Draft YOSEMITE VALLEY PLAN/EIS Comments

July 7, 2000

RE: Comments on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

Mr. Mihalic and Yosemite Park Planners:

The following are the comments of the Friends of Yosemite Valley and the Mariposans for Environmentally Responsible Growth ("MERG"). Signators in support include: For Future Generations, Environmental Protection Information Center, West Valley Citizens Air Watch, Center for Biological Diversity and Wild Wilderness regarding the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. Once again, we submit comments under protest of an unreasonably short comment period for such a lengthy and complex document and with the caveat that we fundamentally disagree with this planning process, as discussed more fully below. We also wish to specifically incorporate our previous comments, dated March 24, 2000, on the Draft Merced River Plan ("MRP").

Introduction

The release of this Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/Environmental Impact Statement ("DVP"), in the absence of a final, valid River Plan, is procedurally unlawful and has resulted in substantive violations of law, including the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. It completely undermines the Park Service's duty to clearly relate planning in Yosemite Valley, the Merced Gorge, El Portal, and the entire Merced River corridor to the protective requirements of a final and adequate River Plan. It also makes it impossible for the public and the agency to effectively incorporate River Plan guidance and requirements into its review, analysis and comment on the DVP. Thus, while we submit to you these comments, we emphasize that it is impossible for us to meaningfully participate in this public comment period without the benefit of a completed valid River Plan to guide our review.

The DVP was already printed and ready to be released even before the end of the public comment period for the Draft Merced River Plan. A valid Comprehensive Plan for the Merced River needs to form the basis for the Valley Plan because the Merced River, its environs, processes and habitats run centrally through Yosemite Valley. A valid River Plan would preclude all development in Yosemite Valleyand elsewhere in the protected Merced River corridor that degrades the outstandingly remarkable values of the river and its free-flowing condition. The deficiencies and inadequacies that we previously addressed in our River Plan comments similarly apply to the DVP as it affects the Merced.

Notwithstanding our position with respect to the procedural flaws of the DVP and the failure to abide by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, we cannot support any of the alternatives described by the DVP. We find the alternatives description vague as to specifics and impacts, hopelessly narrow, and generally prejudiced towards increasing infrastructure and development in Yosemite, most or all of which was previously proposed with no regard to the protection and enhancement of the Merced River Corridor or its values. We believe that all of the DVP alternatives would lead to unmitigated, unlawful and new degradation of Yosemite's natural and human environment.

The DVP improperly favors infrastructure development, fails to propose or consider reasonable alternatives which protect and enhance the river, and fails to adequately consider cumulative and significant impacts of the Plan on Yosemite generally and on the Merced River's values and free-flowing character. The DVP claims to further the goals of the 1980 GMP, but actually works actively in virtually every dimension to undermine GMP goals. The YVP adds many acres of asphalt to Yosemite, widens miles of roads throughout, adds new developed areas (parking lots and other) never before contemplated, constructs hundreds of new hotel rooms in the Valley, and moves facilities to make room for more facilities. It adds development to Foresta and Wawona, and packs the Merced River corridor from Yosemite Valley to the "sacrifice zone" at El Portal with more development and smog. Many impacts are never clearly defined or revealed. The plan studiously avoids discussion of the specifics of its proposals, disclosure is deferred to later studies, and anecdotal value statements are substituted for real impact analysis.

The DVP's selection of alternatives is hopelessly narrow. The alternatives are prejudiced towards increasing infrastructure and development in Yosemite. Most or all of these developments have been proposed since the designation of the Merced River as Wild and Scenic, in the absence of a valid River Plan, and with no regard to the protection and enhancement of the river's values.

The DVP alternatives are thus not derived from a range of increasing protections for the ORVs of the Merced River, which would be proper. All of the DVP alternatives would lead directly and cumulatively to new degradation of Yosemite's natural and human environment and increased development and impact to its protected Merced River Corridor. The DVP's primary, changing element is the location and numbers of proposed parking spaces and roads.

The DVP flows directly from the development agendas of the 1992 CSP, the 1997 Lodge Area Development Concept Plan and the 1998 VIP, and contains additional development. Like the 1998 Valley Implementation Plan before it, the DVP generally works to accommodate an unregulated and growing number of tourists to Yosemite, to build more infrastructure, and to add increasingly costly services. Infrastructure expands everywhere under the DVP: in Yosemite Valley, in the Merced Gorge, in El Portal, in Wawona and elsewhere. Alternatives shift impacts around, and turn a blind eye to undisclosed, expanding impacts in the Valley and elsewhere. A whole new generation of transportation and commercial facilities would be built within the park, some in or adjacent to undeveloped areas, but the DVP downplays this.

We request that the Park Service develope and finalize a valid River Plan, amend its General Management Plan consistent therewith and thereafter prepare an implementation plan for the protection of the Merced and Yosemite.

Discussion

The DVP is contrary to the five main goals of the General Management Plan, to the National Park Service Organic Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the National Historic Preservation Act. It also violates NEPA. The comments that follow are organized by topic area generally. However, there is extensive overlap between comments related to the WSRA and comments addressing NEPA, for instance. The topic areas only generally guide these comments and should not preclude your evaluation of them in the context of all environmental protection laws.

Failure to comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and a Valid River Plan

The Park Service's process, procedure and timing of the Draft Valley Plan are erroneous and unlawful for two fundamental reasons. First, the General Management Plan of 1980 must be amended to comport with the principles and mandates of the WSRA and with a legally valid River Plan for the Merced River in Yosemite. Any inconsistencies between the 1980 GMP and the Concession Services Plan (CSP) which amended the GMP and the designation of the Merced as Wild and Scenic must be eliminated or reconciled in favor of the river's designation and a valid River Plan. Second, these two guiding documents (an amended GMP and a valid River Plan) must provide the basis and programmatic guidance for the DVP. Relatedly, the DVP/EIS should tier to the River Plan's FEIS and the amended GMP's FEIS. The DVP/EIS improperly tiers to an outdated, twenty year-old GMP/EIS that has not been amended to comport with a valid River Plan. The DVP/EIS completely fails to tier to a final, valid River Plan/EIS because none exists.

Release of the DVP prior to issuance of a Record of Decision for a valid River Plan, and adoption of the River Plan as the final management plan for the Merced River, renders the DVP invalid. The DVP must be withdrawn, reevaluated and reissued for public review after it complies with the constraints of a valid River Plan and an amended GMP. We emphasize that a "valid and legally adequate" River Plan must be finalized and adopted as a prerequisite to the DVP being issued. The Draft River Plan that was issued for public comment contained no alternatives that would constitute a valid and legally adequate River Plan. Thus, while it would have been inappropriate and illegal for the Park Service to rely on a Draft River Plan and DEIS as the guiding document for preparing the DVP, even the Draft River Plan/EIS, which received overwhelmingly negative public comments, was inadequate under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and NEPA.

A detailed critique of the DVP should be based on a completed and "legally adequate" River Plan. The Park Service even opines that the River Plan is a "foundational plan for future implementation plans." Yet, at this time there is no Record of Decision for the Merced River Plan, the Park planners did not have the benefit of a Final River Plan, which had undergone public comment and revision, in place before drafting the DVP. Similarly, effective public comment on the DVP is constrained by the lack of a legally adequate final River Plan. All public comments at this time are essentially uninformed and deficient with respect to anything affecting the Merced River corridor and the protected river values established pursuant to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The public and planners alike are lacking the most critical planning document in Yosemite today, which guides, controls and impacts all planning within and around the Merced River corridor. A valid River Plan should be the essence of the DVP. It is not, for it does not yet exist.

For example, the DVP (p.3-70 - 3-71) asserts that ORVs, boundaries and classifications, criteria and considerations for river management, management zones and the river protection overlay have already been established for the Merced and presumably relies upon those denoted in the Draft River Plan/EIS's preferred alternative. The DVP assumes river boundaries and management zones that were highly controversial in the Draft River Plan. The Park Service made these erroneous and improper assumptions prior to reviewing public comment and prior to completing the Final River Plan and Record of Decision. Attached is a letter from Jeff Horn of the BLM that reveals the Park Service's illegal attempt to make the River Plan fit the Valley Plan.

The NPS knows from the public record that the response to the River Plan was dominantly negative. The Final River Plan availability was just published in the Federal Register on July 3, 2000, only four days prior to the comment deadline for the DVP. At this point we do not know the full effects and impact of the public input for the Merced River Plan and will be unable to review the voluminous final River Plan prior to July 7, 2000. Fast track planning is not in the best interest of Yosemite. This is not enough time for people to review this mammoth river document in time to respond to the DVP.

The preparation and release of the DVP prior to having a valid Final River Plan in place for the Merced also violates the Court's July 12, 1999 Memorandum Opinion and Order.

Because the DVP/EIS does not tier from and is not guided by a valid Final River Plan/EIS and ROD, which has made a determination about how to protect and enhance ORVs and how to manage the resource consistent with the WSRA, any determination in the DVP that the actions are allowable under WSRA and the River Plan is unlawful.

The DVP should specify the activities that are proposed to protect and enhance the outstandingly remarkable values for which the river was designated. The DVP should also describe the limits, which are placed on activities that may be proposed in projects stemming from the DVP, necessary to protect and enhance these values, consistent with a valid River Plan.

In Volume Ib, the DVP purports to analyze the environmental consequences of the alternatives. This is the only place where the DVP attempts to set forth the impacts on the Merced River's ORVs. However, the full impacts to the Merced's free-flowing character are not discussed. The analysis and conclusions are severely flawed for a number of reasons discussed below:

1. The DVP does not ensure the protection and enhancement of the ORVs.
2. The DVP is premature because in addition to the ORVs properly identified in the draft Housing Plan (1996), there may be additional ORVs identified and selected in the Final River Plan.
3. The boundaries of the protected corridor have not yet been established in a Final River Plan and ROD, yet the DVP fails to adequately consider impacts from development outside of the unfinalized narrow boundaries it has chosen (based on the preferred alternative for the Draft River Plan) for purposes of the DVP.
4. The DVP gives preferential treatment to recreational ORVs and concludes that development, including lodging, parking lots and roads will enhance and/or protect the recreational ORV. While protecting certain ORVs will at times conflict with the protection of another ORV, the WSRA is clear that primary emphasis must be given to natural ORVs and not to recreation or human development. An adverse impact to the biologic, hydrologic or scenic ORVs cannot be traded for improved recreational ORVs as a justification for roadways and lodging.
5. The DVP fails to consider the full spectrum of adverse impacts on the ORVs listed, which will result from increased development. Increased pollution, both to air and water resources, adverse impacts to wildlife, increased numbers of people and a broader dispersal of impacts are all ignored in the environmental consequences section.
6. The DVP misleads the public into believing that the disallowance of vehicles from part of Northside Drive may restore natural functions in the Park. Rather, the graded and paved roadbed will remain and will continue to alter natural hydrologic processes and degrade scenery. Further, closing a part of Northside Drive will trigger an expansion of Southside Drive, including widening in areas that will then impact and degrade the Merced River. The overall impact of these decisions is adverse to river and Park values.
7. The analysis of future impacts from road projects is unsupported by any evidence and completely disregards impacts suffered during the El Portal Road Project up to Cascades Dam. These are long-term and significant major adverse impacts on virtually every ORV of the river. No evidence exists to the contrary.
8. The DVP unlawfully allows for rip-rap, bank stabilization, road construction, bridge construction and other development that will constrict and impede the free-flowing character of the river.
9. The DVP allows for the degradation of ORVs, in violation of WSRA. In some instances, undefined mitigation measures are proposed; however, WSRA requires that the ORVs be protected and enhanced, not degraded and mitigated.
10. There is no mention of any impacts to the many species of wildlife that are considered to be ORVs of the river. In fact there is very little detail regarding impacts to any of the biologic ORVs. The Park Service does not even seem to know what it is charged with protecting and enhancing, or how to go about doing it.

Significantly, and another result of the Park Service's failure to complete a legally adequate River Plan prior to the issuance of a DVP, the DVP erroneously considers the El Portal legislation in developing goals, proposals and management zones for the El Portal Administrative site. The DVP assumes that Congress' legislation with respect to the El Portal Administrative Site of 1958 exempts or alters the Park Service's duties under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in managing the Merced through the El Portal segment. (p.3-70). This is wrong. The legislation designating the Merced in 1987 did not exempt El Portal from the Park Service's WSRA duties. Congress could have specifically withdrawn that segment of the river from the requirements of the WSRA. The River Plan and the DVP must protect the Merced's values as it flows through El Portal just as it must throughout the other stretches of the river in Yosemite. It fails to do so.

Failure to Comply with General Management Plan

The Yosemite Valley Plan is intended to implement the goals of the 1980 General Management Plan. (Vol. IA,1-5 ) In this regard, it purports to "seek to restore degraded areas and to reduce development within the Merced River ecosystem and other highly valued natural and cultural resource environments. (Id) It fails in effectuating the clearly articulated goals and objectives of the GMP, and does not restore degraded areas and reduce development.

The planning process which commenced in the 1970s and which resulted in the 1980 Plan is carried out pursuant to the mandates of the National Park Service Organic Act, 16 U.S.C. ß1 et seq. Section 20 of the Act requires that any development within the Park be carried out so that visitation will not unduly impair Park values and so that such facilities will be limited to locations where the least damage to Park values will be caused. The Act also mandates that "development shall be limited to those that are necessary and appropriate for public use and enjoyment of the National Park area in which they are located and that are consistent to the highest practical degree with the preservation and conservation of the areas." Id.

To fulfill of this requirement, the GMP sets forth specific goals, which are consistent with the Merced River's Wild and Scenic designation. They include:

**"Reclaim Priceless Natural Beauty", which means that "[f]acilities in the Valley that do not relate directly to enjoyment of the park , including the headquarters of the NPS and YPCC will be relocated outside the park" and that "[v]isitor facilities in Yosemite Valley, . . that are intrusive or cause environmental damage will be removed or relocated to more resilient environments." (p.1)

**"Allow Natural Processes to Prevail", which states that the "natural processes that are occurring there must be understood and allowed to prevail." (p.3) The GMP specifically states that this goal means "[i]n developed areas like the Valley, facilities will be removed from floodplains and geologic hazard areas in deference to these natural phenomena. . ." and that "[i]n areas that have been disturbed by man's activity, natural processes will be allowed to restore the scene." (p.3)

The DVP preferred alternative, which is not all that distinguishable from the other action alternatives, does not meet these goals. It has not removed all facilities that do not relate directly to enjoyment of the park. It allows visitor facilities that are intrusive and will cause environmental damage Significantly, the DVP has not recognized the need to yield to natural processes, and instead intends to permit development in areas that should not be developed.

NPS would realize a de-minimus restoration program in the East Yosemite Valley by removing 40% of campsites and removing and tent cabins. Many elements of remaining camping will be commercialized. The DVP takes out low end, affordable camping, tent cabins and most of the Housekeeping cabins while proposing to build multiple new motel units at the Lodge, and more motel units at Curry and at Housekeeping. The NPS will spend tens of millions of dollars on reconstructing two hotel complexes which will cost $120 - $280 /night. About +30% new restaurant seating will be added to the Valley. These developments will shift visitors to a pricey mass-transit concession run by Delaware North, large diesel buses requiring the widening of El Portal Road (Segment D) and about half the Valley Roadways and eventually highway 41. This Valley Plan will create a system of entirely new developed areas inside the park (new outlying parking lot/bus stations with commercial and comfort facilities).

In general the DVP is about shoehorning more paying customers into the prime attraction area via paid buses and into shops, restaurants, and more expensive hotels. In addition, there is every indication that there is a concerted effort to expand winter visitation (including encouraging convention business, and building for it). Yosemite visitation went from 2 million to 4 million in the last 20 years, and visitors are increasingly affluent, because the nature of the changes NPS has done has attracted high income visitors and discouraged and kept out lower income visitors. Commercial interests are driving this Plan, rather than the public goals of the GMP or the WSRA.

The Management Objectives of the GMP impose even further direction as to the limitations necessary to achieve these goals. These include:

"Permit only those types and levels of use or development that do not significantly impair park natural resources, and direct development and use to environments least vulnerable to deterioration." (p.8)

"Limit unnatural sources of air, noise, visual, and water pollution to the greatest degree possible." (Id.)

"Permit only those levels and types of use that are compatible with the preservation or protection of the scenic resources and with the quality of the viewing experience." (Id.)

"Permit only those levels and types of accommodations and services necessary for visitor use and enjoyment of Yosemite. " (p.9)

The DVP preferred alternative does not accomplish these objectives. Instead, it is designed to permit types and use of development that impairs park natural resources, and authorizes development in areas that is vulnerable to deterioration.

An area in which the GMP directed the imperative of regional cooperation was to planning for visitor facilities and services "to remove impact on the park." (p.20) Yet the Valley Plan makes no mention of such an alternative, and how an ongoing increase in regional accommodations better serves the goals of the GMP - that is to provide accommodations outside of the Park, so that the natural features and solace of the Park can be restored and retained for future generations. Instead, the Valley Plan permits development of accommodations in the park. While the GMP has specific numbers for parking, accommodations, and campgrounds, which to some extent were amended by the Concession Services Plan, they at this point bear little relevance to what the GMP as implemented today actually requires. Of particular importance, given the high priority to natural processes within the GMP, is the need to reevaluate the numbers in view of the pending River Plan, as discussed above. Until that plan is final, and only then, can there be a proper analysis of the Valley Plan in the context of its ability to comply with the GMP and its goals for reclaiming priceless beauty and permitting natural processes to prevail.

It is noteworthy that the Valley Plan, for example, does not clearly outline what accommodations in terms of motel, cabin, cottages, and camping were removed as a result of the 1997 flood, either directly or from response to the flood. It is of course relevant because, as the GMP so clearly directs, natural processes such as flooding should prevail. In this way, physical structures that the flood removed should not be replaced. Instead, the Valley Plan intends to direct development of structures so as to provide for accommodations that should now be located outside of the park.

One of the key provisions of the GMP is the command that "[f]acilities will be removed from the floodplain, the rockfall zone, and the riverbank. More open space will be created to allow for a more resource-oriented visitor experience." (p. 32) The Valley Plan does not do this, and instead permits development in the floodplain, the rockfall zone and the riverbank. As an example, Camp 6 is located in the floodplain, within the protected corridor of the river and is developed as a parking area. In El Portal, a parking lot would be developed at the "Sand Pit", which is a wetland, within the River corridor. Parking for employees would be concentrated by the hundreds at another near-riparian location in El Portal. This is in direct contravention of the GMP and WSRA.

The GMP outlines several specific steps to be taken. For example, in Yosemite Village, the GMP requires Degnans to be removed, and grocery sales to be reduced. (p. 35) Further, the Ahwahnee Row houses are to be removed. (p. 34) The hospital/dental building is to remain as an emergency medical center. (p. 37) However, the Valley Plan proposes just the opposite for each of these requirements. Such an approach is yet further example of how this Valley Plan will take steps and directly contravene the goals of the GMP. The nature of development that the Valley Plan proposes is of serious question. Instead of providing for the more natural experience, such as camping, the Valley Plan institutes development of higher end motel and lodge units. In this way, the Valley Plan is doing just the opposite of what the GMP requires: instead of encouraging uses that allow visitors to have a more close relationship to the natural resources of the park, intrusive structures are being allowed.

The DVP effectively shuts out the average citizen. It raises entrance fees to rates that are too expensive, and that fail to reflect the different kinds of impacts different visitors bring to the park. It makes the cost of an overnight stay in Yosemite prohibitively expensive for most people. It forces people out of cars and into expensive shuttles, reducing access to camping, and making it difficult for them to bring their own food rather than buying from the concessionaire. Studies show that low income people will not generally use public resources where they cannot easily and independently visit sites and support themselves. The DVP and DEIS fail to consider and analyze this inequity.

On a related note, the DVP and DEIS also fail to justify constructing new and more expensive lodging units. Since the flood, NPS has decreased camping in the valley by 40%. At the same time, NPS proposes to increase the number of post-flood motel units at Yosemite Lodge by 140 units, which necessitates the construction of 20 to 30 new buildings. While lower-end cabins are removed from the Curry area, new, more expensive lodging will be built. The DVP and DEIS fail to consider and resolve the trend to make Yosemite an enclave for only the affluent.

The GMP directs that "[f]ull and forceful commitment to these goals is needed..." (p.4) The Valley Plan evidences no such commitment, and instead intends to implement measures in direct contravention to the GMP, all in violation of the law.

Failure to Properly Evaluate Overall Impacts and Cumulative Impacts

NEPA and the regulations of the CEQ require that an EIS provide a "detailed statement [ ] on (i) the environmental impact of the proposed action." 42 U.S.C. 4332 (C)(i); 40 C.F.R. ß1502.16. "Effects" and/or "impacts" include:

(a) Direct effects, which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.

(b) Indirect effects, which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems. Effects and impacts as used in these regulations are synonymous. . . .

40 C.F.R. ß 1508.8. In addition, "accurate scientific analysis . . . [is] essential to implementing NEPA" (40 C.F.R. ß 1500.1(b)), and "[a]gencies shall insure the professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the discussions and analyses in environmental impact statements." 40 C.F.R. ß 1502.24.

Cumulative impacts must be considered. A cumulative impact is defined as: "the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the actions when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency . . . or person undertakes such actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time." 40 C.F.R. ß1508.7. "To consider' cumulative effects, some quantified or detailed information is required. Without such information, neither the courts nor the public, in reviewing the [agency] decision , can be assured that the [agency] provided the hard look that it is required to provide." Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. U. S. Forest Service, 137 F.3d 1372, 1379 (9th Cir. 1998)

The Valley Plan does a woefully inadequate job of considering direct, indirect and cumulative impacts The following is a list of examples of impacts not considered. This is not meant to be all inclusive, because there are some impacts that will only be understood through appropriate study and survey in conjunction with the River Plan. These include but are not limited to:

** The environmental effects of the El Portal Road project, (ongoing) which are never discussed or quantified. The NPS owes the public a comprehensive analysis and view of what it has done to the Merced Gorge environment ( ecology, scenery, hydrology, safety, etcetera) for the purposes of cumulative impact analysis in the VP. We ask again that NPS halt the project.

**The obvious commitment of resources, and prejudice in favor of constructing the segment of Highway 140 from Cascades Impoundment to Pohono Bridge. NPS acts alternately as though the new road segment has been decided, and as though it remains to be seen. NPS should discuss this commitment of resources and be honest about its intent.

** On the Cascades Impoundment-Pohono Bridge road segment, the decision to destroy additional ancient oak trees, blast additional rocks, fill more river channel, reinforce more embankment, etc. needs also to be seen in the context of local (Merced Gorge) and regional Sierran River/ stream ecological and scenic losses. We object to any proposal to widen this road segment.

** The addition of parking and tree removal at Cascades area before the 1997 highwater, and ongoing plans (see the zoning for the draft RMP) to accommodate more visitors there. The effects of current resource destruction at Cascades by the non-NEPA decision to run an enormous rock-crushing/ roadbed material/ batch plant/ etcetera operation at Cascades. The impacts are tremendous, and collectively these action already prejudice the development of Cascades as a high-use visitor area. No consideration to the important cultural and biological resources was given.

** 500 new hotel units on the Park border at El Portal in 1997. We have many times told NPS that this (1997) building boom at El Portal entirely obviates the need for new or improved hotel amenities within Yosemite Valley or the Park.

** The ecological effects of the loss of conifer and stream habitat from the Crane Flat, A-Rock, Stanislaus Complex, Foresta, and other fires. NPS's decision to further impact these ecosystems ( an important relation can be drawn between the Stanislaus Complex fire and the proposed expansion of impact by developing South Landing, for example) should be related to the overall effects on these highly impacted areas.

** The effects of cumulative degradation of air quality in relation to current proposals

** The construction of Sentinel Bridge in 1992; local effects, stream effects, and traffic flow effects, scenic effects

** The addition of (estim.) 22 acres of paved parking at Camp 6 in Yosemite Valley in late July 1999 absent a River plan, and absent adequate NEPA review.

** The removal of several hundred units of camping from the Valley post-flood, and the regional, historic, and economic context of this decision. How are the GMP's equitable approach served, what visitors are most impacted?

** The growth in tour industry numbers of busses per day, with resultant emissions and space requirements.

** Decisions to commit large amounts of money and resource destruction through road construction, with more proposed in Yosemite Valley, including the widening of Southside Drive and the addition of a new 1/2 mile segment to Northside drive within a few feet of a meadow and the Merced's normal highwater mark.

The Valley Plan purports to base decisions on the Highly Valued Resources (HVR) as shown on the map in Vol 1C, Plates. Yet with neither a River Plan nor a VP in place, the DVP admits (p. see photo caption Vol IA, p. 3-93) that principal day use parking has already been moved to Camp 6. "The Camp 6 area in Y. Village was reconfigured in the summer of 1999 [Categorical Exclusion] to serve as the principal day-visitor parking area." As previously pointed out, no development should be allowed at Camp 6, for it violates the WSRA and the GMP. Further, the HVR map shows that the Curry Village area where the main day use parking previously existed is not a HVR area, yet Camp 6 is clearly identified as in the HVR area, in a floodplain next to the Merced River.

The impact of the closure of Northside Drive to vehicles is not adequately evaluated. While we would like roads removed from Yosemite when possible, this proposal, to close Northside Drive to vehicles and move it closer to the Merced River, and to convert Southside to two-way direction, would have impacts. It would result in more pavement. Southside drive would not only be widened, but two lanes would be added. The Northside/Southside Drive system has existed in order to allow a two way road system. The change will not be beneficial. In fact, moving the Northside Drive at the Lodge south next to the River is a degradation not a restoration.

While it provides an appendix of potential future projects, it provides little in the way of identification or evaluation of ongoing or past projects and impacts. For example, on page 4.1-35 in Vol. Ib references twelve current or reasonably foreseeable design and construction projects that could impact archaeological resources. They are not identified. At 4.1-36 eight other projects are referenced which are similarly not identified or analyzed. These are two simple examples. More serious examples include the lack of evaluation of impacts which have already occurred from the widening of the El Portal Road project. As you are fully aware, the federal court found that the NPS was in substantive violation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for harming the ORVs. Yet, there is scant evaluation of the hydrological, geological, biologic, scenic and other impacts that have already occurred from that project. Nor is there any valid evaluation of the impacts, both beneficial and adverse, from the 1997 flood event, and other measures of purported restoration which the NPS has already undertaken and yet not fully disclosed and analyzed in the Valley Plan and its SEIS.

Nor has there been a valid analysis of the impacts of the removal of Cascades Dam. While the removal may very well be good for the Merced River, there is a host of impacts associated with the removal that has not been adequately addressed, particularly in terms of cumulative impacts. A 1989 report stated that removal of the dam will cause several channel changes at the site, including possible scour of the channel bed at the dam to a depth 20 feet lower than the present dam crest. Bed and associated bank shear stresses six times greater than presently occur could cause increased erosion of the State Highway 140 embankment. Other possible changes include lateral movement of the channel alignment in reach upstream from the dam causing impinging flows against the State Highway 140 embankment and exposure of the toe of the existing rock rip rap placed along road fill. These possible channel changes that would result from the proposed removal of the diversion dam would require additional protection of the State Highway 140 embankment.

According to this same study, lowering the water surface will have a "tendency for the active stream channel to incise within the former pool area and establish a new alignment." "If the dam is removed, the combination of inflow associated with high shear stress plus possible channel migration toward the State Highway 140 embankment suggests that bank protection will be needed at the site." Despite this data developed by the NPS, there is no comprehensive analysis of the removal of the dam, or for that matter, the proposed removal of the three stone bridges. While one may assume that such efforts will improve the values of the Merced River, absent valid scientific study, such assumptions are unfounded. Since so much of the individual aspects of the Valley Plan are interrelated, the lack of scientific analysis in one area (such as removal of Merced River impoundments) directly impacts the validity of analysis for other areas, such as transportation, parking, and restoration.! on.

Cumulative impacts are also not properly evaluated in terms of what is proposed in Yosemite Valley in relation to the rest of the park. For example, no evaluation is given to how goals for camping throughout the park are to be achieved in relation to what is proposed for the Valley. It is clear that camping is being drastically reduced (although the average citizen could not gleen this from the VP without prior knowledge), and yet no evaluation is given of the cumulative impact that causes in relation to opportunities throughout the park. Similarly, no evaluation of the impact on visitors experience from allowing most of the parking to be for overnight visitors is provided. Such a focus will reduce the day trip use, and will therefore adversely impact large segments of the public who might otherwise visit the park. Given that the proposed development scheme for the Valley is high scale accommodations, those who cannot afford such lodging will necessarily be limited in their access to the park. No analysis or study has been provided to justify the notion that day use visitors should be subjected to a transit bus from out of Valley parking areas. As such, any conclusion as to the efficiency or utilization of such programs by day use visitors is pure speculation.

The DVP fails to survey or account for the presence of the following species within various parts of the project area and significant and cumulative impacts to them and their habitat: Bald Eagle, American peregrine falcon, Great gray owl, Willow flycatcher, Coopers Hawk, Northern goshhawk, Sharp shinned Hawk, Bell's sage sparrow, Harlequin duck, Prairie falcon, Golden eagle, Merlin, Long-eared Owl, California spotted owl, Coopers hawk, Yellow warbler, Longfin smelt, Red hills roach, Delta smelt, Paiute cutthroat trout, Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento splittail, California red-legged frog, Foothill yellow-legged frog, Mountain yellow-legged frog, Yosemite toad, Limestone salamander, Mount Lyell salamander, Northwestern pond turtle, Southwestern pond turtle, Northern sagebrush lizard, Bohart's blue butterfly, Wawona riffle beetle, Sierra pygmy grasshopper, sideband snail, Mariposa sideband snail, Keeled sideband snail, Merced canyon shoulderband snail, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle, Pallid bat, Townsend's big-eared bat, Sierra Nevada red fox, White tailed hare, California wolverine, American martens, Fishers, Mount Lyell shrew, spotted bat, Small-footed myotis bat, Long-eared myotis bat, Fringed myotis bat, Long legged myotis bat, Yuma myotis bat, Great western mastiff bat, Sierra Nevada snowshoe hare, Sierra Nevada, mountain beaver, Pallid bat, and a long list of special and rare plant species.

Together, take the increasing impact to Yosemite Valley, the Merced Gorge, and El Portal through the development of the outlying parking areas, the network of new road widenings, the doubling of density and population in El Portal, new commerce in El Portal, the addition of a new unlimited supply of diesel bus loads of people, and the skewing of economics / access (i.e. the expansion of luxury hotels, decrease in camping, upscaling of remaining camping, the increase in high-end restaurants, and shopping, even concession-run nature walks), as well as the new entrance stations at all entrances, results in extensive cumulative impacts that have not been properly considered and evaluated.

Nor are significant or cumulative impacts upon air quality considered. Evaluation of the exposure to the diesel must be evaluated. Air Quality is essential to the health of the Yosemite ecosystem and to visibility and is an ORV of the Merced River. The increased pollution from the use of diesel buses by YARTS and others should be evaluated. Diesel fuel contains 40 toxic air contaminants, as defined by the EPA. There will be 231 additional diesel bus trips per day into the Valley.

The Valley Plan is completely remiss in failing to protect the visibility and the quality of the air in Yosemite. Yosemite has been designated a class I Federal area. Congress has declared, "as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution." This is a non-degradation policy which the Park System is failing to implement.

Yosemite Valley is out of attainment with the California State Ozone and PM10 standards. If the new EPA Federal standards for PM10, PM2.5 and Ozone had gone into effect as intended a few days ago, Yosemite would be in non-attainment for those as well. It will be in non-attainment when those standards are put into effect. The Park has a study which demonstrates the stress from Ozone on two types of pine trees in Yosemite and the risk it puts on maintaining healthy woodlands in Yosemite.

While the Valley Plan emphasizes the drift of air pollution from the Central Valley, it completely fails to quantify and take responsibility for the air pollution which the National Park Service has control over and allows to not only continue to degrade the air in Yosemite Valley; but in fact under the Valley Plan, will allow and facilitate its increase. The Park Service is allowing and, in fact creating, adverse impacts on visibility from human-caused pollution.

Sources of air pollution which the Park Service has or can have control over are: diesel buses, numbers of buses, sprawling of parking areas and creating new parking areas, adding wider and additional roads, camp fires in the Valley, proposals for new and large amounts of construction of new unneeded hard sided motels and cabins which will create short term air pollution from construction activities, upscaling of visitor accommodations requiring more infrastructure to support more employees necessitating more trucks to bring in supplies and increased pollution from the additional employees traveling.

The Valley Plan has a chart which purports to show that criteria air pollution will be decreased by all the proposed alternatives. This is wishful thinking at best and is based on completely indefensible and unsupported conclusions. The myriad of assumptions being made about the projected make up of the vehicle fleets and mix and types of fuel, numbers of trips, etc, have no basis in fact. In fact, what we do know is that the Park Service itself has concluded that it will be 10 - 15 years before realistically it will replace the diesel buses coming into the Park with other types of buses. Diesel engines last around 20 years, so replacement of old fleets will probably take over a decade, this should be reflected in the aforementioned chart and in transportation decisions -- but it has not been.

Usually buses do not carry a full load of passengers. Even if every diesel bus carried a full load of passengers of 40 - 47 people, it would emit more air pollution than 20 cars traveling the same distance (NPS calculates an average of 2.9 passengers per car). California has the cleanest fleet of automobiles in the world. Replacing them with diesel buses increases air pollution.

The Plan's Preferred Alternative would increase the number of diesel bus trips into the valley by 231 per day. Diesel bus emissions, "spew out 100 times more sooty particles than gasoline engines. Over 40 chemicals in diesel exhaust are considered toxic air contaminants (EPA)." and have been determined by the federal and state EPA to be carcinogenic. ("Exhausted by Diesel", Coalition for Clean Air). As currently conceived, in the real world this shift in transportation would serve to make criteria pollutants and toxic air emissions, noise and visual pollution even worse.

The environment in Yosemite is under stress. It cannot afford additional diesel buses adding to the toxic soup in the air, which falls on the plants and animals. Diesel vehicles make up only 2 % of the motor vehicle fleet in California, but emit over 55% of the particulates from vehicles.(CARB). The 40 toxic air contaminants in diesel exhaust adversely impact humans and wildlife; yet the DVP ignores these significant and cumulative impacts.

"[I]t is [not] appropriate to defer consideration of cumulative impacts to a future date. NEPA requires consideration of the potential impact of an action before the action takes place.'

This is a textbook case of "segmentation," under which an agency splits a large project into small pieces in order to avoid detailed environmental review. Here the DVP puts off a real cumulative impacts analysis to site specific projects.

El Portal

El Portal is now the place to be used as a dumping ground for significant development, causing the population there to double, while a whole series of new projects go up inside and outsides the alleged River Protection Overlay. El Portal is a segment of Canyon and riparian zones which are the most threatened in the Sierra (Sierra Nevada Ecoregion Project). Yet, no valid measurement of cumulative impacts is provided, and it is as though nothing ever happened in the Merced Gorge and that no land area, hydrology, wildlife, or plants were ever disturbed. v El Portal

2) WSRA does not prescribe the loss of protected resources and values in one segment to benefit another segment. The out-of-valley sections are just as important to protect for their own unique ORV's not found in the Valley. WSRA does contemplate the enhancement of one river segment at the expense of other segments.

3) The DVP uses designation of HVR's for one habitat as a justification for impacting or creating a net loss of another habitat. This is logically false; habitats, species, ecosystem, and cultural remnants are characterized by uniqueness. "Adverse impacts would primarily occur within non-HVR habitats, which are also the most abundant habitat types in the in-Valley and out-of-Valley areas. They would be offset by the habitat improvements in the Valley and implementation of mitigation measures as described in Chapter 2"

Problems with this approach are; A) all "non-HVR" habitats are lumped together (i.e., rare Upland Benches in the El Portal section of the Merced WSR are lumped with more abundant pland Hillside habitats). B) The notable and persistent lack of background data in the DVP compounds this blindness as to the location and uniqueness of values. Because of this they are pre-judged to be interchangable.

4) "Mitigation" acknowledges degredation. Mitigation measures of acknowledged adverse impacts still result in a net loss of resources and ecosystem integrity (i.e., data recovery for cultural resources means excavating the resource out of situ or context which means that "resource" or story in its original form is lost forever. Cultural resource examples are particularly important and abundant in El Portal).

5) The YVP makes it clear that each action proposed in El Portal will not "protect and enhance" the ORV's in the El Portal section of the Merced WSR, but will impact and degrade them instead, in contracvention of WSRA. All of the actions proposed for El Portal, especially new developments and the increase in human population of both visitors and employees will have obvious adverse negative impacts on all of the ORV's except geological.The proposed actions in El Portal are:

* 70 space parking lot for day use visitors (which wuld probably expand)
* commutor parking lot for employees shuttle system to Valley
* "new" maintenance facility for heavy shuttle bus maintenance (existing?)
* 686 (or 976?) employee bed spaces added
* remove old sewer plant from prehistoric cemetery
* add public auto garage

6) In the Environmental Consequences section, the Park Service refers to levels of impacts (e.g., adverse, beneficial, mild, moderate and major) in El Portal. However, there is little to no studies that support these conclusions (i.e., "Development of up to 400 parking spaces would occur in an area already heavily impacted by use as a trailer court, therefore habitat loss would be minimal"). This is not based on research, but opinion. These are purely subjective notions.

7) According to the DVP, a series impacts will occur in the El Portal WSR Segment, as regards:

Water Resources and the Hydrologic Process ORV -

A. Two bridges would be added which would constrict the river. The natural meandering of the river would also be impacted by changes to the flood protection levee. Also proposed are additions to infrastructure at Railroad Flat. The Draft VP says these changes would minimize adverse impacts on hydrology and water quality, but completely lacks description as to how htis would occur.
B. Other impacts are increased runoff/decreased soil percolation and filtering from increased impervious ground cover from development. Trampling of vegetation from increased residential and visitor populations will also increase runoff and soil erosion, impacting hydrologic processes and aquatic ecosystem integrity.
C. The DVP says "there would be minor to moderate, long-term, beneficial impact to this ORV because the implementation of the RPO would limit development on the river bank. Much of the redevelopment will occur adjacent to the river (the Hennessey Ranch area). Increase human activity from development and redevelopment will in no way be a beneficial impact even though those impacts will be occurring inside the RPO.
D. Water Quality was not included as an ORV and should be because increase runoff, soil erosion and non-point source pollution from increased development, human activity and traffic may significantly impact the current water quality.

Floodplains -

The adverse, long-term impact of a protective flood wall, redevelopment and new development impacts, increased human population impacts, increased vehicle pollutant impacts, disruption of wildlife and other biodiversity that utilize this rare Floodplain Bench at Hennessey's Ranch cannot be mitigated by beneficial impacts within the Valley. Therefore impacts to Biological ORV's are adverse and long-term within the El Portal section of the Merced WSR.

Wetlands -

Wetland ORV's were not identified along the El Portal section of the Merced WSR; given the dire warnings of SNEP regarding wetlands in this elevation, the exclusion of wetlands as an ORV in tis reach is wrong. The Sand Pit area functions ecologically as a wetland (and should be designated for restoration not redevelopment). Wetland also exists behind the Hotel, the El Portal Market, the (Keiwitt Construction Company Trailer/office), and around the Odgers gas station/headquarters. These areas are already highly impacted with point-source pollution from Odgers, habitat fragmentation from development and trampling, and non-native plant populations. Instead of being proposed for redevelopment, they should be proposed for restoration.

Soils -

Soils in the El Portal section of the WSR were not identified as an ORV, but should be considered. The soils in this area are very sensitive to erosion given that they are very dry and there is very little topsoil. Because the soils are so fragile and unique, they should have been designated as an ORV to protect. Any construction or trampling from recreation will easily impact plants and debris that hold topsoil in place.

Vegetation, Wildlife and Biological ORV's -

As stated above, protecting resources in the Valley does not justify adversely affecting resources along the El Portal section of the Merced WSR. The Draft VP states "the overall impacts would beŠbeneficial, " but "adverse impacts" would occur for plant and animal resources in El Portal. These impacts cannot be mitigated by benefits to plants and animals in totally different habitats.

El Portal / Cumulative Impacts -

The DVP does not consider the related and Cumulative impacts of increasing human population in El Portal, leading to:
A. trampling of vegetation (which means increased soil erosion, fragmentation of habitats, soil disturbance and invasion of exotic plants, and population decline of ecologically sensitive species that are not necessarily species listed as Sensitive;
B. non-point source pollution from parking lots, residential and working facilities, and vehicle deposits on road beds. This may adversely affect populations of aquatic insects, especially those that are sensitive to pollution, which may adversely affect bat, bird and fish populations;
C. particulate deposits from exhaust on roadside vegetation will decrease plant productivity as well as enter pollutants into the food chain and the aquatic ecosystem as a non-point source of pollution;
D. impediment of wildlife from the riparian corridor on the north side of the river. [Please note that the statement from the Draft VP "Expanses of north-facing habitat allow[s] unlimited access to the riparian zone for wildlife species" is misleading. The expanses mentioned only allow access to individuals on that side of the river. Individuals on the development side will be further impeded and therefore impacted];
E. loss of rare Upland Bench habitat. The Draft VP does not distinguish the rare Upland Benches from the more abundant Hillsides and mistakenly says that the impacts to habitats and wildlife are "limited to relatively small areas of upland habitat loss in comparison to the amount of upland habitat present." Two of these rare benches are proposed for development-Hillside East and Hillside West-and are areas that need to be protected for both biological and cultural resources and need intensive non-native species removal efforts. All of the existing El Portal develoment except for upper Old El Portal is already on rare benches which have already sustained significant impacts to both biological and cultural resources.
El Portal / Rare,Threatened and Endangered Species and Biological ORV's -

A. The overall impact of T & E species in El Portal cannot be mitigated by benefits to T & E species in the Valley and therefore would be adverse in El Portal due to the magnitude of development and human population increase in a very limited area.
B. The DVP says "adverse impacts to T & E wildlife species would be limited to relatively small areas of upland habitat loss in comparison to the amount of habitat present in El PortalŠ" As mentioned earlier, the upland habitat that will be developed and also impacted by increased human population is not abundant. These areas are rare Upland Benches.
C. The DVP also says "Potential severity of adverse impacts on rare wildlife would be limited" because there is already a lot of impact in locations proposed for development. In El Portal, the human population will at least double from 600 residents to over 1200 residents plus 370 tourist automobiles which could add another 400 to 800 people impacting a limited area that had very limited impacts before. It also says that impacts would be limited due to implementation of site-specific mitigation measures. These are undefined. In addition, mitigation usually means trying to limit human activities, or relocating T & E species. Relocating species is a biological/ecological illusion in that most relocated species do not survive due to competition with individuals already present, lack of ecosystem integrity due to disturbance from being relocated, lack of niche variables that were present in the habitat they were moved from. Or they survive at the expense of individuals that were already in the "new" habitats.
D. The Draft VP says "no impacts would occur to T & E plant species." However, along the sections of the Merced WSR through El Portal and into the Valley, there is liklihood of impacts due to increased human population and recreation.
E. The Draft VP says "Adverse impacts due to habitat loss for six park rare plant species in El Portal would be mitigated by site-specific surveys, designs to avoid, salvaging of topsoil for reestablishment." What studies have been done to show that these species are hardy enough to be salvaged and reestablished? Salvaging also means that the integrity of the habitat will be impacted. The Tomkins Sedge debacle stands as damning testimony to the uncertainty of mitigation.
F. The Draft VP says "adverse impacts such as trampling, picking of flowers and increase non-native plants would be minimized by restricted use and increased management to control non-natives." Restricting use is very unrealistic. El Portal is a narrow canyon with poison oak and steep hillsides naturally limiting the human population to the riparian corridor, Upland Benches and roads for recreation. Additionally, non-native plant populations are already reaching crisis sizes with the Park Service doing relatively little to impact their populations.
G. Development equals a net loss of habitat and fragmentation of ecosystem processes. Innumerable variables work in concert to create habitats for species. Restoration should not be used as a justification for development and disturbing habitat as we know that ecosystems are very complex and very difficult if not impossible to restore. Almost no research has been done on the effectiveness of restoration efforts and techniques in the Park and elsewhere. Many of the Park's restoration efforts have been unsuccessful accept in riparian habitats which are made up of species that have evolved with disturbances.
El Portal / Air Quality -

Clean air quality should also be included as an ORV for the El Portal section of the Merced WSR. Air quality will be adversely impacted by residential emissions from homes and automobiles due to the doubling of the residential human population. Air quality will also be impacted by the use of a diesel bus shuttle system for employees. Environmental impacts from diesel are hazardous. Diesel is being legally outlawed and phased out of cities such as New York. The NRDC has won several cases condemning diesel bus emissions for adversely impacting public health.

El Portal / Scenic - There would be a significant net loss on scenic resources within the El Portal Section for the benefit of the Valley section "where there is potential for greater beneficial gains." As mentioned earlier, all of the sections of the Merced WSR have equal value and are protected under WSRA with the NPS responsible for ensuring "protection and enhancement" of their ORV's and not at the expense of other sections of the Merced WSR.

El Portal / Cultural Resources -

Irreparable major adverse impacts to cultural resources from trampling, looting, and direct loss from development will occur in El Portal due to construction and human population increase and activities such as recreation. Mitigation using data recovery means a net loss of non-renewable resources. Using data recovery to "reduce the intensity of adverse impacts" is misleading. The resource is permanently destroyed.

El Portal / Visitor Experience and Recreation ORV -

This ORV will also be adversely impacted in that the human population will increase dramatically which will impact recreation experiences of visitors and residents.

El Portal / Other Impacts From Population Doubling -

A. traffic and traffic congestion on the El Portal Road and Highway 140 would greatly increase;
B. noise pollution, which will impact human and non human residents will greatly increase;
C. crime will also increase;
D. the need for resident and visitor services will greatly increase, and development of such services will lead to further impacts;
E. quality of life for El Portal residents;
F. increased NPS personnel (127 additional employees) will only exacerbate the problems from human over-population.

8) The YVP contemplates no alternatives for El Portal. Many things could be suggested. These alternatives should be contemplated by NPS.

A) Instead of increasing the El Portal population by 600 - 900 residents, developing the rare Upland Benches of Hillside East and West, and redeveloping the Trailer Park, keep most of the employees in the Valley redesigning current residential footprints.

B) If providing a local shuttle system, use alternative fuel transportation such as CNG. avoid dieselat all costs.

C) In preparing a legally adequate WSRMP to guide a subsequent Valley Plan, limit the number of visitors at any one time. Visitors can be limited either externally by only allowing so many visitors in, both day and overnight users, and internally, by reducing or even eliminating visitor services and human created attractions (e.g., corporate conferences, the Vintner's Holiday, the Bricebridge Dinner, the ice rink, horseback riding, rafting, bicycle rentals, golfing, skiing, conference facilities -- all of which were initiated to increase visitation once upon a time, when this was seen as beneficial to the parks). Decreased visitation will decrease the need for employees, both NPS and YCS, and housing, as services such as hardened lodging, restaurants, and gift shops will also decrease employees and housing, as well as visitors. The overall human over-population of Yosemite Valley will most likely be greatly reduced.

Invalid Mitigation

Mitigation must be discussed in sufficient detail to ensure that environmental consequences have been fairly evaluated. A mere listing of mitigation measures is insufficient to qualify as the reasoned discussion required by NEPA.' Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association v. Peterson, 795 F.2d 688, 697 (9th Cir. 1986, rev'd on other grounds, 485 U.S. 439, 108 S.Ct. 1319, 99. L.Ed.2d 534 (1988)." Id. Further, environmental impacts must be considered in full, independent of mitigation measures.

The Valley Plan characterizes "restoration" as beneficial mitigation, notwithstanding the fact that much of the purported restoration is not as it is represented. For example, the large area of "restoration" is at the Lodge which is already either woodland or is a result of the already removed cabins and Pine and Oak motel buildings. The description under "No Action" bears this out. The rest mainly comes from removal of Housekeeping camp and from removal of cabins and tent cabins in the Curry Village rock fall zone.

At Yosemite Lodge, about half of the (very large) area depicted as restoration at Yosemite Lodge never had any development. The same is true of some very large areas in the vicinity of the campgrounds. Restoration is exaggerated at North Pines, and exaggerated greatly at Lower Pines. The error is repeated at both Rivers campgrounds. NPS represents future proposed restoration at one campground (Group Camp) which underwent a complete restoration three years ago. The artist errs further in showing restoration east of the Awahnee, which is never verified in any alternative. Similarly, restoration as a result of the Valley Plan is really only a small portion of Yellow Pines campground, the Lower Yosemite Falls parking area, moves tour and shuttle bus parking to other locations, and does not provide mitigation against the sure impacts to occur.

Failure to Consider and Evaluate Reasonable Alternatives

The "rigorous explor[ation] and objective evaluat[ion]" of "all reasonable alternatives" is the heart of the environmental impact statement." 40 C.F.R. 1502.14. These alternatives, "based upon consideration of the affected environment, 40 C.F.R. 1502.15, and the environmental consequences, 40 C.F.R. ß1502.16, "should present the environmental impacts in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision makers and the public" 40 C.F.R 1502.14. The agency must consider a range of alternatives sufficient to "permit a reasoned choice," and must include a "selection and discussion of alternatives [sufficient to] foster [ ] informed decision-making and informed public participation." California v. Block, 690 F. 2d 753, 766 (9th Cir. 1982).

The alternatives are so much alike that it becomes hard to really distinguish them in many areas. In this way, the analysis does not comply with the NEPA requirements. Obvious, and necessary, alternatives that were not considered include replacing Valley lodging with accommodations outside of the Park, and leaving the Valley for a more natural experience throughout camping and hiking. This alternative would be consistent with the GMP.

Another obvious and overlooked alternative is to "let natural processes prevail" as called for in one the GMP goals, particularly after the 1997 flood. Instead of allowing redevelopment of areas affected by the flood, those areas should be closed and allowed to be restored. Of course, this would mean a reduction in overnight accommodations, but that is intended by the GMP. To reestablish equity, remove more hotels and replace them with camping outside the floodplain in the areas of the removed hotels.

Finally, the alternative that the NPS has known about, yet ignored, is to control development according to a validly adopted River Plan. Such a document does not exist at this time, and as has already been noted, the release and review of this Valley Plan absent a valid River Management Plan makes the Valley Plan illegal and ineffective.

Transportation Generally

All of the DVP action alternatives are based on proposed locations for day-use parking: Alt. 2 (NPS Preferred) -- "Yosemite Village Parking and Out-of-Valley Parking," Alt. 3 -- "Taft Toe Parking," Alt. 4 Taft Toe and Out-of-Valley Parking, and Alt 5 -- "Yosemite Village, Curry Village, and Out-of-Valley Parking." Yet the DVP contains no traffic management system. Rather, the DVP leaves for the future unspecified decisions concerning traffic that "may require additional environmental compliance." The lack of a specific traffic system proposal in the DVP makes it incomplete. The lack of consideration and analysis of such a system in the DVP EIS makes its cumulative impacts analysis incomplete.

The perception of traffic congestion in Yosemite Valley comes from two major sources. One is the minority of times when vehicles line up at the entrance stations during peak visitation. However, this is not the norm, and the DVP improperly predicates proposed changes based on this situation. Further, NPS proposes to spend millions of dollars to build new traffic infrastructure without a traffic management plan or system already worked out including WSRA user capacities.

The causes of the perception of traffic congestion and confusion can be ameliorated by sensible and often non-structural changes. The DVP should include and the EIS should consider and analyze these solutions, under the protective guidance of a valid River Plan:

* Within the context of transportation, an obvious, yet not considered alternative is to facilitate car pooling. Car pooling has become a commonplace experience for the urban lifestyle, and many from the urban areas would benefit greatly from incentives which favor such use. Yet, the Valley Plan makes no effort to consider or incorporate car pooling as part of a remedy for the intensive use of the Valley area. The DVP does not consider the use of alternative fuel buses, rather than diesel. Both Zion and Brice National Parks have gone to alternative fuel buses.

* Restore principal day-visitor parking to the Curry Orchard and take it back out of Camp 6 where it never should have been put.

* Create adequate and clear signs both for vehicles and pedestrians. Visitors in cars spend a lot of time driving around the Valley because they cannot easily find how to go where they want to go. A great way to enjoy Yosemite is to walk. For a large majority of visitors, their enjoyment of the river and the valley would be enabled and enhanced by being guided by some simple signs which would indicate both distances and average walking times to various destinations enabling them to become pedestrians. An overwhelming amount of visitors do not realize how close things are in the Valley and that they could walk to areas and sites as well as or better than driving or taking the shuttle bus, enhancing their enjoyment of the scenic and other intrinsic natural values of Yosemite. The same is true for bicyclists.

* Restore the casual pull off parking that allows visitors to stop and enjoy views, to swim, and to enjoy meadows, where it is consistent with a valid River Plan. These pullovers allow for numbers of people to enjoy Yosemite in a spontaneous and casual manner which cannot be duplicated by formal, large, intrusive bus pullouts.

* Institute a "park once" system. Visitors would park at Curry or Yosemite Village and from there (with the exception of the disabled) would walk, bicycle or take non-diesel, electric, Valley shuttles.

* Perform a valid survey to help determine how best to manage the system.

* The numbers of parking spaces necessary to accommodate visitor traffic can be accommodated using the Curry Orchard and Yosemite Village lots, as well as areas which will be freed up for parking by removing structures such as the concessionaire headquarters and the garage.

* Institute a free bicycle system with one speed modest bikes which visitors can use during their visit. The bikes could be used for grocery purchases by campers for instance.

* Continue to put out news advisories anticipating overcrowding before peak summer holiday weekends. THis has worked very well to alieviate crowding. Consider establishing a system where one-third of the numbers of parking spaces could be reserved in ladvance, so visitors from long distances could know ahead of time whether they will have a reserved space or not.

* Perform a study of the intersection of Highways 120/140 to determine the best configuration to manage traffic without widening the intersection into the river, cutting down ancient trees or blasting into the rockface/Valley oak woodland uphill side. It may be that a stoplight might have to be put in place, but that is preferable to road widening that would unacceptably destroy this sensitive and beautiful ecosystem conjunction.

* Traffic may continue along 120 and 140 east into the Valley with the road in its present configuration. There is no need to widen this segment of the road. This is not a winding segment of the road and can be negotiated by vehicles within its present prism. A proper speed limit needs to be posted and enforced, and any vehicle too wide for this segment of the road should not be allowed on it. Further, this is a park road, along a beautiful and intact segment of the river, and a rare and sensitive ecosystem for the Sierra Nevada. It should be protected by the Park Service and not sacrificed, degraded or destroyed.

* Provide shuttle vans for employees who work in the Valley but live outside, including NPS employees, planners and administrators. Facilitate car pooling until this system is set up. Coordinate shifts so they work with van shuttles and vice versa.

* The proposal to close Northside Drive would make the traffic situation worse and cause more harm to the River and the Valley. There needs to be a road going in and a road going out of the Valley. The DVP proposes to close a large portion of Northside Drive, but fails to note that the pavement would not be removed, and fails to disclose that Southside Drive would have to be widened and expanded by two lanes to accommodate traffic. In addition, the plan calls for a 1/2 mile of Northside Drive to be moved south of Yosemite Lodge, placed next to the Merced River and adjacent to a meadow, which would require the cutting down of numerous oak trees and paving acres of sensitive River zone. This is destruction, not restoration.

* The DVP fails to disclose to the public many of its aspects and consequences. For example, it will create remote parking lots in other areas of Yosemite which will sprawl the noise, pollution, commercialism to other areas of the Park No new parking areas in or adjacent to Yosemite should be constructed. Existing parking areas should not be expanded, with the exception of the Yosemite Village area (not Camp 6).

* The Park's plan to create satellite parking intercepts in Yosemite but outside the Valley will lead to multiplying trips by buses and along with YARTS and the ever increasing numbers of day tour buses, will lead to an unacceptable level of intrusion on the visitor experience and more congestion.

At the time of the 1980 GMP, the mix of cars and buses was different. There were more cars relative to buses and since then, California has developed the cleanest gasoline powered vehicle fleet in the world. The intention of the GMP was to reduce vehicle congestion, intrusion and noise and pollution. At that time, that meant reducing cars. However, the situation today is that, reducing cars means more intrusion on the visitor experience because cars are cleaner than diesel buses, smaller, less noisy and less intrusive as a means of transportation into Yosemite. The vision of getting cars out, was that a cleaner, quieter less intrusive public transportation system would improve the visitors experience. Unfortunately, the opposite is true now. It is hard for many to change gears, but it must be done.

Deficient Maps

The DVP contains two significant problems related to maps. First, the DVP fails to contain maps that are necessary for informed decisions about the Valley and the Merced River. Second, the DVP bubble maps are misleading or wrong.

NPS has failed to map and consider the Merced's 100-year flood limits, channel morphology and migration, associated wetlands, and Terminal Moraine restoration. NPS has failed to map "normal bankfull high water" (which in Yosemite is the Spring Flood, covering many acres of meadow). The 100-year floodplain has never been mapped. These kinds of maps would hold many keys to proposing specific, located protections for the Merced River and provide dimension upon which to build further detailed, located study and specific protection of the Merced's ORV's.

Second, the bubble maps which NPS presents in the Valley Plan are completely inaccurate and misleading. Though readers cannot locate existing buildings as points of reference, we have strained to analyze these maps based on our prior analysis, other large-scale base maps, cross-reference to the earlier VIP, and on-the-ground knowledge of Yosemite. When using colored areas to indicate restoration versus new development or redevelopment, the maps greatly over-represent "restoration" areas.

For instance, at the Lodge Area NPS represents many acres of restoration in a shade of dark green (see Vol. 1C, Plate 2-1). Large areas of "restoration" at Yosemite Lodge are shown. In fact these areas cannot be restored, as there is no development in these areas (south of Yosemite Lodge). The description under "No Action" bears this out. About half of the (very large) area depicted as restoration at Yosemite Lodge never had development.

The same is true of some large areas in the vicinity of campgrounds. Restoration is exaggerated at North Pines, Lower Pines and Rivers campgrounds. NPS represents future proposed restoration at one campground (Group Camp) which underwent a complete restoration three years ago. The artist errs further in showing restoration east of the Awahnee, never verified in any alternative.

Strangely, "New Development" (depicted in purple) suffers the opposite problem of under-representation. One large area (Camp 6) is shaded Orange, or "redevelopment". While at Camp 6 there is a graveled parking lot (about 22 acres) informally added by categorical exclusion in July 1999, this was improper since it was always scheduled for restoration. This area should be shaded purple, as proposed new development.

Another area of confusion is Yosemite Lodge. Why is Camp 4 shown as a "redeveloped" area? Where is the existing Northside Drive? Where are the lodge area ORVs, and how does building and roadway/parking development (not shown) relate to these? A small area of new development on the upper north slope of the maintenance area (above Fort Yosemite) seems to have grown: we believe this should be shown as new development. No depiction of the impacted areas of the proposed widening Segment "D" is shown. They should be shown in purple. No impacts are shown from the new bike paths, no maps whatsoever exist of the controversial and damaging satellite parking lots. And their new radiating impacts.

Moreover, the Draft River Plan and the DVP propose to hand off the publicly owned, valuable and sensitive Site at Yosemite View to Fischer motels (for development as a hotel, which would destroy the ecology of the area). This development should be depicted in Purple on the maps, as NPS is fully aware that it is proposing to exchange the federal parcel for development. The site north of Yosemite View on the hillside should also be depicted in purple. The radiating impacts of adding hundreds of employees in sensitive resource areas should be shown.

Finally, in the interest of brevity, we would like to state like to state our simple opposition to the following specific elements of the DVP for one or more of the reasons stated above, and in the interest of protection/enhancement of Yosemite's natural and human environment:

1) The undisclosed and unanalyzed widening of “Segment D “has no place in any plan for Yosemite's future, and will degrade the Wild and Scenic Merced River, its ORVs, and its free flowing character. The ill-thought, unanalyzed, damaging proposal should be abandoned in the context of a plan to protect and enhance the Merced River and its ORVs

2) Any and all proposals by NPS to facilitate the private development of the property at Hazel Green - and especially a road - are wrong and will harm Yosemite by further encircling the park with human development. NPS should do nothing to encourage this County fire and emergency safety, water, sewage, congestion, and all of the difficulties of civilization should NOT come to Hazel Green with help from NPS. The impacts to bird diversity, Gray Owls, ancient woodlands, soils, hydrology, sensitive plants and rare wetlands are sufficient reason for NPS to defend its borders, discouraging the project. The DVP lacks sufficient study, analysis, and disclosure, which would lead to abandonment of the proposal by NPS.

3). We are opposed to a system of outlying satellite parking which would further congest and degrade the Park, adding visitors and traffic. This is also an area of impact underreported to the public in terms of acreage. We believe that the radiating and related biological and water quality impacts are unlawful under WSRA. A few notable examples ( numbers 4 - )bearing are listed below. A range of other areas suffer from the same unavoidable problem: the very idea of expanding environmental impacts in Yosemite overall is unacceptable.

4) The South Landing satellite parking area would add congestion, noise, glare, and require plumbing. Radiating impacts to the sensitive Crane Flat and Tuolumne Merced Grove areas are unacceptable risks which the DVP has neither analyzed nor disclosed. The effects on rare birds, plants, and aquatic species are unknown, unanalyzed, and undisclosed.

5) For the same reasons mentioned above, the “Sand Pit” in El Portal is a singularly bad idea as a location for a parking lot: this is a wetland site within a river channel in a protected river. Nor can we imagine a single square foot of land in El Portal which is not far too sensitive in terms of potential environmental and human impacts upon which to locate parking. The DVP does not consider alternatives, but as important does not consider the unacceptable and unlawful nature of the proposal.

6) The expansion of parking and/or radiating human impacts to adjacent meadows and meadow species at Badger Pass mirrors the problem of the proposal at South Landing. The proposal is understudied and does not comprehend the problem if radiating impacts, and effects on biological resources.

7) The proposed creation of parking at Foresta (where?). Will this be at the wood lot? The effects on habitat for at least one California endangered species, to meadow water quality, to wetlands and wetland dependent species, and to air quality, noise, and impacts on terrestrial fauna would increase Casual exploration of Foresta would increase, and the spread of exotics, as well as effects to cultural resources would increase. We oppose this proposal.

8) The movement of NPS stable operations to Mc Cauley Meadow is a singularly bad idea, and will come at great environmental and operational / safety cost. Nor are nearby locations in Foresta good, for the same reasons mentioned elsewhere (biological and cultural resources impacts). Moving the stables will cause Impacts to soils and water quality, direct impacts to McCauley Meadow’s surprising bird diversity and rare plants (Willow flycatchers, Gray owls, and more. Summer storms would carry storm water fecal coliform discharges down to the Crane Creek swimming hole in El Portal (NPS should disclose potential health effects on humans in El Portal). Exotic weed invasion would accelerate, and effects on wetlands expand. Looked at carefully, it is clear that many of these biological effects would be felt by Big meadow, a short distance away, and also a sensitive environment. Adverse effects on safety to horses and travelers would increase and the DVP does not adequately consider this. Finally, the impacts of development of a stables have an enormous, hidden dimension, in terms of needing to widen the entire Foresta Road to McCauley, and to remove a historic Bridge, with adjacent effects on stream/riparian/cultural resources. We think that the Crane Creek Tributary of the Merced WSR deserves protection, and should preclude the development of stables at McCauley Meadow. These comments should be applied by planners to consider the increased impacts of employee housing proposed by NPS at Foresta, as well).

9) We oppose the retention of the Golf course at Wawona under this plan. It is again indicative of the lack of guidance from an adequate and final Merced River Plan. The scenic, biological, and water quality impacts from the golf course are not dealt with in the YVP.

10) We oppose the proposed addition of housing and commercial services at Wawona, preferring to see the YVP develop alternatives which would resolve this and other outward development pressures through the reduction of commercial services in Yosemite.

Conclusion

This entire plan should be revisited after the Park Service has completed a valid River Plan and appropriately amended the GMP of 1980. We request that at that time, scoping be reinitiated for a Plan to implement those guiding plans for Yosemite. Thank you.

Home | About FoYV | Issues | Press | Legal | References | Links | Contacts | Get Involved