LOWER YOSEMITE FALLS EA Comments

Fax: 209 379 1294

Superintendent David Mihalic:

Re: Comments and Objections to Lower Yosemite Fall Project EA
Submitted by the Friends of Yosemite Valley (FoYV) and
Mariposans for Environmentally Responsible Growth (MERG)

INTRODUCTION -- (NO VALID COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE MERCED RIVER)
The National Park Service (NPS) has requested comments on the Lower Yosemite Falls EA by January 2, 2001. The Friends of Yosemite Valley (FoYV) and Mariposans for Environmentally Responsible Growth (MERG) object to the release of an EA for the Lower Yosemite Falls project (LYF) at this time. Tiering to the Yosemite Valley Plan EIS (YVP/EIS) is improper because that EIS did not adequately consider alternatives, nor disclose environmental impacts. Similarly, tiering to the Merced River Plan EIS is also improper. Adopting a project to increase visitor use prior to legally addressing user capacity in the Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) pursuant to Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) violates that Act. The lack of baseline data prevented the Park Service from disclosing and analyzing impacts from this project, both individual and cumulative. The Park Service is legally required to attain necessary information to provide adequate disclosure and analysis. It cannot blindly entertain projects without fully fleshing out the impacts associated therewith. The LYF Plan should be rescinded.

After the court issues its judgment on the Merced Wild and Scenic River Plan, the findings of the judgment are adhered to, appropriate data collection and surveys are completed, and a public scoping and comment period for the entire LYF project in the context of other linked plans is issued, only then would it be appropriate for a Draft EIS based on a valid CMP to be put out for public comment. Until the aforementioned are adequately completed, it would be illegal to further a project of this magnitude and overt new impact to the natural and human environment given the fact of the inadequate process, environmental review, and disclosure to date.

As we stated in our communication on this project last summer, a legally adequate plan to protect and enhance the Merced River must precede any plan for the Lower Falls area. The National Park Service has yet to prepare a legally adequate plan to protect and enhance the values of the Merced Wild and Scenic River. In this light, numerous of the Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) of the Merced River -- Segment 2, Yosemite Valley -- are located within the area. These resources and values have have not been adequately surveyed or studied, and the EA fails to adequately disclose or discuss new impacts. There is none-the-less ample evidence in the EA that the area's protected values will be adversely affected by the Lower Yosemite Falls project. The EA does not pursue a rational project for the protection and enhancement of these values. In addition, a needed study of user capacity related to resource conditions is lacking, even as the project wrongly pursues a program of expanding visitor use overall, and the increased visitor use in current quiet, little impacted areas. We believe that NPS has not developed a legally adequate range of alternatives and, under these conditions, has not fulfilled its duty under NEPA to identify the environmentally preferred alternative. The Lower Yosemite Falls Project not only fails to protect and enhance river values but will harm natural and cultural values of the Lower Yosemite Falls area.

URBAN/SUBURBAN DESIGN
Although it is inappropriate to even have out a plan for this area for the reasons described above, we will make some comments regarding this proposal. As Chip Jenkins, Assistant Superintendent, clearly stated to us at a Lower Yosemite Falls walk-through in August, 2001, that areas such as Lower Yosemite Falls should conform to urban/suburban design intentions. We disagree with this. This mind set while appropriate for urban and suburban areas, is inappropriate as a guiding principal for a National Park. The National Park Service (NPS) and designers should adopt park-appropriate values for "design" in natural areas based on non-impairment, and the restoration of natural processes and visitor experience based on natural values. This plan, with its new construction projects which would reengineer trails in natural areas to function as urban style sidewalks, promenades, or roadways (whether for wheelchairs or pedestrians), create new expanses of artificial paving material (whether asphalt or "crushed granite"), works against the protection and enhancement of the natural and cultural values intrinsic to Yosemite. The problem, as a matter of values, is that if trails and structures are engineered and designed in natural areas to meet urban and suburban standards, then we will have increasingly urbanized and suburbanized "natural" areas in Yosemite and other parks.

NEPA ISSUES
Scoping for this project was not done, in violation of NEPA. "Scoping" conducted in summer 2001 was wrongly limited to the issue of changing restroom location (See also Friends of Yosemite Valley -- FoYV-- Scoping Comments attached hereto.) The EA is fatally flawed in this respect. The projects direction was predetermined in its entirety before the public had any opportunity to comment or object. The EA cannot now assert that "the entire project is being analyzed", for obvious reasons. First, as described below, that proposition is false, as the EA analyzes impacts only superficially and selectively. Second, the EA is not informed by a legal plan for the Merced River and other plans which should inform it. Third the "scope" of the project was determined illegally, prior to public scoping. This final fact, the systematic and illegal barring of public oversight over the assumptions and impetus for the new project, appears to result in the "range" of alternatives analyzed in the Falls EA. The range of alternatives is illegally narrow. The Falls EA analyzes only two nearly identical options. Both options elect the same, predetermined course of action.

Some practical considerations greatly inhibit the public's ability to respond to the release of the EA within the currently allotted 30 day time frame. The working period for this 30 day comment period has been effectively shortened by the holiday season. Moreover, the NPS web site is not functioning, and the project information is thus not available to many who otherwise respond to projects using these means. Although the National Park Service has made it available on the Yosemite Association web site and has put out a postcard to that effect, the only people who would receive the post card are those who had returned the NPS postcard to receive the EA and should presumably already have the EA in hand (although many who requested it specifically did not in fact even receive it, some even after repeated requests.) As a result, the rest of the public who would go to the NPS web site either specifically to look at the LYF/EA or to keep abreast of Yosemite Planning documents would have no way of knowing about its availability on the Yosemite Association web site. While we do not agree that the Falls EA should have been prepared and released at all in its current form and under current conditions, we believe that these practical impediments are additional reasons for which the EA should be rescinded.

ALTERNATIVES
The Falls EA claims that, in response to scoping, it presents an adequate discussion of various alternatives for the entire Yosemite Falls Project; however, on LYF ES-10, "Alternative 3 differs from Alternative 2 primarily through the location of the restroom within an identified Ethnographic Resource Area..." The issue raised in scoping was the preparation of an EIS for the entire project, and a range of alternatives beyond the limited question of the restroom. The EA admittedly does not do this, and violates NEPA in the process by an unreasonable narrowing of alternatives.

* The "No Action Alternative" as described by the Falls EA is not a true no action Alternative. It does not truthfully describe existing environmental conditions. The graphic depiction for the "No Action Alternative," (see map Figure 2-1), incorrectly shows an operative footbridge at Bridge # 6. The Falls EA "No Action Alterantive" also incorrectly depicts a through trail linking Bridge # 6 with the existing paved trail adjacent and parallel to Northside Drive. There is not currently an operational path in this location and a rope prohibits pedestrians from proceeding in that direction. Likewise, the map shows a path running west from the Hutchings viewing location (depicted as a triangle with a curved "point") to Bridge # 6: there is no current path in this location and there is a rope prohibiting passage at the Hutching's view location. A third path is incorrectly depicted as a formal trail when it is merely an occasional use path used by Park residents on the south edge of the resident's school field. The "No Action Alternative" describes "existing conditions" as planners might wish they were, in keeping with the preconceived new project. But it does not describe conditions as they are or as they would be were no action taken.

* Alternatives 2 and 3 are very nearly alike, with minor variation in bridge adjustments or restroom site. It is stated that a wide range of alternatives was considered in the Valley Plan and these selected therefrom. However, review of the Valley Plan alternatives shows a very narrow range. The VP alternatives are so similar that careful comparison of the maps is required to detect the minor differences. Thus the NEPA requirement for a broad range of alternatives is not met in either the Valley Plan, or in the Falls EA.

* The EA analyzes Alternative 2 as the "environmentally preferable" one. Using reference to NEPA sections, it relies only on the location of the restroom as justification for all the actions in the plan. There is no mention of the other elements of the Alternative which would have impact on the environment; i.e., new bridges, new trails and "hardening" of trails, increase in pedestrian traffic in areas currently mildly impacted, impacts on Native American sites, or "other undesirable and unintended consequences."

* Under the EA section, "Actions Considered But Dismissed," a primary reason given for exclusion from consideration is "does not implement the decisions of the Yosemite Valley Plan for the Lower Yosemite Fall area". Reviewing the Lower Falls alternatives in the Valley Plan shows two paragraph brevity, paucity of specificity and a marked similarity. This is carried through in the Falls EA. The narrowness of the alternatives and the lack of consideration of the broad range of possibilities suggested above, appear to be a justification for a preconceived plan to accommodate large volume traffic flow of visitors, rather than protection and enhancement of the resource.

THE EA DOES NOT CONSIDER REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES
* The EA's mishandling of its "No Action Alternative" leads to a failed opportunity for analysis. The "No Action Alternative" described by the EA does not consider "letting natural processes prevail" by allowing the braided streams to have freedom from bridging and confinement over the long term. This could include allowing the bridges to undergo "benign neglect" and be ultimately discontinued. No formal pathways would be maintained in the stream corridor. The restroom could be rebuilt in its current location and screened by native vegetation and/or constructed to blend with the area's vegetation.

* The alternatives presented for the LYF project in the Draft Valley Plan were basically the same with minor differences in the configuration of the path of the north-eastern trail. All the action alternatives presented the same loop configuration, with the existing loop ending at the Clark Bench and the remainder of the loop reconfigured based on a new primary access point, new shuttle stop and the same new spread out pathways, including restoration of Bridge #6 and construction of an additional Bridge -- Bridge #7. There was no action alternative e.g. presented for retaining the existing loop trail while not reconstructing Bridge # 6 and not adding Bridge #7, nor was there an action alternative presented for not reconstructing Bridges # 1, # 2, # 3, # 4, # 5, # 6, and not constructing Bridge #7.

* The EA does not consider the active restoration of the Eastern portion of the project area. (a restoration alternative)

* The EA does not develop alternatives involving the replacement of the restroom in-situ avoiding new impacts.

* No evaluation was done of removing the bridges and trails from the stream area and limiting the paths to outside the historic stream bed.

* The EA does not consider a "light on the land" approach to bridges and trails which assumes the need for regular maintenance or repair, by accepting the natural, dynamic qualities of the landscape in the area. Both action alternatives describe relatively heavy and new construction.

* The removal of the human-constructed rock rubble pile is deferred in all alternatives, when it should be a primary consideration in restoring the natural processes. There is no description of why the rock rubble pile pile was placed, or of what the effects of removing it would be. This would seem essential to determine prior to further construction projects in the stream area. The removal of the rock rubble pile is deferred in both action alternatives. This is surprising since it represents the reversal of what is probably the most environmentally beneficial element originally proposed. The reasonable and WSRA directed goal of enhancing the "Hydrologic Processes" ORV-- by restoring the western channel, removing the rock rubble pile-- has been inexplicably scrapped in this EA. NPS should study this option before the release of this or any project description for the falls area, and include its removal as an indispensable element of any future proposal for the Lower Falls area. This should happen first, and without delay. It is not acceptable to pretend that such an action may be considered an undetermined future date.

* None of the alternatives considers parking of buses at the Northeast section of Yosemite Lodge. This would obviate the need for development of bus parking elsewhere.

FAILURE TO LINK TO OTHER PLANS
As we said in the introduction to these comments, tiering to the Yosemite Valley Plan EIS (YVP/EIS) is improper because that EIS did not adequately consider alternatives, nor disclose environmental impacts. Similarly, tiering to the Merced River Plan EIS is also improper. Moreover the proposed changes for the Falls are intricately linked to other plans not yet completed and issues not yet considered. A valid plan to protect and enhance the Merced Wild and Scenic River needs to be completed. The GMP should be amended based upon a valid Merced Wild and Scenic River Management Plan. In addition a completed or up-to-date Natural Resources Management Plan, Fire Management Plan and Vegetation Management Plan do not inform the Lower Yosemite Falls EA. Not surprisingly, the Falls EA provides a paucity of quantitative information on such crucial issues as, "selective cutting and removal of trees and vegetation . . . [in the] view corridor." The Yosemite Valley Plan promised completion of a Traffic Management Plan within five years of the Record of Decision. It is acknowledged that Yosemite Falls is the most visited feature on the Valley floor. With no decision on park visitation limits or user capacity and a yet-to-be-prepared traffic management plan, it is irresponsible to proceed with the most visited feature in Yosemite Valley as an isolated, piecemeal project. The Falls EA mentions, a "Gathering Plan" which appears not to exist, and which none the less would appear to bear greatly on continuing traditional tribal use of the Falls area by the Southern Sierra Miwok. The Falls redesign is being moved forward as an independent project on a piecemeal basis. Yet the proposed changes to the Falls area are intricately linked with the aforementioned other plans and issues. Evaluation needs to take place in this broader context, but that is not happening.

Contrary to the claims of the LYF/EA, the VP barely mentions the LYF project, with but a few pages of scant description and provided a completely inadequate disclosure of the project. What little the Yosemite Valley Plan does disclose about the project's design and impacts is dispersed in the 6 volume tome, such that the average reader would likely never gather together even the few facts presented. Thus the public did not have a proper opportunity to understand or comment on the project, even if the litigation had been settled. The LYF design did not undergo adequate environmental review as a part of the Yosemite Valley Plan EIS, contrary to the assertion of the LYF/EA.

The maps in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan and the Yosemite Valley/EIS do not reflect accurately the Lower Yosemite Falls preferred alternative. Yet the Lower Yosemite Falls EA purports to be based on the Yosemite Valley Plan as a disclosure document.

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
As we said in our introduction to these comments, the lack of baseline data prevented the NPS from disclosing and analyzing impacts from this project, both individual and cumulative. The Park Service is legally required to attain necessary information to provide adequate disclosure and analysis. It cannot blindly plan projects without fully fleshing out the impacts associated therewith. Because the EA provides only vague qualitative description of project details and lacks quantatative and site specific analysis, our ability to form a realistic understanding of the proposed actions and their consequences is limited at best. The following discussion represents our, "best guess" at impacts.

An example of the EA's failure of analysis is its failure to disclose how it would protect and enhance ORVs. In fact the project would harm ORVs in a number of ways.

Hydrologic Processes: Though The falls EA evidences some confusion, the "Hydrologic Processes" ORV in the Falls area is listed: "Hydrologic processes... an active flood regime" (EA at 5-11). As is well-documented, the Lower Falls area is part of the Merced River's flood regime, contributing to the Valley floor's periodic flooding, and the flooding of the Yosemite Falls delta itself. Yet the EA seems confused about the existence of this ORV, stating; "The Yosemite Creek tributary has its own flood regime, and flooding in the project area is largely associated with flood flows from Yosemite Creek, not the Merced River. Most of the project is outside the Merced River's 100-year floodplain." (EA at 5-11, italics added). The distinction made by this statement between the main channel and the delta is artificial, and the implication that the delta is not included in the "active flood regime" ORV is false. The EA does acknowledge the Falls delta flood regime as an ORV of the Merced WSR when it purports to improve it (EA at 5-11, id.). The authoritative resolution of this confusion is provided by the map of the entire active flood regime for the Valley segment of the Merced River, which includes the Lower Falls delta (see attached Map, Merced River CMP/FEIS Figure III-3). The active flood regime of the Lower Falls delta is an ORV of the Merced WSR.

Hydrologic Processes: New impacts to the active flood regime -- and the "Hydrologic Processes" ORV -- will result from the Falls project, in violation of the WSRA. We reject these actions and new impacts. 1). Hardening and widening of trails will negatively affect the flood hydrology of the Falls delta. This immediate impact of trail hardening to the Hydrologic Processes ORV of the area is not analyzed (note lack of discussion of this impact at 4-42). 2). Radiating impacts of increased visitor use in the eastern portion of the Falls area will predictably cause increased trampling of vegetation, soil disturbance and bank erosion, a result of the project's systematic movement of visitors to the eastern project area. These new impacts to the active flood regime are neither analyzed nor disclosed. (Illogically and counter to evidence, the EA predicts lessening of radiating impacts through the eastern project area due to heightened visibility of new trail engineering -- EA at 4-29, 4-37. This is nonsense; visitors will regularly and predictably leave trails, and a project to intentionally increase the volume and use of the eastern Falls area will increase radiating impacts in that area). 3) The EA proposes to situate a new bathroom within the active floodplain, a facility which is currently situated outside the floodplain. This constitutes a significant new impact to the Hydrologic Processes ORV of the Merced WSR. The EA acknowledges some impact, though inexplicably describes this impact as negligible new effects to floodplain values. (As discussed under "alternatives", the NPS did not consider -- among other possibilities -- the reasonable alternative of refurbishing the bathroom in its existing location). 4). A comprehensive baseline study of the Falls delta hydrology is still lacking and must be completed. Any plan to protect and enhance the Hydrologic Processes ORV for the Falls area must rely on scientific data. With regards to impacts analysis, such a study is the necessary prerequisite to an impact statement detailing the effects of project actions on the Hydrologic Processes ORV. Such a study should detail the effects of a proposed restoration of the Western channel (removal of the rock rubble pile). It should study the effects of removal of the stone wall on the east side of the main bridge. Such a study should quantify the effects of placing any new structures (i.e. the proposed restroom, re-engineered bridges) in the floodplain.

Scenic: The EA fails to disclose likely new adverse effects tot the scenic ORVs of the Lower Falls area from the introduction of increased hardened trails and manmade structures in the eastern Falls area.

Scientific: When purporting to discuss the "Scientific" ORV, the EA misses the point and merely mentions the hydrology of the area (EA at 5-9). As discussed above regarding the "Hydrologic Processes" ORV, the absence of a comprehensive baseline hydrologic study of the area renders the EA's claim of protection of the area's hydrology hollow. The assertion of "improved" hydrology (EA at 5-9, id) for the area is likewise without basis. The protection and enhancement of the scientific ORV for the Merced River has otherwise been short-changed by the Falls EA; the scientific baseline of biological resources of the Falls area are not known, and barely discussed in the EA. This is a serious omission with regard to the "Scientific " ORV.

Biological: As mentioned for the "Scientific" ORV, the lack of a scientifically-derived biological baseline, and a resultant lack of disclosure and analysis of the effects on biological resources renders the discussion of the "Biological" ORV incomplete. Surveys are lacking which would account for the presence of avian species, bats, terrestrial mammals, terrestrial wildlife trails, and rare plants. Such surveys need to be completed as the basis of a plan which would protect and enhance the biological ORVs in the Falls area. The EA does make note of additional impacts to wildlife through alteration of the forest in the Falls area, but lacks specifics. But these impacts are not tied to an analysis of the existing conditions. Changed conditions for the forest and related species are discussed only in general terms (EA at 4 - 54). Plant surveys should be conducted, and the relationship drawn between plants and related factors unique to the area; soils, related hydrology, and -- perhaps importantly -- the seasonal distribution of waterfall mists and sunlight are are all unique factors influencing plant life in this area. Direct negative impacts of the project on biological resources is predicted by the EA (4-54, 4-48, etc.), and the biologic ORVs will be negatively impacted by the Falls project. Yet lacking a comprehensive picture of existing resources, the EA lacks discussion of most resources, and the discussion otherwise remains generic and unrelated to specific biological elements. The incomplete discussion, and the likelihood of additional impacts to ORVs of the Merced WSR are not acceptable.

Archaeological: The Falls EA fails to adequately consider the impacts of the project on at least three known subsurface archaeological deposits in the project area. The EA provides no rationale for their protection and enhancement. In fact, as with "Biological Resources", the EA changes the subject, failing to disclose new impacts to cultural resources. Specifically, the destructive impact from the excavation of a new sewer branch line for the proposed bathroom is not disclosed or discussed. Resultant impacts to potentially intact archaeological deposits associated with the prehistoric / historic village of Koomine (CA-MRP 240, and 303-H) are anticipated (EA at 2-33), and would constitute the irreversible and permanent degradation to an ORV of the Merced WSR. This is not acceptable. Similarly, the EA fails to provide a meaningful discussion of the negative impacts from new trail and bridge construction to the subsurface archaeological deposits in the eastern project area (presumably CA-MRP 749). The EA does disclose that new impacts would occur (EA at 2-33). This would constitute the irreversible and permanent degradation to an ORV of the Merced WSR. This is not acceptable.

Cultural ; The EA does not adequately discuss the impacts from this project, which would introduce greatly increased numbers of visitors and associated impacts to the eastern project area, which is currently used by Yosemite's native people for gathering food and other traditional resources. The EA, in part, does acknowledge some of the impacts from the immediate construction of the new trail (EA at 2-34) negatively affecting helli, Californian black oak, bedrock milling feature site, and bracken fern sites (EA, 2-34, id). The EA makes reference to the traditional and spiritual importance of the area, but rather than detailing impacts, only vaguely describes "mitigation"; screening (presumably with vegetation), and the provision of a post-hoc "gathering plan" (EA at 2-26). This discussion is not only inadequate, exemplifies a project moving in the wrong direction. We wonder what the real purpose of a "gathering plan" would be, if planners have preordained the disturbance or destruction of traditional gathering areas and spiritual areas across a range of Valley Plan projects, including this Falls EA. (see 'Valley Plan EIS', Environmental Consequences, generally). We reject the destructive approach which accepts new impacts, post hoc -- and dubious -- "mitigation," and official rationalization taken by this Falls EA. "Continuing traditional use" by Yosemite's native people is an ORV of the Merced WSR; the Falls EA plans displacement and impact to this ORV. This is not acceptable.

WSRA

INCREASING VISITOR USE
It is premature to plan a project for increasing visitor use for the "most highly visited natural feature in Yosemite National Park." (LYF/EA, ES-1) The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act's (WSRA) direction to address user capacities in terms of resources is extremely relevant for the Falls area, given the high level visitation in the area. Serious study of the resources and values of the falls area should be undertaken with respect to this issue. An unexamined premise of the Falls EA is the acceptance of expanding visitor use, while the project simultaneously expands and intensifies structures and visitor impacts in new areas. This is a fundamental error which we raised in scoping which has not been addressed. As a consequence, the Falls redesign would subject the currently quiet, more natural eastern portion of the Lower Falls area to significant new development and impact. The project would also construct an "expanded viewing area" and significantly widen new trails as a result of this same underlying prejudice. The project uncritically seeks to expand visitor use and related impacts in new areas. These are both fundamental errors from an environmental perspective. From an environmental perspective this new geographic extent, the project's new engineering and additional construction, and the expansion of visitor use, infrastructure, and related impacts rest on a fundamental mistake. The project misunderstands or misstates the "problem" at hand; if the "problem" being "solved" were the impacts of millions of visitors affecting the overall natural and cultural values of the area, then this design merely spreads the problem out and makes the problem worse. From an environmental perspective, the Falls project is a damaging "solution" still in search of the "problem". The failure of both the Merced River Plan and the Yosemite Valley plan to address expanding visitor use is reflected in the Lower Yosemite Falls EA's identical failure to address this fundamental analytic issue.

The Falls EA makes reference to a VERP study for the Falls area. The VERP study done by Manning in the LYF area was, by its own account, clearly a visitor preference study. Adopting a project to increase visitor use prior to legally addressing user capacity in the CMP pursuant to WSRA violates that Act. While the Yosemite Valley Plan admits that, "the number of people on the [Lower Yosemite Falls western] trail was not seen as a major problem," it still appears to base the widening of the western trail and the expansion of the Lower Falls viewing area on a completely inadequate and flawed survey (Manning, 1998) of visitors perceptions of "crowding". Yet, an analysis of this "survey" does not support the perception of "crowding" as a problem, either on the western trail or at the viewing area at the base of Lower Yosemite Falls. As mentioned above the intensification of visitor use and construction impacts in the eastern project area exemplifies the problem of planning for increased visitor use prior to legally addressing user capacity in a comprehensive management plan pursuant to WSRA.

CONCLUSION
The Lower Yosemite Falls area contains 56 acres including one of the premier waterfalls, alluvial fans, and meandering braided stream areas in the country. It contains numerous ORVs of the Merced River, wetlands and riparian areas as well as numerous species of concern. The project proposes building or rebuilding 7 bridges, as well as repairing the Lower Falls Bridge, either widening or rerouting most if not all of the current trails, and creating additional ones out of little used or abandoned occasional footpaths as well as new trails, building a new bathroom in a new area which is in the floodplain, expanding the use and development footprint and disturbance, and further altering the hydrology and ecosystem continuity. The area of disturbance which would result from the prematurely proposed LYF project is significant, approximately 1/2 of the acreage.

The Lower Yosemite Falls plan creates many new environmentally harmful impacts which are either not disclosed in the LYF/EA or not adequately disclosed. It chooses to create "solutions" that are more massive in their construction footprint on the land and which constrain the natural processes in the dynamic braided alluvial fan system. It moves the primary access point for the LYF area to a new area on the southeast side of the LYF area and hardens and widens old occasional footpaths into major access trails, and in addition creates new footpaths. In the process an area that is either undisturbed or in recovery would suffer major impacts. Moreover, this area is either within or adjacent to the Wild and Scenic River corridor and contains many Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

The Plan's release is premature. The current legal challenge to the Merced River Management Plan (MRP) is still under the consideration of the court. A legally adequate plan to protect and enhance the Merced WSR based on adequate scientific studies of the river's protected values must be adopted first, and the GMP amended in keeping with such direction. Then, and only then, should the public be asked to comment on eventual plans for the Falls area.

We look forward to the completion of a legally adequate plan to protect and enhance the Merced Wild and Scenic River. We will welcome the opportunity to comment in the future on any proposal to protect and enhance the Lower Falls area, in the context of adequate study, and legally adequate environmental review and disclosure. The current, damaging proposal fails, in the light of its new impacts to Yosemite and illegal planning process. We ask the National Park Service to rescind the LYF/EA and issue an EIS at the appropriate time after fulfilling the necessary NEPA and WSRA requirements.

Sincerely,

Gregory M. Adair
Joyce M Eden
Friends of Yosemite Valley

Barton Brown, Chair
Mariposans for Environmentally Responsible Growth (MERG)

Attachments: #1 FoYV LYF Scoping Comments
#2 Map, Merced River CMP/FEIS Figure III-3, included in comments sent by surface mail

(Sent by fax, and by surface mail)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment: #1 FoYV Scoping Comments

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