Service signed
the Record of Decision for the Yosemite Valley Plan. The Record
of Decision, the result of a very lengthy process, will provide
direction for managing the natural and cultural resources,
facilities, and visitor experiences in Yosemite Valley for the
next decade. In its final form, the plan encompasses thousands
of pages and, if implemented, would cost a healthy $441
million.
For those of you who are not familiar with the Valley, it
encompasses an area within Yosemite National Park that is a
mile wide and seven miles long, and is visited annually by 70
percent of the Park's visitors. It is famous for its
campgrounds, hiking trails, waterfalls, scenic wildlands and,
of course, the sheer walls of El Capitan. Since becoming a
national park in 1890, Yosemite National Park has been enjoyed
by millions of people every year, and is considered to be one
of the crown jewels of the National Park System.
However, according to the National Park Service, the Valley
has become congested, especially with private automobiles. It
is overcrowded with more than a thousand park facilities, such
as stores, homes, garages, apartments, lodging facilities and
restaurants. It is bisected by approximately 30 miles of
roadway. All of these factors allegedly threaten its natural
beauty and suggest that a plan of action is necessary.
While many people in this room would agree that the Valley
may be crowded during certain peak times, many would disagree
with a number of recommendations slated for action in the
Valley Plan. Based on the tenor of our new Interior Secretary,
and her approach of inclusiveness, I am optimistic and hopeful
that the Bush administration will be open minded in their
review of this plan.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, especially
their thoughts on the transportation plan, lodging, campsite
changes, parking relocation, and the overall effects to the
gateway communities.
I now recognize the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hefley follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Joel Hefley, Chairman, Subcommittee on
National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Good morning and welcome to the hearing today. This morning, the
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands will hear
testimony on the National Park Service's Yosemite Valley Plan and its
accompanying Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
At this point, I would like to ask unanimous consent that
Congressman Doolittle be permitted to sit on the dais to give his
statement and to participate in the hearing. Is there any objection?
Hearing none, so ordered.
On December 29, 2000, the National Park Service signed the Record
of Decision for the Yosemite Valley Plan. The Record of Decision, the
result of a very lengthy process, will provide direction for managing
the natural and cultural resources, facilities, and visitor experiences
in Yosemite Valley for the next decade. In its final form, the Plan
encompasses thousands of pages, and if implemented, would cost a
healthy $441 million dollars.
For those of you who are not familiar with the Valley, it
encompasses an area within Yosemite National Park that is a mile wide
and seven miles long and is visited annually by 70 percent of the
Park's visitors. It is famous for its campgrounds, hiking trails,
waterfalls, scenic wildlands, and of course, the sheer walls of El
Capitan. Since becoming a National Park in 1890, Yosemite National Park
has been enjoyed by millions of people every year and is considered to
be one of the crown jewels of the National Park System.
However, according to the National Park Service, the Valley has
become congested, especially with private automobiles. It is
overcrowded with more than a thousand park facilities, such as stores,
homes, garages, apartments, lodging facilities and restaurants. It is
bisected by approximately 30 miles of roadway. All of these factors
allegedly threaten its natural beauty and suggest that a plan of action
is necessary.
While many people is this room would agree that the Valley may be
crowded during certain peak times, many would disagree with a number of
recommendations slated for action in the Valley Plan.
Based on the tenor of our new Interior Secretary and her approach
of inclusiveness, I am optimistic and hopeful that the Bush
Administration will be open minded in their review of this plan.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, especially their
thoughts on the transportation plan, lodging and campsite changes,
parking relocation and the overall effects to the gateway communities.
______
(A map of the Yosemite Valley and a summary of the Yosemite
Valley Plan submitted for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1353.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1353.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1353.005
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE TO
CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today, as you said, the Subcommittee will receive testimony
on the Yosemite Valley Plan. I am assuming that's the plan over
there. Oh, my goodness. This plan has been years, obviously, in
the making. It's a significant document for a significant area
of great beauty and majesty.
As the National Park Service notes in its testimony,
Yosemite Valley is only seven miles long and less than one mile
wide. The floor of the Valley is further reduced by rock fall
zones and the flood plain of the Merced River. Within this
relatively small area, millions of people come annually to
experience the nationally significant resources of the Valley.
How to protect these important park resources and still
maintain a quality visitor experience has been a concern going
back for many years. In fact, I have been informed by staff
that today's hearing is at least the fourth congressional
hearing held in the last decade dealing with Yosemite Valley
and related matters.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to learning more on what the
Yosemite Valley Plan will mean for the Park resources and
visitors. I appreciate the presence of our witnesses, including
our former Committee member, Congressman Doolittle, here today.
I look forward to their insights on the subject of today's
oversight hearing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Christensen follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Donna M. Christensen, a Delegate to Congress
from the Virgin Islands
Mr. Chairman, today the Subcommittee will receive testimony on the
Yosemite Valley Plan. This plan has been years in the making. It is a
significant document for a significant area of great beauty and
majesty.
As the National Park Service notes in its testimony, Yosemite
Valley is only seven miles long and less than one mile wide. The floor
of the valley is further reduced by rock-fall zones and the flood plain
of the Merced River. Within this relatively small area, millions of
people come annually to experience the nationally significant resources
of the valley.
How to protect these important park resources and still maintain a
quality visitor experience has been a concern going back many years. In
fact, I have been informed by staff that today's hearing is at least
the fourth Congressional hearing held in the last decade dealing with
Yosemite Valley and related matters.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to learning more on what the Yosemite
Valley Plan will mean for the park's resources and visitors. I
appreciate the presence of our witnesses here today and look forward to
their insights on the subject of today's oversight hearing.
______
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much, Mrs. Christensen.
Our first panel is--I'm sorry. Mr. Radanovich, do you have
an opening statement?
Mr. Radanovich. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do, if I may take the
time.
Mr. Hefley. You certainly may. I'm sorry. I was about to
overlook that.
Mr. Radanovich. No problem.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GEORGE RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Radanovich. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this important hearing. I think Yosemite is one of the
crown jewel parks in our Nation and deserves the attention that
this does.
I also want to thank many constituents, frankly, that are
out here testifying, and I'm glad that you're here to give some
input on this plan, as well as members of the National Park
Service.
I have been personally involved in the formulation of the
Yosemite Plan and all of its manifestations since the 1980
General Management Plan, and since that original plan, Yosemite
has been studied, prodded, poked and written about by numerous
park planners, with ideas ranging from massive bridges across
the Valley to multi-story parking garages in the Valley itself,
to trains, guideways, monorail--you name it, it's been
considered for Yosemite.
These plans are represented by what's in front of me here.
As I was leaving my office this morning, I pulled out these
plans that were made available to me, were sitting on my
bookshelf, and I believe that this pile of documents
demonstrates one of the problems with the Yosemite Valley Plan
and the EIS. Frankly, it's just simply too much for the average
citizen to comprehend, let alone review and digest.
These massive piles of documents do not do one thing to
improve the visitor experience for Yosemite Valley. I
understand that they are part of the mandated planning process,
that they provide a basis for actions, that they cost a lot and
that they keep numerous graphic designers employed. But they
serve to confuse and distract from the purpose of the Park
Service, to be good stewards to the resources and facilities
that it is charged to manage.
To the substance of the plan, in sum, the implementation of
the Yosemite Plan and the EIS will cost about $441 million in
one-time funds, and an increase of over $10 million in annual
spending, in annual operating funding, and large increases in
the number of Federal employees serving the Park.
It will do this, while at the same time reduce the services
available to the public--the roads, the bridges, parking
spaces, stables, camping and lodging units and convenience
which provide service for the owners of the Park, the American
taxpayer.
This analysis would lead one to start the planning process
over, but I must confess that I don't have the patience for
this kind of paperwork. I don't think anybody wants to start
from ground one, in a process that took over 20 years to
develop.
My goal is that the Park Service implement the most
incremental, least cost, and least disruptive elements of the
flood recovery and park improvements first, and reevaluate each
step as the public experiences the improvements. Renovations
and rebuilding required by the flood must be first on the list,
and other projects that have obvious merit should be pursued.
There are numerous projects contained in the details of
this plan that I do support and that I want to ensure get
accomplished as soon as feasible within the constraints of the
law. For example, transfer of park and concessionaire
administrative activities into the gateway communities of
Oakhurst, Mariposa, and elsewhere.
The old warehouse and other facilities in the Park were
replaced in El Portal, yet the old facilities have not been
removed and they should be removed.
Public/private partnerships for the development of new
employee housing in the gateway communities should move
forward, where appropriate. Employee housing in the Valley for
those employees who are required to be near their work was
destroyed in the flood and needs to be replaced.
Campgrounds that were an integral part of the visitors'
public enjoyment of the Park were closed and have not been
reopened since 1997. Specifically, the upper and lower river
campgrounds, they need to be renovated, repaired and reopened.
And then traffic patterns causing congestion and confusion for
the visiting public have been identified and these bottlenecks
need to be fixed.
These projects need to be completed quickly. Funds are
available for most of these projects as a result of the
appropriation which Congress made for the flood recovery, from
the flood of 1997, and from Park visitor fees retained by the
Park, from donations made to the Park for improvements and from
capital improvement funds contributed by the concessionaire.
There are many elements of the plan that I do not support.
The most important in the long run is the over-reliance of the
plan on the success of the Yosemite Area Regional Transit
System, also known as YARTS. This system depends upon the
provision of some $850,000 per year of specially approved funds
from Congress. We have not considered or approved this request,
and until we have, I believe the Park Service must make
available sufficient parking and related infrastructure within
the Valley to support the public.
We cannot support a plan that prevents the visiting public
from enjoying their park. Eliminating parking spaces in the
Valley will do just that. I, therefore, do not support that
element of the plan.
The Park Service has provided a plan that relies on YARTS
nine months out of the year. Instead, I have asked the Park
Service to provide an analysis of the level of parking required
in order to meet the demands of the visiting public at least
nine months per year without YARTS. Many of my constituents
claim that the Park Service has already reduced the number of
parking spaces in the Valley by as many as 3,300 spaces. I am
not sure what the real number is, but I do know that 550 spaces
provided in this plan are inadequate by any measure.
Earlier I commented on the sources of funds available to
the Superintendent to accomplish the goals of the plan. One
concern that you will hear today is that Congress cannot
adequately monitor the implementation of the plan because there
are too many discretionary sources of funds available to be
spent without further congressional review. This is true and is
of concern that I intend to correct, with your help, Mr.
Chairman, through continued oversight by this Subcommittee,
through the appropriations process, and through my continued
personal and direct involvement in the implementation of this
plan.
I believe the planning process, as implemented by the
National Park Service, in this case is fatally flawed. Further
review, in conjunction with gateway communities concerning the
economic, infrastructure and land use impacts of the proposed
actions needs to be accomplished before the plan is finalized.
I recognize that Mr. Babbitt, while he was Secretary of
Interior, committed to and accomplished a record of decision
for this plan prior to leaving office. I believe that, in this
case, as with other cases under the Clinton administration, the
plan was finalized because review by the new administration
would find that the conclusions were not supported by the
facts.
Since that administration would not and could not be held
accountable as it left office, arbitrary decisions were fair
game. We need to hold the Clinton administration accountable
and to stay the record of decision until the Department of
Interior has appropriate staff in place to evaluate the plan
and its impact on the surrounding communities.
I have asked the Secretary of Interior to take whatever
action is necessary to accomplish this because, as you will
hear today, a consensus has not been established in the
surrounding communities. In fact, my constituents believe that
they have not been heard throughout the park planning process.
Last year, I introduced the Gateway Communities Cooperation
Act and will shortly reintroduce it. That Act will require
Federal land managers to consult with, assist and support local
gateway communities that are affected by such massive planning
efforts. The gateway communities in my district do not have the
resources available to fully participate in such huge planning
efforts, nor do the Federal land managers have the mandate from
this Congress to involve their local gateways in these efforts.
We need to correct that, and I will ask the Subcommittee to
move the legislation so that such an oversight will never
happen again.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to provide this
input at the beginning of this hearing, and to display the
incredible plan that we have before us. I look forward to the
testimony of the panels.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]
Statement of The Honorable George Radanovich, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
Chairman Hefley, thank you very much for the opportunity to submit
this statement on the Final Yosemite Valley Plan and Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement, and the related concerns, comments and
issues identified by gateway communities, concessionaires and
interested parties. This plan and planning process has had a
significant impact on my district. More importantly, the plan will set
the direction for Yosemite Valley for the foreseeable future. That
future is important; to the health and vitality of the communities I
represent, and to our neighbors.
Let me first say that Yosemite Valley is in my district, and that I
grew up not far from that valley. I. have a direct personal knowledge
and involvement in what happens in Yosemite and in the mutual
dependence of gateway communities on the park, and of the park on the
gateway communities. This interdependence cannot be overstated, and I
think part of the controversy we will hear about today is based upon
the concern that the Park Service does not fully embrace the importance
of the gateway community relationship.
Mr. Chairman, I have been personally involved in the formulation of
the Yosemite Valley plan in all its manifestations dating back to the
1980 General Management Plan. Since that original plan, Yosemite has
been studied, prodded, poked and written about by numerous park
planners with ideas ranging from massive bridges across the valley to
multi-story parking garages in the valley itself, to trains, guide-ways
and monorails. As I was leaving my office this morning I pulled out the
plans that were available on my bookshelf. I believe that this pile of
documents demonstrates one of the problems with the Yosemite Valley
Plan & EIS - it is simply too much for the average citizen, even one
who is directly affected by it - to review and digest.
These massive piles of documents do not do one thing to improve the
visitor experience in Yosemite Valley. I understand that they are part
of mandated planning processes, that they provide a basis for actions,
that they cost a lot, and that they keep numerous graphic designers
employed. But they serve to confuse and distract from the purpose of
the Park Service to be a good steward of the resources and facilities
it is responsible to manage.
Let's move on to the substance of the plan that this subcommittee
is charged to review. In sum, implementation of the Yosemite Valley
Plan and EIS will cost $441 million in one-time funds, over $10 million
in annual operational funding, and large increases in the number of
federal employees serving in the Park. It will do this while at the
same time reducing the services available to the public - the roads,
bridges, parking places, stables, camping and lodging units and
conveniences which provide service for the owners of the park, the
American taxpayer. This analysis would lead one to want to start the
planning process over, but I must confess to not having the patience
for more of this paperwork.
My goal is that the Park Service implement the incremental, least
cost, least disruptive elements of flood recovery and park improvements
first and re-evaluate each step as the public experiences the
improvement. Renovations and rebuilding required by the flood must be
first on the list. Other projects have obvious merit, and should be
pursued. There are numerous projects contained in the details of this
plan that I do support, and that I want to ensure get accomplished as
soon as feasible within the constraints of the law. Examples of this
include:
LTransfer of park and concessionaire administrative
activities into the gateway communities of Oakhurst, Mariposa and
elsewhere;
LThe old warehouse and other facilities in the valley were
replaced in El Portal, and then old facility never removed. Let's
remove it;
LPublic-Private partnerships for the development of new
employee housing in the gateway communities should move forward where
appropriate;
LEmployee housing in the valley for those employees which
are required to be near their work was destroyed in the flood in 1997,
and needs to be replaced;
LCampgrounds that were an integral part of the visiting
public's enjoyment of the park were closed, and have not been reopened
since 1997. Specifically, Upper and Lower River Campgrounds need to be
renovated and reopened.
LTraffic patterns causing congestion and confusion for the
visiting public have been identified. These bottlenecks need to be
fixed.
These projects need to be completed quickly. Funds are available
for most of these projects as a result of an appropriation which made
by Congress for flood recovery, from park visitor fees, retained by the
Park, from donations made to the Park for improvements and from capital
improvement funds contributed by the concessionaire.
There are many, elements of the plan that I do not support. .The
most important in the long run is the reliance of the plan on the
success of the Yosemite Area Regional Transit System (YARTS). This
system depends upon provision of some $850,000 per year of specially
appropriated funds from Congress. We have not considered or approved
this request, and until we have, I believe the park service must make
available sufficient parking and related. infrastructure within the
valley to support the public. We cannot support a plan that prevents
the visiting public from enjoying their park. Eliminating parking
spaces in the Valley will do just that, and therefore I do not support
that element of the plan. .
The park service has provided a plan that relies on YARTS nine
months per year. Instead, I have asked the park service to provide an
analysis of the level of parking required in order to meet the demands
of the visiting public at least nine months per year without YARTS.
Many of my constituents claim that the park service has already reduced
the number of parking places in the valley by as many as 3,300 spaces.
I do not know what the real number is, but I do know that the 550
spaces provided in this plan are inadequate by any measure.
Earlier, I commented on the sources of funds available to the
Superintendent to accomplish the goals of the plan. One concern that
you will hear today is that Congress cannot adequately monitor the
implementation of the plan because there are too many discretionary
sources of funds available to be spent without further congressional
review. This is true, and is a concern that I intend to correct with
your help, Mr. Chairman, through continued oversight by this
subcommittee, through the appropriations process and through my
continued personal and direct involvement in the implementation of this
plan.
I believe that the planning process as implemented by the National
Park Service in this case is fatally flawed. Further review in
conjunction with the gateway communities concerning the economic,
infrastructure and land-use impacts of the proposed actions needs to be
accomplished BEFORE the plan is finalized. I recognize that Mr.
Babbitt, while he was Secretary of the Interior, committed to and
accomplished a Record of Decision for this plan prior to leaving
office. I believe that in this case, as with other cases under the
Clinton administration, the plan was finalized because review by a new
administration would find that the conclusions were not supported by
the facts.
Since that administration would not and could not be held
accountable as it left office, arbitrary decisions were fair game. We
need to hold the Clinton administration accountable and to stay the
Record of Decision until the Department of Interior has appropriate
staff in place to evaluate the plan and it impacts on the surrounding
communities. I have asked the Secretary of the Interior to take
whatever action is necessary to accomplish this stay because, as you
will hear today, a consensus has not been established in the
surrounding communities. In fact, my constituents believe that they
have not been heard throughout the park planning process.
Last year, I introduced the Gateway Communities Cooperation Act and
will shortly reintroduce it. That act will require federal land
managers to consult with, assist and support local gateway communities
that are affected by such massive planning efforts. The gateway
communities in my district do not have the resources available to fully
participate in such huge planning efforts, nor do the federal land
managers have the mandate from this Congress to involve their local
gateways in these efforts. We need to correct that. I will ask this
subcommittee to move the legislation so that such an oversight will
never happen again.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony from our panels today
concerning the Yosemite Valley Plan and Final EIS. I believe that
today's hearing will highlight the important role of gateway
communities in federal planning efforts, and provide a new look at the
future of the Crown Jewel of the National Parks, Yosemite.
Thank you for your time.
______
Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Mr. Radanovich.
Is there anyone else who has an opening statement they
would like to make?
Mr. Souder. Mr. Chairman, I do not have an opening
statement, but I would like to insert a statement at a later
point. I was at Yosemite again the weekend before last and I'm
interested in hearing the testimony today and learning from the
witnesses.
Thank you.
Mr. Hefley. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Souder follows:]
Statement by The Honorable Mark Souder, A Representative in Congress
from the State of Indiana
Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this important hearing. Yosemite
National Park is indisputably one of our world's foremost natural
wonders. Yosemite Valley, with its towering waterfalls and massive
granite walls, impresses visitors from all over the world, young and
old.
It is perhaps our greatest challenge to balance the desire of
increasing numbers to see the greatest wonders of the world--Yosemite
Valley, Grand Canyon, Old Faithful in Yellowstone, Glacier Bay--without
so degrading the experience that it is no longer memorable in a
positive sense. Visitors expect to be awed with nature, not fumes,
smog, trash and jockeying for a view.
But we are not arguing over pristine environments. Long ago,
Americans decided that providing the opportunity for many to view those
magnificent wonders superseded the desire of some to return them to
pristine wilderness or the preserve of a privileged few. It is
important to preserve wilderness--with limited or no access--but
Yosemite Valley is not such a place.
What today's hearing focuses on is the attempt to achieve a
balance. Sometimes those on opposing sides imply the other is either
for total elimination of human impact or for paving over the last grass
in the Valley. The American people not only don't support such radical
viewpoints, but they are pretty firmly in the middle: give us
reasonable access and stop the drama. The problems addressed in this
hearing is illustrative not only of the problem facing Yosemite
National Park but in many--if not most--of our national parks.
Since I joined this Subcommittee, I have visited Yosemite National
Park twice, including just over a week ago. Over the last two years I
have systematically been visiting our national parks to discuss
challenges facing the parks with park superintendents and staff. My
meetings and visits have included large and small parks, as well as
natural and cultural parks. These include, but are not limited to, at
least one visit to these natural parks: Yosemite, Yellowstone, Glacier,
Mt. Rainier, Grand Canyon, Everglades, Olympic, Grand Teton, Denali,
Kenai Fjords, Theodore Roosevelt and Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore;
to these cultural parks: Independence, Gettysburg, Fort Clatsop, Golden
Spike, Lincoln Home, and Mount Rushmore; and combination parks like
Golden Gate NRA (including the Presidio) and Gateway NRA (including
Ellis Island). What becomes apparent is that problems are not unique,
though specific variations may be.
Today's hearing on the Yosemite Valley Plan highlights a number of
the major challenges. I would like to review a few of them.
1) Traffic congestion in the most popular areas
Yosemite, Grand Canyon and Zion are each developing plans limiting
automobile usage. Each is different. But today's discussion on Yosemite
highlights several points.
a) Traffic congestion is not a year -around problem. It peaks at
certain times--usually the summer season. Yet solutions tend to be
restrictive of automobile use year around, or at least beyond the peak
of the normal bell curve.
b) The cost of mass transit alternatives is high thus tending to
attempt to maximize (i.e. force) as many auto passengers out of their
cars, even if it means limiting them at off-season times and by greater
amounts than necessary.
c) The cost of mass transit adds to pressures to reduce parking
spaces in the sought after locations even if additional spaces could be
allowed in management plans such as the Yosemite Valley Plan.
d) Other options need to be pursued such as charging higher fees
for such parking as is done at airports (e.g. high rates for close
access, none or minimal for ``satellite lots'') Those dollars could
then help subsidize a shorter season mass transit solution, especially
with adequate parking spaces.
2) Historical/cultural preservation versus natural preservation
At fifty years cultural resources come under the Historic
Preservation guidelines. Because this law is universal, it at times has
lead to the unintended consequence of letting structures deteriorate
that may have been worthy of preserving because scarce dollars and
resources must be spent on less significant structures. It also leads
to conflict such as at Gettysburg, where a truly significant historic
structure sits on one of the nation's most culturally significant
pieces of land.
a) At Yosemite one such issue that appears to be resolved is the
preservation (through moving) the historic superintendent's office
which sits on a flood plain, and was seriously flooded. It clearly
needed to be preserved--its historic significance is directly related
to Yosemite Park's history.
b) There is a debate about the usage of other buildings in Yosemite
Village. These buildings are of also great significance to the Park's
history. Hopefully creative solutions can be found similar to these
being pursued at Grand Canyon Village and Longmire at Mt. Rainier
National Park.
c) There is a debate about a number of historic footbridges. This
is the type of debate that needs some serious re-evaluation of the
current system (though at least the current law forces such a debate,
not just a tear-down). The bridges apparently alter the natural flow of
the Merced River, a National Scenic River. Of all the cultural
resources in our natural Parks, a strong argument can be made that
structures that epitomize the ``National Park'' look are the most
important to preserve. Those include the great historic inns like Many
Glacier Lodge, El Tovor, Old Faithful and Ahwanee; the works of
Underwood and Coulter, the landscaping of Olmsted. But the broadest
application is the WPA ``park look''. Bridgework is one of the best
examples of this type of architecture. The Yosemite Valley Plan
proposes to remove one, and study the impact. But once again, the key
point here is that we need to develop and approach that combines
historic significance, natural importance of the impacted area, and
visitor impact (which at a minimum, should break ``ties'').
3) National Scenic River and other environmental guidelines
Let me state this clearly: I support the goals of the National
Scenic River legislation. It has been and will continue to be a vital
way to continue to clean up our most scenic rivers. The challenges are
many. Obviously, a scenic river that has been highly developed along
its river banks is going to be treated differently than in a wilderness
area. The debates in Yosemite about the Merced River are interesting
because they are not as not as clear cut. The Merced is gorgeous as it
meanders through the Valley, and then cuts its way out.
a) But the Merced River is already significantly altered. Today's
visitors who enter Yosemite Park have no desire to repeat the
experiences of John Muir. Few had the time to wander then and few do
now. To access the road at the El Portal entrance, the Merced River was
``controlled''. It still has enough force (and speed) to alter its
riverbed during the last major flood, but it is significantly altered.
The goal should be minimal further alteration, but the Park Service
should be commended for its attempts to improve the safety of the road
with minimal river damage. The small environmental groups that are
suing to stop such improvement should be accountable to lawsuit if
someone is hurt or killed because of their grandstanding.
b) It is not an easy question as to removing culturally significant
structures to let the Merced River discover its ``natural'' course in
the Valley. Moving the Superintendent's residence makes sense because
the flooding damages the building. The riprap of the disputed bridges
may alter the flow but the question here is destruction of a structure
that is not endangered. Perhaps, all things considered, the first
bridge should be removed as a trial, but visitor usage should also be a
factor.
4) Closing the horse trails in Yosemite Valley
Once again, this issue is debated in other areas as well. Clearly
horseback riding is a historic usage within a National Park. In fact,
other than hiking, it is probably the oldest. (And few, if any, of the
earliest hikers didn't have a horse or mule.) Banning horseback riding
would be akin to banning camping. It is not like the firefalls at
Yosemite that delighted visitors for years, nor is it like feeding the
bears. They may have been traditions but were ``artificial'' creations
for entertainment (and did impact natural behavior). This is also not
snowmobiling, air overflights, or engine -powered motorcraft--about
which there is much legitimate despite.
But just because horses are allowed, does not mean that they need
to be allowed everywhere in the park. It is an especially thorny issue
when people are packed into a small area of the park, like in Yosemite
Valley. As a general rule, it seems that when one visitors experience
negatively impacts a large number of visitors, changes are in order.
With a limited number of valley trails, mutual enjoyment is difficult.
Therefore, as long as the service is provided and not reduced, and
scenic alternatives are found, Valley limitations seem to make sense.
5) Numbers of lodging and camping sites
There is a clear trend toward reducing overnight accommodations
inside our national parks. This clearly is not responding to visitor
demand: it flies in the face of it. It is one thing to argue that
additional accommodations should not be added, and should instead be
added in gateway communities (often in national forests). It seems like
that whenever a Park develops a plan, they universally have a proposal
to reduce overnight accommodations. Not only is it not visitor
requested, it is, at most for negligible environmental gain.
Moving campground spaces at Yosemite and other parks because of
issues like rock slides or flooding may be needed but then attempting
to maintain the number should be undertaken. (At Yosemite, to pre-flood
levels).
6) Gateway communities
Nearly every park has inevitable conflicts with the gateway
communities. From my experience, each park superintendent spends a lot
of their time working with these communities (in disproportion to their
numbers--visitors and taxpayers, being far larger constituencies).
Furthermore, gateway community leaders almost always say to the
superintendent (or the Park Service) is unresponsive if they don't get
their way.
But gateway communities do have a vital interest in each park and,
quite frankly, are part of the ``National Park experience'' for most
Americans. To not work with them would be shortsighted and counter-
productive for visitors and those of us who fund the National Parks.
Issues include lodging, food services, recreation, and wildlife issues
(e.g. wolves, elks, bears) just to name a few.
As a business person with a background in retailing, it is amazing
to me to note the often limited vision of the gateway community
business leaders. While visitors may prefer, when given the choice, to
stay overnight inside the park, it benefits gateway communities if the
Park Service limits overnight accommodation, for example. It is
obviously clear that all across America excellent accommodations--along
with other visitor services like food, shopping, entertainment (e.g.
IMAX theaters and museums as well as supplemental visitor centers) and
recreation- are booming in gateway communities. It is not clear that
the National Park Service has diminished interest in visiting the parks
by limitations on visitor services. But it is a delicate balance. The
criteria to be evaluated at parks like Yosemite include: Does a
proposed transportation system create a disadvantage for one gateway
community over another? At what point do rising fees discourage visits?
(And which visitors, day, overnight or once-in-a-lifetime)? From the
gateway merchants perspective--can visitors be enticed into extending
their stay by having more entertainment options at the edges of the
parks? From a business standpoint, that is their best financial
opportunity.
7) Employee and Concessionaire Housing
This is a critical issue in nearly every park. Some is sub-
standard. Some is far away, making transportation costs increasingly
prohibitive for many park employees. The Yosemite Valley plan proposes
to move some employee housing to El Portal at the edge of the Park.
They have already moved- logically -park services that don't need to be
in the valley to El Portal. Some of the moves make sense, even if it is
also understandable that people would prefer Valley housing. But for
those who must commute in, transfer costs are serious. Furthermore,
inside parks if more and more employees are removed it is going to be
an increasing problem to provide adequate schooling for the children of
remaining employees without resorting to lengthy bus journeys.
8) Demonstration Fees
Two points-they should be made permanent and superintendent should
be given more flexibility to utilize them. Excellent visitor friendly
projects have been developed in most parks, including Yosemite.
Analysis should be made about using fees for personnel but should only
be done after careful debate about consequences.
9) Private support groups like the Yosemite Fund
The Yosemite Fund, and groups like it, are critical to the
preservation of our parks. In Congress we need to stimulate further
charitable giving through the tax code. While I was recently in
Yosemite, I visited a Yosemite Fund Session with scientific researchers
who study all the aspects of Yosemite's natural history. It is a living
laboratory for Yosemite Park and university researchers. The Yosemite
Fund is working with researchers to make sure the research is
coordinated with what is most needed to make wise decisions.
I also met with major Yosemite Fund donors who are working to raise
over ten million dollars to redo the chaotic Yosemite Falls visitor
area. We need to constantly thank those thousands of families who give
additional dollars to the park they love. Those contributors should not
be viewed as a lessening of the obligation of the general taxpayer, but
rather a resounding vote of the confidence by citizens in the priority
of that particular park. One way to determine whether a park has public
support or was a ``pork barrel'' project of a Member of Congress (or a
President) is whether it has support public financial support. The
concept of ``crown jewels'' is hotly debated, but the size and
membership diversity of some parks non-profit groups (often multiple
ones) proves the point. Yosemite and Yellowstone, Independence Hall and
Gettysburg, to name a few, are in fact, different than your average
park.
______
Mr. Hefley. Our first panel will be made up of Mr.
Doolittle, from the 4th District of California, a district
which encompasses about half of the Park. Is that correct, Mr.
Doolittle?
Mr. Doolittle. That's right, Mr. Chairman. Between Mr.
Radanovich and me, we encompass the entire Park. I have the
high country and he has the Valley.
Mr. Hefley. I see. Well, we would recognize you then for
your statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
distinguished members. I appreciate the opportunity to rejoin
you today for this hearing. Yosemite is obviously a vital
national treasure, and it's a privilege to represent a portion
of it.
I would like to specifically express my thanks to my
colleague, Representative George Radanovich. His district, as
we mentioned, together with mine, do encompass the Park, and he
has displayed tireless efforts to maintain continued public
access. Those have been very well received throughout our
shared region. I know that the Tuolumne County Counsel, Gregory
Oliver, is here as well, and I especially appreciate him making
the long trip to Washington to represent the views of my
constituents, and you will hear from him on the third panel, I
believe.
As we all know, Yosemite National Park has long been an
international travel destination, drawing millions of tourists
every year to marvel at breathtaking waterfalls, Giant
Sequoias, and plentiful wildlife. I have long appreciated the
beauty Yosemite has to offer, and have made it a priority to
preserve this national treasure for future generations to
enjoy.
However, I believe very strongly that we should seek to
accomplish that objective without compromising the visitor
experience and without unnecessarily impacting the economies of
the communities that lie at the gateway to the Park. It is in
these two/ areas that the Valley Plan falls woefully short.
First, the plan, as Mr. Radanovich mentioned, has
unnecessarily and unfortunately decreased the amount of parking
spaces in the Valley. You know, this reminds me, this is kind
of a ``Jerry Brown'' approach to transportation. You just don't
build freeways and somehow we're going to solve the problem.
Mr. Chairman, this is a problem. Taking out those parking
spaces is something I am strongly opposed to.
Now, there is a congestion problem at times in the Valley,
and it's a heavy congestion problem. Those problems are not
good for the Park or for the visitors. However, I want to
emphasize congestion, at that level, only exists a few days per
year, and for those days, a more efficient traffic management
strategy is needed. But permanently reducing the number of
parking spaces would only result in unnecessarily hampering the
ease of visitation for many day-use travelers during times of
the year when traffic volume is low. As such, I will continue
to seek alternatives that reduce congestion while preserving
auto touring as a viable means for all to visit the Park.
I don't know how many of our members have actually been to
Yosemite but, obviously, it's possible to enter one way and
leave another, and to cross the mountains in the process. It's
a great way to see features of Yosemite without having to make
that your end destination. We want to preserve that. But if
there's no place for you to park once you drive into the Park,
you're not going to be able to see the Park. You'll just have
to keep on going. I think that's a great injustice to the day-
use visitors.
Second, Mr. Chairman, I object to the Plan's severe
reduction in the number of overnight accommodations under the
guise of flood management. As one who has been very supportive
of the Park's efforts to obtain Federal funds to repair damage
resulting from the 1997 floods, it is disheartening to see
those appropriations being used to impede the visitor's ability
to enjoy what is perhaps the Park's greatest appeal--one's
ability to spend the night under the stars in one of the most
beautiful places in the world.
Third, although Housekeeping Bridge will remain under the
Plan to provide access across the Merced River, the removal of
Sugar Pine and Stoneman Bridges remains in the Plan.
Now, maybe this is just nostalgia on my part, but when we
used to go camping in the Valley, we would camp on one side of
the Merced River and cross Stoneman Bridge to reach Camp Curry,
which had the store with the candy and, you know, all the
``fun'' stuff. It's a marvelous old bridge. It looks like some
of the beautiful stone work you see on the GW Parkway. It's all
nicely assembled. Those two bridges are a great part of the
culture and the history of Yosemite Valley, and I think it
would be a travesty to cause those to be removed. So I join
many of my constituents in objecting to the elimination of
these historic and valued attributes of Yosemite.
Fourth, I am very much opposed to the removal of horse
stables from the Valley and the elimination of commercial trail
rides. As one who has personally utilized these stables, I can
attest to the enjoyable and historical experience they provide
to many of the Park's visitors. I might add, I still remember
how sorry I felt after my eight-hour trip up and eight-hour
trip down--I think it was eight hours--to get to the back of
Half Dome. But horses belong in the Valley. It would be a shame
to force them out. I think diversity in the type of experience
visitors can enjoy has the effect of spreading out congestion
in the Valley, which would otherwise be more concentrated under
this restrictive Plan.
Finally, I am concerned with the manner in which the
Clinton administration force-fed this plan to the people of
this country. Former Interior Secretary Babbitt's refusal to
extend the diminutive public comment period of a plan that has
been 20 years in the making was very disappointing.
Furthermore, I received a copy of the Merced River Plan Record
of Decision, a plan critical to the implementation of the
Yosemite Valley Plan, a mere four days prior to the end of the
public comment period for the Valley Plan. Needless to say,
ample time for both my constituents and me to fully digest and
comment on the Plan was effectively denied.
Overall, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Yosemite Valley
Plan significantly limits the ability of visitors to enjoy the
Park. When this ability is eroded, the value of the Park, as
well as the economies of the gateway communities, is
compromised. This result is unnecessary, and I encourage Park
officials to develop a more appropriate balance between visitor
experience and protection of the Park. I am further encouraged
that the new Bush administration has signaled a greater
willingness to work with communities when developing policies
that impact them on such a significant level.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important
hearing, and I thank our witnesses for their contributions and
their interest in preserving the beauty of and the continued
access to Yosemite National Park. I look forward to the
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Doolittle follows:]
Statement of The Honorable John T. Doolittle, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
I would like to thank Chairman Hefley for holding this hearing on
this very important matter, the Yosemite Valley Plan. Also, I would
like to express my thanks to my colleague, Congressman George
Radanovich. His district together with mine contains Yosemite National
Park, and his tireless efforts to maintain continued public access have
been well received throughout our shared region. I know that Tuolumne
County Counsel, George Oliver, is here as well, and I especially
appreciate him making the long trip here to represent the views of my
constituents.
As you all know, Yosemite National Park has long been an
international travel destination, drawing millions of tourists every
year to marvel at breathtaking waterfalls, Giant Sequoias, and
plentiful wildlife. I have long appreciated the beauty Yosemite has to
offer, and have made it a priority to preserve this national treasure
for future generations to enjoy. However, I believe very strongly that
we should seek to accomplish that objective without compromising the
visitor experience and unnecessarily impacting the economies of the
communities that lie at the gateway to the Park. It is in these two
areas that the Valley Plan falls short.
First, the Plan has unnecessarily and unfortunately decreased the
amount of parking spaces in the Valley. I am well aware that at times,
Yosemite Valley experiences heavy traffic congestion, and that such
congestion is neither good for the Park or for the visitor. However,
congestion of this level only exists a few days per year, and for those
days, a more efficient traffic management strategy is needed. But
permanently reducing the number of parking spaces would only result in
unnecessarily hampering the ease of visitation for many day use
travelers during times of the year when traffic volume is low. As such,
I will continue to seek alternatives that reduce congestion while
preserving auto touring as a viable means for all to visit the Park.
Secondly, I object to the Plan's severe reduction in the number of
overnight accommodations under the guise of flood management. As one
who has been very supportive of the Park's efforts to obtain federal
funds to repair damage resulting from the 1997 floods, it is
disheartening to see those appropriations being used to impede the
visitor's ability to enjoy what is perhaps the Park's greatest appeal -
one's ability to spend the night under the stars in one of the most
beautiful places in the world.
Third, although Housekeeping Bridge will remain under the Plan to
provide access across the Merced River, the removal of Sugar Pine and
Stoneman Bridges remains in the Plan. I join many of my constituents in
objecting to the elimination of these historic and valued attributes of
Yosemite.
Fourth, I am very much opposed to the removal of horse stables from
the Valley and the elimination of commercial trail rides. As one who
has personally utilized these stables, I can attest to the enjoyable
and historical experience they provide to many of the Park's visitors.
Diversity in the type of experience visitors can enjoy has the effect
of spreading out congestion in the Valley, which would otherwise be
more concentrated under this restrictive Plan.
Finally and most importantly, I am concerned with the manner in
which the Clinton Administration force-fed this plan to the people of
this country. Former Interior Secretary Babbitt's disgraceful refusal
to extend the diminutive public comment period of a plan that has been
20 years in the making is nothing but a total affront to our democratic
system. Furthermore, it is absolutely appalling that I received a copy
of the Merced River Plan Record of Decision - a plan critical to the
implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan - a mere four days prior to
the end of the public comment period for the Valley Plan. Needless to
say, ample time for both my constituents and me to fully digest and
comment on the Plan was effectively denied.
Overall, I believe that the Yosemite Valley Plan significantly
limits the ability of visitors to enjoy the Park. When this ability is
eroded, the value of the Park, as well as the economies of the gateway
communities, is compromised. The result is unnecessary, and I encourage
Park officials to develop a more appropriate balance between visitor
experience and the protection of the Park. I am further encouraged that
the new Bush Administration has signaled a greater willingness to work
with communities when developing policies that impact them on such a
significant level.
Again, I thank the Chairman for holding this very important
hearing, and I thank these panels of witnesses for their contributions
and great interest in preserving the beauty of, and continued access
to, Yosemite National Park.
______
Mr. Hefley. Any questions for Mr. Doolittle?
Mr. Souder. Mr. Chairman, I have one.
Mr. Hefley. Yes. You're recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Doolittle, obviously, since the upper part
of the Park is closed during the winter, the eastern gateway,
Tioga Pass and that area in your district, would be most
heavily impacted by this.
Do you have any visitation figures for how many people
would stay at the gateway community and then come into the Park
and exit at another point?
Mr. Doolittle. You know, I don't have that at my
fingertips, but I will provide them for the record, because the
figures illustrate just how significant having the road open is
to our gateway communities. It means--as I recall, it's
hundreds of thousands of dollars a day when people have the
ability to go through the Park. So every day beyond Memorial
Day that that road isn't open is of great concern to us.
Mr. Souder. The time to enter from the east side, going
across Columbia Meadows and down into the Valley is about how
long?
Mr. Doolittle. You know, I have not entered the Park ever
from the east side, but I believe that that would be, well, a
good hour or more, probably, an hour-and-a-half.
Mr. Souder. And then it's similar if you exited one of the
other directions, you're 45 minutes to an hour?
Mr. Doolittle. Yes. It would be more like an hour or so, I
think.
Mr. Souder. Okay. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you. Any further questions?
With that, Mr. Doolittle, I do hope you will stay with us
and participate fully in the hearing.
Mr. Hefley. The next panel will be Mr. John Reynolds,
Regional Director, Pacific West Region, National Park Service,
San Francisco, California.
At this point I would like to ask Mr. Radanovich to take
the gavel and to chair the hearing. The Valley is in his
district; he has a deep and abiding love for Yosemite National
Park, and an interest in this Plan. So I would like, Mr.
Radanovich, if you would care to, to come and chair the
Subcommittee.
Mr. Radanovich. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think we will call the next panel up, but first, let me
do one quick housekeeping thing. I do have a letter from the
Mariposa County Unified School District that has some concerns
regarding the Plan, and I would ask unanimous consent that it
be included in the record. Hearing no objection, I will go
ahead.
[The letter follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1353.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1353.014
Mr. Radanovich. Let's go ahead and start then with our
first panel. That is John Reynolds, who is the Regional
Director of the Pacific West Region of the National Park
Service in San Francisco.
John, welcome. We're glad that you were able to come
testify today, and we look forward to your statement and
follow-up questions.
STATEMENT OF JOHN J. REYNOLDS, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, PACIFIC WEST
REGION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE; ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID A. MIHALIC,
SUPERINTENDENT, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Reynolds. Thank you, Congressman Radanovich, and thank
you, Chairman Hefley. It's my pleasure to be here.
My name is John Reynolds. I'm the Regional Director of the
Pacific West Region of the National Park Service. I am here
today to report on the Yosemite flood recovery efforts, the
Yosemite Valley Plan, and how it relates to the flood recovery
efforts.
A major flood occurred at Yosemite National Park in
January, 1997, causing significant damage throughout the Park.
In July 1997, Congress appropriated $186 million for flood
recovery repairs, with the proviso that these repairs be
carried out to help implement the Park's 1980 General
Management Plan. An additional $11 million of funding is
available from the Federal Lands Highway Program, for a total
flood recovery program of $197 million.
We are on track with the flood recovery program. A
substantial portion has been completed. Thirty-two miles of
damaged roads throughout the Park have been repaired, and six
miles of the El Portal Road has been completely reconstructed.
One hundred-and-thirty eight miles of back-country trails have
been reconstructed, 25 trail bridges have been repaired or
rebuilt, and seven miles of paved bike paths have been
reconstructed. The Park sustained substantial damage to the
valley water, wastewater and electrical systems, and they have
been repaired.
Seventy-seven million dollars has been obligated to date.
Of the balance, $106 million is for flood-affected facilities
that are included in the Yosemite Valley Plan, with the
remainder for flood damage repairs to infrastructure elsewhere
in the Park, outside of Yosemite Valley.
At the end of last year, I approved the Yosemite Valley
Plan and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. This plan
will implement many of the goals of the Park's 1980 General
Management Plan, and will ensure Congress' direction that flood
appropriations be used for this purpose. The 1980 plan
established the broad goals to reclaim priceless natural
beauty, to allow natural processes to prevail, to promote
visitor understanding and enjoyment, to markedly reduce traffic
congestion, and to reduce crowding. The Yosemite Valley Plan
was guided by these goals.
Since 1980, additional studies and analyses have been
conducted, particularly related to natural processes, visitor
enjoyment, transportation, and housing. In the early 1990's,
work on specific improvement plans for housing in the Yosemite
Valley and the Yosemite Falls area was started. These efforts
took on greater urgency following the flood of 1997, with the
need to replace visitor facilities damaged or destroyed by the
flood. The flood reconstruction plan for Yosemite Lodge, in
conjunction with other pre-flood plans, spurred litigation
against the National Park Service over concerns about
fragmented planning. This litigation resulted in the decision
to create one comprehensive and integrated Yosemite Valley
Plan.
We will soon begin to obligate the balance of the flood
recovery funds on those portions of the Yosemite Valley Plan
that were affected by the 1997 flood. Campgrounds will be
restored or relocated. Lodging units lost to the flood will be
replaced at Yosemite Lodge and Curry Village. New facilities
will be designed and located where they will not experience
damage in future floods. Other projects include natural
resource restoration and improved road circulation to reduce
congestion and conflicts with people walking or riding
bicycles.
Beyond flood recovery, the Yosemite Valley Plan also
identifies many important projects that would require
additional funding and further approval from Congress and the
administration before they could proceed. For these projects,
we will do additional regulatory compliance that will involve
extensive community and public review and input, specifically
including the gateway communities.
In the Yosemite Valley Plan, we commit to fulfilling our
housing needs first in local communities. We have authority to
create public/private partnerships to build and operate housing
outside the Park. We intend to use private fundraising, where
appropriate, such as that we are doing with the Yosemite Falls
project. We would need to seek additional funding and approval
before we could provide out-of-valley parking areas and
associated shuttle systems.
There are exciting opportunities underway by several of the
local counties near the Park to develop regional transit that
has dramatic potential for lessening the amount of capital
expenditures called for in this Plan. Park visitors staying in
nearby communities, leaving their cars in the motel lot and
taking regional transit, could lessen the need to develop out-
of-valley parking and associated business systems in Yosemite.
Yosemite Valley is only seven miles long, and less than one
mile wide. The floor of the Valley is further constrained by
rockfall zones on both sides, and the flood plain of the Merced
Wild and Scenic River down the middle. Through the Yosemite
Valley Plan and extensive public involvement and studies, we
have addressed issues concerning space for campgrounds, tent
cabins, historic hotels, roads, bike paths, parking lots,
Housekeeping Camp and employee housing, while also providing
for and conserving the very natural scenery that draws people
to this very special park.
For the draft plan, testimony was received at 14 public
meetings throughout California. Public meetings were held in
Denver, Seattle, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. We held over 60
informal open houses and 59 walking tours to help people see,
on the ground in the Valley, what the Plan proposed. We made
150 presentations to interest groups and service clubs. This
resulted in over 10,200 comments that were used to modify the
Plan into the final Plan.
While the majority of commenters acknowledge that
recreational opportunities should continue to be available for
Yosemite Valley visitors, people differ, obviously, in their
opinions of what sort of activities should be allowed and how
they should be managed. While these choices are difficult, I am
pleased to report that traditional activities will, for the
most part, continue at levels that fit within the rockfall
hazard and flood plain that constrain us in Yosemite.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I will be happy to
answer any questions you or members may have.
As you know, I have with me Superintendent Dave Mihalic of
Yosemite, and I would appreciate your permission to invite him
to the table with me, so that we may all benefit from the most
knowledgeable answers to your questions as possible.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reynolds follows:]
Statement of John J. Reynolds, Regional Director, Pacific West Region,
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name
is John J. Reynolds and I am Regional Director of the Pacific West
Region of the National Park Service.
I am here today to report on the Yosemite flood recovery efforts,
the Yosemite Valley Plan and how it relates to the flood recovery
efforts, and future projects that will require us to come back to
Congress for more discussion.
As you may recall, a major flood occurred at Yosemite National Park
in January 1997 causing significant damage throughout the park. The
damage was so severe that Yosemite Valley was closed to the public for
three and one-half months and, in fact, reopened to the public four
years ago this month. In July 1997, Congress appropriated $186 million
for flood recovery repairs, with the proviso that these repairs be
carried out to help implement the park's 1980 General Management Plan.
An additional $11 million funding is available from the Federal Lands
Highway Program, for a total flood recovery program of $197 million.
I am pleased to report that since then, we are on track with the
flood recovery program. A substantial portion of the flood recovery
program has been completed, resulting in restoration of many different
types of public services. For example, 32 miles of damaged roads
throughout the park have been repaired and six miles of the El Portal
Road, one of three major access roads to Yosemite Valley has been
completely reconstructed. This road not only connects Highway 140 and
Mariposa to the valley, but also provides the connection to the park's
primary administrative and maintenance center in El Portal. Moreover,
138 miles of backcountry trails have been reconstructed, 25 trail
bridges have been repaired or rebuilt, and seven miles of paved bike
paths have been reconstructed. The park sustained substantial damage to
the valley water, wastewater and electrical systems, which has been
repaired. This vital infrastructure is critical to supporting both park
operations and visitor facilities.
As of February 28, 2001, $77 million has been obligated. Of the
balance, $106 million is for flood-affected facilities that are
included in the Yosemite Valley Plan, with the remainder for flood
damage repairs to infrastructure elsewhere in the park, outside of
Yosemite Valley. More information on these projects can be found in the
Flood Recovery Quarterly Report, which we routinely provide to
Congress.
At the end of last year, I approved the Yosemite Valley Plan and
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. This plan will implement
many of the goals of the park's 1980 General Management Plan and will
ensure Congress'' direction that flood appropriations be used for this
purpose. The 1980 plan established the broad goals to reclaim priceless
natural beauty; allow natural processes to prevail; promote visitor
understanding and enjoyment; markedly reduce traffic congestion; and
reduce crowding. The Yosemite Valley Plan was guided by these goals.
Since 1980, additional studies and analyses have been conducted,
particularly related to natural processes, visitor enjoyment,
transportation, and housing. In the early 1990's work on specific
improvement plans for housing, Yosemite Valley, and the Yosemite Falls
area was started. These efforts took on greater urgency following the
flood of 1997 with the need to replace visitor facilities damaged or
destroyed by the flood. The flood reconstruction plan for Yosemite
Lodge, in conjunction with the other pre-flood plans, spurred
litigation over concerns about fragmented planning. The litigation
resulted in the decision to create one comprehensive and integrated
Yosemite Valley Plan.
With the completion of this plan for Yosemite Valley, we are now on
track for completing the remainder of the flood recovery program. We
will soon begin to obligate the balance of the flood recovery funds on
those portions of the Yosemite Valley Plan that were affected by the
1997 flood. For example, campgrounds will be restored or relocated to
areas identified in the plan that are better able to sustain their
impacts or do not, in themselves, cause impacts to the Merced Wild and
Scenic River. Lodging units lost to the flood will be replaced at
Yosemite Lodge and Curry Village. As detailed in the Flood Recovery
Action Plan, new facilities will be designed and located where they
will not experience damage in future floods of similar magnitude. Other
projects include natural resource restoration and improved road
circulation, to reduce congestion and conflicts with people walking or
riding bicycles.
Beyond flood recovery, the Yosemite Valley Plan also identifies
many important projects that would require additional funding and
further approval from Congress and the administration before they could
proceed. For many of these projects, we will do additional regulatory
compliance that will involve extensive public review and input,
including input from the gateway communities. Some of these projects
include moving additional employee housing and services out of Yosemite
Valley.
In the Yosemite Valley Plan, we commit to fulfilling our housing
needs first in local communities. We have authority to create public-
private partnerships to build and operate housing outside the park. We
intend to use private fundraising, where appropriate, such as what we
are doing with the Yosemite Falls Project. We would need to seek
additional funding and approval before we could provide out-of-valley
parking areas and associated shuttle systems. However, there are
exciting opportunities underway by several of the local counties near
the park to develop regional transit that has dramatic potential for
lessening the amount of capital expenditures called for in this plan.
Park visitors staying in nearby communities, leaving their cars in the
motel lot, and taking regional transit could lessen the need to develop
out-of-valley parking lots and associated shuttle bus systems in
Yosemite. In fact, motels in gateway communities could offer their
guests a choice in how to visit the park.
Mr. Chairman, Yosemite Valley is only seven miles long and less
than one mile wide. The floor of the valley is further constrained by
rockfall zones on both sides and the floodplain of the Merced Wild and
Scenic River down the middle. Through the Yosemite Valley Plan and
extensive public involvement and studies, we have addressed issues
concerning space for campgrounds, tent cabins, historic hotels, roads,
bike paths, parking lots, Housekeeping Camp, and employee housing,
while also providing for and conserving the very natural scenery that
draws people to the park.
During the public comment period for the draft plan, testimony was
received at 14 public meetings throughout California. Public meetings
were held in Denver, Seattle, Chicago, and Washington, DC. In Yosemite
Valley, we held over 60 informal open houses and 59 walking tours to
help people see on the ground what the plan proposed. And we made 150
presentations to interest groups and service clubs. This resulted in
over 10,200 comments that were used to modify the draft and make
changes in the final plan in response to public input.
We have found that people are passionate in their opinions of what
should, or should not happen in Yosemite, and their input is important.
While the majority of commenters acknowledge that recreational
opportunities should continue to be available for Yosemite Valley
visitors, people differ in their opinions of what sort of activities
should be allowed and how they should be managed. While these choices
are difficult, I am pleased to report that traditional activities will,
for the most part, continue at levels that fit within the rockfall
hazard and flood plain that constrain us in Yosemite Valley.
We are fortunate that with the funding opportunities of the flood
recovery appropriations, the Fee Demonstration program, private
donations, public-private partnerships, and future line item projects,
we can implement the plan and restore natural processes and visitor
services that are vital to the very values people come to Yosemite to
enjoy--the meandering Merced River, the views of the thundering water
falls and shadowed granite walls, the lush meadows and the wildlife
that makes this valley its home.
That concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to answer
any questions that you or the members of the subcommittee may have.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Without objection for others to speak on
your behalf, I don't see any dissent on that. So ordered.
John, thanks for your testimony. The way I'm going to
handle this, I'm going to ask a couple of questions and then
we'll go quickly down. I would ask for--You know, typically the
thing is five minutes per person. I want to make sure that
everybody who has a question gets answers, but I don't want to
take up all the time initially, either. So we're going to pass
this baton along rather quickly, and we're going to go more
than one round. If you don't get every question asked your
first go around, you will have a second round. I just want to
make sure everybody has a chance to participate.
If you would set the clock to three minutes, then we'll go
ahead.
My first question, John, is that, as you know, the budget
request for this is $441 million. In the flood of 1997, there
had already been appropriated some $200,000 for improvements to
the Park. Much of that was spent on Highway 140, getting it
repaired and up and running, which leaves a balance of about
$106 million that's already available to you to begin spending
on this plan, in addition to gateway receipts that add up to
about $40 million.
Can you list for me specifically what you have the green
light on, to go ahead and begin spending on, and what you
intend to spend money on, given that appropriation already?
Mr. Reynolds. Yes, sir. We would begin immediately on guest
lodging and campground replacement and restoration; replacing
the existing shuttle fleet with a fleet that is much more
environmentally friendly; construct a transit center;
reconstruct trails, bridges and utilities; and reconstruct
concession employee housing so that the concessionaire can
operate in a more effective manner.
Mr. Radanovich. Did you mention also the campgrounds, the
upper and lower river campground projects as well?
Mr. Reynolds. As you know, sir, the upper and lower river
campgrounds are called for in the Plan to be restored to their
natural environment. They are in the natural waterway and
floodway of the Merced Wild and Scenic River. They have been
held in place so far by riprapping along much of the bank, on
the upper side of the river.
We are not, under the constraints of the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act; we may not continue--we are not allowed to continue
to protect that landscape in that manner. So as part of both
the mission of the National Park Service and the requirements
of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, we would restore the natural
environment of those two campgrounds. Work is called for in the
1980 plan to provide campsites, additional campsites, in other
parts of the Park.
Mr. Radanovich. And that is not lodging facilities outside
the Park to account for any loss of campground spaces or
anything like that; that is, actual campground spaces may not
be in the Valley itself but somewhere in the Park?
Mr. Reynolds. Yes, sir, that's correct.
Mr. Radanovich. What would be an example of some of these
projects that are part of the Plan that would require future
appropriations for outside that $140 million that's available
to you now?
Mr. Reynolds. Can I ask Dave to address that in detail,
sir?
Mr. Radanovich. Sure.
Mr. Mihalic. Mr. Chairman, I think that the question is
which ones are not yet funded, that are part of the Plan?
Mr. Radanovich. Yes, that would require future
appropriation from the Congress.
Mr. Mihalic. A good example of that would be Mr.
Doolittle's concern over the historic bridges, which are called
for removal in the Plan. Those are not yet--those do not have
funding appropriated for them.
Another example might be the satellite and out-of-valley
parking. That does not have funding. In fact, the Plan, before
we would actually construct those, calls for further
environmental review, public input, and a traffic management
study that we would do in order to best be able to build those
appropriately.
Mr. Radanovich. Okay. Thank you.
I'm going to defer to Mrs. Christensen, and we'll have more
questions. I do want to make the rounds for everybody first
before we answer any more.
Mrs. Christensen.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
I'm sort of concerned about the discrepancy and whether
there was enough public comment, and your statement about all
the outreach that you made and the number of hearings and so
forth that you had.
Do you feel that all of the communities that were involved
were reached through the various outreaches that were made by
the Park Service? Because we're hearing on the other side that
the communities have not been properly consulted.
Mr. Reynolds. Congresswoman, I would never decide that I
should speak for those communities. It was obviously our intent
and we tried very, very hard to include those communities. I
think, obviously, if they feel that they need additional ways
in which we can communicate, it is up to us to meet with them,
to find ways with them to do so.
We have started something that I don't think we've done
anywhere else with Mariposa County, which is now starting its
general plan, and Superintendent Mihalic and the Park are
working with the county now to try to come to a way where we
can do our plans for El Portal, which is within Mariposa
County, and the Mariposa County plan as one document that
serves us all and as one process led by the county and
participated in by us that results in that kind of thing.
So I think your question is a question that is one that is
very, very important. We felt very strongly that the design of
our involvement system would include the counties. The counties
I think would say that they would have liked additional and
different ways to be involved.
Mrs. Christensen. One of the concerns also is about the
lodging and whether the new Plan allows for enough
accommodation for visitors and so forth. In your plan, do you
think there's enough lodging, both within and outside the Park
to accommodate the usual number of visitors that would come to
Yosemite?
Mr. Reynolds. Congresswoman, in no park has it ever been
the intent of the Park Service to accommodate all the demand.
Instead, we've tried to accommodate that which is necessary and
appropriate, as the law says. Our intent has always been, and
continues to be, to provide the maximum amount of access to
people.
When the 1980 plan was approved, we expected some
development of overnight lodging to take place outside the
Park, because we put limits on the amount in the Park, and
called for further reductions. We were overwhelmed by the--I
mean, in terms of the emotion--by the amount of overnight
accommodations that has taken place outside the Park to serve
the needs of visitors, so that more people can come and stay in
the Yosemite area in the local economy. We expect the same
thing to continue to happen.
So I think whether or not visitors can have access to the
Park and enjoy the Park is very well taken care of, and will be
further taken care of by local private interests.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I will stop here and allow others to ask
questions.
Mr. Radanovich. All right. Thank you.
My Chairman, Mr. Hefley.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you, and I will try to be brief.
You have two charges as the Park Service. One of them is to
protect the resource and the other one is to provide for the
enjoyment of the public to enjoy that resource.
Why in the world would the Plan call for destroying these
historic bridges, which are one of the things that people do
remember when they leave the Park, in addition to the waterfall
and other things, and what is your plan for the horses, which
has been a part of the Park experience for, gosh, who knows,
generations, I suppose. It's kind of part of the western
experience that people enjoy, even if they don't ride the
horses anywhere, to see the horses in the park as part of the
western experience.
What are your plans for the horses and why would it call
for destroying the bridges?
Mr. Reynolds. Mr. Hefley, may I ask Mr. Mihalic to give you
a good, detailed answer? And if you would like to come back to
me, I would be happy to respond.
Mr. Mihalic. Mr. Chairman, it's an excellent question. With
respect to the bridges, as you know, with our mission, we are
required to do two things, not one or the other.
With the Merced River having been designated a wild and
scenic river under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, we were
confronted with the challenge of how to allow the river to be
free-flowing, as required by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act,
yet constrained by these bridges that were put in that cause
the river to act in an unnatural way, and sometimes even during
the flooding, act as dams.
What the Plan calls for is for the first bridge, the Sugar
Pine Bridge, to be removed, and because of controversy, we know
that the river will then react in a different way. The Plan
then calls for us to do a hydrologic study to determine whether
the other bridges need to be removed.
With respect to the horses, the Plan calls for the removal
of the commercial horse stable. The government horse stables
are also in the Valley. We're taking those stables out. The
commercial trail rides have been in conflict with other
visitors with respect to hikers, day hikers and backpackers
using the same trails. The trails that we're talking about
receive literally thousands of people on those trails a day out
of the Valley. With respect to the public input, we believe
that having the commercial trail rides will reduce that
conflict.
It is important to note that private horse users, day
users, people who bring their horses into the Valley and wish
to ride in the Valley, that will still be possible and trails
will still be open. It's only the commercial aspects that we're
calling to be removed.
Mr. Reynolds. May I also add that the rest of the Park, the
entire rest of the Park, is still open to horses, as it is
today, under this plan.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you.
Mr. Kildee, any questions?
Mr. Kildee. Thank you. I will be very brief. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
If the flood of 1997 had not occurred, would your plan for
this Valley been significantly different than what it is now,
or how different would it have been, perhaps, from the 1980
plan that had been developed for the Valley?
Mr. Reynolds. Sir, thank you. I don't believe, in having
participated extensively in both efforts, I don't believe it
would have been much different today. The reason for that is
we've learned, since the 1980 plan, about the actual extent of
the dangerous rockfall zone and the actual location of the
flood plain. Even if the flood hadn't occurred, there are other
floods that have been very, very near to the same volume and
aerial extent. So I think we would have been faced with exactly
the same constraints that we had as a result of the flood.
I think what the flood did was give us the opportunity and
the direction by the Congress to take that new knowledge into
account and create a plan and get on with doing it. So I think
the answer is it would not have been significantly different,
sir.
Mr. Kildee. In general, do we have to be careful with our
national treasures like this, to make sure that the reason that
attracts people to these places is we do not at the same time
destroy the very thing they came to see.
Mr. Reynolds. Yes, sir, I think that's the charge of the
National Park Service and why it's so much fun to work there.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. Thank you. It's good to see you again, Mr.
Mihalic. I appreciated your hosting me while I was there, to
explain and help me understand some of the concerns.
I have a quick question about the bridges. Are the bridges
historic structures?
Mr. Mihalic. Mr. Souder, yes, they are. They are designated
under the National Historic Preservation Act, because of their
age, as historic bridges.
Mr. Souder. It is suggested that, in trying to reconcile,
that there's a third thing in addition to the fact that we have
this dilemma, with different places where we have a historic
structure on historic natural ground and which takes
preeminence, but visitor enjoyment is also a third charge of
the National Park Service. So you're really trying to balance
multiple things.
In trying to sort through the parking question, is 550 the
maximum amount allowed under the Plan?
Mr. Mihalic. Mr. Souder, yes, 550 is the amount called for
under the Plan.
Mr. Souder. Could that be altered? Are there variables in
the plan that would allow that to go up, or is that fixed?
Mr. Mihalic. Mr. Souder, the Plan, as you know, includes an
environmental impact statement. As part of the environmental
impact statement process, we looked at an area in which the
day-use parking of 550 cars would go. It's important to note
that the total amount of parking in the Valley is actually over
2,000 cars. The remainder of that are for the Housekeeping
Camp, the campgrounds, the lodge, Curry Village, the Ahwahnee
Hotel. Everyone going there will have a parking place as well.
The 550 figure to which you refer is just for the day-use
parking lot.
In that area, we actually did an analysis that we could
probably fit as many as maybe half again as much as the 550,
maybe 800 vehicles, in that area. It is also important to note
that if we were to try to reverse the figure in terms of
reliance on buses, that that figure would probably be closer to
1,200 cars for day-use parking.
Mr. Souder. Could you explain that last statement again? In
other words, if you used buses, you would have fewer, longer-
term people in the park. Therefore, your day-use availability
of spaces would be higher; is that what you're saying?
Mr. Mihalic. Mr. Souder, the concern of Mr. Radanovich that
he mentioned was that he would like to see less reliance on the
out-of-valley parking and the bus system that would serve that
parking. The number that it would take to make the out-of-
valley shuttle only about three months of the year would be
around 1,200 cars for day-use parking.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. The chair recognizes Ms. McCollum from
Minnesota.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Reynolds, if I'm understanding your testimony
correctly, part of the contributing factor to the floods were
some of the man-made structures that were placed in the Park;
is that correct?
Mr. Reynolds. Yes, that's correct, particularly in the case
of some of the bridges.
Ms. McCollum. So part of the management plan was looking at
reducing potential flooding in the future by removing some of
these obstacles--and I understand you still have some hydraulic
studies that are going to progress forward, to see where or not
some of the structures should be removed. But the decision to
remove them would be to lessen the threat of flooding in the
future; is that correct, Mr. Reynolds?
Mr. Reynolds. It would be to--that's generally correct. It
would be to reduce the aerial extent of the floods above the
bridge, above the bridges, and let the natural flow of the
water take place.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair and Mr. Reynolds, I read in one of
the pieces of information that I have that you have about four
million visitors a year, is that correct, Mr. Reynolds?
Mr. Reynolds. It has actually been as high as four million.
I think last year it was about 3.7.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, could someone from the Park
Service tell me, in the next ten to twenty years, what do you
think, based on trending that you did in your Plan, what do you
think you might have for annual visitors?
Mr. Reynolds. I think we would have to come back to tell
you exact numbers, but with the population increases in
California and the continuing trends toward travel from all
over the United States and all over the world, I think the
pressures to visit national parks everywhere, including
Yosemite, is just going up.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That information coming
at a future time is fine.
[The response to the aforementioned question follows:]
In response to a question asked by Ms. McCollum to John
Reynolds concerning visitation trends at Yosemite:
While specific visitation projections for the next ten or
twenty years are not available, we expect visitation to the
park to continue increasing, based on the anticipated growth of
California's population and trends toward increased travel to
national parks from within the United States and abroad.
Ms. McCollum. I haven't had an opportunity to be there,
gentlemen, but the Yosemite Valley, along with the congestion,
often has a smog core to it. Could you tell me about the air
quality in the Park, if that's ever been a concern?
Mr. Reynolds. It has been a concern, from two sources. The
first source is within the Park itself, and it consists of
automobile exhausts and campfire smoke, if you will. At some
times of the year, it could be from natural or prescribed
fires.
The second source is out of the Park and is increasing. The
recent studies show that everything in the Sierras, all plant
materials in the Sierras below 6,000 feet--and the Valley is
just about 4,000 feet--all plant materials in the Sierras are
being damaged, about 29 percent of the plant materials in the
Sierras below 6,000 feet.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, if I could just make sure that I
understand the testimony, if I could do a follow up. Mr.
Reynolds, the cars that are going through on a heavy day use
are contributing to the lack of air quality, the potential smog
quality, for people that are hikers who could be suffering from
asthma, respiratory disease?
Mr. Reynolds. In the Valley itself. The intent of the Plan,
of course, is to reduce the adverse air quality within the
Valley from emissions produced inside the Park.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Radanovich. The gentleman with whom I share the Park
with, Mr. Doolittle. John?
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The bridges, tell me about the flooding problem. Well,
before we get into that, what was the bigger factor, the
flooding issue or the incompatibility of the Wild and Scenic
River status that dictated the selection of a plan that removes
these two bridges?
Mr. Reynolds. From my point of view--and if you would like
to have Dave answer as well, because we might get a more full
answer here--but from my point of view, it is the combination
of the two together. Had we not had the Wild and Scenic River
mandates, I'm sure we would have had a much more difficult time
making this decision.
Nonetheless, that being said, as we understand natural
systems better and better from better science, I'm sure we
would have had the same kind of discussions and probably come
to the same conclusion. But I think that focusing in on the
Wild and Scenic River helped us very much to focus in on this
issue.
Dave, do you want to add more to that?
Mr. Mihalic. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Doolittle, it's one of
the most difficult parts of not just the bridge question but
almost all the questions in the Valley, because our mission
from Congress is to conserve the scenery and the natural and
historic objects and the wildlife therein. So it's very
difficult to come to an either/or conclusion.
In this particular instance, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
has specific language that says that it shall take precedence
over other law. In order to keep the bridges, which are
obviously anchored on either side of the river, from washing
away during flood events, the river has been riprapped and the
channel has been kept in the bridges upstream, and then there's
been scouring downstream, which has caused the erosion to occur
below the bridges. In essence, what we've had to do is
constrain the river to fit where the bridges are.
It's a very difficult issue. It's obviously as much a
science issue as well as an emotional issue. I think we came
down on the side of trying to retain those natural features and
those natural processes in the Valley that the public does come
to see, and that's why we had originally proposed in the draft
plan the removal of three of the bridges. We said we will
remove the first bridge, do a hydrologic study, and then see
what happens after that.
Mr. Doolittle. Let me just observe that certainly a
different approach has been taken on other rivers. The American
River, below Nimbus Dam to the confluence of the Sacramento, is
a wild and scenic river. There are, I believe, close to half a
dozen bridges that traverse it. The river itself is impounded
by levees on both sides that are about 20, 25 feet high. No one
has ever suggested that we remove any of the bridges.
You know, in the case of Yosemite, I think you have erred
in the wrong direction by taking out those bridges.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. You're welcome.
Tom Udall from New Mexico.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Reynolds, it seems to me one of the issues here is the
impact on the Valley communities, the community outside of
Yosemite Valley. In looking at this and hearing your testimony
and the questions of others, it seems like what you're doing is
actually a ``win win'' for the communities outside the Valley,
in the sense that you're moving parking spaces, many of them,
to outside the Valley. So if there are parking spaces outside
the Valley, those individuals will park and shop in those
communities and be out there and then be able to take a shuttle
in.
The same thing is true, I think, for the concessions and
the hotel space. There are many new hotels being built, I
think, hotel rooms in the outside community. So there is more
of an opportunity for those people to spend time there.
Then the ``win'' on the Park side is having people come
into the Park and really enjoy the experience. It seems to me
that you're reaching a pretty good compromise here.
But could you give me your comments on that, in terms of
looking at both sides of this?
Mr. Reynolds. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question.
Obviously, as I came to the time to sign or not sign the
Record of Decision, I had to think about that very issue as
well as the rest of the issues that have been talked about
here. We believe, of course, we're headed there. I think a lot
of people actually believe that we're headed there, too.
I think the real issue, in relationship to the communities
here, and particularly as we have found out in the last several
months as we've gone into very detailed discussions with
Mariposa County, it's how we go about creating an understanding
between both of us and the need to raise our ability, to
improve our ability to do that, which I think many of the
counties are coming to.
I think that's one of the reasons that Dave came to the
Park almost two years ago, was to increase the relationship
between the Park and the communities prior to the time the
decisions were made. I would point to the recent developments
with Mariposa County to indicate how much we might be able to
do that.
I think it's a difficult question. I think it's a question
of agencies in transition, plus I think it's a question of
communities becoming much, much more concerned with their
relationship with their Park areas nationwide, not just in
Yosemite.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Could you tell us briefly about
the fee demonstration program, how that operates and how those
monies are to be used?
Mr. Reynolds. Yes. If it's all right with you, I'm going to
have Dave do that because he can illustrate with exact examples
from Yosemite as opposed to some more general things I might be
able to cover.
Mr. Mihalic. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Udall, the fees called for
in this Plan, we've actually been banking our fee revenue. We
get about $12 million a year and we want to apply it toward
this Plan.
Some examples of visitor facilities that would be funded by
the Plan would be everything from fixing up some of the water
and sewage treatment plants and the utilities that support
those visitor services, to some of the campground and road
projects and other restoration projects, and a lot of the
research that is needed to be done before we can actually do
the environmental compliance.
Mr. Reynolds. I might add to that, sir.
As you probably recall, we have fee demonstration authority
from the Appropriations Committee. The Park keeps 80 percent of
the fees that it collects in the Park to use for projects, and
those are primarily headed toward addressing the backlog of
infrastructure and resource projects within the Park.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Thank you both very much. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. I have additional questions, but I will do
them on the next round.
Mr. Radanovich. We'll make sure we get to them all.
Mr. Reynolds, I grew up next to Yosemite, and always the
common wisdom was don't go to Yosemite between Memorial Day and
Labor Day because it was crowded, that school was out and there
were a lot of people visiting. I know this plan attempts to
address that problem.
By the way, the only time it ever got on national TV, that
Yosemite had traffic problems, was either Memorial weekend of
the 4th of July or Labor Day. I think it created a problem that
in some ways could have been easier dealt with, rather than
this image that Yosemite has gridlock traffic 9 to 12 months
out of the year.
In the development of this Plan, I know there is a direct
relationship between YARTS, the busing system that would bus
people from points in the Valley, but also points in the
outlying communities into the Park and back. There is a direct
relationship between that and the amount of parking spaces that
this record decision has identified as being sufficient to meet
the demands for visitorship in Yosemite. You have settled on
550 spaces, but that includes the operation of YARTS for a
nine-month period.
I have always been a supporter of YARTS, but I have always
perceived it as being there to make the need when traffic was a
problem, when visitorship was at an excess, and that, to my
knowledge, would be a three-month period between Memorial Day
and Labor Day weekends.
Superintendent, you alluded a little bit earlier that
there's a direct relationship between the amount of time that
YARTS operates and how many spaces are required.
If YARTS were to operate on a three-month period, just so
that I understand it completely, was it said there would be
1,200 spaces required in the Park, different from the 550 that
are there now?
Mr. Mihalic. Actually, Mr. Chairman, I may have misspoken
and I apologize if I didn't say it quite correctly.
It is not so much the YARTS regional transit system, but
the Plan proposes three satellite out-of-valley parking areas--
Mr. Radanovich. Correct.
Mr. Mihalic. --which we would have to run an additional
shuttle bus service from that satellite parking into the
Valley. It would be that shuttle system that would work nine
months out of the year.
What we have said is, if YARTS is successful, YARTS is the
regional transit system, then we may not have to build or run
such a separate shuttle system. It may be that YARTS could
either do it under contract, or YARTS' regular normal regional
service may actually serve that need. Therefore, that aspect of
the Plan wouldn't have to be built, which would substantially
reduce the $441 million capital cost of the Plan.
Mr. Radanovich. Satellite parking aside, my question is, if
YARTS were to run for three months, from Memorial Day to Labor
Day, what would be, in your view, the necessary amount of
parking spaces in the Valley, not including the satellite
parking spaces, that would meet visitor demand?
Mr. Mihalic. From the studies--and we did extensive
transportation studies with transportation engineers. We worked
with Caltrans. We had other reviews of those studies. In order
to get it to three or four months, that summer period of which
you speak, we believe that you would need around 1,200 spaces
for day users in the Valley.
Mr. Radanovich. So for a three-month operation of YARTS,
you would need 1,200 spaces, not the 550 that were called for
in the Record of Decision?
Mr. Mihalic. That's correct.
Mr. Reynolds. Sir, if I may add, partially just for the
record, I think that the--Well, let me start over.
There are two trends that have taken place since the 1980
plan came out which are essential in understanding the
transportation issues. One is, the percent of the visitation to
the Park that is day use has gone way, way up. In addition to
that, the percent of the time that the Park has heavy
transportation issues has also gone way, way up. So visitation
has changed from primarily overnight use to primarily day use,
corresponding in large part to the increases in population at
the California location. And it has spread through the year
farther.
So the plan, just for the record, calls for eight months,
and for transportation four months. That was decided based upon
when the largest amount of transportation need was, because of
the trends in the way use is going. If California continues to
develop in the way that we all think it is, electricity aside
for the moment, we expect that the amount of time that the
Valley is heavily used and the percent of day-use visitation
will continue to go in the same way they have been. So that's
why there's a lot of difference between the 1980 plan and this
Plan here.
Mr. Radanovich. I think the debatable part is that by
using--The plan overly relies on the busing system, YARTS, in
order to meet that demand. It's the perception of some that the
overdependence on YARTS is another means of just basically
keeping people out of the Park, because YARTS, although it's
been on a test pilot program for the last year, has not
necessarily proven that it's going to be able to meet the
visitorship demands that are required on the Park. That's my
big issue with this plan, that it's been overly relied on.
As to the cost of also maintaining a bus system into the
Park, do you have information you can provide to me that would
show the cost of operating YARTS on an eight-month, 550 parking
space scenario, and also a three- or four-month operating
scenario at 1,200 spaces?
Mr. Reynolds. We would be glad to provide that. In
addition, you might be interested to know that if we did build
a 1,200 space site, it would probably be in the east Valley,
where there are no utilities, no electricity, no previous
development. You might be interested in the comparison cost to
build and operate that as well.
Mr. Radanovich. If you could separate out operating costs
with development costs, that would be fine.
Mr. Reynolds. Absolutely.
[The response to the aforementioned question follows:]
In response to questions asked by Mr. Radanovich to John
Reynolds concerning costs for an out-of-valley shuttle system:
The operating cost for an out-of-valley shuttle system
based on 550 day-use parking spaces would be approximately $7.4
million annually. An out-of-valley shuttle system is not
required if 1,200 day-use parking spaces are provided.
Development costs for an out-of-valley shuttle system
include construction of parking lots, utilities, water and
wastewater systems, and visitor information facilities at each
of three parking areas (Badger, El Portal, and Hazell Green).
In addition, development costs include purchase of fleet
vehicles, as well as construction of storage and maintenance
facilities. The estimated costs are $7.6 million for Badger,
$6.1 million for El Portal, and $14.2 million for Hazell Green.
A private developer is expected to cover the majority of
development costs for Hazell Green.
Mr. Radanovich. I'm sorry that Mrs. Christensen is not
here. I'm going to advance to Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Reynolds, back again to the parking. Some of the
parking areas you are eliminating, were they destroyed during
the flood?
Mr. Reynolds. I don't--I would not say there's any
significant day-use parking areas that were destroyed by the
flood. They are, instead, dispersed around the Valley and this
brings them together.
Ms. McCollum. Okay, thank you. I just wanted to be clear
that I had some information on that.
For me, I am struggling with--you can look at cost benefit
analysis and hard, cold cash, or you can look at cost benefit
analysis of maybe doing some transit and transportation for not
having ongoing, continuing maintenance of parking facilities.
So when you provide to the Chair here the cost of building the
parking lots, could you also include your best estimates for
what it's going to cost for repaving and replenishing and
taking care of these parking lots on an ongoing and continuing
basis? Because quite often we fail to do that.
Could you tell me a little more about what you have done to
monitor air quality inside of the Park and what might happen if
we don't do something about automobile emissions going into the
air, how it might impact people being able to camp and have
fires in the Park? Is there something maybe you can point me to
or let my staff know about air quality that is in the plan?
Mr. Reynolds. I think--First, in answer to your first
question about cost, the answer is yes, just for the record.
Second, I think it would be far more instructive for us to get
good information to you rather than for us to give you sort of
an overview that wouldn't teach any of us very much, if that's
all right with you. We can provide it for the record and to
your staff.
Ms. McCollum. That's what I said. You can provide it to my
staff or in the documentation. Thank you.
[The response to the aforementioned question follows:]
In response to questions asked by Ms. McCollum to John
Reynolds concerning road maintenance and air quality:
Specific maintenance costs for the roads and parking lots
associated with the shuttle system have not been determined.
Although implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan will reduce
the number of automobiles, the number of buses will increase.
The heavier weights will initially cause greater wear and tear
on park roads, primarily on older asphalt. As roads are
upgraded to accommodate the heavier bus traffic, they will be
better able to withstand the loads. Once the roads have been
upgraded, it is not expected that there will be significant
differences from current maintenance costs. Similarly, parking
lots for the shuttle system will be constructed to a standard
appropriate for the types and numbers of vehicles that will use
them. Once constructed, cyclic maintenance costs are expected
to be consistent with current costs.
The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement included air quality analyses for each
alternative considered. The document concluded:
LCompared with Alternative 1 (existing condition),
Alternative 2 (preferred alternative) would produce moderate
adverse impacts on nitrogen oxides emissions, moderate
beneficial impacts on carbon monoxide and particulate matter
emissions, and minor beneficial impacts on volatile organic
compounds emissions with the use of diesel fuel in shuttle
buses through 2015. There would also be a moderate, beneficial
impact on sulfur dioxide emissions. Alternative 2 would achieve
a major reduction in PM 10 emissions associated With reductions
in vehicle miles traveled and road dust. In comparison with
diesel fuel for shuttle buses under Alternative 2, the use of
fuel cells would result in lower vehicle traffic emissions for
all pollutants by 2015. Emission reductions under Alternative 2
would be the greatest for all pollutants with fuel cell
technology in the shuttle bus fleet. With the use of diesel,
propane, or compressed natural gas in shuttle buses, emissions
of three of the four pollutants would be reduced under
Alternative 2.
LAir emissions associated with construction and demolition
projects would be minor and occur over a relatively short-term
period. (See Vol. IB, p. 4.2-125).
Mr. Radanovich. Mark?
Mr. Souder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First I would like to note for the record one last comment
on the bridge question and the wild and scenic river.
Clearly, a wild and scenic river in a park needs to be more
sensitively treated than outside of a park. At the same time,
this has always been a dilemma with Yosemite, because when you
come in from Congressman Radanovich's home town, clearly the
wild and scenic river has been partially filled in and
riprapped because of the road. In fact, the National Park
Service is in a fairly--hopefully it will be worked out soon--
but a contested suit over the last part of the road, where your
car practically gets destroyed with the lack of width and the
potholes in the road. So, in that situation, I think the Park
Service is doing the absolutely right thing, to just widen it
and do minimal damage to the river, but accommodate visitors.
It's a combination of historic structures, the visitor, and the
wild and scenic river. In fact, this isn't a pure
wild and scenic river, or people wouldn't be able to get into
the Park. They would be doing like John Muir did, going on
mules and trying to go up the side of the hills to get in.
A second thing, I would appreciate you providing some
clarity for the record in an additional supplemental statement,
because I have the Park Service data--and we're going to hear,
I'm sure, additional data. But what was the number of lodging
units pre-flood, now in your proposed post-flood? Because I
have here the number of lodging units would change from 91 to
61, but I assume that's from current to post-flood as opposed
to pre-flood. And similarly for camping, which your statement
says is currently 465, the draft would take it to 500, and I
wanted to see a pre-flood number with that as well.
One other question I want to make sure I get in here. This
bell curve that goes up in the middle months--and we had a
question about whether the shuttle would be financially
feasible, and you were going to provide that data. Has there
been discussion about that peak period, charging for some of
the day parking and helping fund a shuttle by the people who
are willing to pay for the parking? Because many people,
particularly those who have driven from long distances, may be
willing to pay that extra. It would be a small percentage of
their cost, whereas those who are day users, in fact, if you
could reduce the shuttle cost, might feel differently and would
still accomplish some of the same goals.
Mr. Reynolds. Could Dave answer these?
Mr. Souder. Yes.
Mr. Reynolds. Thank you.
Mr. Mihalic. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Souder, with respect to
the camping, there were about 800 campsites pre-flood. The
draft called for about 465 sites. As a result of public input
and public comment, we revised that in the final Plan to around
500 sites, again, the numbers mostly being in the River's
campground area that we spoke of earlier, that would not be
retained in the Valley. But those numbers could be provided for
elsewhere in Yosemite National Park from the general management
plan that proposed other areas.
With respect to the actual number of lodging units, I would
feel more comfortable getting back to you with exact numbers
rather than do it off the top of my head, if that's okay with
you, sir. And...
[The response to the aforementioned question follows:]
In response to questions asked by Mr. Souder to John
Reynolds and David Mihalic concerning the number of lodging
units and campsites in Yosemite Valley:
Prior to the 1997 flood there were approximately 800
campsites in Yosemite Valley. At present, there are 475
campsites, and the Yosemite Valley Plan calls for an additional
25 sites for a total of 500.
With respect to lodging, before the 1997 flood there were a
total of 1,510 lodging units available in Yosemite Valley,
spread among Housekeeping Camp, Curry Village, Yosemite Lodge,
and the Ahwahnee. At present, there are 1,260 lodging units
available in the valley. The Yosemite Valley Plan calls for a
total of 961 lodging units. It should be noted that, in
comparison to the existing conditions, the mix of
accommodations in Yosemite Valley will be geared more toward
affordable economy lodging units.
A full description of the lodging and camping scenarios can
be found in Volume IA of the Yosemite Valley Plan l
Supplemental EIS.
Mr. Souder. ...whether or not you had looked at the parking
fees.
Mr. Mihalic. With respect to market and stuff like that, we
did not consider that in the Valley Plan itself. We have talked
about using either the market or that type of differential
pricing as a possibility when we do the traffic management plan
that the Yosemite Valley Plan calls for us to do, and look at
ways of either utilizing the fee structure to fund the shuttle
system, or to use it in a way to manage demand, such as demand
for airport parking is used, whether you park in the long-term
lot and take the shuttle, or you park up close to the terminal.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Chairman, I have two groups waiting outside
that I need to see. Can I ask one more question now, and then I
will come back a little bit later.
Mr. Radanovich. Sure. Go ahead, Mark.
Mr. Souder. And this may require additional data as well
for the record.
Mr. Reynolds, you said day use numbers had gone up
substantially. I wondered whether or not that day use number is
up--In other words, is it because there is not overnight
capacity? In other words, is that day use up mostly in the
summer periods when, in fact, there may be minimal capacity for
overnight lodging, and in a day use figure, do you figure in
people who may come in one day, come back out to a gateway
community, and come back in the next day?
Mr. Reynolds. I will provide the information. But, in
general, I would like to say--I was talking about the
percentage that has gone up. The visitation in the Park has
only increased slightly over time, but the percentage
difference--Part of it is because the external community is
providing so much overnight accommodations these days, that
that contributes, of course, to the percent that's day use.
Mr. Souder. Because, in fact, if the number of campground
spaces go from 800 down to 465, and some lodging after flood,
your day use percentage would go up because they wouldn't have
an alternative.
Mr. Reynolds. Right. I would be glad to provide some
information, and if we need to talk about it, we can do that,
too.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Mr. Reynolds. Thank you, sir.
[The response to the aforementioned question follows:]
In response to a question asked by Mr. Souder to John
Reynolds concerning lodging capacity and day-use visitation:
In 1980, visitation to Yosemite National Park was
approximately 2.5 million people, the majority of whom stayed
overnight in the park. In recent years, visitation has varied
between 3.6 million and 4.3 million, although no additional
overnight accommodations were provided inside the park. In
response to the increased demand for overnight accommodations,
hotels, motels, bed and breakfasts, campgrounds, and other
visitor services have been provided by the private sector in
the gateway communities. Damage caused by the 1997 flood
resulted in a reduction in the amount of overnight
accommodations in the park, placing additional demand for
services on the gateway communities. As the number of visitors
staying outside of the park in the gateway communities
continues to increase, the percentage of park visitors that are
day-users will increase accordingly. Visitors who stay in
lodging outside the park in the gateway communities or
elsewhere are counted as day-use visitors each time they enter
the park
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Udall.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Back to the fee demonstration issue. My understanding is
that the fee demonstration project was started as a result of
trying to allow you to do projects and the need for money.
Could you give us a little background on that?
Mr. Reynolds. Gee, I can't remember what year we started
the fee demonstration program, but Congress authorized us to do
a fee demonstration program and relieved us of having the
Congress setting the fees park by park by park, and also
relieved us of having to send the fees back to the general
treasury.
The idea of the demonstration program is to try a lot of
different things in a lot of different places. There's a
hundred different fee demonstration projects within the
National Park System, some multi-park, and to be able to show
what we accomplished because we were able to get the money
directly, rather than have it go back to the general treasury.
In general, it has been an incredible boon to the National
Park Service. Although the backlog figures, as we all know, are
still very high for maintenance and resource issues, they would
be higher had it not been--much higher, had it not been for the
fee program. It's been extremely successful in the National
Park System.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Thank you, Mr. Reynolds. My point
there--and I'm not asking you to comment on this--is that I
have heard rumors and comments that this administration, in
terms of pulling together the budget, may well try to move some
of that fee demonstration money into other areas, other than
specifically back to the National Parks, as 80 percent of it is
supposed to go. That is something that would concern me a lot,
because I think we have, as you pointed out, huge maintenance
needs and resource needs that this program provides for. So I
think we need to keep that money right where it is.
Back to the automobile usage and parking spaces and all of
that. Is there a big need for having an automobile after you
get into the Valley there? Are we talking about hiking huge
distances or something, or are we talking about a fairly narrow
area where the ability to use an automobile is very limited?
Mr. Reynolds. The Valley is seven miles long and one mile
wide. It is generally flat. It's a marvelous place to bicycle
and walk. Increasing numbers of users particularly want to
bicycle. So our proposals are to try to make the Valley more
tranquil and make the Valley quieter, have less intrusion of
automobiles, and have as many or more people than we do today
enjoying the Park, at a pace in which they can take in the
grandeur, take in the sublimity of that place that doesn't
exist anyplace else in the world.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Thank you, Mr. Reynolds. I applaud
you for that part of the plan. I think that's a very important
thing you're doing. I think the idea of reducing automobile
usage and trying to get the experience of the visitor to be
heightened, and doing that with walking and bicycles and those
kinds of things, I think makes a real difference. I think those
of you who have worked on that plan have thought this out well
and I applaud you on that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. You're welcome.
Mr. Doolittle?
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Does it concern either of you gentlemen that the Merced
River Plan was released for comment just, I believe, four days
before the end of the comment period on the Valley Plan?
Mr. Reynolds. Well, if it--I don't have the schedules in
front of me, but as I recall, there was more time than that.
But I would have to check. Obviously, if there were just four
days, I would probably have to be concerned.
Mr. Doolittle. Because the two plans are closely
intertwined, are they not?
Mr. Reynolds. Absolutely. As a matter of fact, the Yosemite
Valley Plan is constrained by the Merced River Plan.
Mr. Doolittle. The facts that I have before me indicate
that my assertion about that is, indeed, correct. I would
appreciate your looking into it and submitting for the record
what the answer is. If it should be different than that, then--
I understand there wasn't much time. If four days is not right,
I don't believe there were very many days between the release
for inspection by the public of the Merced River Plan and the
end of the comment period for the Valley Plan.
Mr. Reynolds. We would be glad to provide that.
[The response to the aforementioned question follows:]
In response to a question asked by Mr. Doolittle to John
Reynolds concerning the timing of the Final Merced River Plan
and the Yosemite Valley Plan:
The Final Merced River Plan was available by mail and on
the park's website on June 20, 2000. The comment period on the
Draft Yosemite Valley Plan closed on July 14, 2000.
While the Final Merced River Plan was being printed during
the spring of 2000, the park actively provided information to
the public about its contents. At each of the 19 formal public
meetings on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan during May and June
2000, and at the 63 open houses held throughout the public
comment period, information regarding the Final Merced River
Plan was made available to the public.
Mr. Reynolds. In addition, as you well now, the Yosemite
Valley Plan was started long before the Merced River Plan was
finished, and so--
Mr. Doolittle. It must have been in the works for 20 years,
right?
Mr. Reynolds. Well, this particular piece. Actually, as
others here in this room know, it has been a lot longer than 20
years.
Mr. Radanovich. Wasn't the plan created before Yosemite was
created? Forgive me, John--
Mr. Reynolds. No. As a matter of fact, just as an aside,
Yosemite never had a long-range plan approved for it until
1980, so it came about originally in 1864, so that's a long way
to have any rational piece of paper in front of you.
Mr. Doolittle. It's my understanding there was a 90-day
comment period on the draft, and then a 90-day comment period
on the final. Is that correct?
Mr. Reynolds. Yes, sir.
Mr. Doolittle. For a plan that you have said was even
longer than 20 years--and I thought 20 years sounded pretty
long--does that strike you as unnecessarily brief, given the
severe potential impacts this plan can have on everything, from
the visitor experience, to the quality of the resource
management, to the impact on the gateway communities?
Mr. Reynolds. Well, sir, obviously my answer has to be no,
and it's twice as long as the norm is in the regulation. But,
on the other hand, I would agree with you, that the public, in
all of its forums, should have ample time. We believe that
there was, and we made a tremendous effort to get out and to be
able to talk to people in their communities.
I would have to say that yes, we did provide a lot of
opportunity for people to be involved.
Mr. Doolittle. If your research confirms that there was a
very brief period between the release of the Merced River Plan
and the close of the comment period on the Valley Plan, would
you support a reopening of the Valley Plan for an extended
comment period?
Mr. Reynolds. No, sir, I would not.
Mr. Doolittle. Would you support reopening of the Plan
under any circumstances?
Mr. Reynolds. No, sir, I would not. And the reason is that
I believe there is lots and lots in this Plan that is both
funded and agreed to by a lot of people.
Mr. Doolittle. Sir, didn't you indicate earlier that you
would be concerned if there were only a few days between the
release of the Merced River Plan and the close of the comment
period? I thought I understood that manifestation of concern.
Mr. Reynolds. I did. But I--
Mr. Doolittle. But it wasn't that strong a concern
apparently.
Mr. Reynolds. But I would also take into account how much
people had the opportunity before the Yosemite Valley Plan was
finalized to take into account what happened.
If I may continue, the reason I would not reopen it is
because I think there's lots of things that a lot of people
agreed to, and there is some money to be able to do those
things right away.
If we stop, nothing will happen in Yosemite for probably
another 10 years. The current condition that exists there today
will be the status quo for that time.
Mr. Doolittle. Oh, I have other questions, but my time is
up.
May I just ask this one. Air quality is one of the concerns
advanced for restricting the cars, is that right?
Mr. Reynolds. Yes.
Mr. Doolittle. Could you confirm, then--with reference to
the Merced River Plan, I am told that the Plan deleted air
quality as an outstanding resource value. True or false?
Mr. Mihalic. Mr. Doolittle, I think we'll have to get back
to you exactly. But as an outstanding resource value for the
River, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act specifically speaks to
issues in which the value is directly related to the River, and
if I recall, between the draft and the final, air quality was
deleted as an outstanding resource value for the Merced River.
In other words, the Merced River was not designated a wild
and scenic river because of air quality. What that doesn't
imply is that it somehow is not an outstanding resource value,
in a sense, for the Valley or for our planning efforts for
Yosemite National Park.
Mr. Doolittle. Well, I'll close with this. I would just
observe, Mr. Chairman, that the deletion of air quality as an
outstanding resource value has the effect to advance forward
this mass transit plan. Those buses will be belching diesel
fumes, because that's the available technology. That's a far
dirtier quality of air than would be coming out of automobiles.
It's important that air quality be deleted as an outstanding
resource value from this plan in order to allow the mass
transit to move forward.
I would just submit that this whole thing has been
manipulated by the Park Service to promote these buses. I would
like to say more about it and ask more questions, but I'm out
of time. I thank you.
[The response to the aforementioned question follows:]
Response to a question asked by Mr. Doolittle to John
Reynolds concerning the decision not to use air quality as an
outstanding resource value in the Merced River Plan:
Air quality was not included in the Merced River Plan as an
Outstandingly Remarkable Value because it does not meet the
criteria for such. In accordance with the Interagency Wild and
Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council Reference Guide (joint
document prepared by the Bureau of Land Management, National
Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S.
Forest Service) in order to be considered, two vital questions
must be answered to establish the criteria for selection of
Outstandingly Remarkable Values:
LIs the value river-related or river-dependent?
LIs the value rare, unique, or exemplary in a
regional or national context?
Air quality does not meet the criteria for being included
as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value, and was not included in
the original 1987 Wild and Scenic River designation..
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Doolittle.
Mrs. Christensen.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to go back a bit to traffic, realizing that at least
half of the emissions, half of the air quality, is affected by
automobile emissions, but there is also a matter of a lot of
congestion and traffic congestion.
What would be the level of traffic congestion in the
Yosemite Valley on a typical summer day?
Mr. Reynolds. That is kind of--I don't know how to
characterize this so that it's understandable.
Mrs. Christensen. Even though it's a seven-mile long area,
there is an area that is probably more likely to get a lot of
traffic, a particular area.
Mr. Reynolds. Obviously, there are locations within the
Valley that exhibit congestion, severe congestion, more so than
other locations in the Valley. It is the intent of this Plan to
not only eliminate those but to create a situation where
additional places in the Valley do not become severely
congested.
Mrs. Christensen. But in reducing the amount of traffic,
that would really enhance or improve the visitor experience,
would it not? Isn't that what you're getting towards, instead
of having a lot of traffic going through, wouldn't reducing the
traffic really--For an area where most people can walk or bike
or so forth, does it enhance it or does it go against the
visitor experience?
Mr. Reynolds. We believe it enhances it tremendously.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. I think that answers my
question.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much.
To address a number of things that have been said in the
past, this air quality thing is not relevant, I think, to this
Plan, at least in my opinion, because so much of the air
pollution that might happen in Yosemite comes from everywhere,
from San Francisco and all points in between, meaning the Bay
Area, the Central Valley. The trade winds, on inversion days,
bring all that smog up against the west side of the Sierras.
This Plan is really six of one and half-dozen of the other
as far as air quality is concerned in the Park, don't you
think? Give me some reason to think otherwise.
Mr. Mihalic. Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Doolittle's concerns
are certainly valid. If we meant to imply that air quality
wasn't a concern of ours, then we misspoke, because--
Mr. Radanovich. No, I know that air quality is a concern,
but this Plan doesn't address that, unless its campfires.
Mr. Mihalic. This plan does address air quality because of
the issues of the foothill communities, which are both in your
district and Mr. Doolittle's district, the counties that will
become nonattainment areas.
One of the official air quality monitoring sites for
Mariposa County is--
Mr. Radanovich. --is Yosemite Valley.
Mr. Mihalic. --is in Yosemite Valley. So if we can reduce
air quality in Yosemite Valley, it obviously will be of benefit
to the remainder of the county. And since both Tuolumne County
and Mariposa County are both going to be treated as one air
quality district, we believe--
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Chairman, did the witness mean if they
can improve air quality or reduce air quality? The bus plan
will reduce air quality, I believe, but I think you meant to
say if you can improve it.
Mr. Mihalic. That's what I did mean to say, Mr. Doolittle.
Thank you.
Mr. Reynolds. And I might clarify that the buses that we
are specifying are California standard buses for the future
standard. They are the cleanest buses in the world. They are
not the traditional bus that exists today.
Mr. Radanovich. But to say that the Yosemite Plan improves
air quality in the Park and enhances the visitor experience I
think is a real stretch, mainly because the bulk of the air
quality issues are a result of Bay Area pollution, air
pollution, and Central Valley.
I mean, if you're going to address it, unfortunately, you
have to address that in order to make this work. I mean, that's
just my comment.
Mr. Reynolds. First, within the Valley, we can improve the
air quality in the Valley by reducing the number of miles
traveled, with high technology buses. So we can improve the air
quality of the Valley.
Mr. Radanovich. But it will never have a significant
impact, I think, on the air quality because you can't deal with
Bay Area and Central Valley pollution.
Mr. Reynolds. Nonetheless, we are required by law to
reduce--
Mr. Radanovich. Right, I understand. But to say this is a
big improvement in air quality for the Park I think is a bit of
a stretch.
Mr. Reynolds. It is an improvement. I will leave out the
word ``big''.
Mr. Radanovich. Let's have a discussion about bridges now.
There are three bridges that are planned to be removed,
according to this Plan; am I right?
Mr. Mihalic. Mr. Chairman, there were three proposed in
the draft plan. There is only one bridge proposed in the final
plan, with a hydrologic study to look at the effects of, once
the first bridge is removed, then determining about the other
bridges.
Mr. Radanovich. And that would be Stoneman?
Mr. Mihalic. The bridge to be removed is Sugar Pine Bridge,
which would be the farthest bridge upstream, and then Stoneman
would only be removed if the hydrologic study determined that
it would be necessary to meet the requirements of the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act.
Mr. Radanovich. Now, to my knowledge--is it Sugar Pine
Bridge, did you say, Dave?
Mr. Mihalic. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. This is a bridge that is not on a road any
more, right?
Mr. Mihalic. That's correct, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. What's the point of keeping the bridge?
Mr. Mihalic. Well, the point would be one of two points. As
Mr. Doolittle rightfully points out, it is a historic bridge,
and under the National Historic Preservation Act, has historic
values which we are required to look at, just as we look at any
other values. Right now it is part of the trail system, and we
believe we could actually reroute the trail around fairly
easily to get around that bridge. It is part of our trail
system. It is not part of the road system.
Mr. Radanovich. Then the other bridge was the foot-bridge
that went from across the River from Housekeeping. Is that not
a part of the final ROD?
Mr. Mihalic. The bridge from Housekeeping was part of the
draft plan, and as a result of public input, we determined that
we would not remove it as part of the final Record of Decision.
Mr. Radanovich. Is it possible to use the money that's been
appropriated already to restore Stoneman Bridge to where it was
prior to any flooding? As you know, the way Stoneman Bridge is
set up, there is the arch where the river runs through, and
then there's two passageways for pedestrians on each side,
which is now part of the river, because the river is flooded
and the banks have not been restored to pre-flood stages.
Can you use part of that money to restore the bridge for
the use that it was originally intended?
Mr. Reynolds. I think we're looking at each other because I
think you know more than we do in this case.
Mr. Radanovich. It would just be pushing the bank back up
to the river. I think the problem--
Mr. Reynolds. I would like to provide an official answer
for the record. But I think the answer is no, because of the
impact on a free flowing wild and scenic river.
[The response to the aforementioned question follows:]
Response to a question asked by Mr. Radanovich to John
Reynolds concerning the Stoneman Bridge:
At Stoneman Bridge, the Merced River has widened to the
point where the bridal paths that passed through the arches on
either side of the bridge have been inundated. This widening
has been caused by ongoing and gradual changes in the dynamics
of the river, rather than as a result of the 1997 flood.
Following the flood, the damage assessments identified bridge
abutment damage at Tenaya, Sugar Pine, and Ahwahnee Bridges,
but did not note any damage at Stoneman Bridge. Therefore, no
flood recovery funding was requested for Stoneman Bridge.
Mr. Radanovich. Has there been any studies to split
Stoneman Bridge and just lengthen it, in order to save the
bridge?
Mr. Reynolds. No, there has not been.
Mr. Radanovich. Part of the problem with Stoneman Bridge is
the bridge itself, and that the river, if left alone, would go
around the bridge and make it an island. The other part is that
it's a vital link to a part of the northside drive, which a lot
of people don't want to see removed, and that's part of what
the controversy is.
But there isn't that type of controversy on the Sugar Pine
Bridge to the north. That literally is a bridge that--it's part
of the walkway system, but it's not being used by automobiles
right now, right?
Mr. Reynolds. Correct, sir.
Mr. Radanovich. With regard to consultation, it has always
been my opinion that, in this process of public hearings, I
think they began to do a lot of good. I think some of the far
flung ideas for solutions to the Yosemite traffic problem were
vetted properly and I think the Park Service learned a lot from
these public hearings, and also the outlying communities did.
I thought that it was hastened, though, by the end of the
Clinton administration in their desire to want to have a Record
of Decision by the time the administration ended. I think it
would have been better served had this public hearing process
gone on for perhaps another six months to a year. I think we
could have gotten to some better solutions.
Now, you are not beholding to the prior administration. I
guess what I want is some idea from you as to whether or not
you think this project was hastened and improperly drawn to a
conclusion by the end of this last administration.
Mr. Reynolds. I am probably a bad person to ask, sir,
because I have been, as you know, involved in the planning and
decision making for the Yosemite Valley for 25 years. So I
think if there's anyone that wanted to have a very good
process, that included lots and lots of people and took into
account the best information we had available and get a
decision so we could start spending the flood money, it was me.
It was me.
So I didn't feel a particular lot of pressure from the
Secretary. I mean, he never came and told me, ``John, you had
better damn well have this thing done.'' But I wanted it done
pretty badly. I also wanted to have what I considered to be a
very open process, with lots and lots of public involvement.
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Mihalic, would you care to respond?
Mr. Mihalic. Mr. Chairman, I think obviously there would be
opinions that would differ on whether to stretch the planning
out further or bring it to some conclusion. The very good thing
about having a deadline--and I'm reminded that this process
started long before I got to the Park--the very good part about
having a deadline was that it did focus people's attention, it
kept people engaged, for the time period since the flood in
1997 until the end of December of 2000, when the Record of
Decision was signed, everybody who had an interest in Yosemite
was heavily involved and engaged, not necessarily full time,
but certainly fully engaged in the planning process. I think it
actually gave us a better plan as a result.
My concern is that if we keep it up as it was prior to the
flood, where planning just happened every now and then and
never came to conclusion, we would never get to a final plan.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much.
Ms. McCollum, did you have any questions?
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chairman, I know you were moving on to
bridges, but in the Yosemite Final Plan, it does--and I won't
get into all that, Mr. Chair--there is some serious discussion
about air quality in here, ozone. We have done much, probably
because of the stringent laws that California has passed, in
going from 1995, 11 days exceeding the California standard, to
1997, which is the last date on here, three days of the
standard.
Congressman Doolittle, I certainly agree with you, that
buses do pollute. But I think if we were to look on the basis
for California emission standards, one bus versus 40 cars going
through, I think we would start seeing an analysis that would
show we're better off with more condensed people making fewer
trips.
Mr. Chair, I also would like to ask the Park Service if
they would be kind enough--When I was asking for the
maintenance on the parking lots, I forgot to ask for your
maintenance on roads, too, and the contributing factors, or
what you might see in road savings by having fewer vehicles
going on your Park roads. If you could provide that to me, also
at your convenience, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Reynolds. We will do so.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you.
Mr. Udall.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just to follow up on Ms. McCollum's question here on the
buses, for the record, could you tell me--are you talking about
future buses that are going to be the latest California buses,
and could you tell us about that bus, the pollution, and what
it runs on?
Mr. Reynolds. Dave can, sir.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Reynolds. I'm glad we have him here today.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. So am I.
Mr. Mihalic. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Udall, the bus issue, as
has been pointed out, the Plan does discuss air quality quite
extensively.
With respect to the buses, in almost all of the measurable
areas of air quality, the Plan will call for reductions in
those various parameters of air quality, overall.
The buses we're speaking to are actually two different
kinds of buses. The buses that we are moving forward now to
replace the existing shuttle fleet in the Valley, which are
diesel buses, they are diesel buses of old technology, we--
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. So that have extensive particulate
emissions and all the--
Mr. Mihalic. They're horrible, sir.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. And the smoke that you see on the
freeways and all that with diesels, the same kind of thing?
Mr. Mihalic. Exactly.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. And you're replacing those?
Mr. Mihalic. We're replacing those. It will take--with the
Federal procurement process, it will take about two years to
get either alternative fuel or a hybrid fuel type of vehicle,
hybrid meaning either a very small gas or diesel engine that is
very efficient, that then drives a generator for electric
powered buses, or something similar in terms of alternative
fuels. Those are in the Valley where it's flat.
The buses that will have to come from outside the Park into
the Valley, if we had fuel cell technology, we would make a
huge difference. But that's years away. We could either wait
for that technology to happen, or what we have proposed is
that, with the clean diesel standards that California has
proposed, that any buses that would be used in shuttle systems
would meet those clean fuel standards. But it would have to be
diesel at this point because they're going from 1,000 feet up
to 4,000 feet. As Mr. Reynolds said, the Valley floor is about
4,000 feet, so it's constantly going uphill and then back
downhill. That would have to be diesel technology, but it would
be the best available. We would hope the future diesel
technology for California standards will be the best in the
Nation.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Go ahead, Mr. Reynolds.
Mr. Reynolds. I believe the new California standards go
into effect in 2004, if I'm not mistaken, so all diesel in
California will have to move to the new standard.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. So we're talking about not only
improving air quality, in terms of changing over to these
buses, but we're probably talking about lowering the noise
level, too, with the noisiness that diesels have compared to
these newer technologies you're talking about.
Mr. Reynolds. For the shuttles in particular inside the
Valley, yes.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. You're welcome.
I'm going to ask a couple more questions, and then we'll
move on to the next panel. One thing I wanted to mention, I
have a memo dated August 4, 1999, from then Secretary of
Interior Bruce Babbitt, to members of the National Park
Service, which was a comment that was a reaction from a Federal
court ruling that enjoined the Park from doing any further work
on the planning effort because of an issue with the Merced
River.
In that the Secretary states, ``Bob Anderson has advised me
that it is still possible to complete a final Valley EIS by the
end of FY 2000, and I have directed him to see that these
interim deadlines are met and that the ROD is signed prior to
the end of the Clinton administration.'' So it really was the
goal, I think, of this past administration to get this thing
done, whether it was done in a timely manner or not.
Two more questions and then I'll be done. You mentioned the
upper and lower river campgrounds being in the flood plain.
Does that mean that both campgrounds are entirely within the
flood plain?
Mr. Reynolds. Yes, sir, that's correct.
Mr. Radanovich. So the entire campgrounds are included in
that?
Mr. Reynolds. Yes, sir.
Mr. Radanovich. The other question I have, the Park Service
and concessionaire housing continue to be an area of concern to
employees in Yosemite. Congress has authorized the Park to
contract for off-site housing for employees in 1996.
What progress has been made in that effort, and what do we
need to do to encourage movement toward the public-private
partnership?
Mr. Reynolds. Well, I think both of us should answer that.
The first thing I would say is, the more encouragement that you
and the Committee and anybody else can give us, the better off
we're all going to be.
The Park Service has not made significant strides in
implementing that part of the law. Knowledge in Yosemite about
ways in which that might happen is probably higher than
anyplace else in the Park System. The need to drive us, for
both of us to drive ourselves and you to drive us to implement
that experience, to find ways to do it, would be extremely
helpful.
Now, in terms of a more technical response, let me ask Dave
if he would like to say a few words, if I may.
Mr. Mihalic. Mr. Chairman, the bill that Mr. Reynolds
refers to is the 1996 National Park Service Omnibus Act, which
did provide special authorities. I don't know if a final
decision has been made, but we believe that Yosemite will be
one of the test cases for the National Park Service for having
this type of housing.
We have broached the subject with county officials, and
everybody is very favorable to us doing that. One of the things
that would be helpful is if we could participate in the
Mariposa County general plan, which as you know, this plan
deals only with the Yosemite Valley, which is part of the
larger Yosemite National Park. We are constrained, in terms of
solving our problems within Park boundaries. Nonetheless, many
of our problems, housing and moving office space out of the
Park, would probably be more efficient if we did it outside the
Park. The best opportunity to do that would be to participate
with the county.
However, right now, while we have the authority to do that,
we don't have the funding to participate.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you.
Mr. Reynolds. May I also add, sir--I hope I'm not
interrupting you--both the General Services Administration and
the U.S. Forest Service have authorities that we do not have,
that we're exploring the ability to use, in either housing or
office space outside of the Park itself.
Mr. Radanovich. Okay. Thank you.
I want to thank you both very much, Mr. Reynolds and
Superintendent Mihalic, for testifying here.
Mr. Reynolds. Mr. Radanovich, may I just say thank you very
much for this hearing. We have appreciated it very much and we
appreciated the questions and the atmosphere in which we were
asked to respond. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Radanovich. You're welcome. And thanks for being here.
Mr. Radanovich. Our next panel includes Mr. Gary Gilbert,
who is Chairman of the Board of Supervisors for Madera County,
California; Mr. Doug Balmain, Chairman of the Board of
Supervisors for Mariposa County; and Mr. Gregory Oliver, who is
the Tuolumne County Counsel, from Sonora, California.
Welcome, gentlemen. I'm sorry it took so long to get to
you. There is just a lot of questions about this Park that need
to be asked and answered.
Mr. Gilbert, if you would like to begin, what we will do is
hear testimony from each of you and then questions will be from
me alone, it looks like. I'm kind of the ``Lone Ranger'' up
here right now. Perhaps some other members will come back. But
you each have five minutes to read and/or summarize your
comments.
STATEMENT OF GARY GILBERT, CHAIRMAN, MADERA COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, MADERA, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Gilbert. My name is Gary Gilbert, and I am Chairman of
the Madera County Board of Supervisors. I would like to also
thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of your
Committee, for this opportunity to discuss the Yosemite Valley
Plan.
The word ``implementation'' implies the Valley Plan has
been developed through a legally-mandated process and
administered with integrity. Our Congressman, Congressman
Radanovich, has recently stated, ``the preparation of this
plan, in fact, the entire planning process, has been fatally
flawed.'' Our written testimony will further support his
statements.
Today, you're going to hear varying points of view, but
Madera County comes before you representing the gateway
community of Oakhurst and other small communities on Highway
41. We have no conflicts of interest. Madera County's budget
does not contain any Park pass-through taxes. We have no well-
placed individuals in government agencies, and we receive no
donations from special interests.
The Yosemite Valley Plan and the Merced River Plan were
negotiated by Secretary Babbitt from a prior position of
political power and special interests. As legally mandated, the
public participated in that process. Major funding had already
been allocated and the agendas had been aligned.
The 1997 flood request was misrepresented to Congress. More
than $123 million was for nonflood projects. The 1997
Congressional Report further documented that the Park Service
is using the occasion of the flood to advance an entirely
separate agenda other than flood restoration.
That separate agenda can be traced to a 1994 transportation
study. It focused on Yosemite and it mainly focused on mass
transit tourism. Secretary Babbitt again, from his position of
power, referred to the flood as a ``heaven sent'' event and
implemented his agenda that will forever change the way the
American public accesses our national park.
In 1997, an MOU between the Department of Interior and
Transportation again targeted not only Yosemite, but the Grand
Canyon and Zion for mass transit tourism. In 1998, Congress
passed TEA-21. Again, funding is provided in that legislation
for Yosemite National Park for development of a regional
transportation system.
Your Resource Committee documents confirm that one of the
shortcomings of NEPA is the sham of public participation when
decisions have already been made. That was exactly the
environment in which both the Merced River and Yosemite Valley
Plans were prepared.
In 1987, Congress designated the Merced River wild and
scenic. That designation required the Park Service to develop a
river management plan within three years. Thirteen years later,
and only after a court order, Yosemite National Park finally
complied. That plan was assembled in three months. It lacked
scientific credibility and is currently in litigation.
It is impossible to make informed decisions on the proposed
projects in the Valley Plan without a clear understanding of
the River Plan. Yet, the Valley Plan was at the printers before
the public comment period for the River Plan had even closed.
The Record of Decision for the River Plan was made in November
of 2000, well beyond the close of comment on the Valley Plan.
Again, a sham of public participation. The goal was to get the
River Plan Record of Decision completed before the Clinton
administration left office. Such political manipulation and
control of time lines have no place in safeguarding the future
of Yosemite.
The Valley Plan acknowledges underrepresentation of low
income and non-Anglo visitors. There is a lack of appropriate
studies, and the Plan assumes that these visitors will use
inexpensive methods of visitation, such as day use, camping,
and tent/cabin rentals and concludes that the Plan may impact
and perhaps displace this population.
The Plan further targets day visitors for inconvenient bus
rides, with additional expenses, with an increased dependence
upon the concessionaire, with the removal of nearly 300
campsites, 400 tent cabins, and that's on top of a higher gate
fee.
Do you ever wonder what the largest percentage of visitors
to Yosemite National Park is and their annual income? It's over
$100,000 per year.
The Yosemite Valley Plan is a framework of open-ended
documents. It promises to embark on a resource inventory and
monitoring program within the next five years, it will have an
inventory monitoring, and within the next five years it will
have carrying capacities, and in the next five years it will
design a traffic system.
The Valley Plan's transportation element proposes an urban
design bus system, complete with massive park-and-ride lots,
more than 500 daily round trip buses--and that's one diesel bus
arriving every 1.4 minutes during the peak period---a 22-bay
transit center in the heart of Yosemite Valley, as well as
other out-of-place infrastructure. This remote staging option
was dismissed by the Park Service consultants in the 1994
study. Yet, it's the centerpiece for this Valley Plan.
The prior administration's political legacy and abuse of
power will cause irreparable damage to the environment, waste
hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars, gamble with the
economic vitality of our gateway communities, and ultimately
restrict the freedom of Americans to access and enjoy their
park.
As a Committee, you are faced with the challenge of sorting
out the truth. We would respectfully request that: as a
Committee, that no funding be appropriated for the
implementation of this Yosemite Valley Plan, or YARTS, the
Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System; set aside and
rescind this Valley Plan; redo the Merced River Plan in full
compliance with the protective mandate of the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act; schedule follow-up hearings in our local
congressional districts to more fairly and fully understand the
impacts of this Park's planning process, and finally, return
the leftover flood money, $110 million, that was never used for
damage caused directly by this disaster to the U.S. Treasurer.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilbert follows:]
Statement of Gary Gilbert, Chairman, Madera County Board of Supervisors
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, thank you
for this opportunity to represent the concerns of the people of Madera
County with respect to the Yosemite Valley Plan.
Your written communication refers to implementation of the Valley
Plan. We believe any discussion of implementation is premature.
Instead, we request that the committee thoroughly investigate the
flawed process by which this Plan was developed, calling into question
the validity of the Plan itself. Charged with oversight of the National
Park Service, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and thus the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) which NEPA created, the
committee is in a unique position to recommend that this Yosemite
Valley Plan be rescinded before the magnificent splendor that is
Yosemite National Park is destroyed forever.
In testimony today, we urge the following:
--No funding be appropriated for this Yosemite Valley Plan
--Set aside/rescind this Yosemite Valley Plan
--All excess flood funding ($110 million) be returned to the U.S.
Treasury
--Redo the Merced River Plan in full compliance with the protective
mandate of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, thus creating a solid
foundation for all future plans`
--Schedule follow-up hearings in the local districts to more fairly
and fully understand the impacts of park planning
Former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt commented to the
Commonwealth Club (3/27/00) that ``the problem with Yosemite--it's got
too damn many friends; I wish about 95% of them would go home and shut
up.'' We always wondered what it would take to be among the favored 5%.
Campaign contributions?? Special interest trade-offs?? Political
paybacks?? Instead we trust that the Bush administration and members of
this committee have the courage and integrity to examine the truth and
respond to the American people with the respect they deserve.
As Congressman Radanovich has publicly stated in the press, ``the
preparation of the plan, in fact the entire planning process, has been
fatally flawed.'' We could not agree more.
97 flood request misrepresented
When Congress passed Public Law 105-18 in June of 1997 awarding a
$187,321,000 flood recovery package to Yosemite National Park, it was
with the understanding that it would be used ``--for ``construction''
for emergency expenses resulting from flooding and other natural
disasters--'' Yet then-Superintendent B.J. Griffin testified at the
subcommittee El Portal Oversight Hearing (3/22/97) that more than $123
million was for pre-flood projects.
And as stated in the ``Trip Report for Field Hearing on Yosemite
Floods and to Conduct a review of the $200 million Emergency
Supplemental Request for Appropriations for Yosemite'' prepared for
this committee (3/26/97) by a member of your professional staff:
"According to the transmittal by the White House to Congress,
`Each request has been kept to the absolute essential level and
is limited to the amount necessary to restore damaged
property--that is, damage caused directly by the disaster--to
its pre-damaged condition.' This is not true with respect to
the request for Yosemite Park. In addition, the National Park
Service has stated that its recovery proposal is guided by
three principles: (1) the 1980 General Management Plan, (2)
protection of park facilities from a similar level of flooding
in the future, and (3) reduction of the development footprint
in Yosemite Valley. These statements are also not accurate."
"It is also clear that the National Park Service is using the
occasion of the flood to advance an entirely separate agenda
from flood restoration."
Apparently, such controversial warning signs were pushed aside in
favor of the political capital that could be gained in solidifying
funding to repair one of the world's treasures; you trusted that the
funds would be used with integrity. But the ``red flags'' that were
courageously raised in that congressional report have come back to
haunt all of us; they are the centerpiece of why we're here today and
they have fueled the controversy that has surrounded the Yosemite
planning process for the past four years.
Congress, in its haste to do good things, awarded money IN ADVANCE
for projects that were not part of any publicly approved plan--for
example, removing Upper and Lower Rivers Campgrounds (utilities still
intact), closing/rerouting Northside Drive, relocating concession
employee housing, constructing new/upgraded (more expensive) lodging,
rebuilding/widening El Portal road under the guise of repairs, an
overblown multimillion dollar mass transit plan, and more. In fact,
closing down the Rivers Campgrounds, closing Northside Drive, and mass
transit tourism were integral parts of the ``Alternative Transportation
Modes Feasibility Study'' (1994) prepared by consultants BRW/Dames and
Moore for the National Park Service. Such projects had nothing to do
with ``emergency expenses resulting from flooding and other natural
disasters'' but instead were identified as critical to the consultant's
idea of a master transportation plan for the park.
In a desperate attempt to stop the Park ``spending spree,''
lawsuits and injunctions were filed by the public with the court
ultimately ordering that all Yosemite Valley projects be placed under
one comprehensive planning process. Now four years later and with
Secretary Babbitt's endorsement, the Park Service claims to have $110
million ``left over'' from the flood money (and more than $60 million
in gate fees) to begin implementing the Yosemite Valley Plan. Yet
something as basic as the sewage infrastructure, which was severely
damaged in the flood, is in such disrepair and so poorly maintained
that the California Regional Water Quality Control Board has voted to
begin fining the National Park Service for their negligence in the
never-ending sewage spills, the only apparent recourse in dealing with
a nonresponsive federal agency.
Taxpayers, terribly concerned about damage caused by what was
promoted as a 100-year flood fully endorsed a flood repair package; but
instead they ran head on into Park Service bureaucrats flush with cash,
now armed to implement an agenda dictated from Washington, D.C. As
Interior Secretary Babbitt told the Sacramento Bee: ``It was a heaven-
sent event, tantamount to Hercules cleaning out the Aegean stables.''
Eager to implement a long-elusive valley decongestion plan that the
Carter administration had unveiled back in 1980, the post-flood
generosity of Congress now made Secretary Babbitt's goal a reality. But
the public trust has been betrayed.
a top-down plan
From the onset, the Yosemite Valley Plan has been dictated from
Washington, D.C. As Secretary Babbitt told supporters in his
Commonwealth Club presentation (3/27/00), ``I immersed myself in this
issue of the future of Yosemite very shortly after I went to Washington
in 1993.--
Actively involved in gaining endorsement of the Flood Recovery
Package, Secretary Babbitt was soon a co-signer with Secretary Rodney
Slater as part of a Department of Interior/Department of Transportation
Memorandum of Understanding orchestrated by President Clinton (November
1997); the MOU specifically targeted three parks for vehicle reduction
and mass transit implementation--the Grand Canyon, Zion, and Yosemite.
This action was nothing more than an executive order, a federal
mandate. The public never had any say.
Then in May of 1998, Congress passed the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (TEA 21)--a comprehensive bill which funded
various surface transportation programs at a total of $217 billion over
six years. This bill opened up a tremendous number of additional
funding opportunities to the National Parks ($165 million annually) and
specifically referenced development of ``a regional transportation
system as well as in-park transit and intermodal transportation
circulation plans'' at Yosemite National Park. Shortly thereafter, DOT
shared full-time staff on site at Yosemite specifically charged with
implementing a transit program.
To further support and reinforce planning decisions, the Department
of Interior and the National Park Service released a flurry of new and
revised Director's Orders. And though mass transportation is the
foundational element of the Yosemite Valley Plan and therefore opened
to comment through the required public hearing process, the funding and
the political agendas had already aligned. According to House
documents, at a full Resources Committee hearing on March 18, 1998, the
administration admitted that it had ``not well implemented'' NEPA and
testified to some of the shortcomings including ``the sham of public
participation when decisions have really been made already.'' This
Yosemite Valley Plan and the Merced River Management Plan appear to be
casualties of that administration.
As stated in the Los Angeles Times (11/14/00), ``Babbitt personally
intervened in the drafting of the final report. He has said he regards
the Yosemite Valley Plan as central to the Clinton administration's
environmental legacy.--
The top-down effort was not lost on the press as a host of articles
reflected Babbitt's involvement in their headlines: ``Interior to
develop plan for reducing crush of cars, air pollution at Yosemite
(Washington Times, 12/8/98); ``White House Tries Again to Restore
Yosemite'' (New York Times, 11/12/00); ``Government Acts to Reduce
Yosemite Traffic'' (Associated Press, 11/14/00); ``Babbitt Releases
Plan for Yosemite'' (Washington Times, 11/15/00); ``Feds want fewer
cars, rooms in Yosemite National Park'' (San Francisco Examiner, 3/28/
00); ``New Plan To Reduce Traffic at Yosemite; Babbitt wants satellite
parking lots outside valley'' (San Francisco Chronicle, 3/25/00); et
al.
Current Interior Secretary Gale Norton in testimony (3/18/98)
before the House Committee on Resources Oversight Hearing on the
National Environmental Policy Act stated the following: ``The original
goal of NEPA and of many other environmental statutes was to forge a
federal-state partnership in protecting the environment. In NEPA, state
and local governments were to have an essential part in determining the
environmental and societal impacts of federal actions.'' ``--after NEPA
declared national environmental policy, Congress intended and wrote the
concept of ``state primacy'' into all subsequent major federal
environmental statutes.'' ``The federal agencies--often pay lip service
to state primacy, but in practice, the agencies have mastered the art
of ``mission creep,'' using their budgets and authorities to
micromanage the 50 states. That approach is not just bad policy: it
defies the will of Congress as expressed in NEPA and the subsequent
environmental statutes.'' ``To return to the original intent of
Congress in NEPA and so many other environmental statutes, I (Gale
Norton) recommend--Congress should require that agencies consult at an
early stage with state and local governments in developing
environmental impact statements. It should be clear in NEPA that an
environmental impact statement is not adequate if it does not address
fully state and local concerns.--
As part of an administration that espouses the value of local and
state participation during the formulative stages of federal decision-
making, we urge you to aggressively investigate options for rescinding
or indefinitely tabling this Plan that represents nothing more than
Secretary Babbitt's ``top down'' personal attempts at a legacy.
wild and scenic river implications
In 1987, the Merced River was designated a Wild and Scenic River.
The National Park Service had three years from that date to develop a
Comprehensive Management Plan that would protect the river corridor. In
July of 1999, as part of litigation on the Highway 140 construction
project, Judge Anthony Ishii ordered the Park Service to refrain from
releasing any more planning documents until a Merced River Management
Plan had been prepared. The Park Service told the judge it would need
one year to comply; litigants stated they did not believe one year was
sufficient time to create a valid plan that would fulfill the
protective mandate of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and encouraged
the National Park Service to request additional time.
One month later (8/4/99), Secretary Babbitt circulated a memo
stating that the Merced River Plan must be completed by July 12, 2000
and ``I have directed him (Bob Anderson) to 'see that the Record of
Decision for the Yosemite Valley Plan is signed prior to the end of the
Clinton Administration.' I will need your cooperation and help in
making sure that the work gets done in a timely fashion. Please ensure
that we have adequate financial and personnel resources working on
these initiatives to meet our objectives."
In releasing the Draft Merced River Plan in January 2000,
Superintendent David Mihalic explained in his cover letter:
``The Merced River Plan is a `foundational plan.' By that I
mean it provides a foundation and a direction for future
actions. You will find that this plan does not spell out
specific actions that may occur in the future, but through
various zoning options in the alternatives, provides a
direction for the specific action that will follow. For
example, the upcoming draft Yosemite Valley Plan--is a plan
that may call for a specific `action,'but only as permitted by
the zoning proposed in this document."
The enabling authority of the resource-based Merced River Plan
raises numerous concerns with respect to development of the follow-on
Yosemite Valley Plan:
Timelines determined by Election Cycle/Political Agendas
Public comment on the draft Merced River Plan was scheduled from
January 7, 2000 through March 24, 2000. The following Monday (3/27/00),
Secretary Babbitt released the five-volume, 2300 page draft Yosemite
Valley Plan for public comment through July 7.
--In order to comply with such a timeline, the follow-on Yosemite
Valley Plan would have had to be at the printers as much as 4-6 weeks
previous, during the public comment period for the ``foundational''
Merced River Plan. Therefore, the public comments for the River Plan
could not have been considered when developing the draft Yosemite
Valley Plan. It appears that public comment on the Merced River Plan
was merely an exercise in futility--just a check off on a NEPA list of
requirements--since apparently the draft Valley Plan was already
completed.
--An effective, adequate public comment period for the Yosemite
Valley Plan cannot be achieved until the public knows the full
parameters, effects and impacts of the Merced River Plan. How can the
public or even the Park Service make fully informed decisions or
comments on a follow-on plan that is directly affected by a
foundational plan not yet completed?
--All of the land-use zoning for the Valley is prescribed in the
River Plan, yet the Record of Decision for the River Plan wasn't final
until November of 2000. What planning department in the country
conducts project review and approval (i.e., Yosemite Valley Plan)
without a legal zoning map? A valid River Plan needed to be completed
before starting on a draft Yosemite Valley Plan.
Lack of Scientific Credibility
No less than 12 major reports prepared for Congress over the past
40 years have criticized the National Park Service for its lack of
science-guided resource protection. As recently as February 1997, the
General Accounting Office testified to Congress that ``although NPS
acknowledges, and its policies emphasize, the importance of managing
parks on the basis of sound scientific information about resources,
today such information is seriously deficient.'' ``At California's
Yosemite National Park, officials told us that virtually nothing was
known about the types or numbers of species inhabiting the park,
including fish, birds, and such mammals as badgers, river otters,
wolverines, and red foxes.'' ``This lack of inventory and monitoring
information affects not only what is known about park resources, but
also the ability to assess the effect of management decisions.''
(National Parks: Park Service Needs Better Information to Preserve and
Protect Resources, GAO/T-RCED-97-76)
--The Merced River Plan is supposed to be a scientifically based
resource preservation plan. What role did scientists play in its
development? Though park scientists admitted involvement in a technical
review, they were not members of the planning team. Raised as a concern
by the public, their names suddenly appeared in the final plan on the
``list of preparers.--
--The 1500-page draft Merced River Plan was developed in three
months. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires detailed knowledge of
the Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) as inventoried on a mile-by-
mile basis along the River. Such documentation serves as the foundation
in determining classifications, establishing boundaries and preparing
management prescriptions for the various river segments. Yet the
follow-on Yosemite Valley Plan now proposes an Inventory and Monitoring
Program within five years of the Valley Plan Record of Decision. Such
data should have been an integral part of the foundational Merced River
Plan; therefore, the Merced River Plan is an invalid document.
--Why was Air Quality removed as an ORV in the Merced River Plan?
The recently approved 2001 NPS Management Policies state: ``The
National Park Service will seek to perpetuate the best possible air
quality in parks because of its critical importance to visitor
enjoyment, human health, scenic vistas, and the preservation of natural
systems and cultural resources.'' ``The Park Service will assume an
aggressive role in promoting and pursuing measures to protect these
values from the adverse impacts of air pollution. In cases of doubt as
the impacts of existing or potential air pollution on park resources,
the Service will err on the side of protecting air quality and related
values for future generations.'' (Chapter 4.28) Currently, both
Mariposa County and Tuolumne County are nonattainment counties. Was Air
Quality dropped as an ORV to accommodate the elephant chain of diesel
shuttle buses projected during peak season (500+ roundtrips daily) as
would be proposed in the follow-on Yosemite Valley Plan, thus
exacerbating the situation.
Lack of Carrying Capacity Studies
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Interagency Guidelines (1982) refer to
carrying capacity as the ``quantity of recreation use which an area can
sustain without adverse impact on the outstandingly remarkable values
and free-flowing character of the river area, the quality of recreation
experience, and public health and safety.'' The Guidelines further
state that ``studies will be made during preparation of the management
plan and periodically thereafter to determine the quantity and mixture
of recreation and other public use which can be permitted without
adverse impact on the resource values of the river area. Management of
the river area can then be planned accordingly.--
--According to the most recent release of the Merced River Plan
(February 2001), ``the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection
(VERP) framework is a tool developed by the National Park Service to
address user capacities--and to meet the requirements of the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act.'' Yet the follow-on Yosemite Valley Plan ``proposes
to fully implement a Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP)
study and program within five years of the Record of Decision for the
Final Yosemite Valley Plan.'' Isn't such research required as part of
determining the management prescriptions/zoning in the Merced River
Plan that would ultimately enable Valley Plan projects? Consequently,
the Merced River Plan is an invalid document.
Summary Statement
A legally adequate Merced River Comprehensive Management Plan must
be in place affirmed with a Record of Decision before scoping can begin
on a draft Yosemite Valley Plan. Limited participation in the Merced
River Plan review process resulted in only 2,500 comments, indicating
the public did not fully understand that the River Plan would
ultimately amend the General Management Plan, rezone the Valley floor,
and become the enabling authority for the follow-on Draft Yosemite
Valley Plan. Politically charged timelines suggest that the Merced
River Plan was designed to accommodate an already completed Yosemite
Valley Plan rather than vice versa. Therefore, we urge the committee to
request that the National Park Service redo a valid Merced River Plan.
$441 million for what???
The draft Yosemite Valley Plan came with a $343 million price tag,
but only a few months later the final document suddenly increased to
$441 million (one-time development costs). Thousands of pages and
10,000 public comments later, the increased price tag appeared to be
the only major change between the draft Valley Plan and the final
Valley Plan, indicative of a predetermined agenda.
Referred to as an ``implementation plan,'' the Plan in actuality
resembles a loosely bound framework of open-ended projects with no
design-level specifics and suggesting further environmental compliance.
Not only was the public unable to evaluate the full extent of the
collective impacts of the various ``design/build'' projects since no
site-specific details were available, but it would appear that any cost
estimate for such projects is purely hypothetical--a guesstimate at
best. Additionally, the Park Service projects a $10 million increase in
its annual operating budget for the transportation component alone (see
Special Note below).
As responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars, we urge you to reject
any request for funds to support implementation of this Yosemite Valley
``Plan.'' The dollar amounts appear to be premature and without
substance. We've already seen how the National Park Service manipulated
the flood request; ``fool me twice, shame on me.--
(Special Note: According to park officials at Alaska's Denali
National Park, the Park Service implemented a transit system at Denali
in 1972 to ``minimize the impacts of increased traffic.'' ``The system
was provided free to riders from 1972 through 1994. The bus system cost
federal taxpayers about $1.6 million annually. The bus system subsidy
amounted to 22% of the Park's operating budget, and as the price of
running the system increased, the Park had to reduce other services to
visitors as well as reduce the number of buses and the distance they
travel. National Park Service funding was no longer able to cover the
costs of such services and still provide necessary visitor services and
adequate protection of park values. Park visitors were being asked to
share in the costs associated with their visit through increased
fees.'' Turned over to the concessionaire, bus tickets now cost $30-$40
per adult depending on distance traveled. Should this same scenario
occur at Yosemite, it would effectively price out most Americans;
Valley Plan research documents that the statistically typical visitor
to Yosemite has a yearly income of over $100,000--evidence that park
policies are already contributing to economic discrimination.)
``assembly-line tourism'' is not ``access''
Obsessed with mass transit and increasing throughput by moving
visitors as though on a conveyor belt, the Clinton/Babbitt regime
sought to control the way Americans experience our national parks.
Couched as ``environmentally responsible,'' their perceived solution
lacks scientific credibility and, in the words of environmental icon
David Brower, will cause ``irreparable damage to the environment.--
This Yosemite Valley Plan continues on the Clinton/Babbitt course
as it proposes to follow the example of our large cities with massive
park and ride lots, an urban-designed transit system with more than 500
daily round trip shuttles projected during peak season, a 22-bay
Transit Center as the ``point of arrival'' denigrating the glorious
shadow of Half Dome in the heart of Yosemite Valley, faster and wider
roads and other assorted infrastructure to accommodate the 45-foot
over-the-road diesel behemoths--in effect, an assault on personal
freedom and individual responsibility and anathema to the treasured
``up close and personal'' national park experience. In their rush to
implement such a system, park officials have ignored the advice of
their own traffic committee which functioned during the ``80s;
additionally, they've displayed no interest in simple, low-cost, low-
impact suggestions that would facilitate traffic management. Preferring
more draconian measures, remodeling the valley to provide the visitor
with a more costly, more controlled, and more commercialized experience
appears to be the goal and most certainly would be the outcome.
The Valley Plan's transportation component also flies in the face
of what the Park's own consultants advised in the congressionally
mandated 1994 Alternative Transportation Modes Feasibility Study. The
Study states that ``locating staging areas in remote locations would
influence the following quantifiable aspects of visitor use and park
management:--
--Parking Demand. The time required to travel to and from the
Valley on buses would lengthen the time visitors spend making a visit
to the Valley and would result in a need for additional parking spaces.
--Shuttle System Fleet. More distant staging areas would require
larger bus fleets to transport Valley visitors to and from the staging
area.
--Shuttle System Operating Costs. Larger fleets and longer travel
distances required for remote staging would require greater levels of
funding for operations.
--Delays to Through Visitors. Visitors traveling to the Valley as
part of longer trips which involve stops in other areas of the park or
which involve entering Yosemite at one location and leaving from
another would be inconvenienced by the need to travel to and from the
valley by bus and then travel much of the same route in a private
vehicle to complete their park visit.
--Remote staging areas would limit visitors'' ability to stop at
features along the park roads for sightseeing and other activities.
--Potentially higher levels of particulate and nitrogen oxide (NOx)
emissions would be generated by high volumes of bus travel on park
roads.
--Increased noise levels on park roads and in the Valley would be
associated with high volumes of bus travel.
``The cost, visitor confusion, visitor delay, information
challenges, and management difficulties associated with operating
remote valley staging areas would be substantial. In return, the
benefits would be minor, consisting of moderate decreases in vehicle
traffic along sections of park road that are not congested. Perhaps the
greatest drawback of remote staging would be the loss of visitors'
personal freedom to experience portions of Yosemite at their own pace
and in their own way.'' And yet this is exactly the option proposed in
this Yosemite Valley Plan.
A recent letter to the editor perhaps states it best: ``The whole
concept of elimination of individual ownership and use, in favor of
group use, is at the base of many of the Park Service plans. For
example, the massive invasion of the visitors, foreign and domestic, by
controlled means through the use of the tour bus is creating a faceless
user who no longer feels a personal connection between himself, his
family and these pristine areas. He is fed our national parks much like
the Monterey Aquarium--behind the glass wall of Park Service policy. In
a controlled environment, he will be shown and told what the Park
Service thinks is appropriate at the time. The loss of personal pride
in our national parks will ultimately be devastating.--
Threatening to ``close the gate'' as the alternative, we urge the
National Park Service and the Department of Interior to focus instead
on resolving a host of internal management and performance issues.
Congress has commissioned numerous studies through the General
Accounting Office that document ``significant problems and weaknesses
in the management of Interior's programs----problems that are ``the
result of serious deficiencies in organizational structure, information
systems, and the management controls that provide oversight and
accountability'' (Major Management Challenges and Program Risks:
Department of the Interior, 01/01/99, GAO/OCG-99-9).
We urge Congress to exercise its jurisdictional oversight as
representatives of the citizenry who own the national parks and other
public lands. To allow further restrictions, regulations, and increased
fee assessments on the American taxpayer, albeit endorsing the mantra
that ``people'' are the problem rather than placing the responsibility
squarely where it belongs--on the land management agencies, is
criminal. Americans have a right to access their national parks in the
manner they so choose, while still preserving the integrity of the
Park, and deserve better than to be placed on a conveyor belt like a
can of beets. As elected officials, we all have a responsibility to
fiercely protect that right and privilege.
economic impacts of ill-conceived planning process
In response to a 1980 General Management Plan directive,
restaurants, lodging and other services began investing along gateway
corridors outside the park, thereby enabling park administrators to
avoid further commercial development in Yosemite Valley. Yet nowhere in
the General Management Plan or in the core principles that govern the
actions of the Park Service is there any acknowledgement of, or concern
for, the mutually dependent relationship that has subsequently evolved
between the park and the gateway communities as a result of that
directive. It is that apparent lack of concern that is particularly
troubling to Madera County.
Heavily dependent on the tourist dollar, the fledgling communities
along the Highway 41 corridor are all too familiar with the extreme
fluctuations that occur based on the park press release, policy or
disaster of the day. Any rise or fall in visitation directly impacts
business income and job generation, and consequently the economic
vitality of the area.
Visitation over the past five years has steadily dropped from a
high of 4.1 million visitors in 1996 to 3.5 million visitors in 2000.
The Park Service is projecting another 2% drop in 2001. And even those
numbers are suspect. The current method of relying on an underground
mechanical ``counter'' that (when operable) is unable to delineate
between visitors, employees and vendors other than by formula needs to
be reexamined for validity. Since a major part of park planning efforts
appear to be based on annual visitation numbers, it is critical that
those numbers be clearly defined.
The proposed urban-designed mass transit system that threatens to
eliminate automobile touring in Yosemite Valley is the biggest gamble
yet. Client surveys and park studies already predict busing will
degrade the visitor experience--bad news for any economy based on
tourism. In fact, from the moment the draft Yosemite Valley Plan was
released, local businesses began receiving telephone calls from
potential visitors asking if they had to ride a bus to get into the
park--and the plan hasn't even been implemented yet. As proposed in
this Valley Plan, guests of any lodging facility outside the park are
considered ``day visitors.'' Such visitors will directly incur
increased economic hardship and inconvenience resulting from mandatory
bus travel.
Another part of the Yosemite Valley Plan is the Park's stepchild,
YARTS, the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System. Heavily funded
by the National Park Service as well as through the Department of
Transportation and TEA 21, this effort has been promoted as the answer
to economic vitality in the gateway communities. Nothing could be
farther from the truth. In reality it has enabled the Park and the
concessionaire to move out into our communities further controlling our
visitors and the manner in which they access the Park. Though promoted
as a ``voluntary alternative,'' YARTS is the vehicle for helping the
Park incrementally achieve the stated 1980 General Management Plan goal
of removing all cars from the Yosemite Valley. Once day visitor parking
has been completely eroded, bus transportation will be the only means
of access. But it's important to note that the 1980 Plan is 20 years
out of date. Since 1980 there have been a host of environmental
regulations as well as advances in technology that have mandated
cleaner air and resulted in near-zero emissions in autos; the same can
not be said of buses. Consequently, the 1980 goal must be reevaluated.
Nonetheless, the Yosemite Valley Plan continues to parrot a
predetermined agenda for buses regardless of the environmental and
socioeconomic consequences. YARTS and the Valley Plan are one in the
same, so when we urge no funding for the Yosemite Valley Plan--included
in that request is no funding for YARTS.
To date, the park has avoided conducting a socioeconomic analysis
of day visitors to determine what eliminating cars and mandating buses
will really cost the gateway communities. In fact, the Yosemite Valley
Plan doesn't even recognize gateway communities, instead focusing on
the ``local communities'' of El Portal, Foresta, Wawona, Yosemite
Village, and Yosemite West--communities that, for the most part, can
only be accessed inside park gates. The tourist dependent towns of
Oakhurst, Mariposa, and Groveland are now included as part of a
regional economy that the park claims will benefit from an increase in
construction jobs as part of the numerous development projects planned
inside the park. Such an ``analysis'' is of little use to the local
lodge owner or restaurateur who invested his/her savings in a gateway
business trusting that such an effort would help park administrators
avoid further commercial development inside the Park.
Adding insult to injury, Superintendent Mihalic told the press
shortly after his arrival that ``if there's ever a conflict on his
watch between what's best for Yosemite and these so-called ``gateway
communities,'' the park will win every time.'' The small town character
of healthy, vibrant gateway communities are the first stop on the way
to a pleasurable visit to Yosemite; the warmth and energy of our
people, the attractiveness of our businesses, low crime rate, and an
environment that mirrors the Park set the stage for a quality visitor
experience. It is important that the Park take pride in the gateway
communities just as our communities take tremendous pride in the Park.
What has made this Yosemite Valley Plan such a flashpoint is that
residents recognize the tremendous environmental damage that will occur
inside as well as outside the park as it is converted from a nature
center to a profit center; dealing with a nonresponsive but highly
political and arrogant bureaucracy, that is funded by a never-ending
supply of tax dollars, with large corporations poised to displace small
local businesses, in a system that offers no recourse other than
litigation. This is not the American way.
summary
In closing, thank you for your leadership in conducting this
hearing on the Yosemite Valley Plan. But we strongly urge you to
continue your investigation, coming to our districts and talking with
the numerous folks who could not be here today but who certainly have
important contributions to make. It would be especially beneficial to
hear from Friends of Yosemite Valley; this grassroots organization has
consistently and articulately raised concerns about the environmental
destruction inherent in both the Merced River Plan and the Yosemite
Valley Plan and is currently pursuing litigation in a system that
offers no recourse to Park Service decisions. It would be beneficial to
visit with our Visitors Bureaus and Chambers of Commerce, the folks who
assist the visiting public day after day. It would be beneficial to
speak with our law enforcement and emergency personnel and hear their
perspectives on public health and safety as well as fire management in
a region where private and public lands are intermingled. It would be
beneficial to hear from our civic groups who provide endless hours of
volunteer labor in support of every worthwhile cause, making our
gateway communities better places to live. It would be beneficial to
visit with our citizens as well as folks in neighboring counties to
hear their concerns. Making a decision in Washington, based upon five
minutes of testimony, is unfair to Yosemite and unfair to the American
people. Please consider scheduling follow-up hearings in our districts.
As a committee you have an invaluable opportunity to revisit a
decision that was made in haste four years ago, in the midst of an
emergency; we ask you to exercise courage and integrity as you provide
oversight with respect to funds not yet expended in the name of flood
recovery. We further request your intervention in a planning process
that has gone awry. The ``legacy'' plans that are before you today will
cause irreparable damage to the environment, waste hundreds of millions
of taxpayer dollars, gamble with the economic vitality of our gateway
communities, and ultimately restrict the freedom of Americans to access
and enjoy their park.
As stated earlier, we urge the committee to consider the following:
--No funding be appropriated for this Yosemite Valley Plan (and
YARTS)
--Set aside/rescind this Yosemite Valley Plan (and YARTS)
--All excess flood funding ($110 million) be returned to the U.S.
Treasury
--Redo the Merced River Plan in full compliance with the protective
mandate of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, thus creating a solid
foundation for all future plans
--Schedule follow-up hearings in the local districts to more fairly
and fully understand the impacts of park planning
______
county of madera participation in the yosemite planning process
SCOPING, Yosemite Valley Plan; January 25, 1999
--Concern about visitor demographics and access; requested Park
immediately investigate the socioeconomic impact of its decisions in
determining policy to ensure that such policies are not and will not be
discriminatory.
--Concern about preservation of the environment should the Park
introduce a mass transit system both in Yosemite Valley and the
outlying areas.
--Concern about economic vitality in the gateways; requested Park
commission an independent study that will analyze the economic impact
of Park policies on the gateway communities
PUBLIC COMMENT, Merced River Plan; February 29, 2000
No alternatives acceptable in draft Plan; requested full compliance
with WSRA Federal Register Guidelines as well as conformity with the
NPS Natural Resource Challenge Initiative.
--Define visitor experience
--Scientific credibility compromised as result of politically
charged timelines
--Lack of carrying capacity studies
--Boundary/classification/management prescription concerns
--Air Quality removed as an ORV
--Concerns about process of plan development
PUBLIC COMMENT 1, Yosemite Valley Plan; June 13, 2000
Unanimously rejected Draft Yosemite Valley Plan
--Status of Merced River Management Plan unknown
--Status of Yosemite Valley Plan scoping comments submitted by
Madera unknown
--Planning assumptions not supported by sound scientific study
--Lack of project design-level specifics; numerous issues ``beyond
scope--
--Concerns about transportation component
PUBLIC COMMENT 2, Yosemite Valley Plan; June 27, 2000
Submitted two-part strategy: preparation of scientific body of
knowledge in advance of Plan development with five-year ``temporary''
plan for Yosemite Valley in the interim.
APPEAL TO CONGRESS, SECRETARY NORTON, PRESIDENT BUSH; February 13, 2001
--Request that no funding be appropriated for this Yosemite Valley
Plan
--Request that this Yosemite Valley Plan be rescinded/tabled
indefinitely pending further investigation
--Volunteered to host local forum with broad-based participation to
develop strategy for future plan development
COPIES AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST:
Board of Supervisors, Madera County
209 West Yosemite Avenue
Madera, CA 93637
Phone: 559-675-7700
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Gilbert.
Mr. Balmain, welcome.
STATEMENT OF DOUG BALMAIN, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
COUNTY OF MARIPOSA, MARIPOSA, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Balmain. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Doug
Balmain, and on behalf of the Mariposa County Board of
Supervisors, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
testify.
Mariposa County has closely followed the Yosemite Plan
process. While we regret the lack of opportunity for effective
input during the development of the Yosemite Valley Plan, the
County recognizes that the implementation phase of the Yosemite
Valley Plan provides opportunities for our community to join
the National Park Service to address numerous elements of the
plan.
There are many planning and implementation issues that are
of mutual concern to the County of Mariposa and the National
Park Service, most notably the following: providing sufficient
alternative parking and overnight accommodations outside
Yosemite Valley; appropriate relocation of employee housing and
worksites from the Yosemite Valley to gateway communities
within Mariposa County; providing responsible and sustainable
management of solid waste, and providing regional
transportation sufficient to attain the goals of the Valley
Plan and meet the needs of the County.
Other current planning efforts between the County and the
National Park Service include a comprehensive update of our
County general plan in anticipation of opportunities presented
by the Valley Plan, and the development of a new University of
California, Merced campus, near the western border of Mariposa
County. The National Park Service has also joined the county in
developing waste recycling programs and an innovative
composting project that will revolutionize the management of
our solid waste. This is an extremely important project for the
County and the Park.
The County has planned and subsidized a regional
transportation program serving Yosemite National Park for the
last 10 years, most recently in the form of the Yosemite Area
Regional Transportation System, or YARTS. The town of Mariposa
affords good opportunities for developing Park and
concessionaire administrative offices, visitor centers, and
employee housing. Developable land exists with expansion
capabilities, and with utility and transportation
infrastructure.
Although encouraged by the aforementioned opportunities,
the County of Mariposa is discouraged by the potential
reduction of parking spaces in Yosemite Valley. The County does
not believe the elimination of parking spaces is necessary to
achieve the primary goals of the Yosemite General Management
Plan or the Valley Plan. Rather than reducing the supply of
parking spaces, the County suggests reducing the demand for
such parking spaces by making bus transportation more
attractive.
The County is also discouraged by the potential removal of
transportation infrastructure in Yosemite Valley, such as roads
and historic bridges. These improvements are not only used for
recreational access, but they are also needed for emergency
vehicles.
The County of Mariposa requests the following of this
Committee and Congress: Encourage the participation of Mariposa
County in the implementation of the Valley Plan elements that
impact gateway communities, and encourage additional funding to
the Park Service for joint planning efforts with the County,
supplementing a regional transportation system, and addressing
K-12 education and other socioeconomic concerns in communities
within or adjacent to the Park.
The County of Mariposa offers the following to this
Committee and Congress: The County will continue to include the
participation of the National Park Service in the development
of the County general plan update, to prepare for potential
relocation of Park offices and residences.
The County will continue to partner with the National Park
Service to improve visitor experience, while still maintaining
the integrity of Yosemite National Park.
With these joint planning efforts, the County can
incorporate into the County's general plan the accommodations
needed to relocate Park offices and residences in the County of
Mariposa.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Balmain follows:]
Statement of Doug Balmain, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, County of
Mariposa, California
The County of Mariposa wishes to extend their gratitude to the
Subcommittee for inviting our community and requesting our testimony at
this hearing. Mariposa County has been closely following the Yosemite
Valley Plan process. While we regret the lack of opportunities for
effective input during the development of the Yosemite Valley Plan, the
County recognizes that the implementation phase of the Yosemite Valley
Plan provides opportunities for our community to join the National Park
Service to address numerous elements of the Plan. Particularly, 1) the
relocation offices and housing out of the Park and into other
communities in Mariposa County, 2) the development of a premier
regional transportation system, 3) the development of a jointly
operated visitor centers, and 4) the continued partnership to develop a
very innovative, sustainable solid waste management system, and other
infrastructure to serve the Park and its gateway communities.
The entire Yosemite Valley is geographically located within the
boundaries of the County of Mariposa. The Park gateway communities of
El Portal, Wawona, Fish Camp, Buck Meadows, Foresta, Yosemite West,
Midpines, and Mariposa are all located within the jurisdiction of the
County of Mariposa. There are no incorporated cities. The County spans
1,463 square miles, half of which is Federal entitlement lands managed
by the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the Sierra
and Stanislaus National Forests. The permanent residential population
of the County is 16,150 persons. The daily population, including
visitors, during the summer is over 34,000 persons.
The town of Mariposa rests 32 miles from the Park's western
boundary. It is the County seat and the County's largest community with
a residential population of 1,800. Regional government administration
and Park tourism are the economic foundation for the town. It offers a
hospital, airport, high school, middle school, elementary school,
senior center, fairgrounds, the California State Mining and Mineral
Museum, new public library, regional shopping, residential utilities
and services, and ample visitor accommodations.
There are many planning and consequent implementation issues that
are of mutual concern to the County of Mariposa and the National Park
Service, most notably the following:
LProviding sufficient alternative parking and overnight
accommodations outside Yosemite Valley.
LAppropriate relocation of employee housing from Yosemite
Valley to gateway communities within Mariposa County.
LAppropriate relocation of employee work sites from
Yosemite Valley to gateway communities within Mariposa County.
LConsideration of socio-economic impacts of employee
relocation. Particularly, potential development of or access to
governmental and private sector services, health care, schools,
transportation and recreation.
LAppropriate relocation of visitor centers from Yosemite
Valley to gateway communities within Mariposa County.
LPreservation of Historic Structures.
LConformance with the ``Merced Wild and Scenic River
Plan.--
LAppropriate phasing of Valley Plan elements and projects.
LFunding timelines, restrictions, and amounts for
implementation of the Valley Plan.
LProviding responsible and sustainable management of solid
waste.
LProviding regional public transportation sufficient to
attain the goals of the Valley Plan and meet the needs of the County.
The County of Mariposa and National Park Service are working
towards an unprecedented approach to solving planning issues in areas
of solid waste management, transportation, and where both agencies have
joint jurisdiction. This effort, made possible by both the Valley Plan
and Merced River Plan Records of Decision, creates a model for the
National Park Service with other gateway communities both here at
Yosemite National Park and around the country.
If successfully funded and implemented, this program would provide
some surety for our citizens owning property within the park boundaries
or dependent on park approvals. In addition, it provides surety for the
National Park Service about the type of development the County will
permit on lands adjoining or within Yosemite National Park. The Valley
Plan opened the door for this effort.
Other current planning efforts between the County and National Park
Service include a comprehensive update of the County General Plan in
anticipation of the opportunities presented by the Valley Plan and
development of a new University of California campus (UC Merced) near
the western border of Mariposa County. The National Park Service has
also joined the County in developing waste recycling programs and an
innovative composting project that will assist in the management of our
mixed solid waste. It is important to the Park and County for the
National Park Service to be able to continue in these efforts.
The County has planned and subsidized regional transportation
programs serving Yosemite National Park for the last ten years, most
recently in the form of the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation
System (YARTS) demonstration project. The County has partnered with the
Park and neighboring counties to plan and fund YARTS to assist
transporting visitors and park employees to and from Yosemite Valley.
This effort has greatly reduced the number of private vehicles entering
the valley. The demonstration period is soon closing and YARTS will be
expanding services to increase its use and further decrease the number
of vehicles entering the valley.
The currently successful working relationship between the National
Park Service and the County of Mariposa will certainly help address the
known limitations and opportunities for key relocation elements of the
Valley Plan. Known limitations for potential development in the
communities of El Portal, Wawona and Foresta are of great concern for
the County.
The town of Mariposa may afford good opportunities for developing
Park and concessionaire administrative offices, visitor centers and
employee housing. Developable land with expansion capability, existing
utility and transportation infrastructure, proximity to services and UC
Merced, and opportunities for cost sharing exist. Employees residing in
Mariposa can have access to museums, art studios and performances,
social groups, greater breadth of educational and activity programs for
children, and governmental services.
Although encouraged by all the aforementioned opportunities, the
County of Mariposa is discouraged by the potential reduction of parking
spaces in Yosemite Valley. The County does not believe the elimination
of parking spaces is necessary to achieve the primary goals of the
Yosemite General Plan or Valley Plan. Rather than reducing the supply
of private automobile parking, the County suggests reducing the demand
for such parking by making public transportation the preferred access
choice. Further development of the existing regional transportation
system, greater marketing of the service, and other incentives can
accomplish this.
The County is also discouraged by the potential removal of
transportation infrastructure in Yosemite Valley, such as roads and
bridges. These improvements are not only used for recreational access,
but they are also needed for emergency vehicle access, bicyclists and
pedestrian use. The Valley Plan goals of reducing the impact of
vehicles can still be met with better traffic management. In addition,
the County's desire and responsibility for providing public safety and
effective emergency response can also continue. We are all well aware
of Yosemite Valley's proneness to rockslides and exposure to floods and
wild land fires.
The County of Mariposa requests the following of this Committee and
Congress:
LEncourage the participation of Mariposa County in the
implementation of all Valley Plan elements that impact gateway
communities. Support the participation of the National Park Service in
the County's General Plan update process.
LEncourage additional funding to the National Park Service
for joint planning efforts with the County for Wawona, El Portal, and
Foresta, supplementing a regional transportation system serving Park
visitors and employees, and addressing K-12 education and other socio-
economic concerns in communities within or adjacent to the Park.
LDecrease regulatory restrictions to the National Park
Service so they may partner with the County in accommodating the
relocation of offices, residences, visitor centers and transportation
infrastructure outside Park boundaries. Provide exceptions to the
``rules and regulations'' that traditionally prohibit more feasible
investments than what the National Park Service is sometimes limited
to.
LEncourage the completion of flood recovery projects in
Yosemite Valley before embarking on many other elements of the Valley
Plan.
The County of Mariposa offers the following to this Committee and
Congress:
LThe County will continue to include the participation of
the National Park Service in the development of the County General Plan
Update, to prepare for potential relocation of Park offices and
residences.
LThe County will plan for any pressures to increase
overnight visitor accommodations outside the Park resulting from the
implementation of the Valley Plan.
LThe County will make available staff with expertise in
transportation planning, land use planning, building development
services, and environmental health services to assist the National Park
Service in executing key relocation elements of the Valley Plan,
particularly employee housing, visitor centers and administrative
offices.
The County of Mariposa will continue to partner with the National
Park Service to improve visitor experience while still maintaining the
integrity of Yosemite National Park. With a joint planning effort, the
County can incorporate into the County General Plan update the
accommodation of relocated Park offices and residences in the County of
Mariposa. The County will continue to partner with the National Park
Service to further develop a premier regional transportation system so
that the elimination of vehicle parking spaces is not necessary to
achieve Valley Plan goals.
With full County of Mariposa support and participation, sufficient
funding to the National Park Service, and regulatory flexibility, the
Valley Plan will be successfully implemented with broad-based
satisfaction.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Balmain.
Mr. Oliver.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY J. OLIVER, ESQ., COUNTY COUNSEL, TUOLUMNE
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Oliver. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My
name is Gregory Oliver, and I am the County Counsel for the
County of Tuolumne, California.
I would like to begin by thanking Congressman John
Doolittle for securing my opportunity to address this
Committee. With over 57 percent of Yosemite National Park
located within the boundaries of the County of Tuolumne, the
county obviously has a major stake in the outcome of the
Yosemite Valley Plan.
The county appreciates the Subcommittee soliciting comments
on the implementation of the Valley Plan. Our county's comment
is simple. Please do not implement the Yosemite Valley Plan
until the county's concerns have been adequately addressed.
One of the most fundamental areas of concern to the county
is how conversion from traditional, family-oriented, private
vehicles, auto touring to mass tourism will affect the natural
and socioeconomic environments of the County of Tuolumne. Auto
touring is arguably the number one recreational activity in
America. The vast majority of people visiting Yosemite National
Park do so in private automobiles.
Some 80 percent of these tourists are day visitors, most of
whom spend on average only about 4.2 hours in Yosemite Valley.
Many day visitors stay overnight in lodging and campground
facilities located in Tuolumne County. Day visitors are
accustomed to driving their own vehicles on their own time
schedules to Yosemite Valley. Auto tourists also expect to be
able to drive to the east end of the Valley where the Park
Service and concessionaire facilities are located, and where a
number of Yosemite Valley's most popular natural features are
to be observed and accessed.
Day and overnight visitors also enjoy driving the loop road
system, stopping at various locations during their auto tour.
These visitor activities are central to the current marketing
strategy of the tourism industry of the affected region. The
ability to spontaneously visit and tour Yosemite Valley by
private vehicle is also frequently cited by the real estate
industry in its promotion of property sales within the County
of Tuolumne.
Tourism is the largest sector of the economy in Tuolumne
County. It is by far and away the most important segment of the
economy of southern Tuolumne County, specifically the State
Route 120 corridor. Adoption of any plan which would disrupt
the present ability of the traveling public to access Yosemite
Valley by private automobile would adversely affect businesses
and communities located along the State Route 120 corridor.
Proposals to develop out-of-valley parking facilities and
shuttle day visitors to the Valley floor would inconvenience
motorists. This inconvenience would serve to reduce visitation
to Yosemite Valley and, consequently, adversely affect
businesses located along the State Route 120 corridor.
Similarly, the inconvenience of riding shuttle buses into
Yosemite Valley would encourage day visitors to ride tour buses
into the Valley from locations outside the Park, and this, in
turn, would reduce tourism in gateway communities if tour buses
do not stop within those communities. Where an individual in a
private automobile can stop in a gateway community if he/she so
chooses, that same individual may lose that option if he or she
rides a tour bus into Yosemite for the day. This scenario would
negatively impact businesses in the gateway communities.
The Tuolumne County Chamber of Commerce has estimated that
by limiting private automobiles from entering the Park and
relying on mass transit instead, it would equate to a loss of
tens of millions of dollars to the businesses located in the
gateway communities in Tuolumne County.
In addition, the County of Tuolumne would lose hundreds of
thousands of dollars in transient occupancy tax from reduced
stays in hotels and motels located within the County of
Tuolumne. While these numbers may first appear insignificant,
in a county like Tuolumne County, that relies on tourism for
its major source of revenue, the impact to the county and
businesses is catastrophic.
Another area of concern for the county is that the process
followed by the National Park Service in producing the Valley
Plan was flawed. The public could not provide an informed
opinion of the merits and demerits of the various alternatives
found in the draft Valley Plan because too much key information
was missing. Critical information regarding visitor patterns,
transportation redesign impacts, and updated cultural resources
inventories were missing from the draft Valley Plan. Most
glaring of all was that the Merced River Plan was not finalized
and released to the public until just shortly before the
closing of comments on the Valley Plan.
Yosemite Area Regional Transportation Systems, or YARTS as
it is known, and the Valley Plan are inextricably intertwined,
and yet the environmental review for YARTS was prepared
independent of the Valley Plan. The County of Tuolumne believes
that a programmatic environmental impact report should have
been done of the joint Park Service/YARTS bus plan. As National
Park Service representatives have stated, the transportation
scheme within the Valley Plan is designed to marry with the
YARTS plan. Only when the impacts and the mitigation for those
impacts have been identified and adequately addressed will the
ultimate cost of this experimental bus system be known.
The County of Tuolumne recognizes that the Valley Plan does
contain some elements of benefits. Few would argue that it is
time to remove the Cascades Dam or redesign the lower Yosemite
Falls area. However, the County of Tuolumne feels strongly that
at the foundation of any land management plan should be the
ideals of equity and environmental benefit. The process that
produced the Valley Plan was warped by special interests with
shortsighted goals. The Valley Plan is, indeed, fatally flawed
because none of the applicable scientific theories were
considered when the plan was written, and it was not properly
explained to the public.
It is time to return to the National Park Service's
founding authorities and regain the high ground of resource
protection. It is also past time to remember that our national
parks are for the people and we must carefully plan our
strategies around equality of access.
The County of Tuolumne requests that this Subcommittee send
the Valley Plan back to the Yosemite National Park area for
further comment to address the concerns of the County of
Tuolumne and others that have not yet been heard on the
Yosemite Valley Plan.
The County of Tuolumne also requests the Subcommittee hold
hearings in Yosemite National Park and the surrounding
communities to obtain comments from the people and communities
in and around Yosemite National Park who would be affected by
the adoption and funding of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The
County's comments on the Valley Plan also apply to the Merced
River Plan. The County also requests that the Merced River Plan
be returned to the park in order to allow for the required
public input.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to
address your Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Oliver with attachments
follows:]
Statement of Gregory J. Oliver, Esq., County Counsel, County of
Tuolumne, California
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name is Gregory
Oliver and I am the County Counsel for the County of Tuolumne in
California. I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Hefley for the
invitation to speak today. I would also like to thank Congressman John
Doolittle for securing my opportunity to address this subcommittee.
With over fifty-seven percent (57.27%) of Yosemite National Park
located within the boundaries of the County of Tuolumne, the County
obviously has a major stake in the outcome of the Yosemite Valley Plan.
The County appreciates the subcommittee soliciting comments on the
implementation of the Valley Plan. The County's comment is simple:
please do not implement the Yosemite Valley Plan until the County's
concerns have been adequately addressed.
One of the most fundamental areas of concern to the County is how
conversion from traditional, family orientated private vehicles auto
touring to mass transit tourism will affect the natural and
socioeconomic environments of the County of Tuolumne. Auto touring is
arguably the number one recreational activity in America. The vast
majority of the people visiting Yosemite National Park do so in private
automobiles. Some eighty percent (80%) of these tourists are day-
visitors, most of whom spend on average only about 4.2 hours in
Yosemite Valley. Many day-visitors stay over night in lodging and
campground facilities located in Tuolumne County. Day-visitors are
accustomed to driving their own vehicles on their own time schedules to
Yosemite Valley. Auto tourists also expect to be able to drive to the
east end of the valley where the Park Service and concessionaire
facilities are located, and where a number of Yosemite Valley's most
popular natural features are to be observed and accessed. Day and
overnight visitors also enjoy driving the ``loop road'' system stopping
at various locations during their auto-tour. These visitor activities
are central to the current marketing strategies of the tourism industry
of the affected region. The ability to spontaneously visit and tour
Yosemite Valley by private vehicle is also frequently cited by the real
estate industry in its promotion of property sales within the County of
Tuolumne.
Tourism is the largest sector of the economy in Tuolumne County. It
is by far and away the most important segment of the economy of
southern Tuolumne County, specifically the State Route 120 corridor.
Adoption of any plan which would disrupt the present ability of the
traveling public to access Yosemite Valley by private automobile, would
adversely affect businesses and communities located along the State
Route 120 corridor. Proposals to develop out of Valley parking
facilities and shuttle day visitors to the Valley floor would
inconvenience motorists. This inconvenience would serve to reduce
visitation to Yosemite Valley and consequently, adversely affect
businesses located along the State Route 120 corridor.
Similarly, the inconvenience of riding shuttle buses into Yosemite
Valley would encourage day visitors to ride tour buses into the Valley
from locations outside the Park and this in turn would reduce tourism
in gateway communities if tour buses do not stop within those
communities. Whereas an individual in a private automobile can stop in
a gateway community if he/she so chooses, that same individual may lose
that option if he/she rides a tour bus into Yosemite Valley for the
day. This scenario would negatively impact businesses in the gateway
communities.
The Tuolumne County Chamber of Commerce has estimated that by
limiting private automobiles from entering the Park and relying on mass
transit instead, it would equate to a loss of tens of millions of
dollars to the businesses located in the gateway communities located in
the County of Tuolumne. In addition, the County of Tuolumne would lose
hundreds of thousands of dollars in Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) from
reduced stays in hotels and motels located within the County of
Tuolumne. While these numbers may first appear insignificant, in a
county like Tuolumne County that relies on tourism for revenue, the
impact to the County and businesses is catastrophic.
Another area of concern for the County of Tuolumne is that the
process followed by the National Park Service in producing the Valley
Plan was flawed. The public could not provide an informed opinion of
the merits and demerits of the various alternatives found in the draft
Valley Plan because too much key information was missing. Critical
information regarding visitor patterns, transportation redesign
impacts, and updated cultural resources inventories were missing from
the draft Valley Plan. Most glaring of all was that the Merced River
Plan was not finalized and released to the public until just shortly
before closing the comments on the Valley Plan.
Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) and the Valley
Plan are inextricably intertwined, and yet the environmental review for
YARTS was prepared independent of the Valley Plan. The County of
Tuolumne believes that a programmatic environmental impact report
should have been done of the joint Park Service-YARTS bus plan. As
National Park Service representatives have stated, the transportation
scheme within the Valley Plan is designed to ``marry'' with the YARTS
plan. Only when the impacts and the mitigation for those impacts have
been identified and adequately addressed, will the ultimate cost of
this experimental bus system be known.
The County of Tuolumne recognizes that the Valley Plan does contain
some elements of benefits. Few would argue that it is time to remove
the Cascades Dam or redesign the lower Yosemite Falls area. However,
the County of Tuolumne feels strongly that at the foundation of any
land management plan should be the ideals of equity and environmental
benefit. The process that produced the Valley Plan was warped by
special interests with shortsighted goals. The Valley Plan is indeed
fatally flawed because none of the applicable scientific theories
(i.e., Forest Management theories, Species protection theories, etc.)
were considered when the plan was written, and it was not properly
explained to the public. It is time to return to the National Park
Service's founding authorities and regain the high ground of resource
protection. It is also past time to remember that our National Parks
are for the people, all the people and we must carefully plan our
strategies around equality of access.
The County of Tuolumne requests that this subcommittee send the
Yosemite Valley Plan back to the Yosemite National Park area for
further comment to address the concerns of the County of Tuolumne and
others that have not yet been heard on the Yosemite Valley Plan. The
County of Tuolumne also requests that this subcommittee hold hearings
in Yosemite National Park and the surrounding communities to obtain
comments from the people and communities in and around Yosemite
National Park who would be affected by the adoption and funding of the
Yosemite Valley Plan. The County's comments on the Yosemite Valley Plan
also apply to the Merced River Plan. The County also requests that the
Merced River Plan be returned to the park in order to allow for the
required public input.
Again, thank you Mr. Chairman for this opportunity to address the
subcommittee. If anyone has any questions, I would be happy to answer
them. Thank you.
(Letters and exhibits attached to Mr. Oliver's prepared
statement follow:]
March 22, 2001
The Honorable Joel Hefley, Congressman
Chairman Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Committee on Resources
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Re: Implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan
Dear Congressman Hefley:
The County of Tuolumne wishes to publicly thank Congressman John
Doolittle for securing us an opportunity to address the Subcommittee on
National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands on the issue of
implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan. This plan will not only
have a significant impact on the future of Yosemite Valley, but all of
Yosemite National Park and the gateway communities surrounding the
Park. With over fifty-eight percent (58%) of Yosemite National Park
located within the boundaries of the County of Tuolumne, the County
obviously has a major stake in the outcome of the Valley Plan.
We appreciate the subcommittee soliciting input on how to implement
the Valley Plan and how the Valley Plan will impact such things as
transportation, parking, visitor services, employee housing, and the
wild and scenic river. The County's comment is simple: please do not
implement this Plan until these concerns have been adequately
addressed.
Several issues were raised during the scoping on how the redesign
of the Valley's infrastructure was going to impact the natural
environment, the cultural environment, and the visitor experience both
within and outside the Park. Central to the Valley Plan is access
conversion from private vehicles to buses, and the National Park
Service was asked repeatedly what the design limits were for mass
transit tourism, and how impacts associated with mass transit tourism
would be mitigated. Unfortunately, these questions went unanswered.
While the theory of mass transit tourism has been discussed widely
and defended strenuously by its supporters, the test of this theory
appears to be intended for Yosemite National Park. Indeed, Park Service
representatives have stated their intent is to ``experiment'' with
Yosemite National Park. They have- openly advocated that
experimentation is the best way for implementation. No true protector
of the environment would take this position, and neither does the
County of Tuolumne. Again, our comment is simple: please do not
implement this Plan until these concerns have been adequately
addressed.
The County of Tuolumne has many concerns about the adverse impacts
implementation of the Valley Plan will cause. Enclosed as Exhibit ``A''
is a copy of a letter dated June 28, 2000, which was Tuolumne County's
Response to the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan. In addition, these concerns
were outlined in the County's response to scoping on the Valley Plan.
The entire text of the letter is submitted to the committee as Exhibit
``B''. In short, there are impacts that will occur far beyond the
boundaries of the Park if the Valley Plan goes forward as adopted.
Our key concerns are as follows:
LOne of the most fundamental areas of concern is how
conversion from traditional, family orientated private vehicle auto
touring to mass transit tourism will affect the natural and
socioeconomic environments of the County of Tuolumne. The National Park
Service has made clear their intent to limit private vehicle access to
Yosemite National Park. They contend that they cannot handle the
vehicle traffic loads that occurred in the mid-1990s without having
chronic gridlock and congestion or causing unacceptable resource
impacts. However, it should be noted that in 1997 the Park Service
demonstrated that it could handle those traffic levels with relatively
simple traffic management techniques and no appreciable resource
impacts.
LA common myth has been that Yosemite Valley is
chronically plagued with gridlock and congestion. This is blamed on day
visitors in private vehicles exceeding the capacity of the Valley's
parking space inventory. In reality, the lack of restraint is a bigger
threat. A carefully managed auto plan will bring about far greater
equity and superior environmental benefits than the poorly thought out,
open ended mass transit tourism plan.
LThe County of Tuolumne is on record asking for the National Park
Service to provide information on the people carrying capacity of
Yosemite Valley. Carrying capacity or occupancy limits is not just a
matter of parking space inventory. There are a number of infrastructure
constraints in Yosemite Valley. Before launching upon an undefined mass
transit bus system, the National Park Service should research and
divulge the design limits of Yosemite Valley. The National Park Service
should identify what the ``people per hour'' limits are at the most
popular viewing stations, trail heads, trails, and visitor contact
points. Capacity should also be divulged regarding food services,
restrooms, sewage system, water supply, and electrical loads. A Valley
Plan alternative based upon known infrastructure limitation is the most
practical and environmentally sound approach, which has not been
considered by the Park Service.
LAccording to the National Park Service over a third (1/3)
of day visitors enter the Park through one gate and exit through
another. By restricting private vehicle access for day visitors at
least thirty-three percent (33%) of the existing tourism market will be
affected. The proposed bus plan does not fit this visitor pattern. Over
the past eighty (80) years the gateway communities have built their
tourism economy around private auto touring. A potential loss of
thirty-three percent (33%) or more of this market will have a
significant economic impact on the gateway communities. In addition,
the bus plan favors one corridor over the others as the distances
traveled from staging areas to the Valley are far less. With shorter
distances, travel times by bus are less, and fares are lower. There is
a real potential that travelers will be aware of this and tend to
patronize the Highway 140 corridor to the detriment of businesses on
the other routes. With traditional auto touring there was more equity
in the Yosemite tourism market. In light of the tremendous economic
impact on surrounding communities, our comment remains: please do not
implement this Plan until these concerns have been adequately
addressed.
LThe process followed by the National Park Service in
producing the Valley Plan was flawed. The public could not provide an
informed opinion of the merits and demerits of the various alternatives
found in the draft Valley Plan because too much key information was
missing. Critical information regarding visitor patterns,
transportation redesign impacts, and updated cultural resources
inventories were missing from the draft Valley Plan. Most glaring of
all was that the Merced River Plan was not finalized and released to
the public until just shortly before closing the comments on the Valley
Plan.
LYosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) and the
Valley Plan are inextricably intertwined, and yet the environmental
review for YARTS was prepared independent of the Valley Plan. The
County of Tuolumne believes that a programmatic environmental impact
report should have been done of the joint Park Service-YARTS bus plan.
As National Park Service representatives have stated, the
transportation scheme within the Valley Plan is designed to ``marry''
with the YARTS plan. Only when the impacts and the mitigation for those
impacts have been identified and adequately addressed, will the
ultimate cost of this experimental bus system be known.
LThe National Park Service was fairly clear in the 1980 General
Management Plan (GMP) about private vehicle capacities in the Valley
floor. In stark contrast, the information on bus limitations has been
vague at best. In fact YARTS insists that buses will ``guarantee
access'' to all that come and that the bus system will bring ``more
people'' to Yosemite. They are correct about one thing, buses can bring
more people per hour into the Park than private vehicles.
LIn the Merced River Plan, one of the obvious entitlements
is mass transit tourism. The evidence that the plan was manipulated to
usher in mass transit tourism can be found no more clearly than in the
plan's deletion of air quality as an outstanding resource value.
Obviously, the bus technology currently available and proposed for the
Valley will severely damage air resources.
LThe question must be asked how does the Valley Plan and YARTS
comply with the Federal Clean Air Act, as both the County of Mariposa
and the County of Tuolumne have been identified as future nonattainment
areas. Although both the National Park Service and YARTS have stated
they will use alternative fuel buses, it is clear that for the
foreseeable future diesel buses will be the mainstay of the proposed
regional bus plan. The emissions impacts associated with this plan are
unacceptable especially when the superior technology of the private
vehicles is displaced by diesel buses with low ridership. The National
Park Service and YARTS representatives propose that technology will
solve this problem in the future. The County of Tuolumne believes that
all development projects must mitigate impacts with current technology
instead of being approved with the hope that in the future we will find
a cure.
LIt should be made very clear that the introduction of electric
buses and shuttles into the Valley may not be possible if Pacific Gas
and Electric cannot provide the infrastructure to support, or deliver
the energy needed to recharge, a large electric fleet.
LEquity is a key issue with the Valley Plan. During the
peak visitation years of 1995-97, less than twenty percent (20%) of the
development footprint of Yosemite Valley was solely attributable to day
visitor needs. The Yosemite Plan targets nearly ninety percent (90%) of
the day visiting auto touring market for removal from Yosemite Valley.
More than sixty percent (60%) of the development footprint of Yosemite
Valley is dedicated for the overnight market and its supportive
services. Considering the $441 million price tag of the Valley Plan and
with less than six (6) cents on every dollar going to natural resource
restoration, that equates to far too much of the $441 million going
into the construction and rehabilitation of overnight lodging. The
Valley Plan appears to be weighted toward intensification of
commercialization. Simply put, the city of 2,500 located at the east
end of Yosemite Valley is there to service the overnight guest not the
day visitor. It is the position of the County of Tuolumne that day
visitor auto touring is far less of an impact to the environment of
Yosemite National Park than the open ended mass transit tourism that is
codified in the Valley Plan. It is also the opinion of Tuolumne County
that even though currently up to eighty percent (80%) of the Yosemite
tourism market is comprised of day visitors using private vehicles to
visit Yosemite Valley, the vast majority of resource impacts in the
Valley are caused by overnight visitors and their supportive services.
Overnight visitors can be accommodated with less environmental impacts
in gateway communities.
LThe overnight market for the Valley consists primarily of
campers and lodgers. Despite the fact that lodgers have a greater
impact on the environment than campers, it is the campers that are
called to sacrifice more accommodations in the Valley Plan. As a rule,
lodgers pay more per night than campers therefore, campers will tend
toward the lower income groups. There is real concern that the Valley
Plan is practicing economic discrimination.
Certainly the Valley Plan does contain some elements of benefit.
Few would argue that it is time to remove the Cascades Dam or redesign
the lower Yosemite Falls area. However, the County of Tuolumne feels
strongly that at the foundation of any land management plan should be
the ideals of equity and environmental benefit. If the subcommittee
truly wants to leave a legacy worthy of the traditions of the National
Park Service then you must agree with us that the Valley Plan and the
Merced River Plan must be pulled back. The process that produced these
plans was warped by special interests with shortsighted goals. The
products are indeed fatally flawed because they are not science based,
and they were not properly explained to the public. It is time to
return to the National Park Service's founding authorities and regain
the high ground of resource protection. It is also past time to
remember that our National Parks are for the people, all the people and
we must carefully plan our strategies around equality of access.
The County of Tuolumne requests that this subcommittee send the
Yosemite Valley Plan back to the Yosemite National Park area for
further comment to address the concerns of our County and others that
have not yet been addressed in the Yosemite Valley Plan. The County of
Tuolumne also requests that this subcommittee hold hearings in Yosemite
National Park and the surrounding communities to obtain comments from
the people and communities in and around Yosemite National Park that
would be affected by the adoption and funding of the Yosemite Valley
Plan.
The County of Tuolumne wishes to thank Congressman Joel Hefley for
the opportunity to comment on the Yosemite Valley Plan and the
invitation to our County Counsel, Gregory J. Oliver, Esq., to speak
before the subcommittee hearing.
Very truly yours,
DON RATZLAFF
Chairman
Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors
Enclosures
______
EXHIBIT A
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1353.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1353.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1353.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1353.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1353.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1353.012
EXHIBIT B
January 12, 1999
Stan Albright, Superintendent
Yosemite National Park Valley Plan
P.O. Box 577
Yosemite, CA 95389
Dear Superintendent Albright:
The Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors thank you for the
opportunity to comment on the drafting of your ``new comprehensive
plan'' for Yosemite Valley. However, we note that the announcement of
the scoping period took place on December 18, 1998, just ahead of a
two-week holiday break for many people and organizations. We also note
that the scoping period closes on January 15, 1999, less than 30 days
after your press release. We wonder if the notice and the duration of
the scoping period meets the legal requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). We don't believe we have to remind you
of the criticism that occurred when the Draft Valley Implementation
Plan (VIP) was released in 1997 just ahead of the holiday period. In
response to those concerns the National Park Service did extend the
comment period for the VIP. Likewise, we believe that the timing of the
scoping period is not conducive to gaining complete public awareness
nor garnering broad-based input and Tuolumne County requests that the
scoping period be extended an additional 30 days. In addition to this,
we have the following comments and concerns.
The merging of the four existing documents (Draft Yosemite Valley
Housing Plan/EIS, Yosemite Lodge Development Plan/EA, Draft Valley
Implementation Plan/EIS, Lower Yosemite Falls Corridor Project) with
public comments on these plans, is the focus of this scoping. The
National Park Service has stated that these plans are all ``rooted'' in
the 1980 General Management Plan (GMP). Therefore, the proposed ``New
Yosemite Valley Plan'' does not constitute a ``new'' comprehensive plan
for Yosemite Valley. The four individual plans were all predicated on
the assumption that they are to implement the nineteen year old, 1980
GMP.
The 1980 GMP is an outdated plan which does not address changes
that have occurred in the last nineteen years in environmental
regulations and federal regulations. The 1980
GMP does not address the changes that have occurred in the last
nineteen years to the natural environmental conditions, the cultural
resources conditions and to other physical conditions in the Valley
floor. The 1980 GMP does not address the tremendous change that has
occurred in the past nineteen years in the social expectations of the
traveling/visiting public. The four implementation plans cited above
also do not address these innumerable changes.
The National Park Service's Organic Act states in part that the
National Park Service's purpose is to ``conserve the scenery and the
natural and historic objects and the wildlife'' in the park ``by such
means.as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations''. Under the terms of the National Historic Preservation
Act, the 1980 GMP would only have addressed historic objects that were
fifty years of age or older at the time the GMP was adopted. Within the
last nineteen years, many objects in Yosemite Valley have passed their
50th anniversary, objects which would not have been addressed in the
1980 GMP. The four implementation plans have proposed significant
alterations to historic objects that have not had complete
environmental review, such as bridges, roads, and parking areas
constructed in the 1930's and `40s. This seems to be a clear violation
of NEPA, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended, and
the 1997 National Park Service Cultural Resources Strategic Plan
(CRSP). The CRSP Section 1.A requires that ``Cultural Resources are
protected, preserved, and maintained in good condition.''
It is the opinion of several cultural resources specialists that
the Yosemite Valley floor constitutes an historic district as defined
by the National Historic Preservation Act and therefore, each
individual historic object, structure, or building contributes
significantly to the overall historic district which is eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places. In essence, Yosemite Valley
is a highly prized cultural landscape and your Organic Act charter
mandates sensitive environmental protection of the Valley's cultural
resources.
Federal wetlands regulations have become more stringent in the past
nineteen years. This is due to changes in the Clean Water Act and in
Army Corps of Engineers Regulations. These changes could not have been
addressed in the 1980 GMP.
Another significant change in environmental regulation is air
pollution control regulations. In the last nineteen years the State of
California has adopted tighter regulations on emissions for private
vehicles, while buses have not had the same level of restrictions.
Recent studies have shown that buses add 30 to 40 times the pollutants
to the air than private vehicles in California. The changes in
regulations and emissions were not addressed in the 1980 GMP.
In discussing transportation options, the various implementation
plans as well as the 1980 GMP appear to only focus on private passenger
vehicles, bicycles and shuttle buses. There needs to be a comprehensive
analysis on how various forms of transportation could be accommodated
and/or treated separately. For example, tourists traveling to Yosemite
Valley via motorcycle pose a significant difference in environmental
impacts than tourists arriving on diesel fuming buses. The National
Park Service should address all forms of transportation including,
equestrian, bicycle, motorcycle, small passenger vehicles and trucks,
large recreational vehicles and trailers, shuttle and tour buses, and
rail.
Traffic patterns and usage levels that existed in 1980 have
substantially changed in the last nineteen years. While these changes
were partially considered in the visitor transportation study conducted
by Yosemite National Park in 1992-93, there are significant components
to traffic patterns and usage that have not been documented by the
National Park Service. Some of these significant changes have occurred
in the ``gateway communities'' surrounding Yosemite National Park. The
National Park Service's incomplete and outdated traffic analysis fails
to meet the NEPA requirements to address the entire environmental
impact associated with the various alternatives proposed by the four
implementation plans nor those impacts associated with the ``conceptual
alternatives'' for the new plan.
The Central Sierra Nevada has been classified by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) as an extreme wildland
fire hazard area. In 1987, 1990 and 1996, major event fires closed all
or part of the access roads leading into Yosemite Valley. Profound
changes to the environment have occurred because of these fires.
Federal and State fire, health and safety regulations have
substantially changed in the last nineteen years. The proposed changes
to the physical infrastructure of the Valley floor that are predicated
on the 1980 GMP could not have addressed these regulatory changes.
There needs to be an analysis of how variously proposed transit
programs will address fire, health and safety issues. For example,
private vehicles are easier to evacuate from the Valley and pose less
interference to incoming emergency vehicles than buses. Also, buses
would have to wait for all of their passengers to board before leaving
a threatened area, putting larger groups of people at risk in an
evacuation situation.
There is a significant absence of quantified and quality data on
cultural resources, natural resources, and visitor experience. In
particular, there is no clear information provided in the various
Yosemite plans on how one area is weighed against another in arriving
at management decisions. For example, management decisions to reduce
private vehicles and increase buses in an attempt to ``improve''
visitor experience may actually decrease the quality of the visitor
experience by increasing total numbers of visitors at popular stops
and vistas which would be to the detriment of the visitor
experience, cultural resources and natural resources. Buses can
actually bring in more people per hour than private vehicles and there
has been no limit proposed on buses. Furthermore, buses will
concentrate people and vehicles around staging areas, stops and
schedules creating concentrations of environmental impacts both within
and outside Yosemite Valley.
Any general management plan that seeks to eliminate private day
visitor vehicles and/or restrict day visitor activities would have a
profound impact upon the gateway communities' economies, especially
those communities which depend primarily on private vehicle based
visitor traffic for tourism dollars. Neither the 1980 GMP, nor the four
implementation plans address socio-economic impacts beyond Yosemite
National Park's boundary.
The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) underscored the inter-
relation of resource decisions being made by land management agencies
throughout the Sierra Nevada. Even John Muir spoke of the connection
that all resources have to one another. Specifically, the various
Yosemite plans have yet to relate themselves to the SNEP report. Nor
does the National Park Service take into account how Yosemite National
Park policy changes will impact the surrounding National Forest lands.
In the last nineteen years, there has been a tremendous change in
the demographics of the State of California. These changes have been
mirrored in the changes in the socioeconomic climate of visitation to
Yosemite National Park, tourism in general, and in the population of
the United States as a whole. The presumption that the general public's
response today on the Valley's desired condition is the same as it was
in 1980 is dubious. A summary analysis of what the public responses
were for the 1980 GMP should be provided along with a summary of the
planning assumptions that were circulated in preparation of the 1980
GMP.
We note that in the Yosemite National Park's January 1999
newsletter, a summary of the public responses for the four draft
implementation plans is provided. The newsletter requests that the
reader review these summaries to see if there are any issues not
covered. The summary provided on public input for the VIP appears to
not include certain key concerns raised by Tuolumne County in its VIP
response. Therefore, we are resubmitting our VIP response letter into
this scoping process (see attachment).
The National Environmental Policy Act, Section 101(42 USC
Subsection 4331) states that Congress declares that it recognizes ``the
critical importance of restoring and maintaining environmental quality
to the overall welfare and development of man, declares that it is the
continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with State
and local governments, and other concerned public and private
organizations, to use all practicable means and measures, including
financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster
and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions
under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill
the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future
generations of Americans.''
We ask the National Park Service to cooperate with our local
government by honoring its social, economic and environmental
commitments to the public, to serve the needs of the public, and to
honor its Federal regulations and statues which are in place today, by
readdressing all aspects of the 1980 GMP and its management decisions
of the past. Parks are for people and Yosemite Valley is a park, not a
wilderness area.
Sincerely,
Mark V. Thornton
Chairman
Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors
______
February 10, 1998
Stanley T. Albright, Superintendent
Attn: VIP Planning
Yosemite National Park
P.O. Box 577
Yosemite National Park, CA 95389
LRe: Draft Yosemite Valley Implementation Plan/Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement
Dear Mr. Albright:
The Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors has reviewed the Draft
Yosemite Valley Implementation Plan/Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (VIP). Below is a summary of key points followed by a general
discussion of our principal concerns. Attached to this correspondence
is a proposed fifth alternative which is essentially a list of measures
we ask the National Park Service to consider when implementing any
actions.
Tuolumne County's key concerns:
1) LBecause the reduction in camping sites and lodging rooms may
be targeting lower cost accommodations, which would impact lower income
visitors; and because proposed restrictions on vehicle access falls
primarily upon day-visitors, which may be comprised largely of working
class Americans who cannot afford the luxury of staying overnight in
Yosemite Valley, the issue of economic discrimination should be
addressed.
2) LIn-park revenue losses due to permanent campground space
reductions is said to be off-set by revenues generated from
construction activity. However, construction revenue will last from 5
to 10 years, campground reductions are permanent so why is this
considered off-setting?. Furthermore, those working in construction are
generally not the same as those engaged in catering to tourists.
3) LA socio-economic analysis needs to be provided on impacts to
the ``affected region'' because of a decline in day-visitors (including
both ``local overnighters'' and ``day excursion visitors'') to Yosemite
Valley due to reductions in private vehicle capacity and/or increases
in the expense of visiting the valley.
4) LAn environmental and economic analysis needs to be provided on
impacts that.might occur to the surrounding National Forest lands due
to increased numbers of excluded Yosemite day and overnight visitors.
5) LA technical analysis of in-valley environmental impacts needs
to be provided, including establishing direct links between natural
resources restoration and day-use vehicle capacity reductions, cultural
resources impacts, and facility remodeling, relocation, and new
construction. Percentages of reclamation by habitat type and area
should be correlated with losses in cultural resources and changes in
visitor experiences. These connections need to be clarified and
quantified.
6) LBecause YARTS is integral to the VIP an economic and
environmental analysis needs to be conducted on impacts associated with
the implementation of a regional transportation system.
7) LA technical analysis of an integrated regional transportation
system should be included in the VIP, including the consideration of
offering the public an optional rather than mandatory system.
8) LAn analysis should be provided of how special groups such as
senior citizens, young families with small children, people with
disabilities, and those with special recreational equipment will be
accommodated by a public transportation system or unduly hindered by
private vehicle reductions.
9) LAn analysis of trail capacity, occupancy limits and visitor
behavior patterns (for both overnight and day visitors) should be in
the VIP with the intent of establishing clearly defendable population
limits for the valley and the park.
10) LA discussion and an alternative should be provided that
addresses the congestion issue on a seasonal or peak demand basis. .
11) LAn analysis of a day use reservation system or periodic quota
closure policy should be provided.
12) LThe National Park Service needs to correct the misinformation
that most of Yosemite National Park is in Mariposa County (page 1 I5).
Of Yosemite Park's 747,956 acres approximately 435,847 acres (58%) are
in Tuolumne County.
13) LSince the State of California once held title to Yosemite
Valley and the Mariposa Grove of Redwoods, a legal opinion should be
provided on the applicability of the conditions attached to the
transfer of title to these lands from the State of California to the
Federal Government in 1906.
The Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors, in governing their
jurisdiction, is charged to protect and enhance the economic and
environmental climate of the County of Tuolumne. Two principal concerns
have arisen out of our review of the VIP. These concerns are centered
on: (a) private vehicle accessibility to Yosemite National Park; and
(b) the impacts associated with the building of a regional public
transportation system. A significant component of Tuolumne County's
economy is dependent on tourism. Much of the County's tourism industry
consists of small businesses built upon the seasonal arrival of
customers in private vehicles bound for Yosemite National Park. The
National Park Service's proposed actions could significantly reduce the
total numbers of these customers. The building of a regional
transportation system will shift visitor travel patterns leaving
``winners and losers'' in the restructured pattern of visitor spending.
While the VIP does provide some information on the affected region's
economic output, the analysis of potential impacts is incomplete.
Furthermore, the figures presented in Table 25 of the VIP (page 119)
for Tuolumne County, in the aggregate, may be understated by as much as
$5O million. Our following comments focus on the connected issues of
private vehicle accessibility and regional public transportation.
The VIP is a draft land management plan which presents four
alternatives for redesigning the infrastructure of Yosemite Valley.
Costs associated with the four alternatives are primarily a result of
remodeling, refining and/or reconstructing National Park Service and
concessionaire facilities. Many of these proposed construction projects
have little direct impact on the County of Tuolumne. However, central
to all the alternatives are proposed changes in the traditional
vehicular accessibility of Yosemite Valley. Specifically, the VIP
proposes to reduce the current inventory of day use private vehicle
parking spaces and restrict private vehicle movement within Yosemite
Valley. These two proposals equate to a radical change in the
traditional auto touring experience now being afforded both day and
overnight visitors. These proposed changes are large in scope,
permanent in design and portend a major impact on the tourism economy
of Tuolumne County. These actions are also linked to regional
transportation strategies, which will also impact the County of
Tuolumne.
Auto touring is arguably the number one recreational activity in
America. The vast majority of the people visiting Yosemite National
Park do so in private automobiles. Some 80% of these tourists are day-
visitors, most of whom spend on average only about 4.2 hours in
Yosemite Valley. Many day-visitors stay over night in lodging and
campground facilities in the ``affected region'' of Madera, Mariposa,
Merced, Mono and Tuolumne Counties. Still others are residents of the
affected region, or central California in general, who pay repeat
visits to Yosemite Valley during the course of the year. Day-visitors
are accustomed to driving their own vehicles on their own time
schedules to Yosemite Valley. Auto tourists also expect to be able to
drive to the east end of the valley where the Park Service and
concessionaire facilities are located, and where a number of Yosemite
Valley's most popular natural features are to be observed and accessed.
Day and overnight visitors also enjoy driving the ``loop road'' system
stopping at various locations during their auto tour. The National Park
Service plans to change these visitor experiences. These visitor
activities are central to the current marketing strategies of the
tourism industry of the affected region. The ability to spontaneously
visit and tour Yosemite Valley by private vehicle is also frequently
cited by the real estate industry in its promotion of property sales
within the affected region.
The Park Service has reported that its decision to reduce private
vehicle capacity and eliminate auto touring is based on the 1980
General Management Plan (GMP). The GMP states: ``Increasing automobile
traffic is the single greatest threat to enjoyment of the natural and
scenic qualities of Yosemite. In the near future, automobile congestion
will be greatly reduced by restricting people's use of their cars and
increasing public transportation. And the day will come when visitors
wilt no longer drive their private automobiles into the most beautiful
and fragile areas of the park. The ultimate goal of the National Park
.Service is to remove all private vehicles from Yosemite Valley.
[emphasis added] The Valley must be freed from the noise, the smell,
the glare and the environmental degradation caused by thousands of
vehicles.'' The GMT was developed in the 1970s as a 10 year plan. It is
a dated document based on an out-dated environmental analysis. The VIP
acknowledges that noise and air quality issues associated with private
vehicles is decreasing as automotive technology continues to advance.
Furthermore, noise and emissions caused by public transportation
probably is more adverse to the environment than those associated with
private vehicles, as the emissions tables in the VIP suggest. Perhaps
the only major issue remaining from 1980 is that of traffic congestion
in the valley floor.
The VIP uses the word ``congestion'' throughout the document but it
does not define, qualify or quantify its use. The VIP does indicate
that traffic congestion, as in private vehicles, is the issue. In
addressing this, all four alternatives in the VIP recommend reducing
the day use parking space inventory. The alternatives also recommend
curtailing or limiting auto touring on Northside and Southside Drives.
It is also recommended that day-use parking be consolidated into a
limited number of staging areas. The VIP does not analyze all aspects
of traffic and congestion, and specifically doesn't indicate where or
when traffic congestion is a problem. Consequently, it is difficult to
determine the merits of the various alternatives. However, it seems
dubious to suggest that congestion will be cured by significantly
decreasing private vehicle capacity in the valley unless a day use
reservation system or quota closure policy is also to be enacted. The
VIP does not address either of these policies which is a serious
omission. The VIP also does not provide a complete picture concerning
congestion as it relates to overnight visitors, resident employees,
commuting employees, service and delivery personnel, and tour bus
passengers. All of these groups are traffic generators. The VIP should
define objectives regarding traffic congestion, and establish
benchmarks. Furthermore, the National Park Service should spread the
vehicle reduction burden across all categories of traffic generators,
with employees being the first target group and day-visitors being the
last. The VIP also provides an incomplete analysis of how a public
transportation system would be utilized to reduce traffic congestion.
And, the VIP does not address any limit to total bus numbers, which
could rise substantially over current levels and introduce
exponentially more people into Yosemite Valley as compared to private
vehicles.
If the ultimate goal of the National Park Service is for public
transportation to replace private vehicle access to Yosemite Valley,
then why is the National Park Service promoting Alternative 2 as their
``preferred alternative''? Under this scenario there would be one in-
valley staging area for day-visitors at Taft Toe. Once day-visitors
arrive at this location further travel in the valley would be by foot,
bicycle, or public transportation. However, there is no basis of
support for an in-valley staging area (i.e. parking lot) in the GNP.
The GNP's stated goal was to remove all vehicles from the entire
valley. The Taft Toe concept, as well as the idea of limiting traffic
movement and consolidating day use parking, apparently stems from the
findings of a 1994 transportation study conducted in Yosemite Park. A
summary of the study is found in Appendix D of the VIP. This study
concluded that an ``in-valley staging area strategy'' would be the most
effective way of addressing the increasing number of automobiles that
are crowding into Yosemite Valley. The reasons for selecting an in-
valley staging area strategy are also set forth in the summary.
Those reasons came about as a result of considering two plans for a
remote staging area strategy. Under one plan, staging areas (i.e.
parking lots) would be located at Crane Flat, El Portal, and Badger
Pass. The other plan considered constructing staging areas near the Big
Oak Flat Entrance Station, El Portal, and the South Entrance Station.
The reasons against building either network of parking lots were the
same. Two major factors were that from 40 to 62 more buses would be
needed for a remote vehicle staging system than for an in-valley
staging system and, secondly, the remote system would cost from $10.8
to $16.5 million more annually than an in-valley system. Another
significant finding was that only 21 % of the visitors enter and exit
Yosemite National Park via the same gate. The pattern of travel for the
other 79% would be greatly challenged by a remote staging system. Other
findings included: ``Remote staging areas would limit visitors' ability
to stop at features along the park roads for sightseeing and other
activities. Potentially higher levels of particulate and nitrogen oxide
emissions would be generated by buses. Increased noise levels would be
associated with high volumes of bus travel. Complex visitor
communications and management systems would be necessary at many sites
to sort nonvalley, valley day use, and valley overnight traffic.
Similar functions would need to be accommodated at the entrance to the
valley as well as the remote staging areas.'' In short, the National
Park Service abandoned the idea of establishing a remote private
vehicle staging network because of high costs, adverse environmental
impacts, and negative impacts to the visitor experience. Thus, the
National Park Service's preferred alternative in the VIP promotes an
in-valley staging area strategy centered on the construction of the
Tart Toe facility.
The factors that led to the rejection of an in-park remote staging
area strategy will also serve as serious impediments to constructing a
regional transportation system. The building of a regional
transportation service is the focus and purpose of the Yosemite Area
Regional Transportation Strategy (YARTS). The VIP briefly addresses the
interrelationship between Yosemite Park and YARTS. Specifically, the
VIP states that the National Park Service will ``seek'' to ``complement
and encourage'' the development of a regional transportation system.
The VIP also states that the National Park Service ``will implement a
transit shuttle service in Yosemite National Park and Yosemite
Valley...'' It is apparently proposed that this would be coordinated
with the YARTS system and private tour buses. Two points need to be
considered about YARTS. First, the five counties, and several agencies
that comprise YARTS are only held together by a memorandum of
understanding. This is a fairly weak arrangement for a public
transportation program that promises to cost millions of dollars if it
is ever constructed. Second, there is no YARTS transportation system in
place today. Studies on the nature and extent of a regionally operated
YARTS shuttle bus system have only begun. The current proposal is to
set up staging areas along the Highway 41, 140, and 120 corridors in
the vicinities of Oakhurst, Mariposa and Groveland. This concept has
essentially taken the in-park remote staging area strategy studied in
1994 and moved it to the ``gateway communities.'' Because of the
greater distance from Yosemite Valley, the negative factors associated
with the in-park remote staging strategy will be exponentially more
severe. No doubt this is why the VIP contains the following statement:
``In the event that the YARTS process leads to a determination that a
regional transportation system is not feasible, the National Park
Service will proceed with projects consistent with the Draft Valley
Implementation Plan that will reduce traffic congestion yet ensure
visitor accessibility.''
Evidence is mounting that the YARTS system will not be feasible. If
the system of travel to Yosemite Valley to replace private vehicle
access is a full service, year-round gateway-community-based shuttle
bus system, the costs will be enormous. The price to build such a
system is currently estimated by the YARTS consultant to be upwards of
$200 million. Annual operating costs could run as high as $17.5
million. At this time no funding source has been secured to build, much
less operate, the YARTS bus service. If funding is based on bus fares,
the cost for going to Yosemite National Park in the future will be far
greater than it is today via private automobile. On the other hand, if
entry fees are raised for private vehicles to subsidize the bus system,
a drop in private vehicle entries will result, thus negating any
potential revenue increases. In either case, these actions would damage
the tourism industry of Tuolumne County, which raises questions about
economic discrimination. If a regional revenue system is adopted, the
surrounding counties will be severely impacted. If YARTS applies for
existing state and federal grant programs it will be competing with the
affected region's other transportation needs. Costs will not be the
only deterrent to establishing and operating a regional transportation
system.
Another area of concern is the issue of visitor experience. Private
vehicles offer a degree of flexibility and convenience which is very
difficult, if not impossible, for buses to mimic. Returning to Yosemite
National Park's 1994 transportation study, the report listed several
reasons why an in-park shuttle system could not readily accept
overnight visitors. One reason was the expense attendant to maintaining
a bus fleet capable of carrying luggage and camping gear. The study
also stated that overnight visitors would resist being separated from
their additional luggage and equipment left behind in their cars.
Another concern was providing security and protection for remotely
parked vehicles. These concerns no doubt played a role in formulating
the VIP. All four alternatives allow overnight guests to drive to their
lodging or camping areas at the east end of the valley. These and other
factors will weigh against overnight visitors riding into Yosemite
Valley aboard a regional bus system. But the transporting of belongings
is not exclusive to overnight visitors.
From anglers to photographers, from picnickers to rafters, most
day-visitors have a myriad of things in tow when heading for a day in
Yosemite Valley. In addressing impacts on recreational activities the
VIP states: ``Private cars would be unavailable for transporting and
storing picnic food and equipment. This could make picnicking more
difficult for some visitors and would change the experience for
others.'' Later the VIP states: ``Photographers would have to carry
equipment and supplies with them on the transit system and while
walking to sites. Reduced mobility would seduce and restrict the
ability of photographers to respond quickly to changing conditions.''
The VIP adds: ``Transport of hang gliders, skis, and other equipment
would be a challenge.'' Other equipment could include bicycles, rock
climbing gear and kayaks, to name just a few items. The VIP also
states: ``Day excursion visitors are expected to be most discouraged
from visiting Yosemite due to constraints on private vehicle access.''
This statement is buttressed by these additional comments: ``Auto and
bus touring are common ways of exploring and enjoying Yosemite
Valley...'' ``While some people access picnic areas with backpacks,
most rely on automobiles to transport families, food, and
paraphernalia. Frequently, picnic sites become a base for exploring the
park.'' The VIP's response is: ``Shuttles would be equipped to handle
recreational equipment.'' It should be clarified that the YARTS buses
will also be challenged to accommodate the stuff day-visitors bring.
But this isn't the worst of it, the VIP does not allow for YARTS buses
to have access to the east end of the valley under Alternatives 2 and
3. This means YARTS passengers would be faced with the major
inconvenience of transferring to the in-valley shuttles. Finally,
neither the National Park Service nor YARTS has convincing evidence
that the proposed public transportation systems will be as user
friendly as private vehicles for such special groups as young families
with small children, senior citizens, or visitors with disabilities.
All of these factors may very well lead to a decline in annual
visitation to Yosemite Park if the proposals in the VIP are
implemented. This equates to a major impact upon the tourism economy of
the affected region, including Tuolumne County.
The National Park Service apparently recognizes that public
transportation will create hardships for many day visitors. The VIP
states: ``Visitors might respond to changes in park facilities and
operations by altering their demand for park access, their spending
behavior, their use patterns, and their length of stay. Changes in
visitor spending patterns represent an important potential impact on
the region's economy. Yosemite visitor spending patterns could be
affected by factors such as increased spending opportunities, changes
in the visitor experience, and shifts in the visitor population if
current visitors are displaced by others with different spending
habits.'' In spite of the uncertainty of these statements, they do hint
at a change in the demographics of the tourist population brought about
by restrictions in private vehicle access and the implementation of a
public transportation system. However, the VIP gives no insight into
what the anticipated final outcome will be, something that an
environment impact statement should address.
Although many of the proposed actions in the VIP deal with non-
transportation issues, a principal focus continues to be on private
vehicles in Yosemite Valley. This is based on the anti-private vehicle
philosophy found in the GNP. The GMP cited the issues of noise,
emissions, visual impacts, environmental degradation, and congestion.
Technological improvements for private vehicles continues to reduce
noise and emissions far faster than for public transportation vehicles
(as indicated in the VIP). Visual impacts can be addressed by proper
screening of parking areas with natural vegetation (the strategy
proposed for hiding the Taft Toe facility). Environmental degradation
includes the specific issues of cars being parked in ``out-of-bounds''
areas because parking lots are full and to the problem of cars being
driven onto road shoulders. These can be addressed by public education
and enforcement (something the VIP agrees must be done to mitigate
impacts associated with all the proposed parking strategies and in
addressing the ongoing problems of crowded trails and viewing areas
where people tend to go off trail). Finally, we get to the issue of
congestion. Traffic congestion in Yosemite. Valley maybe attributable
to many factors other than simply raw numbers. Improper placement of
crosswalks and bus stops, buses blocking roads, or pedestrians and
bicyclists darting in and out of traffic can constrict vehicle movement
even with relatively few cars on the road. There is also the issue of
carrying capacity of valley roads and parking areas. If the National
Park Service has a precise vehicle limit for Yosemite Valley, then a
quota closure policy for day use visitors to the valley should be
straight forward and more cost-effective than constructing a' new
parking facility. However, this information is not included in the VIP.
The VIP appears to indicate that the day use parking limit in
Yosemite Valley is 2,300 spaces. However, both the VIP and GMP state
that the day-visitor capacity of the valley is 10,530 people. This
figure is said to be based upon the day use parking space inventory. If
we take into account the average occupancy of day use vehicles, which
the VIP reports as 2.9 per car, and divide this by the population limit
of 10,530 this would lead to the conclusion that 3,631 spaces exist in
the valley today. Three of the alternatives in the VIP state that day
use private vehicle capacity will not exceed 1,800 spaces once the
valley floor is redesigned. Until a complete disclosure is made on the
current parking space inventory and road capacities of Yosemite Valley,
the true impact of capacity reductions for day visitors cannot be
ascertained.
Data is also lacking, as the VIP states: ``...on the specific
conditions and social qualities that visitors seek...'' Without an in-
depth understanding of visitor behavior, the National Park Service
cannot clearly identify how the redesign of Yosemite Valley will affect
the visitor experience. Despite this, the VIP states: ``No reductions
in the number of visitors are expected because any negative responses
to changes in park facilities and operations are expected to be offset
by people who didn't visit the park because of congestion and
overcrowding in recent years.'' This statement is challenged by the
fact that the National Park Service is offering no alternative form of
transportation to Yosemite Valley. Therefore, when the private vehicle
capacity of the valley is reduced, the National Park Service will have
no choice but to turn greater numbers of Yosemite Park visitors away
than in previous years. On the other hand, if the intent of the
National Park Service is to replace private vehicles with buses then
the total visitation numbers won't change and overcrowding of trails,
viewing locations, and facilities will continue unabated and many will
see little improvement in the visitor experience. In either event, the
prospect grows that more auto-tourists will be turned back at the
entrance stations to Yosemite Park. Excluded Yosemite-bound tourists
represent a potential economic and environmental impact to surrounding
National Forest lands. It should be pointed out that, unlike with the
Park Service, the Forest Service routinely calls upon county resources
to assist in certain visitor needs. Thus, excluded Yosemite-bound
tourists also represent an impact on the surrounding counties, as well.
To this point our comments have been confined to the issue of
private vehicle access and public transportation. Our position is that
the proposed changes to private vehicle access will adversely impact
the majority of Yosemite Park's visitors. These impacts will probably
lead to a decline in annual visitation to Yosemite National Park and a
corresponding decline in Yosemite Park dependent economies. Public
transportation in the valley will further decrease the quality of the
visitor experience for many Americans because buses are perceived to be
noisy, smelly, inconvenient and ugly. Additionally, a regional
transportation system will have formidable obstacles to overcome to be
successful. And, it will be costly to operate and it will not provide
the flexibility, convenience and relatively low cost that private
vehicle access does today. A regional transportation system will also
probably result in a decline in Yosemite Park dependent economies. A
regional transportation system also will cause environmental impacts in
gateway communities, e.g. noise, congestion and land use conflicts over
staging area locations. Because of these anticipated effects, the VIP
as an environmental document is deficient in not providing a complete
analysis of socio-economic and environmental impacts to the affected
region of Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Mono and Tuolumne Counties.
The other topic to address is the completeness and accuracy of the
environment assessments used to justify the redesigning of the
developed areas at the east end of Yosemite Valley. Once again,
conflicting statements, vague reasoning and a serious lack of hard data
make it difficult to ascertain the benefits and need for the many
changes being offered. Rather than go at length in dissecting the VIP
on this issue, a call for further study is.requested coupled with a
clear analysis of how restoration and preservation of natural resources
directly relates to impacts on cultural resources. The VIP proposals
must be clearly correlated to the 1992 Concession Services Plan, the
1996 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan and the 1997 Draft Yosemite
Lodge Development Concept Plan/Environmental Assessment. These actions
also need to be directly linked to visitor experience. Particular
attention should be paid to the suggestion that lower rent lodging and
camp sites are targeted for reduction while higher cost accommodations
are not, thus impacting lower income groups not the wealthy.
In closing, while flood recovery is what prompted Congress to
allocate a large appropriation to Yosemite National Park, two concepts
seem to be driving the VIP. One is ``visitor experience'' and the other
is ``natural resources restoration.'' In regard to the former, the
National Park Service and various special interest groups have gone to
great lengths expressing their opinion that traffic congestion is the
number one problem facing Yosemite National Park. They assert that many
people are not going to Yosemite because of this problem. The problem
has been characterized as chronic, pervasive, and growing. However, the
VIP states that only in 1995 was the National Park Service forced to
restrict vehicle access to Yosemite Valley for seven weekends between
May and July because of ``high'' traffic volumes. August of 1997 saw
the highest 30-day visitor count in Yosemite Park history. The count
exceeded previous 30 day totals by nearly 100,000 visitors and yet
there were no gate closures. This fact plus the reality that peak
loading in Yosemite Valley is only occurring during the summer months
appears to be lost on many people. The VIP offers no seasonal or peak-
demand approach to addressing traffic congestion. Nor does the VIP
address restricting any of the other traffic generators in the valley
(specifically employees). No one disputes that traffic congestion is
occurring in Yosemite Valley but this problem has been overstated. If
cars were degrading the visitor experience then people would not come
back; just the opposite is happening. Yosemite National Park continues
to post a gain in annual visitation. Most of this increase is
attributable to day-visitors in private vehicles, many of whom pay
repeat trips during the course of the year. Unfortunately, while the
VIP does address the issue of traffic congestion, it does not confront
the problem of overcrowding. Ultimately, whether visitors come via
private vehicles or on public transportation population limits will
have to be defined and maintained for the valley and the park as a
whole.
The other idea driving the VIP is natural resources restoration.
Part of the National Park Service's mission is the ``...preservation of
the resources that contribute to Yosemite's uniqueness and
attractiveness-- its exquisite scenic beauty; outstanding wilderness
values; a nearly full diversity of Sierra Nevada environments...'' If
the actions proposed in the VIP were truly centered on natural
resources restoration it would be difficult to take issue with this
document. However, there is no base-line data to clearly show what the
natural conditions should have been in Yosemite Valley if structural
intrusions had not been installed. Furthermore, the VIP is vague on
whether the natural conditions sought are pre-Euro-American or pre-
Native American. If we ignore . the failure to substantiate
presumptions on habitat evolution and river hydrology we're still faced
with the meager amount of actually proposed natural resources
restoration. Even under the preferred alternative, only 115 acres of
upland communities may be restored (out of over 3,100 acres of this
habitat type in the valley). An additional 21 acres of aquatic,
riparian, and meadow communities are projected for restoration (out of
some 506 acres of these habitat types). The VIP gives no clarity on
whether or not these are ``net gains'' because other actions under the
preferred alternative, such as the Taft Toe facility and the Tenaya
Creek Walk-in Campground will impact previously undeveloped areas.
Furthermore, if aquatic, riparian and meadow community restoration is a
top priority then the VIP is remiss in not discussing the feasibility
and benefits associated with other methods of restoration such as
reconstructing the terminal moraine at the west end of the valley,
removing trees that are encroaching upon historic-era meadow lands
coupled with establishing a frequent fire regime, and the curtailment
of ground water use for the development at the east end of the valley.
Most of the activity proposed in the VIP (and costs) will not go
toward natural resources restoration. The majority of the expenditures
are aimed at new construction, ``refining,'' and rebuilding of National
Park Service and concessionaire facilities. The retention of two
grocery stores, a pizza parlor, and gift shops indicates that the de-
commercializing of Yosemite Valley is not a priority in the VIP's
objectives. This is particularly frustrating since so many significant
cultural resources will be adversely impacted by the redevelopment:
Besides natural resources and visitor experience, the National Park
Service is charged to protect and preserve cultural resources. But
cultural resources seemed to have taken a back seat in the formation of
the VIP alternatives. The National Park Service should provide a
complete disclosure on the direct links between natural resources
restoration and all other proposed actions. Benchmarks and percentages
need to be provided so that a true assessment can be made of the trade-
offs proposed between natural resources, cultural resources, and
visitor experience. Meanwhile, it would be a serious mistake to go
forward with a redesign of the infrastructure of Yosemite Valley if
only a minority of people will benefit, especially if it is at the
expense of the majority.
In summary, the VIP raises far more questions than it provides
answers in how the various alternatives to redesigning the
infrastructure of Yosemite Valley will effect natural resources,
cultural resources, and the visitor experience. The VIP also does not
adequately address socio-economic and environmental impacts to the
affected region of Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Mono and Tuolumne Counties
caused by implementation of any of the proposed alternatives. The
National Park Service appears to be piece-mealing the NEPA process by
not providing a comprehensive, integrated plan that correlates all
previous individual planning documents in a master plan of Yosemite
National Park. (A master plan of Yosemite National Park should also be
placed in context with the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project).
Additionally, the support for the VIP's NEPA review is based on an
outdated General Management Plan and its outdated supporting
documentation.
Sincerely,
Larry A. Rotelli
Chairman
Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors
______
A Fifth Alternative:
A ``Fifth Alternative'' needs to address the needs of the majority of
the public over the wishes of the minority. The National Park Service's
final plan of action for Yosemite Valley shall include these measures:
1) LFlood recovery projects shall proceed where a) previously
undeveloped areas will not be impacted, b) no significant cultural
resources will be adversely impacted, and c) popular visitor activities
will not be overly degraded.
2) LNational Park Service and concessionaire building projects shall
proceed where a) previously undeveloped areas will not be impacted, b)
no significant cultural resources will be adversely impacted; and c)
popular visitor activities will not be overly degraded.
3) LFlood recovery and building projects shall be divided into
appropriate phases. A regular re-assessment of environmental impacts
shall be made. Such periodic reassessments should occur upon completion
of specific projects or every year, which ever is most frequent.
4) LA comprehensive traffic and transportation analysis, as well as a
technical analysis of trail capacity, occupancy limits and visitor
behavior patterns (for both overnight and day visitors), shall be
completed prior to any changes in the existing road system and prior to
any reductions in the day use private vehicle parking space inventory.
5) LNo development shall be allowed in areas currently undeveloped.
6) LNo significant historic buildings, structures, cultural landscapes
or archaeological sites shall be impacted until further studies are
conducted, and with consultation of the California State Office of
Historic Preservation. Of specific concern is the proposal to remove
three historic bridges, two historic orchards, residence one, and the
degradation of the historic districts.
7) LAn analysis of the specifics of a day visitor reservation system
and/or quota closure policy shall be conducted prior to any road and
parking lot infrastructure changes being implemented.
8) LAll previous planning documents, including the 1980 General
Management Plan shall be revised and updated, and then integrated into
a comprehensive 10-year master plan of Yosemite Valley.
9) LThe National Park Service shall establish an ongoing, public
collaborative process which builds upon the ``Presidio'' meetings.
10) LAll visitors arriving in private vehicles shall be allowed access
to the east end of Yosemite Valley for both day and overnight visitor
use. Traffic congestion is a periodic and seasonal problem, and shall
be alleviated with peak-loading and seasonal remedies.
11) LThe National Park Service shall strive to find a fair and
equitable balance between the protection of natural resources, cultural
resources and visitor experience.
12) LThe National Park Service shall undertake further study to locate
the majority of Yosemite Parks archives, artifacts and collections in a
centralized facility outside of Yosemite Valley.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Oliver. I get to
question you all by myself.
Mr. Gilbert, I, too, have expressed frustration with this
planning process and, again, what has been signed into law, or
into the Record of Decision, is not something that I support.
There are some problems to a complete termination of the Plan
and scrapping it and starting all over again, which would
result perhaps in nothing being done, as you might have heard
the Park Service say, and years and years before anything is
finished.
Tell me, are you still in that position of starting over
again, or at least opening public hearings to look into a
portion of the Plan?
Mr. Gilbert. Congressman, I think the first thing is you
have to make the decision of is it a legal plan. When you look
at some of the documents and how it has been formalized, I
believe it would be shown in a court of law that it would be
illegal. But that's a decision that somebody else is going to
get to make.
If the decision is made that it is a legal plan and has to
be implemented, then I believe you need to reopen those public
hearings if you're proposing some kind of implementation here.
Mr. Radanovich. And you may have learned during the course
of this hearing that all of the flood money that's available,
$106 million plus another 40 from gate receipts, is available
to spend on projects. You probably were exposed to some of the
projects.
Although I don't want to hold you exclusively to that, it
seems like there is somewhat of a consensus on those projects
going forward, that are implemented already, to the exclusion
of perhaps the campgrounds. Would you support spending that
money on what you might know to be available projects right
now?
Mr. Gilbert. I believe there is $30 million that was
identified in that 1997 report back to this Committee. The
actual numbers was probably over $100 million. But of that
balance, there is at least $30 million in there identified for
transportation, and I believe that should be returned and
completely be looked at, to what is the transportation study,
what is the system that the Yosemite National Park is going to
apply, and how does all that come together. But I would
definitely hold that $30 million back on transportation.
Mr. Radanovich. In discussions with the Park Service, is
there a collaborative effort on the part of Madera County with
the Park Service to address issues perhaps within Madera County
but outside the Park, with regard to housing and some of these
other issues, visitor stations in Oakhurst, those types of
things?
Mr. Gilbert. In our comments back to the Park Service, one
of our comments was, you know, they have to address their
outside housing. We are in the process in eastern Madera County
of redoing a general plan update, which is really an area plan
for Oakhurst.
At this point in time the Park has shown no interest or
come forward on any of those items, but if they were interested
in a joint visitors center or additional housing, now would be
the time to put that into our area plan. If they were looking
at high density housing in some of our downtown area for a
certain kind of housing, we would be more than happy to have a
partnership because we would definitely need that assistance.
We do need more Federal assistance there because we are
addressing many of those concerns on lodging and the
restaurants and things. We have a wastewater treatment plant
that we're going to have to update, and I believe that would be
an excellent partnership for the Federal Government to assist
in.
Mr. Radanovich. In that management plan, Mr. Gilbert, there
was a housing issue in Wawona that is of some controversy in
Wawona. There are some folks that don't want that there.
Has the Park Service made any overtures to you or Madera
County to discuss the possibility of relocating that housing
element outside the Park and perhaps in Oakhurst or
thereabouts?
Mr. Gilbert. There has been no contact on that. The
community of Wawona, I know there has been--outside of our
country--there has been community meetings with Wawona. I think
their biggest concern was with--There was a report done by the
National Park Service on the type of people who were going to
be living in those houses, and there were some concerns there.
Mr. Radanovich. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Balmain, thank you for testifying here today. Mariposa
County, as well as Madera, has a long relationship with
Yosemite, and there has been issues such as in your planning
processes by--you know, with communities of El Portal, Wawona,
and Foresta. There are some current issues that need some
collaborative work, in addition to past issues. These are
employee housing, administrative relocation and solid waste
management.
Is there anything the Federal Government needs to do to get
those cooperative programs underway, and is there any kind of
assistance that we in the Congress can provide, or from the
Park Service, that can help advance or obtain progress in each
one of these areas?
Mr. Balmain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, the first
thing that comes to mind is funding. We can certainly use
funding on our compost management plan, you know, that we're
working in partnership with the Park and also the State of
California.
The general plan update that involves the communities of El
Portal and Wawona Foresta, I believe financial help would help
there, and also working in partnership with the Park Service to
make those things happen that are both good for the Park and
the county both.
The Park refers to rules a lot. They say we can't do this
with the country because it's against the rules, and the county
is not privy to those rules. We don't understand the rules. If
the Committee and Congress could make those rules flexible
enough so that the Park could work with the gateway
communities, it would certainly help.
Mr. Radanovich. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Balmain, YARTS was created in 1991, and the bus service
has been operating at various levels since then--of course,
more diligently this last year or so.
What is the commitment of Mariposa County toward YARTS, and
how would you like to see YARTS operate over the next couple of
years?
Mr. Balmain. Well, Mariposa County is committed to YARTS. I
would have to tell you that my commitment has been --I've kind
of been like an anchor on the YARTS program. I was insistent it
be voluntary. I don't think the American public is ready to be
mandated to ride a bus, particularly in places like Yosemite.
I think a bus ride can be a real advantage in Yosemite if
it fits your needs. It can diminish your pleasure of that
magnificent valley if you had small children, cameras, back
pack equipment. There is all kinds of different needs for
transportation in that Valley. So, from my point of view, it is
most important that it's a voluntary system.
I think, in order for a voluntary system to be successful,
it has to be attractive to a certain degree. For example, right
here, you know, I ride a mass transit system right here because
it's must more convenient than your own automobile. But until
it becomes a reality in Yosemite Valley, it ought to be a
voluntary system.
Mr. Radanovich. Also, one last thing, Mr. Balmain. You had
mentioned that Mariposa County has begun a land use planning
process. Yosemite certainly has impacts on your planning
efforts.
What impacts do you see that you would like to have and
what kind of impacts in that planning process would you like to
avoid?
Mr. Balmain. Well, obviously, it would be a great advantage
to our socioeconomic condition in Mariposa County if, in fact,
the Valley Plan is implemented and they do move employees and
administrative headquarters and visitor centers outside the
Park. Mariposa County certainly would address that in their
general plan and plan for that. I think we're obviously the
area that could plan for it and we have the facilities, the
utilities and infrastructure. We also have private industry
that's willing to work with the Park on that.
The thing I would not want to see is that we aren't at the
table and aware of those impacts that are going to come to the
county, so that we can prepare for them. We really don't want
mandates.
Mr. Radanovich. Right. Thank you.
Mr. Oliver, I appreciated your comments. I agree with you.
I think that busing should be an alternative choice for people
who want to go to Yosemite. It shouldn't be the sole choice and
it shouldn't be used to limit people in the Park. So I want to
thank you very much, all three of you, for coming here today. I
would like to excuse you and move on to the next panel.
Thank you very much.
The next panel is Mr. Ed Hardy, who is the owner and
operator of Bass Lake Lodge, Bass Lake, California; Mr. Dennis
Szefel, who is President of Delaware North Parks Services, the
concessionaire to Yosemite from Buffalo, New York: Mr. Jay
Thomas Watson, who is the Regional Director of the California-
Nevada Wilderness Society in San Francisco; and Mr. George
Whitmore, who is Chairman of the Sierra Club's Yosemite
Committee, from Fresno, California.
Welcome, gentlemen, and thank you so much for coming. I
appreciate your patience as this has gone on a little bit
longer than what we thought.
Mr. Hardy, if you would like to start, we will start from
right to left. Please give us your statements, or summaries of
them, and then we will open it up for questions. I'm glad to
see I'm joined by my friend from Indiana, who can help me out
with some of these.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF ED HARDY, OWNER AND OPERATOR, BASS LAKE LODGE,
BASS LAKE, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Hardy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished
Member and staff. It is a pleasure to be here, especially to
talk about beautiful Yosemite Valley.
My family has been involved with the Valley since my mother
first went there in 1908, and I have been there every year
except for World War II, and had the privilege of living and
working in it as the president of the Yosemite Park & Curry
Company for 20 years.
Having been through the master planning process and dealt
with the various parts of balance of preservation and use, I'm
not going to read my testimony, which you already have. I
thought I would cut right to the chase and talk about some
fine-tuning.
I think, overall, the master plan and document was done in
good faith by the Park Service. I think it needs some fine-
tuning. I was present in the spring of 1974 when Undersecretary
Nathaniel Reed walked into Camp 6, tore up a master plan and
threw it in the wind as a media event, and the present process
commenced. During that time, our operations moved many things
to Fresno, such as warehousing and freight lining and repairs,
laundries and so forth.
I live on the perimeter of the Park now at Bass Lake, but
as I go into the Park, I am disappointed in the lack of
friendliness, the lack of the ability for the Park to welcome
us as Park owners, as taxpayers. I draw that conclusion from
several things. First of all, someone traveling today or going
to the Park and wants to get information as early as possible--
weather, roads, activities--they can bring their right wearing
apparel, they're aware of what's going to happen, they know
what roads are open, what areas they can get to, and whether
camping, hiking or horseback riding and so forth are going to
be available. So information is a major thing for me.
Also, staff friendliness. I find an aloofness amongst the
people I interact with in the Park. I think along the way it
has been forgotten that the visitors are the reason the
employees are there, and that they really need to address
friendliness.
Camping really needs to be restored. You know, I heard John
Reynolds briefly mention 4,000 feet, but if you know Yosemite,
the only two flat areas that are friendly to people and can be
retained as friendly are Wawona and Yosemite Valley at 4,000
feet. From there it goes up.
As you spread out into this seasonal parts of when it can
be used, to take campsites away from Wawona, which is part of
the Plan, which is a very popular place for RV family camping
and so forth, and upper and lower river campgrounds, you really
move away from the majority of the year of when people want to
camp, plus people on vacation like to have available to them a
water activity, with the Merced River, of course, going right
alongside upper and lower river. I believe when you take the
campgrounds away, all you're doing is encouraging another set
of people, whether it's day users or people from the lodgings,
to enter the rivers along that same area and still be using it.
As far as the flood, having been in Yosemite for many
years, in and around it, the Yosemite Valley has the Merced
River running through it, which is a flood channel. For many,
many years it was managed that when logs fell in that flood
channel, they were taken out. It was cleared. It was kept open
as a water course.
In recent years, just before the flood, that channel was
not maintained. Logs were allowed to accumulate in it, which
floated, turned sideways, came to the bridges and formed dams.
That's not a reason to take the bridges out. It's a reason to
take the logs out and keep the channel open. The water that
goes over the upper and lower river campground, when it does,
which is very occasional, is inches of water. Once the water
subsides, there is an opportunity with a rake and a crew of a
few people to restore the campgrounds back to their usable
condition. There is amphitheaters there, there is
infrastructure, and to move away from those into areas that are
not friendly to the public, and out of that climate, really is
a disservice to the owners again.
Air quality. I heard that discussed quite a bit today. For
years, we owned the shuttle bus fleet and we drove it, we
managed it, we operated it, we repaired it, and it ran on
propane. Propane was relatively quiet and much less polluting
than diesel.
We also managed Yosemite Valley for years with fireless
camping. Most of Yosemite National Park is fireless camping
today, as soon as you get into any kind of elevation off the
Valley floor. But Yosemite Valley without fire in the
campgrounds means that, when you wake up in the morning, you
look right at Half Dome, the falls, and it's a photographic
opportunity all day, instead of the campfire smoke hanging in
the Valley.
The transportation issues I think have resolution that do
not have to be nearly as expensive and need to recognize that
there's only a few days a year that there's any real
transportation concerns if you have a couple of thousand
parking places besides the lodging, but for day use parking in
Yosemite Valley. Those days are Memorial Day, the 4th of July,
Labor Day weekend, and the second Saturday in August, which
most people forget about. It's the most heavily traveled time
by private automobiles because, for some reason, tour buses
don't operate that week as much. California schools and
businesses are on break, and that's when the majority, the
biggest number in quantity of automobiles, want to enter
Yosemite Valley.
YARTS has been discussed, and transporting people in and
out of Yosemite Valley at 4,000 feet at Mariposa does make some
sense. I think an experiment--my light is on.
Mr. Radanovich. That's not your buzzer.
Mr. Hardy. It says stop, so I--
Mr. Radanovich. You're at stop, but if you want to close
up, Ed, we will have time to come back and get comments.
Mr. Hardy. Anyway, I believe a joint agency center between
the Federal, the State, the county and private sectors should
be built 45 miles west of Yosemite Valley, at the intersection
of historical Highway 49 and 140, the low entrance road into
Yosemite Valley.
In that center there would be a museum, which I happen to
work with the California State Mine and Mineral Museum, but
also offices and shops, food services, visitor services,
parking and a bus area for volunteer bus passengers, can be
there.
I request that the Federal Government make available for
that project--it's a $9 million project. We would like to see
you fund $3 million of it. The State is working on $3 million,
and the local people are raising $3 million.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hardy follows:]
Statement of Ed Hardy, Owner and Operator, Bass Lake Lodge, Bass Lake,
California
Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Members and Staff, it is a pleasure to
appear before you to speak about one of the most beautiful places on
earth which I had the privilege of living in for 20 years.
In the spring of 1974 Undersecretary of the Interior Nathaniel Reed
held a media event in camp 6, which I attended. At that ceremony he
tore up the Yosemite Master Plan that had been in development since
1965 and declared a new planning effort will begin. After 15 years of
planning the 1980 General Management Plan was signed. Throughout this
period and until 1993, I was President and Chief Operating Officer of
the Yosemite Park & Curry Company, the principle concessionaire
operating inside this great National Park.
Many planning ideas have been suggested and some modeled. A model
was built in the 1880's with full size visual aids that remained in
place for several years. The project was to build an aerial tram from
Happy Isles to Glacier Point. The 196 Yosemite plan included a bridge
styled similar to the Golden Gate Bridge that would span the Merced
Gorge from the area known as the Rostrum south of the Wawona Tunnel on
Highway 41 to Highway 120 west of the third tunnel. Obviously each of
these proposals and many others had their champions and critics.
Fortunately neither of these two projects was built.
The reason I mention a little of the past is to demonstrate that
professional park planners and managers have prevailed in the past to
protect the balance of preservation and use. In recent years Yosemite
Valley has become a less friendly place for people, tax-paying owners
are being made to feel unwanted. The 2000 Yosemite Valley plan was done
by professional park planners and is basically a good plan which needs
to be fine tuned to make Yosemite Valley a little more people friendly.
Congestion
Yosemite Valley is only busy about 10 days per year [Memorial Day
weekend, 4th of July, the second weekend in August and Labor day
weekend]. Traffic directors in six locations can expedite the flow of
traffic. Management can make the valley friendlier.
Since 1970 thousands of automobile parking places has been removed
from Yosemite Valley with out NEPA requirements being met. Hundreds of
parking places can be relocated in the Valley with minimum impacts.
Small satellite day use parking areas that are only needed on busy
days, that park 30 to 80 cars, can be located along the free shuttle
bus route. These lots can be covered with pine needles and should be
inexpensive to create or maintain. They are not needed in bad weather
periods so mud and snow management are not required. The Curry dumpsite
is presently used for long term parking with proper design this lot can
easily be enlarged. Camp 6, the mall and the Village parking areas all
need organization and beautification. Visitors staying in campgrounds,
lodging and employee housing should park as near to their destination
as possible. Commuters should ride a bus. Expanding the valley shuttle
bus system will help decongest the valley 10 days a year. Planning for
10 days should be just that. Bus service along highway 140 is
appropriate with the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System
[YARTS] type service.
Upper and lower river campgrounds must be restored. These areas are
necessary for the mental health of the tax paying park owners. Families
bond in this desirable climate. Bike, hike and equestrian trails need
to be expanded.
Matinee style fees will help to spread park use through the year.
Charge higher entrance and camp fees on the busiest days like your
lodges do.
One-way roads in Yosemite Valley presently are operating with an
entrance road on the south side and an exit on the north side of the
valley. This traffic flow system allows for emergency exits; roads do
close from avalanche, tree fall, accidents, fire and swollen
watercourses. Visitors stop in the roads to view animals and majestic
scenes, two lanes each way greatly enhances the visitor experience.
More viewing turnouts will improve the experience.
Today's traveling public expects to make contact with their
destination before arrival. Joint agency visitor centers that can
provide general information about Parks, Forests. State and County
facilities, educate the visitor making their experience ``more people
friendly''.
Facilities are needed outside the park to support vehicles that
choose not to enter the valley. The staging area that will serve the
most visitors to the Yosemite region and reduce commutes is a joint
agency project in Mariposa County 45 miles west on highway 140 the only
all year entrance road to Yosemite Valley. This is the intersection of
Historic Highway 49 that travels through California's Mother Lode and
scenic highway 140.
The National Park Service, California's State Parks, Mariposa
County and the private sector are jointly developing a staging center
that includes a visitor center, State Park Mining & Mineral Museum,
educational interpretive theater, food and beverage service, offices,
retail shops and vehicle parking for staging the YARTS transportation
system. This $9 million project needs $3 million from the federal
government; the state and local contributors make up the difference. A
similar joint agency center must be developed on highway 41 in the
Oakhurst area.
Thank you, it is a pleasure to be here. I am happy to take
questions.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Hardy.
Mr. Szefel, welcome.
STATEMENT OF DENNIS SZEFEL, PRESIDENT, DELAWARE NORTH PARKS
SERVICES, INC., BUFFALO, NEW YORK
Mr. Szefel. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Subcommittee.
My name is Dennis Szefel. I am the President of Delaware
North Parks Services, which through our Yosemite Concession
Services Corporation unit operates lodging, food, beverage,
retail, interpretive programs, recreational activities, and
transportation services for the National Park Service at
Yosemite National Park.
We also provide services at Sequoia National Park, Grand
Canyon National Park, the Kennedy Space Center Visitors
Complex, and several other notable parks across the country.
I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify today
on the issue of the Yosemite Valley Plan, particularly as it
relates to our role as park concessionaire and our ability to
provide quality services to guests of the Park.
Our precedent-setting contract with the National Park
Service began in 1993, a contract based on the assumptions and
provisions present in the 1980 general management plan. In the
time we have been there, we have seen some of the most unusual
and traumatic events in the Park's history. Challenges we could
have predicted--catastrophic floods, rock slides, government
shutdowns that closed the park, four different superintendents,
attendance that has ebbed and flowed from record levels to
precipitous declines, and murders outside the Park that
generated intense negative publicity--all have contributed to
our understanding of the Park from a perspective shared by few.
Without the slightest hesitation, we can say that we have seen
the Park at its best and at its worst.
Throughout the term of our contract, and despite these
challenges, we have remained committed to our goal of enhancing
the experience and exceeding expectations of those who visit
Yosemite. And we have done this in full partnership with the
National Park Service, together seeking to add long-lasting
value to the Park. At the conclusion of our contract, not only
will we have left behind over $100 million in buildings and
other infrastructure, we also have established a new and higher
standard for what is expected from Park concessionaires.
Despite the challenges we have faced, or perhaps because of
them, as I look back on the past eight years, I can honestly
say that for Delaware North our work in the Park has been among
the most professionally satisfying assignments we have had the
pleasure to undertake. As the largest employer and taxpayer in
Mariposa County, we take great pride in being both a good
corporate citizen and contributing to the educational, social
and cultural life of the county and the gateway communities.
What's more, the keen sense of responsibility we feel as a
steward of the park has had its own influence. Our award-
winning environmental practices in Yosemite have been a source
of pride for the entire company and now serve as a model for
all of our business lines. The spirit of Yosemite has, in many
ways, transformed our company, affecting us in the same
profound way as it has millions of Park visitors.
As I have said, our history at Yosemite gives us a unique
perspective through which to view the Valley Plan. We, more
than most, understand just how daunting a task was the
development of this document. The remarkable treasure that is
Yosemite serves many constituents, some of whom have
conflicting interests, yet the Plan had to be developed in such
a manner as to address a wide variety of needs without
compromising the integrity of the Park. Yosemite Concession
Services Corporation served as just one of many resources
available to the National Park Service in the process of
developing the Valley Plan, and we were proud to do so.
Our role in the Park is to provide goods and services to
Park guests, with the goal of enhancing their overall
experience, all while performing as a steward of the Park. In
this testimony, I will not attempt to look beyond that scope,
but limit our comments to those issues related to our role as
concessionaire.
First, let me say that we are supportive of the Plan and
recognize the value it provides in protecting Yosemite National
Park. We fully understand are in total agreement with the need
to preserve this resource for future generations and limit our
impact on the ecosystem that has made Yosemite such a wonder.
That notwithstanding, we do have some concerns that merit
further discussion and review, concerns that we believe can be
resolved without compromising the integrity of the Park.
Perhaps our biggest concern involves employee housing
within the Valley. Our ability to deliver guest services at a
level consistent with our mission in Yosemite is highly reliant
on being able to assemble a quality workforce. Relocating a
majority of our employees to areas outside the Valley will
remove the highly desirable incentive of living in the Park and
jeopardize our ability to recruit and retain the type of
individual we need to give our guests the level of service
consistent with the stature of the Park.
What's more, we believe that relocating employees outside
the Valley will have another unintended negative consequence.
Considering that most of our employees commute to work by
walking, bicycling or riding on the existing Valley shuttle,
the final Plan will have the unwanted effect of placing a
significant new demand on transportation systems. Over 1,000
employees will need to be transported to and from the Park on a
daily basis during the peak season, adding to congestion on
roads that are already prone to closure and rock slides.
We also have concerns with the amount of lodging called for
in the final Plan. Representing a dramatic reduction from
existing conditions, such reduction does more than limit our
potential as a concessionaire. It limits the opportunity of
many who wish to experience Yosemite. We believe that
revisiting certain elements of the Plan, such as the
configuration of Yosemite Lodge and Housekeeping Camp, could
present opportunities to provide more sustainable
accommodations and further the guest experience, without
placing additional stress on the Park's environmental balance.
Finally, we are concerned that the Plan as currently
communicated is giving rise to a perception that Yosemite
National Park is not open and accessible to private vehicles.
We suggest that a comprehensive signage and communication
program be implemented to help clear up this confusion.
While we are not yet able to quantify the consequences of
the Plan on our business, we can anticipate that there will be
some significant financial impacts under the terms of our
existing contract. It is fair to assume that reduced lodging
and camping facilities, increased operating costs, union issues
with respect to new employee work requirements for travel and
housing, increased costs relating to recruitment and retention,
and circumstances yet unforeseen, will continue to produce a
negative financial effect on our operations.
Does that mean that we view our position as untenable? No,
we don't. Absolutely not. We have an outstanding relationship
with the National Park Service and are confident that we can
work together to ensure that our ability to make a fair profit
on our operations is not compromised by the necessary actions
that comprise the Valley Plan.
Our confidence is born, in part, by our previous
experiences. After the devastating flood in 1997, for example,
we were able to work with the National Park Service to
restructure certain elements of our contract to create an
equitable solution for all parties. What's more, we have
already seen that the National Park Service is open to
modifying elements of the Plan in response to sound thinking.
An excellent example is the medical/dental clinic.
Originally scheduled for relocation, the clinic was restored to
its place in the Valley when several interested parties pointed
out that removal of the facility would compromise the safety of
a wide range of guests and residents, many whose association
with outdoor activities carries a risk of injury.
We also believe that a key to this Plan will be in the
nature of its implementation. How the individual elements of
the Plan will be phased in is critical. In our view, it is
absolutely essential, absolutely vital, that any new
infrastructure is completed before that which it is intended to
replace is demolished. Equally vital is consistent and reliable
funding for the implementation program. And lastly, we cannot
stress how important we feel an ongoing outreach program will
be toward combating public perception that the Park is not
open, or at least not accessible.
It is our contention that a plan that is not enacted is not
a benign thing. Plans meant to define direction produce
paralysis, or worse, when set aside or delayed. In the spirit
of partnership that has always been a strong point of our
relationship with the Park Service, we again state our
willingness and desire to contribute to the ongoing
implementation of this Plan.
Our mission in the Park has always been characterized by
the respect we hold for the singular beauty and grandeur of
Yosemite. From the very beginning, we have been aware of our
responsibility to protect this special place. We understand
what a privilege it is to be a part of the Yosemite National
Park and are profoundly grateful for the opportunity.
We thank the National Park Service for its efforts in
restoring and safeguarding the Park through the development of
this Plan and look forward to being a part of its successful
implementation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Szefel follows:]
Statement of Dennis Szefel, President, Delaware North Parks Services,
Inc.
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name
is Dennis Szefel. I am the president of Delaware North Parks Services,
which, through our Yosemite Concession Services Corporation unit,
operates lodging, food, beverage, retail, interpretive programs,
recreational activities, and transportation services for the National
Park Service at Yosemite National Park. We also provide services at
Sequoia National Park, Grand Canyon National Park, Kennedy Space Center
Visitors Complex and several other notable parks across the country.
I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify today on the
issue of the Yosemite Valley Plan, particularly as it relates to our
role as park concessionaire and our ability to provide quality service
to guests of the park.
Our precedent-setting contract with the National Park Service began
in 1993, a contract based on the assumptions and provisions present in
the 1980 General Management Plan. In the time we have been there, we
have seen some of the most unusual and traumatic events in the park's
history. Challenges we could never have predicted-catastrophic floods,
rockslides, government shutdowns that closed the park, four different
superintendents, attendance the has ebbed and flowed from record levels
to precipitous declines, and murders outside the park that generated
intense negative publicity-all have contributed to our understanding of
the park from a perspective shared by few. Without the slightest
hesitation, we can say that we've seen the park at its best and its
worst.
Throughout the term of our contract, and despite these challenges,
we have remained committed to our goal of enhancing the experience and
exceeding expectations of those who visit Yosemite. And we have done
this in full partnership with the National Park Service, together
seeking to add long-lasting value to the park. At the conclusion of our
contract, not only will we have left behind over $100 million in
buildings and other infrastructure, we also will have established a new
and higher standard for what is expected from park concessionaires.
Despite the challenges we have faced, or perhaps because of them,
as I look back on the past eight years, I can honestly say that for
Delaware North Parks Services, our work in the park has been among the
most professionally satisfying assignments we have had the pleasure to
undertake. As the largest employer and taxpayer in Mariposa County, we
take great pride in being both a good corporate citizen and
contributing to the educational, social and cultural life of the county
and the gateway communities.
What's more, the keen sense of responsibility we feel as a steward
of the park has had its own influence. Our award-winning environmental
practices in Yosemite have been a source of pride for the entire
company and now serve as a model for all of our business lines. The
spirit of Yosemite has, in many ways, transformed our company,
affecting us in the same profound way that has been felt by millions of
park visitors.
As I have said, our history at Yosemite gives us a unique
perspective through which to view the Valley Plan. We, more than most,
understand just how daunting a task was the development of this
document. The remarkable treasure that is Yosemite serves many
constituents, some of whom have conflicting interests, yet the plan had
to be developed in such a manner as to address a wide variety of needs
without compromising the integrity of the park. Yosemite Concession
Services Corporation served as just one of many resources available to
the National Park Service in the process of developing the Valley Plan,
and was proud to do so.
Our role in the park is to provide goods and services to park
guests with the goal of enhancing their overall experience, all while
performing as a steward of the park. In this testimony, I will not
attempt to look beyond that scope, but limit our comments to those
issues related to our role as concessionaire.
First, let me say that we are supportive of the plan and recognize
the value it provides in protecting Yosemite National Park. We fully
understand and are in total agreement with the need to preserve this
resource for future generations and limit our impact on the ecosystem
that has made Yosemite such a wonder. That notwithstanding, we do have
some concerns that merit further discussion and review, concerns that
we believe can be resolved without compromising the integrity of the
park.
Perhaps our biggest concern involves employee housing within the
valley. Our ability to deliver guest services at a level consistent
with our mission in Yosemite is highly reliant on being able to
assemble a quality workforce. Relocating a majority of our employees to
areas outside the valley will remove the highly desirable incentive of
living in the park and jeopardize our ability to recruit and retain the
type of individual we need to give our guests the level of service
consistent with the stature of park.
What's more, we believe that relocating employees outside the
valley will have another unintended negative consequence. Considering
that most of our employees commute to work by walking, bicycling or
riding on the existing Valley shuttle, the final plan will have the
unwanted effect of placing a significant new demand on transportation
systems. Over 1,000 employees will need to be transported to and from
the park on a daily basis during the peak season, adding to congestion
on roads that are already prone to closure and rockslides.
We also have concerns with the amount of lodging called for in the
final plan. Representing a dramatic reduction from existing conditions,
such reduction does more than limit our potential as a concessionaire,
it limits the opportunity of many who wish to experience Yosemite. We
believe that revisiting certain elements of the plan, such as the
configuration of Yosemite Lodge and Housekeeping Camp, could present
opportunities to provide more sustainable accommodations and further
enhance the guest experience, without placing additional stress on the
park's environmental balance.
Finally, we are concerned that the plan as currently communicated
is giving rise to a perception that Yosemite National Park is not open
and accessible to private vehicles. We suggest that a comprehensive
signage and communication program be implemented to help clear this
confusion.
While we are not yet able to quantify the consequences of the plan
on our business, we can anticipate that there will be some significant
financial impacts under the terms of our existing contract. It is fair
to assume that reduced lodging and camping facilities, increased
operating costs, union issues with respect to new employee work
requirements for travel and housing, increased costs relating to
recruitment and retention, and circumstances yet unseen will combine to
produce a negative financial effect on our operations.
Does that mean that we view our position as untenable? It does not.
We have an outstanding relationship with the National Park Service and
are confident that we can work together to ensure that our ability to
make a fair profit on our operations is not compromised by the
necessary actions that comprise the Valley Plan.
Our confidence is born, in part, by our previous experiences. After
the devastating flood in 1997, for example, we were able to work with
the National Park Service to restructure certain elements of our
contract to create an equitable solution for all parties. What's more,
we have already seen that the National Park Service is open to
modifying elements of the plan in response to sound thinking. An
excellent example is the Medical/Dental Clinic. Originally scheduled
for relocation, the clinic was restored to its place in the valley when
several interested parties pointed out that removal of the facility
would compromise the safety of a wide range of guests and residents,
many whose association with outdoor activities carries a risk of
injury.
We also believe that a key to this plan will be in the nature of
its implementation. How the individual elements of the plan will be
phased is critical. In our view, it is absolutely vital that any new
infrastructure is completed before that which it is intended to replace
is demolished. Equally vital is consistent and reliable funding for the
implementation program. And lastly, we cannot stress how important we
feel an ongoing outreach program will be toward combating public
perception that the park is not open or at least is not accessible.
It is our contention that a plan that is not enacted is not a
benign thing. Plans meant to define direction produce paralysis or
worse when set aside or delayed. In the spirit of partnership that has
always been a strong point of our relationship with the National Park
Service, we again state our willingness and desire to contribute to the
ongoing implementation of this plan.
Our mission in the park has always been characterized by the
respect we hold for the singular beauty and grandeur of Yosemite. From
the very beginning, we have been aware of our responsibility to protect
this special place. We understand what a privilege it is to be a part
of Yosemite National Park and are profoundly grateful for the
opportunity.
We thank the National Park Service for its efforts in restoring and
safeguarding the park through the development of this plan and look
forward to being a part of its successful implementation.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Szefel.
Mr. Watson, welcome.
STATEMENT OF JAY THOMAS WATSON, CALIFORNIA-NEVADA REGIONAL
DIRECTOR, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Watson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and staff. On behalf
of The Wilderness Society, thank you for the chance to testify
on the Yosemite Valley Plan.
My name is Jay Watson, and as California/Nevada Regional
Director for The Wilderness Society, I have also been asked to
represent at today's hearing the National Parks Conservation
Association,. the American Alpine Club, and the Central Sierra
Environmental Resources Center, located in Twain Harte, just
north of Yosemite.
More than four years ago, the floodwaters of the Merced
River presented the National Park Service with a historic
opportunity--the chance to transform into reality what had long
been an elusive, yet majestic vision for Yosemite. The central
question was whether or not the Park Service was up to the
task. The Valley Plan answers that question with a resounding
yes. It is a grand plan that strikes an elegant balance between
protecting natural values in the Park, and allowing people to
use and enjoy Yosemite.
Yosemite Valley has limits. For years, a cacophony of
development was stuffed into its 4,480 acres. As a result,
sensitive habitats and ecosystems were damaged, while a summer
visit became an exercise in frustration and not a restorative
visit to a crown jewel of the Park System.
The Plan was produced through an exhaustive and open and
honest planning process, and it enjoys considerable public
support. I have appended to my testimony 34 editorials from
around California from 14 different newspapers that support the
plan and/or YARTS.
The legitimacy of the process is borne out by changes made
in the Plan as it progressed from draft to final, changes that
unequivocally show that the Park Service not only welcomed
public comment, but that they listened to it. Nowhere is this
more observable than in overnight accommodations, camping, and
parking.
When the draft plan was released, there was an outcry about
the types of overnight stays possible in Yosemite Valley.
Simply stated, they cost too much. In response, under the final
Plan, camping and rustic units account for 50 percent of all
overnight stays in the Valley. If you include ``economy''
cabins, it jumps to 81 percent.
Therefore, assuming a two-night stay during the four months
of June through September, almost 71,000 families or groups of
friends can camp in a campground or stay in a tent or economy
cabin in the Valley at costs ranging from $15 to $80. The Park
Service listened.
As for camping, under the plan there will be 500 campsites
in Yosemite Valley. Again assuming a two-night stay over the
same four months, 30,000 families will be able to camp in
Yosemite Valley, and there are another 1,060 campsites outside
the Valley but still in the Park. That is enough for another
64,000 families to camp in Yosemite during those four months.
The final Plan also recognizes the historical value of Camp
4, the undisputed birthplace of American rock climbing. The
Plan protects Camp 4 by ensuring that the reconstruction of
Yosemite Lodge will not encroach on it or its historical
values.
On day-use parking, the Plan provides 550 sites in a
centralized location, a decrease that is of elemental
importance if the reductions in the overall vehicle congestion
that so degrades the human experience in the Valley are to be
realized.
The draft plan allowed this parking facility to be built at
Taft Toe. The Wilderness Society and many others questioned the
need to turn a pristine area into a parking lot and, in
response, the Park Service shifted parking and transit to Camp
6 in Yosemite Village, locations that are already heavily
impacted. Again, the Park Service had listened.
Reductions in overnight accommodations at Yosemite will
only serve to increase occupancy levels at places of lodging
outside the Park. Moving employee housing into the community
will lead to new, additional home sales and rentals, and moving
Park Service and concessionaire offices into local communities
will provide new commercial real estate opportunities.
The adoption of the Yosemite Valley Plan makes the
beginning of the all-important implementation phase for the
grandest of plans for Yosemite. But the Plan's promises will
only be fulfilled if it is put in place on the ground. Only
then will the millions of people who visit each year forever
remember the Park for its waterfalls, its granite, and it's
vibrant meadows, and not for a cacophony of development,
gridlock and asphalt.
But actions speak louder than words, so we call on the
United States Congress and the administration to make the
resources available to actually do what the Plan calls for.
Failure to implement the Plan will put at risk the very things
that bring millions of visitors to Yosemite and through gateway
communities every year. In other words, Yosemite's time has
come and it's time to get the job done and put an end to
planning.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Watson follows:]
Statement of Jay Thomas Watson, California/Nevada Regional Director,
The Wilderness Society
On behalf of The Wilderness Society, thank you for the opportunity
to testify on the Yosemite Valley Plan. Please note that I am also here
on behalf of the American Alpine Club, and the Central Sierra
Environmental Resources Center located in Twain Harte, California, just
north of Yosemite.
Almost four years ago, the floodwaters of the Merced River
presented the National Park Service with a once-in-a-lifetime
opportunity--the chance to transform into reality what historically had
been an elusive, yet majestic vision for Yosemite Valley. The central
question at the time was whether the Park Service was up to the task.
The Final Yosemite Valley Plan answered that question with a resounding
yes!
The Yosemite Valley Plan is a grand plan that will protect the
natural values of Yosemite Valley and allow the American people to use
and enjoy the park. The plan sets forth a vision for Yosemite that is
as strong as the park's legendary granite and as clear as the waters of
the Merced River.
The time has come to realize that at 4,480 acres, Yosemite Valley
is a finite place with real limits. For years, Yosemite Valley was
expected to be all things to all people, with a cacophony of things
stuffed into the Incomparable Valley--parking lots, roads, pizza
parlors, a bank, a beauty parlor, a gas station, campgrounds, offices,
hotels, snack bars, restaurants, gift shops, a maintenance shop,
bathrooms, bridges, a museum, a church, hiking trails, bike paths, tent
cabins, grocery stores, swimming pools, skating rinks, signs, stables,
employee housing, water systems, sewage systems, and a laundromat.
As a result, terrestrial and river ecosystems were severely
altered, while a visit during the summer became an exercise in
frustration, not a restorative visit to one of the crown jewels of our
National Park System. Something had to change.
And that is what the Yosemite Valley Plan is all about--making
positive changes for Yosemite, its visitors, and for gateway
communities.
The Yosemite Valley Plan (YVP) is the product of an open, honest,
and accessible planning process. It allowed for meaningful public
comment. Dozens of workshops and public hearings were held throughout
California. Additional hearings took place in Chicago, Denver, Seattle,
and Washington, D.C. Every weekend, on-the-ground tours with park staff
were available in Yosemite.
Not surprisingly, the plan has been met with considerable public
support. As an expression of that support, I have appended to my
statement 34 editorials from 14 different papers expressing support for
the Yosemite Valley Plan and/or the Yosemite Area Regional
Transportation System (YARTS). These papers are the: Los Angeles Times,
San Diego Union-Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle, Fresno Bee, Modesto
Bee, Sacramento Bee, Contra Costa Times, Santa Rosa Press Democrat,
Reno Gazette Journal, San Francisco Examiner, Oakland Tribune, Stockton
Record, New York Times, and USA Today.
The legitimacy of the planning process was borne out by any number
of changes made in the plan as it progressed from draft to final.
Changes that unequivocally demonstrate that the National Park Service
not only welcomed public comment, but that they listened to it,
responded by making several very important modifications in the final
plan.
Nowhere is this more readily observable than in how the agency
addressed the issues of overnight accommodations, campgrounds, and
centralized parking.
Overnight Accommodations
When the draft plan was released for public comment, there was an
outcry about the types of overnight stays possible in Yosemite Valley.
Simply stated, they cost too much.
However, in response to this criticism, under the final plan,
camping and rustic units account for 50 percent of all overnight stays
in the Valley. Include "*economy" cabins, and it jumps to 81 percent.
Most overnight stays in Yosemite Valley will range in cost from $15.00
for a campsite, to $45.00 for a tent cabin, and about $80.00 for a
simple cabin.
Assuming a two-night stay, during the four months of June through
September, almost 71,000 families or groups of friends can camp in a
campground or stay in a tent or economy cabin in Yosemite Valley. The
Park Service listened.
Campgrounds
As for camping, under the YVP, there will be 500 campsites in
Yosemite Valley. Again assuming a two-night stay, over the same four
months, 30,000 families or groups of friends will be able to camp in
Yosemite Valley. Moreover, there are another 1,060 campsites outside of
Yosemite Valley, but still within the boundaries of the park. That is
enough for another 63,600 families or groups of friends to camp in
Yosemite over a four-month period.
The plan also recognizes the unique, historical values of Camp 4--
the birthplace of American rock climbing. Reconstruction of Yosemite
Lodge will not encroach on Camp 4 and the campground will be slightly
enlarged.
Yes, when all is said and done, there will be about 300 fewer
campsites in Yosemite Valley than before the 1997 flood. The reason for
this is that those sites are now located in what once was sensitive
meadow, river, and black oak habitats, which the plan proposes to
restore. Campgrounds aren't benign, particularly when they erase
critical habitats.
Parking
On parking, the plan adopts a proactive approach and limits day-use
parking to 550 sites. This reduction is of elemental importance if the
restoration of sensitive habitats is to be realized and reductions made
in the overall vehicle congestion that so degrades the human experience
in the valley.
The draft plan allowed for a centralized 550-car parking facility
at Taft Toe, an undeveloped area still in its natural state. The
Wilderness Society, and many others, questioned the need to develop a
pristine area for a parking lot. In response, parking and transit
operations were shifted to Camp Six and Yosemite Village--locations
that are already heavily impacted. Again, the Park Service had
listened.
Other Issues
Earlier, I mentioned that the plan makes changes that will benefit
gateway communities. It goes without saying that reducing the number of
overnight accommodations in Yosemite Valley will lead to increased
occupancy levels at places of lodging outside Yosemite. The same can be
said of employee housing. And, moving Park Service and concessionaire
administrative offices out of the park and into local communities will
provide new business opportunities in those communities.
Some have said the YVP is a sweetheart deal for Yosemite Concession
Services. This statement is puzzling, when you consider that YCS will
realize lower revenues under the plan. Dramatic improvements were made
in the YCS contract as compared with the previous contract--which was
truly a sweetheart deal.
Conclusion
The adoption of the Final Yosemite Plan marks the beginning of an
all important implementation phase for the grandest of plans for the
park. And yet, the grandest hopes and promises of the plan will only be
fulfilled if it is put in place on the ground. Only then will the
millions of people who will continue to visit Yosemite each year
forever remember the park for its waterfalls, its granite, and its
vibrant meadows and not for its cacophony of development, gridlock, and
asphalt.
At the end of the day, actions speak louder than words. Therefore,
we are thrilled to see the Park Service commit itself to moving
aggressively forward with key restoration projects described in the
YVP. These actions will set an all-important tone for plan
implementation.
We now call on the United States Congress and the Administration to
make the resources available to actually do what the plan calls for.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Watson.
Welcome, Mr. Whitmore. We look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE W. WHITMORE, CHAIRMAN, SIERRA CLUB'S
YOSEMITE COMMITTEE, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Whitmore. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and staff. Thank
you for this opportunity. I am George Whitmore, Chair of the
Sierra Club's Yosemite Committee.
I was born in central California and have been fortunate
enough to have lived there, near Yosemite, most of my life. I
have experienced Yosemite intensively and extensively over many
years, starting as a child in the 1930's, and including many
memorable years in the 1950's as a rock climber.
We agree with the stated intent of the Yosemite Valley Plan
and are pleased that the Park Service did respond to public
comments on the draft plan, to some extent, by cutting back on
planned expansion at Yosemite Lodge and softening the draconian
cuts in lower-cost accommodations.
However, we still have some very large concerns. Those
concerns focus largely on transportation issues and on the
impact which unceasing, infinite growth in day visitor usage
has on a very finite Yosemite Valley. These two concerns are
obviously closely interrelated. Former Interior Secretary Bruce
Babbitt's often stated view that, ``there is room for everyone
in Yosemite, they just can't bring their cars'' was overly
simplistic. Unfortunately, it was the mandate the Park Service
was given and it resulted in a flawed plan.
The new Valley Plan has abandoned the concept of limits
which was in the 1980 general management plan. At the same
time, no program has been put in place to address the
consequent problem of ever-increasing stress on the visitor
experience and on the natural resources. The only response to
more and more day visitors seems to be planning for more and
more buses, without acknowledging that buses can become the
problem instead of cars.
Buses obviously could be part of the solution. Our concern
is with the excessive focus on them which fails to recognize
that they are already well on the way to becoming a worse
problem than the cars.
There are several different bus systems serving Yosemite
now--the long distant excursion or tour buses, the regional
buses, including YARTS, which operate from the gateway
communities, the in-Valley shuttle buses, and those which
transport people to other points within the Park. In general,
our comments apply to all types of buses.
These existing buses are already having an impact which
needs to be reduced. They need to be cleaner, meaning fewer
air-polluting emissions. Quieter, smaller, to reduce the demand
for wider and straighter roads. And generally, less intrusive.
There is a serious need to convert from diesel to a less
harmful technology, and that is one area which probably would
benefit from increased funding. But especially in the absence
of cleaner, quieter, smaller and less intrusive, we object to
the seeming acceptance of buses as being a cure-all.
Of course, what is driving the demand for more and more
buses is the given parameter that ``there is room for everyone
in Yosemite''. The concept of limits is certainly not foreign
to the public. We encounter it routinely in so many aspects of
everyday life and we adjust accordingly. To take an extreme
example, even with an operation such as Disneyland, in which
large crowds and crowding are accepted, sometimes the demand
threatens the quality of the visitor experience, so the company
takes steps to manage the demand. It totally escapes us why
this is considered not acceptable for Yosemite Valley.
We believe that if the Park Service would try a reservation
system for day use, they would find it accepted by most people,
especially if some of the available space were set aside for
those who plan to visit at off-peak times or simply choose to
take their chances. Such a system would eliminate the need for
degradation of both the visitor experience and the natural
resources which this Plan would allow--a degradation,
incidentally, which would be in violation of the Park Service's
own Organic Act.
We feel that the concepts employed in this Plan, while
undoubtedly well-intentioned, have generally been taken too
far. The zeal to improve the Yosemite Valley has resulted in a
massive urban redevelopment plan. But this is not a city. It is
the crown jewel of our National Park System, the incomparable
valley, a world heritage site, the holy of holy. It deserves
much better of us.
I would be happy to take any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitmore follows:]
Statement of George W. Whitmore, Chairman, Yosemite Committee, Sierra
Club
We offer our reactions to the final Yosemite Valley Plan.
We recognize that changes were made in the final Valley Plan in
response to comments that we and many others made. We are particularly
pleased that the Park Service recognizes that ``restoration of highly
valued natural resources is a priority, especially along the length of
the Merced River.'' We are glad to see there is now essentially no net
increase in number of accommodations at Yosemite Lodge. And we welcome
the decision not to move forward with the idea of constructing a new
parking facility at Taft Toe.
ASSUMPTIONS
However, we continue to question many of the assumptions that
underlie this Plan.
Because too many sites have already been degraded, we do not
believe it is wise to shift development to new areas (even if the
overall footprint were to be reduced). The Plan does not confine
development to existing sites.
Moreover, the Plan is far from clear in limiting the factors that
impose stress upon the Valley's environment. These stresses include
vehicles, emissions, roads, parking places, facilities, and unlimited
visitors. While it would limit the space for automobiles, it would
leave open growth in bus traffic, particularly tour and YARTS busses,
and satellite parking in other areas of the Park. And after casting
doubt on the validity of the 1980 General Management Plan's (GMP)
visitor limit, this plan would look to a future Visitor Experience and
Resource Protection (VERP) process to define new parameters, which
might, or might not, be more effective in protecting the visitor
experience and natural resources.
We feel it is a serious mistake to have eliminated the 1980 GMP's
approach to the ever-increasing demand for access to Yosemite Valley
without having some other mechanism in place to deal with it. Unless
the problems created by infinite stress on a finite resource are
resolved, the Organic Act's mandate for enjoyment by the public while
leaving the resources unimpaired will be violated.
And the plan for restoration in the Valley is far from clear. The
Plan does not enable one to see what the aims are for each parcel to be
restored, nor to what standards these areas would be restored, nor how
fragmentation would be overcome.
Furthermore, it appears that much of this restoration should move
forward regardless of whether other parts of the Plan are ever
implemented.
Finally, we are disappointed that this plan was developed in such
haste, before it was clear that a legally compliant plan for the
management of the Merced Wild and Scenic River was in place. The River
Plan, which should stand as the foundation for all planning in the
Valley, is still under litigation. Questions still exist as to whether
adequate planning has been done to identify, enhance and protect
outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) for the river. And the Valley
Plan seems to confound these ORV values with Highly Valued Resources,
which seem to stand in their place. We strongly recommend that the Park
Service recognize the possible need to make relevant changes in the
Valley Plan if court decisions require revisions of the River Plan or a
new River Plan.
CHANGES FROM THE DRAFT
However, we do note changes, some of them for the better, that were
made in developing the final Plan. We are glad to see that, overall,
there will be twenty fewer lodging units than in the draft Plan, and
the number at Yosemite Lodge would go down by 135 (though that would
still. constitute six more than are there now). And we welcome the
effort to retain more low-cost units at Curry Village and Housekeeping.
We also note, however, that some elements in the final Plan are
less satisfactory than in the draft. More bus trips would be expected
each day during peak periods (285 instead of 231), while the saving in
energy use would be less (37% instead of 52%). And more employee beds
would remain in the Valley (723 in contrast to 683).
VALUABLE GOALS
But we do recognize that the Plan would be designed to achieve some
very important goals compared to the existing situation:
--A reduction of nearly 300 overnight lodging units (with 164 to be
removed from the flood plain);--A reduction of 554 employee beds in the
Valley;--And a net gain of 71 acres that would be restored in the
Valley (though we regret the loss of 75 acres of undeveloped land in
the process.)
We applaud plans to remove unnecessary developments and facilities,
including:
--The Cascades Diversion Dam;--Rip rap, along the banks of the
Merced River;--The village garage;-The concessionaire headquarters;
and--The tennis courts at the Ahwanhee Hotel.
PROBLEMS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
But, nonetheless, we see some problems in the Plan that still need
to be addressed in a satisfactory manner.
(1) DIESEL BUSSES
While we welcome the pledge to use ``the best available fuel and
propulsion system technology to minimize noise and air pollutant
emissions,'' additional busses should not be added until satisfactory
technology which will reduce air and noise pollution is in hand and
will be used for existing and any new busses. We recommend immediate
replacement of existing shuttle buses with new buses with much lower
emissions. We note in Table 4-31 (p. 4.2-123) that if diesel fuel is
used that NOx emissions in 2015 would be worse with the shuttle bus
system to remote sites than under the ``No Change'' alternative. NOx
emissions would increase by 32%.
We cannot agree with any change that would increase, rather than
decrease emissions and produce worse air quality or move impacts to
new-or expanded areas. The discussion in the EIS of air quality is
conspicuously silent on the question of whether air quality standards
would be met with this increase in NOx emissions. Diesel fuels are also
high in sulfur content. Both NOx are precursors of ozone. Exceedances
of air quality standards for ozone have occurred in recent years in
Yosemite Valley. Moreover, diesel fuel emissions contain deadly
carcinogens as well as dangerous small particulates, and few diesel
engines are operated with any serious emission control systems. Unlike
cars, which have gotten cleaner, diesel busses have not.
We continue to urge that busses bringing visitors into the Valley
need to use clean fuel technologies. Fuel cells or propane seem to be
the most promising technologies along this line (see table 4-31). The
door needs to be closed on the growing number of busses using dirty
fuels, rather than be opened. We believe that there should be a
moratorium on the growing number of tour and YARTS busses, and their
arrivals need to be scheduled at appropriate intervals.
And busses coming into the Valley need to be less noisy. Some of
them now produce noise at 16 times the natural sound level (for those
standing within 50 feet). Moreover, the noise they produce can be heard
within nearby wilderness areas of the park (on valley cliffs and on the
rim).
Finally, such busses need to be smaller so that they fit within the
design parameters of the existing road system. Otherwise, the growing
number of such busses will exert constant pressures to build larger and
larger roads, to the detriment of park values and visitor experience.
(2) UNCONTROLLED GROWTH.
As indicated earlier, the Plan fails to come to grips
satisfactorily with the growth in the factors that stress the
environment of Yosemite Valley. Limits are addressed only indirectly,
with the question deferred for up to five years while the VERP process
is pursued, with no conclusion being promised even then.
This is particularly so with respect to growth in bus traffic.
Busses can bring far more visitors to the Valley than can cars. Total
visitation via car is more easily limited by congestion and limited
parking space. But if busses displace cars, the potential number of
visitors is far greater. They can suddenly produce crowds that
overwhelm special places. And as their numbers increase, so also will
the pressures for more accommodations, facilities, and infrastructure.
While we suspect that the carrying capacity of Yosemite Valley is
likely currently exceeded only a few days during the year, without an
analysis and setting of limits those days could increase rapidly over
time.
Once remote parking lots are built, it will be all too easy to
expand them. New centers of development can all too easily sprawl out
around these lots. Not enough research or planning has been done to
determine whether sites can safely be developed at Hazel Green or
Foresta. One rare plant and one plant of federal concern are found at
Hazel Green, as well as habitat for the California Spotted owl, which
is under consideration for inclusion in the federal endangered species
list. Even Badger Pass is problematic because of its inadequate sewage
system.
We are quite concerned with construction of a bus depot with 16
bays being developed in the heart of Yosemite Valley. This does not fit
in with the goal of reduction in impacts nor of increasing the quality
of the visitor's experience of the natural values of Yosemite. The Plan
assumes that the number of bus bays will de facto limit the number of
busses arriving from out of the Valley. But pressures will grow from
tour companies and outside commercial lodge owners to increase the
number of such bus bays. Such bays might be taken from either the
allocation for day use auto visitors, or from habitat.
Once again, we urge the National Park Service to establish a
moratorium on granting permits for any more tour busses or YARTS
busses, and to establish limits on the number of busses entering the
Valley, as well as for automobiles. Under the Plan, at peak periods a
bus would be expected to arrive at the visitor center every 1.3
minutes. Busses would be arriving practically in convoys.
These limits would be the necessary counterparts of limits on
overnight lodging units, camp sites, parking spots, and employee
housing. All of these sources of pressure need to be controlled
simultaneously to prevent pressures from transferring themselves from
one point to another. Busses can be part of the solution, but unless
their numbers are tightly controlled, they will also come to be the
problem.
Work on satellite parking facilities should not go forward until
limits have been established on bus traffic into Yosemite Valley, and
even then only if siting problems have been resolved (in terms of
limiting environmental impacts and containing sprawl at the sites).
(3) SOUTHSIDE DRIVE AND OTHER ROADS
We remain concerned about the plan to shift traffic entirely to
Southside Drive. Closing Northside Drive to traffic will not produce
any habitat gain, merely seasonal respite from noise. But it will
result in habitat loss along Southside Drive as all traffic pressures
focus on it. The EIS informs us that the park does intend to widen it,
with ``the extension of pavement over strips of habitat alongside the
road'' [p.4.2-54]. We understand that the plan is to improve it to the
same level as accomplished in rebuilding the E1 Portal road, which was
so controversial. Moreover, if the proposed traffic check station is
built at E1 Capitan crossover, then even more habitat will be lost.
Moreover, we do not agree with relocating Northside Drive along the
south side of Yosemite Lodge (closer to the river), and building a new
bridge across Yosemite Creek. Again, this will produce a needless loss
of habitat, with little, if any gain in the visitor experience.
We do not understand how this plan advances the restoration agenda.
Very little is gained, while a lot is lost.
(4) SEGMENT D
We understand that attention will not be given to the issue of
Segment D of the El Portal Road until the Cascades Diversion Dam has
been removed, the river bed has stabilized, and until compliance with
environmental laws has been pursued. (We ask that Cascade Dam be
removed in an environmentally responsible manner, with appropriate
scientific appraisals of the best manner in which to remove the dam
completed first.)
We do want to observe that, while widening of Segment D is not
necessary, there may be a desire by the Park Service to engage in
roadbed stabilization, intersection redesign, sewer repair, paving, or
other types of construction activity. In such an event, compliance with
environmental laws should be pursued in good faith, with an appraisal
of the potential impacts of various alternative designs helping to
guide the Park Service to the least harmful alternative. Because of
obligations under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, that design should be
aimed at keeping construction out of the bed and off the banks of that
river. The EIS admits that stabilization materials are now in the river
channel ``and interfere with the free-flowing condition of the river''
[table 4-39, p. 4,2-167].
We are troubled by the ambiguities of the Plan with regard to
whether good faith compliance will be attempted. Many comments are made
that suggest no more than pro forma compliance and a definite intent to
re-construct regardless of what is found. The EIS actually states that
the non-conforming material will ``remain in the river channel after
the-road is constructed'' [table 4-39, p. 4.2-167]. The Park Service
seems to assume that study, and notice of intent to obstruct a wild
river's free-flowing condition under Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act, will meet the requirements of the Act. But we assert that
the administering agency has a positive duty to keep obstructions out
of the bed of such rivers. We share hopes expressed in the plan that it
will be found feasible ``to design and construct the road in a manner
that would avoid direct and adverse impacts on the values for which the
river was designated'' [p. 4.2-175]. We hope that deficiencies in legal
compliance will not continue to shadow whatever additional work on this
road may be proposed.
We note that all the above concerns would be vastly reduced if the
Park Service would recognize that Segment D does not need to be
widened. The combination of gradients and curves that were felt to be a
problem on Segments A, B, and C do not exist on Segment D. The problem
appears to be one of blind insistence on uniform standards as an end in
itself.
IN CONCLUSION
It strikes us that the tasks ahead ought to be tackled in a certain
order. At the outset, priority should be given to resolution of the
court case regarding the Merced Wild and Scenic River plan and
developing a legally compliant River Plan since that provides the basis
for so much else. Next, we urge that a process be initiated to
promulgate a moratorium on issuing any more licenses for tour busses
entering the valley, and any other busses which would create additional
air, noise, sprawling impacts, or runoff pollution.
Then various relatively non-controversial tasks ought to be
pursued: downsizing the level of accommodations in the Valley,
continuing to move non-essential facilities out, and increasing the
pace of restoration work. At the same time, efforts should be made to
clean up the emissions of existing busses that enter the valley through
establishing a schedule for conversion to cleaner fuels. And upgrading
and renovating the sewage system for the Valley would seem to-be
relatively non-controversial, especially if it diverts money from more
harmful projects.
Over the next few years, further efforts should be made to set
limits on all of the sources of stress on the valley's environment.
Limits should be adjusted based on containing and decreasing, not
increasing, the existing stress on the Valley's environment after an
analysis on the capacity of the valley to withstand various stresses.
We are not entirely clear on whether the contemplated VERP process is
everything that is needed, but we urge use of a pragmatic process that
tests various levels of management to see whether desired improvements
ensue, with adjustments to get needed results.
Finally, we urge that any further consideration of satellite
parking lots be placed on hold until clean, quiet, non-intrusive
alternate transportation is in place, operational, has secured funding,
and has proven to be successful. And, even then, it should be
considered only if some mechanism is in place to limit ALL vehicular
traffic, including busses of all kinds, based on the carrying capacity
analysis. And that is assuming problem-free sites can be found.
We look forward to working toward a process of better protecting
the very special values of Yosemite Valley and the Merced River.
______
Mr. Radanovich. All right. Thank you very much for your
testimony as well.
Mr. Hardy, I would love to ask you a couple of questions
regarding this Plan. You were here and I think heard much of
the testimony of the Park Service when they were here before. A
couple of things I would like to ask you about.
Two questions with regard to the upper and lower river
campgrounds. You had mentioned that those campgrounds, as well
as others, serve the mental health of the public. Can you
elaborate on that?
Mr. Hardy. Certainly. The family unites, a chance for the
family to come together and gather in those areas, has been
traditional, historic, and it's a respite from coming out of
the city life or wherever they came from, and gather in a
family unit. I believe that it truly helps.
I think Yosemite Valley is really like a giant ``couch,''
and the people working there are the ``shrinks'', and the
chance to send people home restored is important. Those
campgrounds played a major role in that.
Mr. Radanovich. You have long been an advocate of the
reopening of those campgrounds. In fact, in your testimony, as
you just said a minute ago, it requires a little bit of
maintenance to go in and get rid of the sand and rocks that
were deposited by the increased water levels and then move on.
But we have become aware, or at least you are aware, that
the Park Service has said both campgrounds are entirely within
the flood plain of the river and it comes within the Wild and
Scenic designation. How do you figure overcoming something like
that in order to get them restored?
I support reopening the campgrounds. Maybe a barrier of 100
feet, 150 feet, from the river--the historic edge, not the
flood edge, but--
Mr. Hardy. First of all, I think they're kidding
themselves, anyone is, who think that people aren't going to
use the river by declaring it a flood plain.
Secondly, the Congress wrote the law that created the flood
plain. Let's adapt it, let's make some meaningful adjustments
and fine-tune the Plan and allow the people that own the Park
the ability to continue to use it.
Mr. Radanovich. There are a lot of lawsuits prolonging the
thing. I mean, that's what you're up against basically, an
onslaught of lawsuits.
Mr. Hardy. I really feel that when you leave the 4,000 foot
level of Yosemite Valley and you go to other parts to impact
other parts of the Park, you're doing the preservation side of
the Park management plan a disservice. This is already
impacted. It gets washed periodically. That's even better. But
I would stick with trying to find a way to adapt the law to
reopen those campgrounds, and Wawona the same thing.
Mr. Radanovich. A lot of the controversy in planning this
thing is the number of parking spaces in the Valley. Can you
kind of give us some idea of what has been there historically
and where we've been heading with the issue of parking spaces?
Mr. Hardy. Well, if you want to go back far enough, there
were periods of times when we parked at Mirror Lake. In fact,
there was a boat dock and boats and Easter service was done out
on the lake. You could drive all the way there. Of course,
there was parking in front of the post office for many, many
years. There was parking in back of the post office for many,
many years. Both of those are not available at this time.
The parking throughout the Valley has been diminished by
thousands. I notice that someone said 3,300. When I was there,
we counted 6,000 that had been torn out since the 1960's. I
don't believe you ought to put all those back, but I do believe
in small satellite parking lots along the shuttle bus route, 30
to 80 cars in a spot. The areas where you pull in, like where
the old Chinese laundry was, there are several spots along that
side of the Valley, you just cover them with pine needles. I'm
not talking about black top. You don't need them when it's wet
and sloppy and the weather is bad. The public doesn't come
anyway. So you don't need mud and snow management or snow
removal.
But in the summertime, when the Park is heavily visited,
they use the Curry dump site, small satellites along the
shuttle bus route, all managed with pine needles--and, of
course, Camp 6--and a reorganization of the areas around the
village store. I believe you could put parking back in very
nicely without impacting new areas.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Hardy.
Mr. Szefel, as you are well aware, the flood of January
1997 created some problems. It also impacted your employee
housing needs. I'm curious to know how you dealt with that and
how this Plan may affect your ability to house your employees
and what your concerns are with regard to employee housing in
this Plan.
Mr. Szefel. Well, since the flood, we lost quite a number
of employee housing units. We have had to make do with several
temporary--actually, they are miner camp portable outlets that
created small villages. They are temporary at best, and they
are certainly not the way we would like to be able to house our
employees for going forward.
As I stated in my prepared remarks, that's a concern with
the Plan, the impact on employees. I think there's a lot of
advantage to having employees live in the Valley. That's a part
of the allure of the job. Many of them walk to work, bicycle to
work. So that's an issue that clearly we see as something that
requires conversation as we go forward with the Park Service.
I would just reemphasize that our ability to work with them
throughout all of this process has been terrific. I'm sure
we'll be able to resolve it. But it's an issue that is
uppermost in our mind.
Mr. Radanovich. Do you have involvement with the gateway
communities? Is there discussion--For example, the
concessionaire administrative functions being moved to gateway
communities, or some of your employee housing, especially with
the opportunity of YARTS being there, is that something you
have discussed or is in planning?
Mr. Szefel. We now have our entire central reservation
system, that does our reservation work not only for Yosemite
but for all of our other properties, in Fresno. We also do a
number of our administrative support functions out of that
building already, and that clearly would be an area that might
make some sense for us to do. But we do some of it already.
Mr. Radanovich. Are you concerned about any loss of
employee housing as a result of this Plan, or--
Ms. Szefel. Oh, sure. That's one, as I mentioned. Again, we
have a good experience working with the Park Service, through
some pretty catastrophic occurrences, and I'm sure we'll get
through the planning process with them as well. But employee
housing is uppermost in our mind.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Szefel.
Mr. Watson, you heard the comments that there were probably
up to as many as 6,000 parking spaces in the Valley, and we're
looking at a plan that has about 550, and then the idea of
busing the rest into the park--at least that being the focus
for day-use visitors.
Where is your line? Is it 550 spaces, or would you like to
see zero? Could you accommodate 1,200? What are your thoughts?
Mr. Watson. I don't believe there were 6,000 parking spaces
in Yosemite Valley. If there were, that would equate to about,
I think, 80 acres of asphalt. I don't think 80 acres of asphalt
has been removed from Yosemite Valley.
In addition to the 550 car parking lot for day use, you
know, there are--I'm going to say over 1,000 parking spaces for
campgrounds and overnight units, that sort of thing.
I think the reduction to 550 day use parking spaces in the
Valley itself is of critical importance, but it will only work
if either YARTS is in operation or, if YARTS isn't in
operation, then those out-of-valley parking lots are
constructed at each of the entryways into the Park, each of
those corridors. Obviously, you have to provide people a way to
get into the Park, and that's either in their own automobiles
to their overnight units, to a day use parking lot, or to a
satellite lot, and then on a clean fuel shuttle into the
Valley.
But I think 550, you know, is somewhat of a magic number,
because it's large enough to accommodate off-season visitation
levels without any reductions in those. So that's sort of the
magic number.
Mr. Radanovich. I see.
Mr. Whitmore, the Sierra Club has been, I guess, a pretty
outspoken opponent of the Plan, particularly in the area of
YARTS. I know Mr. Brower, who is now deceased, prior to that
had mentioned a real objection to relying on diesel buses or
relying on a Park plan that requires more people to go on
diesel buses in order to enjoy Yosemite.
If I'm accurate in that description, and I think I am, what
would be your plan, knowing that if you don't rely on a busing
system, instead looking at 550 spaces, if you're less reliant
on one, you're looking at more parking spaces in the Valley.
Mr. Whitmore. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.
I would like to clarify one point. The Sierra Club has
actually never taken a position on YARTS, as such. We like a
regional approach to things, and to the extent that YARTS is a
regional program, we think that it's a good idea to approach it
that way. So we never--
Mr. Radanovich. I stand corrected, then.
Mr. Whitmore. We never endorsed YARTS, as such, even though
we were asked to, because we didn't know what they would come
up with. They then came up with a fleet of diesel buses.
Mr. Radanovich. Were Mr. Brower's comments basically his
comments?
Mr. Whitmore. Those were his personal comments, yes. And
then when they came out with a fleet of diesel buses, this was
one of the things we had feared. That can be changed, I
presume.
As far as what we would like to see to deal with the
problem, we have limitations on practically everything I can
think of in Yosemite, except for day use. My impression is that
this was Mr. Babbitt's fixation, that we are not going to limit
day use. Well, if you don't limit day use, you're going to end
up with more people than you can handle at certain times.
Eventually, maybe that would be a very large amount of days out
of the year. Currently, it's a rather small number of days out
of the year.
So we feel that most of the year you don't have a problem.
Mr. Radanovich. Right.
Mr. Whitmore. And during those times that you do have a
problem, I think you have to accept the idea that Yosemite
Valley is finite and you are probably going to have to
implement a partial reservation system. I don't think it should
be totally reservation, because this is a little too
restrictive. I don't think people are ready for that. But just
as with the wilderness permits, there are advance reservations
for some of it and then some of it is on a walk-up basis. I
don't know why that couldn't be done with people who drive up
to the gate.
Mr. Radanovich. Did the Sierra Club support the concept of
gate closures, that when there was a certain amount of people
in the Park, they would shut the gates?
Mr. Whitmore. I wasn't on the scene at the time, but I have
seen enough congestion in the Valley at peak times during the
summer that I can well imagine the problem got out of hand.
There were too many cars in the Valley at one time, so the Park
Service had to do something.
I think their way of handling it left something to be
desired. They should not have done it so abruptly. I think
there needed to be more public education, more advance notice.
It doesn't make sense that you have large lines of cars waiting
at the gate because it has been closed unexpectedly. That leads
to the matter of congestion in the Valley itself, not just at
the gate. But there are a lot of things the Park Service could
do to relieve congestion in the Valley, simple things that
would not take a lot of money.
We find it inexplicable that the Park Service has not done
a lot of planning for traffic management in the Valley. There
are some problem intersections that could be redesigned. There
is too much confusion over this business of, well, is it a one-
way loop, or are we putting the northside traffic back on
southside temporarily, and if so, at least cover up the signs
that say get in the left lane if you're going to cross over
Stoneman Bridge. If you do get in the left lane, you'll have a
head-on collision. I have run into that personally twice. Just
the most elementary things that display a certain level of
adequate management.
Mr. Radanovich. To me, the obvious example is rerouting the
road around Yosemite Lodge and getting it on the same side as
Yosemite Falls, lower Yosemite Falls, where your parking is
there. You could relieve easily one bad bottleneck in the Park.
Mr. Whitmore. Yes. I'm not sure that the Plan the Park
Service is talking about now, for running the road around the
south side of the lodges, is the best way to go. But certainly
that intersection is one of the major problems and it needs
some thought about how to redesign it to deal with that
situation.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hardy, would you comment on one thing for me. You know
that there is already money that is appropriated for the
implementation of this plan to the tune of about $140-145
million. By what you've been able to gather from the hearing,
not holding you to it, do you agree with some of the things the
Park Service would like to do right now with that money, except
for the river campground issue?
Mr. Hardy. I think their utility upgrades are a must, and
to improve some of the roads and continue to maintain them, I
think that's going the right way.
I'm glad there is not money in there to remove the bridges.
That's a plus. So I'm amazed at that huge pot of money. I mean,
in all my years working with the Park Service, they never had
that kind of funding. In the past, the funding that did come to
the Park Service came through you, as elected officials, and
now so much of it comes from other routes, such as they talked
about entry fees, campgrounds, special events, concession
moneys, Yosemite fund, the Yosemite Association, Yosemite
Institute. There's millions of dollars coming to the Park
Service without any elected officials oversight.
I would say it would be nice to have that instead go to a
general fund, just the opposite of what the Park Service spoke
of today, that they're relieved it doesn't go to the general
fund. I believe it's a public park and it does need elected
officials oversight on what money and how it's spent.
Mr. Radanovich. Well, I can rest assured that the rest of
the $441 million will have to be appropriated, so we're looking
forward to having some say in how the balance of this might be
spent, if it's spent at all.
Gentlemen, I want to thank you for being here and for your
testimony. With that, I will go ahead and conclude this
hearing. Before that, people have up to 30 days to submit
recorded remarks.
Again, thank you all very much. We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1: 10 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]
[A statement submitted for the record by the Natural
Resources Defense Council follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1353.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1353.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1353.003
-