[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE YOSEMITE VALLEY PLAN
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, April 22, 2003 in Yosemite National Park, California
__________
Serial No. 108-16
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
86-612 PS
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Samoa
Elton Gallegly, California Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Islands
George Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Jay Inslee, Washington
Carolina Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Vice Chairman Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Greg Walden, Oregon Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Jeff Flake, Arizona Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Rick Renzi, Arizona Joe Baca, California
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Rob Bishop, Utah
Devin Nunes, California
VACANCY
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California, Chairman
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands, Ranking Democrat Member
Elton Gallegly, California Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Tom Udall, New Mexico
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Mark Udall, Colorado
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Carolina Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Chris Cannon, Utah Dennis A. Cardoza, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
Mark E. Souder, Indiana ex officio
Rob Bishop, Utah
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex
officio
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 22, 2003................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress from the
Virgin Islands............................................. 5
Nunes, Hon. Devin, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 5
Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Abshez, Allan J., Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles,
California................................................. 61
Prepared statement of.................................... 64
Kelly, Kevin, Chief Operating Officer, Yosemite Concession
Services Corporation, Yosemite National Park, California... 44
Prepared statement of.................................... 45
Mainella, Fran P., Director, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Minault, Paul, Northern California Regional Coordinator, The
Access Fund, San Francisco, California..................... 55
Prepared statement of.................................... 57
Mosley, Peggy A., President/CEO, The Groveland Hotel at
Yosemite National Park, Groveland, California.............. 40
Prepared statement of.................................... 41
Watson, Jay Thomas, California/Nevada Regional Director, The
Wilderness Society, San Francisco, California.............. 67
Prepared statement of.................................... 69
Welch, Stephen R., Executive Vice President, The Pines
Resort, Bass Lake, California.............................. 26
Prepared statement of.................................... 28
Whitmore, George, Chairman, Yosemite Committee, Sierra Club,
Fresno, California......................................... 71
Prepared statement of.................................... 73
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE YOSEMITE VALLEY
PLAN
----------
Tuesday, April 22, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Committee on Resources
Yosemite National Park, California
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m.,
Yosemite National Park, California, Hon. George Radanovich
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Radanovich. Good morning. The Subcommittee on National
Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands will come to order. My name
is George Radanovich from Mariposa, proudly, and I am joined
here with Representative Donna Christensen and Representative
Devin Nunes for a hearing regarding camping spaces in the
valley. And I do want to mention just before we get started--
and I have a written text to read as we are doing this--to
remind everybody that this is not a town hall meeting, but
rather a hearing, a formal congressional hearing where issues
get on the record. And I would ask, so that we can do this in
an orderly fashion, that we have order in the room.
As you may know, you know, a lot of these congressional
hearings are for us to get comments and such in the record. And
we are going to be having three panels of witnesses today to
talk about the issues regarding Yosemite as it relates to
camping spaces. This hearing doesn't necessarily cover parking
spaces or any other issues regarding the management plan or any
other issues about Yosemite. They do mainly cover, or almost
solely, the issues of campgrounds in Yosemite Valley.
As you know, the floods of 1997 took out Upper and Lower
River Campgrounds and created some damage in the park, and we
want to know more detail about the plans as it relates to that.
So, we are restricted to comments from the witnesses that
are going to be in the three panels today, and at the end of
each panel, and some have one person, some have a number of
people, Donna and Devin and I will be allowed to ask them
questions. And again, the main reason for this is to get it in
the Congressional Record. And we feel very strongly that we--
well, obviously the three panels consist of every view that we
can assemble on this issue.
So I want to welcome you here today, and thank you for
coming. You can take the snow back. It looks like my friend
Donna, who is representing the Virgin Islands, is going to get
all four seasons in a very short time. So we are glad to have
the snow, but I was glad to see the blue sky when we woke up.
So welcome here. I thank you for this. And help us get all
this information out and into the record so that we can make
sure that Yosemite stays a great place to be.
So with that, I am going to read my prepared text, and then
we will get on with this hearing.
Before I read this statement, I would like to thank
Superintendent Mike Tollefson, Mike Reynolds, and Don Quellos,
Steve Shackleton, and the entire park staff for putting
together the secondary hearing site of the Subcommittee in less
than 24 hours. As you know, we were hoping to have the hearing
out by the Superintendent's house outside, but the weather
caused some real problems, so we had to move it indoors.
I would also like to point out that this is an official
Subcommittee hearing where the witnesses who are here today are
invited by the Subcommittee. It is not a town hall meeting. And
for those not testifying who wish to submit something for the
record, though, the hearing record will remain open for 2
weeks. And we have left a box outside in the back of the area
for you to submit written comments. If you would like to send
your comments to the Subcommittee, please see Casey, our
Subcommittee clerk.
Casey, do you want to raise your hand?
This is Casey, everybody, and if you do want to do some--
write out your comments and submit them that way, we would be
happy to take them, and they will go into the Congressional
Record. And I think we have a period of about 2 weeks for you
to submit something to Casey or send back to the Committee in
Washington.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]
Statement of The Honorable George Radanovich, Chairman,
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Good morning. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and
Public Lands will come to order.
Before I make my opening statement, I would like to thank
Superintendent Mike Tollefson, Mike Reynolds, Don Coelho, Steve
Shackelton and the entire Park staff for putting together this
secondary hearing site for the Subcommittee in less than 24-hours. As
many of you know, we had originally planned to have the hearing
outdoors near the old superintendent's residence with Half Dome in the
background, but Mother Nature had other plans.
I would also like to point out that this is an official
Subcommittee Hearing, where witnesses here today were invited by the
Subcommittee. This is NOT a town hall meeting. For those not testifying
and who wish to submit something for the record, the hearing record
will remain open for two weeks. We have left out a box on the table to
the back of the area for you to submit written comment. If you would
like to send your comments to the Subcommittee, please see Casey, our
Subcommittee Clerk (Casey, please raise your hand), following the
hearing and he will give you the address for the Subcommittee.
As many of you know, I have had the pleasure to represent the
Valley and Yosemite Park since entering Congress in 1994, as well as
previously, when I served as a county supervisor for Mariposa County. I
started coming to this magnificent and wonderful place when I was a
child and to this day, I hike various parts of the park every summer
with my family. I say all this because I believe it is very important
for everyone to know just how I feel about this Park and this Valley--I
want all of its grandeur to be available to anyone wishing to
experience it first-hand, as I was able to do.
I envision this Valley and the Park continuing to be open to all,
consistent with the Park Service mission to ``provide for the
enjoyment'' of parklands. To me, this means that we provide to the
public what they want to have--including recreational activities such
as camping, backpacking and horseback riding, AND roads for those who
wish to see the Park from the family minivan; to provide access to
back-country, AND to provide amenities such as rooms where families can
stay; to provide a natural sanctuary for the contemplative, as well as
the more mundane parking spaces for those who wish to stay for a while
and explore and enrich their lives.
Let me make it clear, as long as I represent Yosemite National Park
and this beautiful Valley, I will not allow it to become an exclusive
retreat available only by tour bus, nor a natural preserve which you
can get to only on foot. Neither of these alternatives are solutions
for the future of Yosemite.
Today, I have brought the Subcommittee to the Valley not to discuss
not the Park's past, but its future. As we all know, a number of
constituencies believe that the 1997 Merced River Flood was a sign from
above to the National Park Service to reverse course in the Valley--to
remove roads, buildings, and opportunities and access from the public,
and restore the Valley to a ``wilderness zone'' where only low impact
hiking would be permitted.
While the 1997 Flood certainly brought a crisis to the Valley, it
should not seen as an opportunity to limit access by the public. The
Valley and Park belong to over 285 million Americans, not a select few.
I have asked my good friend, the Director of the National Park
Service, Fran Mainella, to update the Subcommittee generally on the
implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan and to specifically address
the recent NPS campground study as well as the status of parking spaces
in the Valley. I do wish to state my frustration that a study of out-
of-valley camping that was completed last year was only made available
to me or to the public last week. The study shows that 204 campsites
can be relatively easily constructed outside of Yosemite Valley,
ostensibly to replace campsites in the Valley that were lost in the
flood and in the subsequent planning process. It is my opinion that
campsites outside of the Valley do not replace in-Valley campsites.
Meanwhile, I had asked for a separate study identifying the costs and
availability of campsites at Upper and Lower Rivers. That study shows
that were setbacks from the river equal to the setbacks identified in
the Merced Wild and Scenic River Study, 144 campsites could be
installed at Upper and Lower Rivers while restoring a significant
riparian corridor.Opposition to this proposal is based on the fact that
the campgrounds would be in a flood plain. I cannot think of a better
use of flood-plains than campgrounds.
I am most interested in how and when the Park Service will be
restoring campgrounds in the Valley to their pre-Flood numbers,
particularly in the Upper and Lower River campgrounds.
I also look forward to hearing the testimony of our other
witnesses, especially those who have been coming to this park for many
years and can speak to their experiences and what they see is the
future for this Valley and the Park.
I now turn to the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Donna
Christensen of the U.S. Virgin Islands, for her opening statement.
______
Mr. Radanovich. And as many as you know, I have had the
pleasure to represent the valley of Yosemite Parks in Congress
since 1994, and previously when I served as Mariposa County
supervisor, I enjoyed using Yosemite very much. And I say all
this because I believe it is very important for everybody to
know just how I feel about this park and its valley. I want all
of its grandeur to be available to anyone wishing to experience
it firsthand as I was able to do and am able to do.
I envision this valley and the park continuing to be open
to all, consistent with the Park Service mission to provide for
the enjoyment of parklands. To me, this means that we provide
to the public what they want to have, including recreational
activities such as camping, backpacking, and horseback riding;
and roads for those who wish to see the park from the family
minivan, or to provide access to the back country; and also to
provide amenities such as rooms where families can stay,
provide a natural sanctuary for the contemplative, as well as
the more mundane parking spaces for those who wish to stay for
a while and explore and enrich their lives.
I want to be very clear that as long as I represent
Yosemite National Park and this beautiful valley, I will not
allow it to become an exclusive retreat available only by tour
bus, nor a natural preserve where you can get to it only on
foot. Neither of these alternatives are solutions for the
future of Yosemite and Yosemite Valley.
Today, I brought the Subcommittee to the valley not to
discuss the park's past, but its future. As we all know, a
number of constituencies believe that the 1997 Merced River
flood was a sign from above to the National Park Service to
reverse course in the valley, to remove roads, buildings, and
opportunities and access from the public, and restore the
valley to a wilderness zone where only low-impact hiking would
be permitted.
While the flood of 1997 certainly brought a crisis to the
valley, it should not be seen as an opportunity to limit access
by the public. The valley and the park belong to over 285
million Americans, not a select few.
I have asked my good friend, Director of the National Park
Service, Fran Mainella, to update the Subcommittee generally on
the implementation of the Yosemite Valley plan, and to
specifically address the recent National Park Service
campground study as well as the status of parking spaces in the
valley.
I do wish to state my frustration that the study of out-of-
valley camping completed last year was only made available to
me or the public last week. The study shows that 204 campsites
can be relatively easily constructed outside of Yosemite
Valley, ostensibly to replace campsites in the valley that were
lost in the flood and in the subsequent planning process. It is
my opinion that the campsites outside the valley do not replace
in-valley campsites.
Meanwhile, I had asked for a separate study identifying the
cost and availability of campsites at the Upper and Lower River
Campgrounds. That study shows that for setbacks from the river
equal to the setbacks identified in the Merced Wild and Scenic
River Study, 144 campsites could be installed at Upper and
Lower Rivers while restoring a significant riparian corridor.
Opposition to this proposal is based on the fact that the
campgrounds would be in the flood plains. I can't think of a
better use of the flood plain than campgrounds, quite frankly.
I am most interested in how and when the Park Service will
be restoring campgrounds in the valley to their preflood
numbers, particularly in the Upper and Lower River Campgrounds.
I also look forward to hearing the testimony from our
witnesses, especially those who have been coming to this park
for many years and can speak to their experience and what they
see is the future for this valley, the park.
Mr. Radanovich. I now would recognize the Ranking Member of
the Subcommittee from the Virgin Islands, Mrs. Donna
Christensen, Donna, for your opening statement. And welcome to
Yosemite, Donna.
STATEMENT OF HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE VIRGIN SLANDS
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr.
Chairman, let me say at the outset I really appreciate the
hospitality of you and the National Park Service Superintendent
Tollefson for my first visit to this wonderful park. And I have
been in hearings with you in Washington, and we have had
pictures and maps, but they certainly don't do the park
justice. So I am happy for the opportunity to be out here and
see firsthand the magnificent resources and hear some of the
challenges and opportunities that Yosemite National Park faces
today. They are not unlike many that we face in my own
district.
The Yosemite Valley plan has been years in the making, I
think about 20 years, and it entails a lot of work and public
participation, a significant document for a significant area of
great beauty and majesty. As one of our premier national parks,
people from all around the country and the world really have
expressed an interest and concern for Yosemite. The extent of
the national news coverage that the Yosemite Valley plan has
received over the years is a testament to the attraction that
Yosemite has with the American public.
Given the public's spotlight on Yosemite, the National Park
Service has its work cut out to meet the expectations that
people have for this park as well as meeting the needs and
concerns of the gateway communities. That challenge is
compounded by the geology of the valley that we are in.
Yosemite Valley is only 7 miles long and less than 1 mile wide.
The floor of the valley is further reduced by rock falls onto
the flood plain of the Merced River. Within this relatively
small area, which I understand is the area that is really
utilized most in Yosemite, about 3 to 4 miles by 1 mile,
millions of people come annually to experience the nationally
significant resources of the valley. How to protect these
important park resources and still maintain the quality visitor
experience has been a concern going back for many years. I am
hopeful that today's hearing can contribute to a better
understanding of what we can and should do to provide for the
long-term preservation and enjoyment of Yosemite National Park.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to learning more on what the
Yosemite Valley plan will mean for the park's resources and
visitors. I appreciate the presence of our witnesses here
today, and look forward to their insight on the subject of
today's oversight hearing.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Donna, very much.
Mr. Radanovich. And also here today is a good friend and
new Member of Congress from California, representing primarily
Fresno and Tulare Counties, Mr. Devin Nunes.
Devin, did you want to open up with anything?
STATEMENT OF HON. DEVIN NUNES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Nunes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. It
is a pleasure to be here, being that this is very close to my
district and has a special place in my heart.
Some people may not know this, but the Ahwahnee Hotel was
at one time a naval hospital, and my grandfather was in the
Navy during World War II. He was injured not in the war, but
actually broke his arm on leave, and was stationed here. He was
relocated here for about a year, and he always said how
wonderful it was.
Then as a kid my family would bring me up here, and I hiked
up to Vernal Falls, Nevada Falls, Half Dome, the top of El
Capitan, the top of Yosemite Falls, and Glacier Point. And as
you know, it is a really beautiful place.
And it is an honor for me to be here today as a new Member
of Congress. They send me on these missions, and a few weeks
ago Chairman Pombo asked me if I would go up to the north slope
of Alaska to take part in a field hearing, and I, you know,
because as the new guy, said, sure. I got up there, and it was
50 below zero, and I wondered what I got myself into. And then
last week, George had asked to me to come up here, and I
thought, well, this is easy. Yosemite is real close. I got in a
wreck on the way up here, and it snowed. And I don't know, I am
beginning to think they make freshmen Congressmen go on all
these trips that no one else wants to go on, Mr. Chairman.
But I look forward to the testimony today, and thank you
all for coming. I know this is very important to Mr.
Radanovich's district, my district, the entire State of
California and the Nation. So thank you very much.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Devin, and welcome to Yosemite.
Mr. Radanovich. We are going to begin with our first panel,
and if those members would like to come up. I see more signs,
more different folks.
Fran, do you want everybody up here?
Ms. Mainella. Yes, Mr. Chairman. And if I may, if I could
bring up our Superintendent Mike Tollefson to come forward;
also, Jon Jarvis, our Regional Director; and also my Deputy
Director Randy Jones. If they may join us.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much.
Fran Mainella is, of course, Director of the National Park
Service; Mr. Randy Jones, who is with the National Park Service
as well back in Washington; Superintendent Mike Tollefson; and
Mr. Jon Jarvis, Regional Director. Welcome.
And I am going to lay out a few rules for the red light,
green light that you should be able to see. It is just like a
traffic light. Green means go, yellow means speed up, and red
means stop. So if we could, so that this does not drag out
beyond a couple hours, and we want to conclude this hearing, if
you would stay within the 5-minute rule, it would be much
appreciated. Say it that way. I am pretty good about making
sure that everybody gets to say what needs to be said, so we
will make some leeway if it is necessary, but it is important
to stay in that rule if we can.
STATEMENT OF FRAN MAINELLA, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,
ACCOMPANIED BY MIKE TOLLEFSON, SUPERINTENDENT, YOSEMITE
NATIONAL PARK; RANDY JONES, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE; AND JON
JARVIS, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Ms. Mainella. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. I
really appreciate all of you being here and taking the time out
of your schedule to visit, particularly here on Earth Day and
part of National Park Week, to be here in Yosemite, one of the
key cornerstones of our National Park System. I really
appreciate that all of you took the time to do that.
Also, I am going to ask if I could have my written
statement put into the record. I am going to do a summary and
hopefully be able to stay within that 5-minute period.
Mr. Radanovich. There being no objection, so ordered.
Frankly, that is the better way to do it.
Ms. Mainella. Thank you, sir.
I do want to mention, though, before I get into some actual
comments on our issues that we are going to be working on, I
just want to make sure--and I talked to some of the folks here
in the audience as I arrived and things to make sure everyone
knows that we, under this administration, the focus of what we
like to do, and it matches up so well with your gateway bill,
Mr. Chairman, that you are working on, is that it is very, very
important, in fact it is mandatory in our Park Service now, to
be working with gateway communities and reaching out to
partners, environmental leaders, recreation users. And this is
not just something nice to do, it is something expected to do.
And, in fact, I brought Mike Tollefson in, and I got a lot
of nasty letters from Smokies because--from those communities
saying that I pulled him away. But he is here because of his
ability to work so well with the communities. And I think that
is an important message that I hope we can send out throughout,
no matter what issues we talk about, that communication is
absolutely important.
I think you know Secretary Norton has really always focused
on what she calls her four Cs, which is communication, which is
cooperation, and consultation, all under the service of
conservation. And I think that, again, this is important for
us, and you will see that constantly demonstrated through the
National Park Service as we go forward. So I would just really
appreciate that acknowledgment of all that we are working on.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I am just very pleased to be here and
to be able to talk about where we are in the implementation of
the Yosemite Valley plan. And I know that this is so important,
as you know yourself the memories and the values that come when
you visit Yosemite. Once someone is here, there is an ownership
that all of us take because it is so significant. And we want
to make sure that everyone knows that the National Park Service
is not trying to ever keep people away. We want to encourage
folks to visit our parks, and we want to emphasize that as we
go forward not only here at Yosemite, but at so many of our
parks, 388 in fact, as we address visitation.
Now, one thing that is unique here in Yosemite,
particularly, I think, from about over the last couple of
decades there has been a major change in Yosemite, is that we
have gone from a number of decades ago where it was 20 percent
of the visitation was day use--in other words, just coming in
for the day and leaving--and 80 percent was overnight stays.
What has happened now, though, is a major change, and this is
not unique to Yosemite--we are seeing it across our national
system both not only in national parks, but in State parks and
others--is a switch to a much heavier visitation by our day use
visitors. In fact, it is actually completely swapped. It is now
80 percent day use and 20 percent overnight.
And this is something that what I hope that you will see in
the plan that we are working on is in further enhancing, and,
in fact, as we look at some of the campground areas and things
like that, emphasizing more day use on some of those, and
increasing and welcoming our visitors to the park and making
sure they understand that we do have opportunities here, and we
welcome our visitors to this to Yosemite, and not--and all our
national parks throughout.
Again, as you know, we are currently working on 15 major
projects--and all of you in Congress, particularly your
leadership, Congressman Radanovich--for us to be able to move
forward in this first implementation. And, in fact, we expect
that this first implementation--and later we can have Mike or
others go over some of the details of that implementation
plan--be able to make sure that by December hopefully--our goal
is to have the majority of the work done by December of 2004.
It may overlap a little bit into 2005 if we have more
snowstorms, but this is something that we are really working to
do.
And these are major changes that will help traffic flow. It
will--in fact, we will be working not only to get some of these
projects done, we are always going to be working on one or two
additionals that weren't on that list. As you know, in fact, I
think, starting tomorrow, we are going to actually be working
on some areas that will further enhance on some projects that
will actually displace some parking, but in doing so we are
actually going to increase parking in other areas so that we
have no net loss of parking in the valley, particularly over
the next 5 to 7 years as we work forward, and then we will
continue to readdress that. And we will do what we call
adaptive management, Mr. Chairman, and we will be looking at
where that leaves us as far as the parking situation. So I just
wanted to give you that heads up.
Also, as you know--and you have helped us work forward on
the transportation system for Yosemite. And the YARTS system
really has increased 20 percent over the last 2 years. We do
expect to see it continue to increase. But again, we want to
emphasize heavily to make that the enjoyable way and the way to
work with the gateway communities so some of the business not
only stays here in the park, but also in those gateway
communities. And we will look forward to further enhancing
that.
We are going to be working on energy efficiency, and we
talked about some of that yesterday, Mr. Chairman, on how we
could be more environmentally friendly and work forward with
our transportation. And as you know, we are looking at possibly
a diesel-electric hybrid engine, and we rode on one this
morning to see an example, the quietness and everything. So we
are going to be working on that as well, and we hope to have
that moving forward. And this will help us also in our air
quality, which not only helps the park, but helps all our
communities. And also in the YARTS, it is in its 4th year, and
again would be increased. As we work on the technology, we hope
to further make it the method of choice as people come in, but
still make available parking opportunities within the park.
On the subject of campgrounds, which I notice has been such
an important one, and I apologize to you for that report
getting to you only a few minutes before--may I continue? I am
out of time.
Mr. Radanovich. Please do.
Ms. Mainella. OK. I talk a lot. Yeah. But on the subject of
campgrounds, I apologize for that report coming in. In all
honesty, we had to make sure it went within a format that was
appropriate within, and many eyes looked at that as it went up.
So I just want to make sure you know it was important, it was
high on our radar screen. And this is the first report I am
talking about is the one that the Appropriations Committee
asked us to work on, but I know you had worked with them.
Looking at more of the out-of-valley campgrounds, and to
make sure that we looked at what opportunities we have, I think
at this point--and Mike, correct me--we have over--we are close
to 1,500 campsites in the park today, but only about 475 are
actually in the valley at this moment. But out-of-valley, that
report indicated 788 additional campsites could come in.
Now, to be able to move forward quickly on that, of that
788, 204 actually match all requirements. And if we can get
some additional funding to move forward on that or work with
partners in that, we can move forward on that very rapidly.
Mr. Radanovich. Can you run through those numbers again
quickly?
Ms. Mainella. Yes. What we have right now--and help me,
Mike, if I go astray, please--is that we have right now, I
think, close to 1,500 campsites.
Mr. Radanovich. That is preflood?
Ms. Mainella. No. That is now.
Mr. Radanovich. Now.
Ms. Mainella. Throughout the park now, right now, 1,542.
Thank you. He whispered in my ear. And of that, of that 1,500
plus, is 475 that are in the valley itself.
Mr. Radanovich. Preflood or now?
Ms. Mainella. No. Now. The prefloods were higher numbers;
it was close to 800 in the valley.
We are able to add in with that 204, that out-of-valley, an
25 additional in-valley that would match up with the management
plan. Those are things that we could be doing now that is
compatible.
Mr. Radanovich. Two hundred four out-of-valley?
Ms. Mainella. Two hundred four, yes.
Mr. Radanovich. Twenty-five in-valley?
Ms. Mainella. Twenty-five in-valley, right. So that would
jump us up to 1,700 plus campsites at Yosemite, at the park as
a whole. And so we would be able to move very rapidly on that.
Again, it would match up with all the plans, and we just would
need to do some additional funding opportunities. But those are
some things that I think we can work on and find, again, as we
work with different individuals, partners, and other things,
there may be other opportunities for us to move on those very
quickly.
The in-valley assessment--and remember, you asked us to do
a report on the in-valley assessment of campsites separate from
the out-of-valley that the Appropriations Committee--they
identified 144 sites possible. And that is remembering in the
valley originally there was about 3--it was 828 originally; we
have got 475, and adding another 25 and 50 leaves--the 144 is
the part that at this point it would be possible.
Now, in doing that, though, that possibility does not match
up with the plans. So that is where we have a concern: It does
not match up with the plans.
Also, if you go back to my initial comment about 80 percent
of our visitation now--and by the way, over that two decades,
even though we had a little drop since September 11th and
things of that nature, we have actually increased from two
decades ago, which we were 2.5 million. We are now at 3.4
million visitors to the park today, and--but that we really
feel we need to emphasize those day use visitors and find a way
in that area, in the valley areas where we had some of the
campsites, to make it so that that larger group, the 80
percent, can be better served through opportunities through--
and we would be working through an EA, environmental
assessment, to work with our partners and all the folks, so
many of the folks here we would want to include, to talk about
what opportunities we could do there, but still be respectful
of being in a flood plain.
But the big thing is reaching out, trying to serve, and
parks change as to the use, but I am seeing that, across our
national parks as a whole, a greater visitation day use. And it
is because a lot of the gateway communities are really jumping
forth to help us with accommodations. And also the visitations
to park used to be--remember, we used to do vacation a week to
2 weeks; now you looking at the majority being much shorter.
And I don't have all the statistical numbers, but when I served
on the Commission on Tourism in Florida, we had watched those
numbers drop to 4 to 5 days as a typical visitation. And
possibly our folks from--a concessionaire can maybe verify what
that number drop is. Again, we want to emphasize biking,
hiking, picnicking, and many other activities.
And then I would like to work with our partners, our
communities again, and see if there is any opportunities for us
to work in adjacent communities to provide some additional
camping or other accommodations, which I think began--most of
my experience at other parks, both in State parks and even here
in the Federal system, most communities like to get the housing
and overnight accommodations in their communities, and actually
the normal opposition we receive is, don't build in the parks.
Make that the day use, the area for people to come; have some
minor accommodations that draw people there, but then put a
great emphasis on the outside of the park. And that is more of
a standard in a lot of our areas and to be having that request.
I am ready to close because I know I am way past my time,
but I just think that there is so many exciting things we could
be doing. And again, I want to just reach out to all the
communities and all the people that are here as well as all of
you to realize that we have a commitment. And I guarantee you
that we will be working much more aggressively in communication
across all this area, and we are doing it not just here, but in
all our parks. I think Delegate Christensen knows that we are
really working hard on that in the Virgin Islands. And,
Congressman Nunes, I guarantee you we are going to continue to
work with you on some issues at Sequoia and others that we need
to talk about. But the biggest thing is we need to reach out
and make sure we are communicating. And that is a commitment on
my part, and this team that is sitting here at the table have
that same commitment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Director.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mainella follows:]
Statement of Fran P. Mainella, Director, National Park Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
Subcommittee at this oversight hearing on the Yosemite Valley Plan here
at Yosemite National Park. I am accompanied by Durand Jones, Deputy
Director; Jon Jarvis, Regional Director for the Pacific West Region;
and Michael Tollefson, Superintendent of Yosemite National Park.
It is a pleasure to have you and the Subcommittee here at the park,
and we appreciate the opportunity you have provided for us to update
you on the important projects that are being undertaken here. These
include the park's transportation plans and the identification of
potential additional campsites for park visitors.
I would like to begin by discussing visitation here at Yosemite
National Park and how it fits with the implementation of the Yosemite
Valley Plan. Two decades ago, annual visitation at Yosemite was about
2.5 million, and about 80 percent of the visitors stayed overnight
while 20 percent came for the day. Now the park receives about 3.4
million visitors annually, and the proportion of overnight versus day-
use visitors is the reverse: 80 percent are day users while 20 percent
stay overnight. We believe this change has occurred largely because
more visitors are using lodging in Yosemite's gateway communities. The
Yosemite Valley Plan recognizes this trend and seeks changes that will
accommodate the higher day use of the valley and the park while
improving the experience of all visitors to Yosemite and protecting the
park's resources.
At the same time, the Yosemite Valley Plan also seeks to respect
the traditions and strong connections many visitors feel with Yosemite.
We know from surveys that fully half of the park's visitors are making
return visits. The public comment periods for the Yosemite Valley Plan
and the Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan,
both of which were completed in 2000, drew more than 22,000 comments,
demonstrating an extraordinary level of public interest in the park's
future. This public involvement helped guide the National Park Service
toward adoption of final plans that we believe will preserve and
enhance the essence of what so many people find special about visiting
Yosemite.
First Phase Projects
We are making significant progress on 15 projects that comprise the
first phase of implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan, as reported
to Congress last year. These are listed on the chart we have labeled as
``Exhibit 1'' and are identified in this statement by numbers that
correspond to the chart. This chart, which includes a timeline for the
projects, is also attached to this statement.
The Yosemite Falls Project (1) is a tremendous public-private
partnership, funded predominately by the Yosemite Fund. As a project in
which the park is working closely with the private sector and local
communities, it exemplifies what Secretary Gale Norton refers to as the
``4 C's'': consultation, coordination, and communication all in the
service of conservation. The major trail improvements have begun and
the main portion of the project, the relocation of the parking lot and
restrooms out of the primary view of the waterfalls, will be completed
in the fall of 2004.
We will be removing the Cascades Diversion Dam (2) this fall. We
are beginning Phase I of the Yosemite Lodge Project (3), which includes
improvements for visitors enjoying the lodge in Yosemite. We are also
designing the expansion of Camp 4 (4) and improvements to traffic flow
on Northside Drive (5).
In addition, we have been working closely with the American Indian
Council of Mariposa County in another important partnership to design
an Indian Cultural Center (6) here in the Valley. This fall, the new
Curry Village cabins (7) and employee housing to replace housing lost
in the 1997 flood (8) will be completed. These projects will include
new utility services, which will be the start of the valley-wide Master
Utilities Upgrade that will vastly improve conditions for modern
electrical and other utility needs in the valley, while consolidating
these functions in roadways and other previously disturbed areas so
that sensitive resources in the park will be preserved.
The National Park Service will also be making important campground
improvements in the eastern end of Yosemite Valley (9). These
campground projects are especially important in meeting our goals of
maintaining levels of camping opportunities consistent with the
Yosemite Valley Plan, the Merced River Plan and the 1980 General
Management Plan. They are a key component of the goal to eventually
have 500 campsites available in the valley, 25 more than are currently
available.
In addition to these critical projects, Yosemite has removed the
Happy Isles Bridge (10), and is developing plans for the construction
of an office building in El Portal to replace office space in the
valley that was lost in the 1997 flood (11).
We are also developing an important strategy to restore degraded
and lost riparian and wetland areas along the Merced River in former
campground areas damaged in the 1997 floods (12). These riverbank areas
and riparian zones are highly threatened components of the valley
ecosystem within Yosemite and throughout the Sierra Nevada. Because of
the unique value of these areas along the beautiful Merced River,
enhanced visitor use is being integrated with restoration plans to
offer more visitors opportunities to use these areas for a variety of
activities, such as picnicking and hiking.
Shuttle Bus Replacement and Transportation
The transportation system for Yosemite will take a major step
forward this year when the park orders the new valley shuttle bus fleet
for use starting in 2005 (13). This new fleet will meet modern goals of
fuel and emissions efficiencies and provide reliable alternative
transportation. This is fundamental to reducing congestion,
accommodating more visitors in the park, and improving the visitor
experience in the valley.
After listening to our gateway communities and park visitors and
conducting extensive analyses, the park decided to purchase new buses
that use a proven technology known as a ``diesel-electric hybrid''
engine. The National Park Service studied many alternatives looking for
ease of visitor use, reliability, and a reduction of emissions. We
believe this hybrid design will meet the concerns of the public for the
visitor experience, noise reduction, and improvement of air quality in
Yosemite and the region. In addition to this new bus fleet, we are
developing new shuttle bus stops (14) to accommodate the new buses and
to improve the overall transportation experience in Yosemite Valley.
Eventually these will be linked to the improved parking area at
Yosemite Village (Camp 6) and other valley destinations.
On the subject of improved transportation, I would like to mention
that the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) is now
entering its fourth year of providing visitors, gateway communities,
and Yosemite employees an alternative to driving their own vehicles to
Yosemite. YARTS provides excellent service and connections to broader
transportation systems such as Amtrak. Visitor usage of YARTS has
increased by about 20 percent in each of the last two years. Although
ridership and revenues are increasing, in order to become fully
functional, YARTS is still in need of strong support to help it expand
and provide quality service. We are grateful to you, Mr. Chairman, for
your leadership in the development of YARTS, and to the many partners
in the communities adjacent to Yosemite that have funded and continue
to manage and support the YARTS system.
While we anticipate that visitor use of alternative transportation
will continue to grow, I want to note that over the next five to seven
years, while Yosemite Valley Plan projects are underway, the
availability of parking for day visitors will not be curtailed. As the
various implementation projects are undertaken, some parking areas will
change but during this time there will be no net loss of day use
private-vehicle parking spaces in the valley.
Campground Planning Studies
Mr. Chairman, the final item on our list is the Parkwide Campground
Planning Study (15), recently prepared in response to the House
Appropriations Committee report on the Department of the Interior and
Related Agencies Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2002. The report
directed the National Park Service to undertake a study of the
potential for expanded opportunities for additional camping in Yosemite
National Park.
There are currently approximately 1,490 campsites within Yosemite
National Park, including 475 within the valley. This study looked at 13
different areas outside the valley, determined the number and type of
campsites that could be reasonably accommodated at each location, and
estimated the costs of constructing the new campsites. It identified
788 potential new campsites of various types within these areas. The
study is a useful starting point for planning additional campsites, but
it is not a formal decision document or a compliance document.
In reviewing this study, the park found that constructing the
majority of these new sites would require extensive compliance along
with amendments to the 1980 General Management Plan, as modified by the
Yosemite Valley Plan, and the Merced River plan. However, the park
could develop 204 of the identified sites while still complying with
approved plans. If the additional 25 sites planned for Yosemite Valley
are added to that number, that would increase number of planned
campsites by 229, to a total of 1,719 for the park. Yet placement of
campgrounds would still be limited to areas of Yosemite that were found
through the planning process to be capable of withstanding the impacts
of development.
In addition to the campground study requested by the House
Appropriations Committee, the park has also prepared a report at your
request, Mr. Chairman, on replacement of campsites in the Lower Pines,
Lower River, and Upper River campground areas in the valley. This
report identified the potential for some campsites in these areas.
However, using these areas for campgrounds that serve a limited number
of overnight visitors would preclude making them available for greater
numbers of day visitors to enjoy for hiking, picnicking, bicycling, and
other activities. And, developing campsites in these areas would
require extensive compliance and amendments to the park's three
approved plans, which would be very costly.
We share the concern of this Subcommittee about the need to
accommodate more visitors who wish to camp at Yosemite. The public's
keen interest in camping has been demonstrated in many ways, including
the fact that more than 1,400 of the 22,000 comments we received on the
Yosemite Valley Plan and the Merced River plan addressed camping in
some form. As we work to increase the availability of campsites within
Yosemite National Park, we are also cooperating with our gateway
partners, as well as other Federal and state agencies, to increase the
capacity for providing camping opportunities outside the park.
Mr. Chairman, to conclude, the projects underway at Yosemite are
designed to serve more visitors in better ways, and to enhance the
experience of everyone who visits this magnificent park, now and in the
future. They represent some of the most exciting projects we are
engaged in anywhere in the National Park System today. We look forward
to moving ahead with these projects with the involvement of our
neighbors and partners, and with your continued interest and support.
We would be pleased to answer any questions you or the other members of
the Subcommittee may have.
______
[An attachment to Ms. Mainella's statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6612.001
Mr. Radanovich. So all three of us can begin to get a
little more detail about the parking plan and such, I did want
to ask, since the flood and since the reduction of campground
spaces particularly as to Upper and Lower River Campgrounds,
there has been a concern, I think, for myself and a lot of
people with the reduction of that in the Yosemite Valley plan
that calls for a reduction of parking spaces down to about 550
spaces.
Moves like these since the flood and the adoption of the
plan at closing hours at the administration has led me to be
convinced of the Park Service's responsibility to be balancing
environmental protection with public access and in the
development of their plans that it is too skewed toward
environmental preservation and does--particularly in the
parking spaces, which we are not going to get into today. But
the fact that a satellite bus system from satellite parking
lots, and turning people back to park there, and then get bused
in, as it was set up, for 9 months out of the year, and that is
how we got our 550 spaces to me was a--you know, anybody who
has been in Yosemite knows that any time there is heavy traffic
in the valley in Yosemite is during the Memorial to Labor Day
weekends, and then only a short time during those--you know,
peak hours during those times. So even if someone could justify
a satellite parking system for heavy times of traffic, it would
only need to operate 3 months out of the year, not 9 months.
And that is what has led to my conviction that there is a
concern about blocking people out of the park.
And as it relates to campgrounds, there is some concern--
you know, I have got a real concern about that being the case
as well, even though there are some real tough issues about
preservation and what we think we should be doing with the
flood plain in Yosemite, particularly Northside Drive and Upper
and Lower River Campgrounds and how does all that-- the
increasing camping spaces, how does that affect traffic in the
Yosemite Valley as it stands right now.
So, I want to make sure that I get all these questions in
my mind out so that you can answer them. But in the course of--
at least my concern as far as the camp spaces--that I am
approaching this as a no land loss from preflood stages, and if
we have to look at locating some of them outside the valley,
that is fine. I want as many of them as can be to remain in the
valley, and that is why that the controversy over these two
campground spaces is with us right now.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, if there was a line
drawn 150 feet from each side of the Merced River as it relates
to campgrounds, and camping spaces were allowed to be replaced,
you would probably have 144 spaces, which is close to--let us
see how I can say this--close to the commitment of no net loss
camping sites, if you add that to the 204 that could be located
outside the valley.
So I am not real interested in opening up the general plan
for Yosemite, because I think that it would stop a lot of
projects that are going right now that I think are very good.
If before we leave, too, if you can have yourself or one of the
staff enter publicly in the comment--for right now, if you can
briefly list the different projects that are moving forward
right now, that would be really helpful because I think it is
important that these were all consensus projects that are
moving on very well.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6612.008
Mr. Radanovich. Let me start the questioning. The value of
the Yosemite whole plan is valued at--can you tell me?
Ms. Mainella. Four hundred plus million. And actually,
Mike, you want to jump in, feel free to do so.
Mr. Radanovich. Yes. How much is available now from the
money that was obtained shortly after the flood as appropriated
from the Congress?
Ms. Mainella. Right. As I say, I am going to turn to Mike.
But we have about 105 million yet to be spending.
Am I doing that right?
Mr. Tollefson. That is correct. We have added some of the
fee money and funds from other sources in to get some of these
projects done as well.
Mr. Radanovich. And that money can cover the 15 or so
projects that have been started right now?
Mr. Tollefson. Fifteen projects are funded to get them done
in the next year and a half.
Mr. Radanovich. OK. And if you can, list me those 15. You
want to do it now, Mike, if it is in your head, or when you can
get the information, if you can?
Mr. Tollefson. I can do it now. The projects, the first one
that I will list is phase 1 of the lodge restoration, which is
putting 90 units back in the lodge area that many were lost
during the floods. So this is moving to that.
The second one which is under way and we are really excited
about is the Yosemite Falls project, which is a partnership
with Yosemite Fund. They are--actually private donations are
paying for 90 percent of the project, and the construction on
that is under way as we speak. And we are real excited about
the future of Yosemite Falls and the improved access to all
visitors.
Another one is design of the--redesign of Camp 4, the
camping there. We are looking to double the amount of campsites
available in Camp 4. And that is design only, which will be
done in the next few months.
Again, a design-only project is the Indian Cultural Center,
which is adjacent to Camp 4, west of Camp 4, and we are doing
that in partnership with the local tribe.
We are redesigning the reroute of North Shore Road, and how
we can eliminate that bottleneck and where the lodge is going
to the falls, which is one of our major tracking problems in
the park, as you know.
Mr. Radanovich. Right.
Mr. Tollefson. We are going to begin construction of 10 new
duplex cabins in Curry Village. That is scheduled to start
later this year.
We are also doing the expansion and remodeling some of the
existing campgrounds, improving those sites and building out in
valley campgrounds where we camp, as we have talked about
earlier.
Hopefully next month we will be letting a contract to
purchase new shuttle buses, hopefully 19 new hybrid electric-
diesel buses similar to the one that is in the valley today,
which will greatly improve--reduce emissions and reduce noise
in the valley.
Mr. Radanovich. And that is only for in-park
transportation.
Mr. Tollefson. That is only for in-valley transportation.
Mr. Radanovich. In-valley. Thank you.
Mr. Tollefson. We are also--much needed, we are going to
begin the construction of Curry Village employee dorms for 219
people. Again, that will be done by at the end of next year.
We have already removed the Happy Isles bridge which was
damaged during the flood.
We will begin removal of Cascade Dam on the Merced River at
the end of this summer.
We are working on, as was mentioned, restoration plans and
then the visitor use plans for the river's campground area and
how we would use that in the future, and that public process
has started as well.
And the campground study was one of the 15 which has been
turned in to you now.
And then the last of the 15 is to replace the flood--some
flood-damaged offices with an office down in El Portel. Along
with that, what was done with the 15, we are replacing a lot of
the utilities as we move forward in that with FEMA, with the
flood money.
Mr. Radanovich. Great. Thank you.
Can you tell me, Mike, is any of that money being used for
satellite parking systems or--
Mr. Tollefson. No.
Mr. Radanovich. --North Side Drive or for any of that?
Mr. Tollefson. No. North Side Drive, while we don't have
that final plan yet, we may reroute it around the lodge, and
that will be a public review process that will start later this
year. But the satellite parking is off in the distant future, I
want to say 10 years, before we really look at that. And we
need to see how opportunities like YARTS works out over time.
That may eliminate the need for satellite parking.
Mr. Radanovich. And so that any funding for any project
that was not mentioned by you just now that is in the plan will
have to be appropriated by the Congress?
Mr. Tollefson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Radanovich. OK.
OK. I am going to turn it over to you, Donna. I have got a
lot of questions still, but I figure I have to chair a little
bit here.
Mrs. Christensen. Thanks, George.
Well, I will start out by saying I see a lot of progress
having been made since our hearing in March of 2001, And it
also makes a lot more sense now that I have seen Yosemite.
Two quick questions. How many campsites were there before
the flood? Probably everybody else knows that.
Mr. Tollefson. In the valley, there were 828 campsites.
Mrs. Christensen. And on the parking spaces, in reference
to the 500 parking spaces, but that does not include parking
spaces at the campsites or the lodge; am I correct? That is
just--
Mr. Tollefson. That is for the day use. It is not for the
lodge or overnight use.
Ms. Christensen. So it is actually more than 500 parking
spaces that would be available?
Mr. Tollefson. Yes.
Ms. Christensen. The plan has had at least 18 public
meetings, 14 of them in California, and I am assuming that some
of those 14 were with the gateway communities. How would you
rate this plan in terms of the opportunities for public
comment? It seems to me that there was like a great deal of
opportunity for public comment.
Mr. Tollefson. We received about 22,000 comments on the
plan.
Ms. Christensen. Is that about average? Is that high?
Mr. Tollefson. I would say with the advent of Internet, we
get more comments. But I think my review of the plan--I have
only been here 3 months, but my review of the plan is that many
of those comments were very substantive and high-quality
comments as opposed to a mass mailing on e-mail. So my
impression is that the outreach to get input was good.
Ms. Christensen. And as a follow-up to that, is that the
end of the comment process? I believe you said that you intend
to continue this process. I want to, just for the record,
clarify that that is not the end of the discussions and
collaboration with the community.
Mr. Tollefson. It is definitely not the end of the
discussions. They are ongoing and beginning. But it is also not
the end of the formal opportunity to comment. There is many of
the--even some of the 15 plans that I just outlined, while they
were identified in the valley plan, the specifics of them were
not. So as we go through the specifics, we are doing
environmental assessments that are open for public comment.
And, in fact, tomorrow we have a public meeting in this room to
talk about some of those plans, and that will be an ongoing
process. The best end result is when we have the opportunity
for a wide variety of people to get involved in conversation.
Ms. Christensen. And just if I may follow up, one of the
things that I expect of Mike and Jon and, you know, as they
work throughout the parks in this whole region is that this
communication is not--we may have some issues specifically we
are focusing on, but we want to get into, where we have regular
ongoing what I call non-crisis-oriented or nonspecific
projects, regularly communicating and getting together. And I
think already you brought on a staff person to help us in that
effort right now.
Ms. Mainella. Right.
Ms. Christensen. I had had a question which I think you had
pretty much answered in your opening statement, Director
Mainella, about the importance of the gateway community
relationship, because those are concerns that were raised in
our meeting or our hearing back in 2001 that perhaps this
relationship was not as it should have been. Do you want to
make any further comment? That sounds like it is pretty well--
Ms. Mainella. Again, we have brought forth through this
administration a greater emphasis on working beyond your
boundaries, as we call it. And, in fact, we do not hire a
superintendent anymore unless they know how to work in
partnership with our environmental leaders, with our recreation
users, with our communities. They must go beyond. And very
shortly a finalization of the Director's order, Mr. Chairman,
that we talked about before on specific engagement and public
involvement will be forthcoming that hopefully we all can do
together, because it spurred from a Committee meeting that we
had back some time ago to make sure that is very clear
throughout the whole National Park System.
Ms. Christensen. A question that might go directly on the
campsites, the ones that would be near the river, the ones that
are not being planned to be replaced. You know, we have been
going through discussions in Washington and the Congress about
the flood insurance program, and there are many Members of
Congress who have--well, there are some who have said, you
know, maybe we ought to repeal it, because what happens is
people keep rebuilding back in the flood-prone areas. So to me
it sounds not only a matter of maintaining the ecology and
allowing that to flourish, but isn't safety a big concern and
consideration in not replacing those campsites there?
Ms. Mainella. Well, the safety of our visitors is paramount
and as well as safety of our employees, and we really need to
continue to look at, you know, how we can make sure anything--
even as we look at the recreation increase that we like to see
in that area, to make sure that those are done in a safe
manner, and also facilities that are placed in there are either
able to be quickly removed and moved to higher ground in a
quicker action, or be able to address again how we can best
take care of those flood plain areas.
Ms. Christensen. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Donna.
Devin.
Mr. Nunes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Mainella, in your statement you said about 20
years ago there was 2-1/2 million visitors, and 80 percent of
them were overnight users. Today there is 1,500 campsites in
the entire park, and there is--I want to get the number here--
5---or less than 500 postflood; there used to be 820 campsites
preflood. I am interested to know how many campsites were
available 20 years ago when you had more overnight visitors.
Mr. Tollefson. I will have to get that for you. I don't
know off the top of my head.
Mr. Nunes. Does anyone here know? I am asking this question
because, if you do the simple 20, 80 percentage that you talked
about, that means there was 500,000 day visitors approximately
20 years ago, and 2 million visitors who stayed overnight.
Today, there is only 680,000 visitors that stay overnight and
2.7 million that come during the day. And so something doesn't
add up to me because it seems like there shouldn't be a
shortage of campsites if we are only getting a third of the
visitors that we had 20 years ago.
Ms. Mainella. I think part of the issue, too, is the fact
that, remember, we had the lodging as well, of the lodges like
here in the park which contribute to the overnight
accommodations, and for the most part--in fact, part of our
project is actually enhancing that and trying to increase or at
least make sure that everything is in good shape there. But we
can go back and do some further analysis on that. But, you
know, again, going back to the trend across the Nation, what I
see, though, is people still would like to stay in parks, but
at the same time the gateway communities have been a great
boost for us. And that may be what you are also seeing in that
change, because many communities here had already started
moving forward with accommodations maybe in a quicker basis.
But again, we will give you a full analysis because we don't
have exactly that whole breakdown, but I know that is the
switch.
Mr. Nunes. Sir, do you have that number? You are raising
your hand.
Mr. Minault. I have the total weekend sites in the park in
the 1980 general management plan. That number is 2,200--
Mr. Radanovich. Sir, I am sorry. Can you state your name
for the record?
Mr. Minault. I am sorry. Paul Minault with The Access Fund.
Mr. Radanovich. OK. Yeah. If you can quickly then give the
information.
Mr. Minault. Twenty-two hundred.
Mr. Nunes. And the reason I ask this is we are here
discussing parking spots, and at some point we have visitors
that are coming and going daily, but it used to be that
visitors would come and park, and they had to park somewhere. I
am just trying to do the math to figure out where these people
are parking, trying to get an historical perspective as to what
they are doing. Now, if you would get that information to me, I
would appreciate it.
But I have one more question, and that is that what
percentage or how many people per year are using the current
bus transportation that we have in and out of the park on a
daily basis?
Mr. Tollefson. It is about 60,000 people.
Mr. Nunes. Sixty thousand people.
Mr. Tollefson. Yes. And it is in the last 2 years the
visitor ridership on that each year has grown 20 percent.
Mr. Nunes. OK.
Mr. Chairman, I think that is it.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Devin.
I want to get into specifics of the campground study here
briefly, but I do want to get a couple questions answered on
the plan for you, Fran, if you would.
Can you tell me if the Park Service and the Bush
administration believe that cars must be removed from the
valley, and that only mass transit or only public
transportation should be used to bring people into and out of
the valley?
Ms. Mainella. Mr. Chairman, we never see a time when all
cars are removed from the valley or anything like that. We do
want to, though, through a bit more businesslike marketing
approach, bring--have the desired method of entry into the park
to be one that, again, works with our gateway communities to be
as much mass transportation as we can do.
One of the things that we recently did, like in Glacier
National Park, the red bus has returned, and that has become a
very popular way--in other words, interpretation opportunities,
access in certain ways has really been enhanced because those
buses come in; Zion National Park and others, a very similar
scenario. So we have had a lot of success stories. But again,
we need to try to be more businesslike, and you know we are
working on that as well as partnership aspects, to make sure
that we have the experience as people come in on the buses and
others have a part of the total experience rather than just a
method of transportation.
Mr. Radanovich. Very good. Thank you.
Director Mainella or Mr. Tollefson, those who strongly
support the implementing of the Yosemite Valley plan have
stated over and over their opposition to revisiting the Upper
and Lower River campgrounds, campsite, or parking issues
because it would force the Service to reopen the plan. Does the
Park Service have to reopen the entire plan to address this
issue? And has the Service made any changes to the plan in
which it has not had to reopen the plan?
Ms. Mainella. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that it
would reopen the plan. And I will be glad to continue to work
with you and discuss if there are any other alternatives. But
all we know, and the counsel we received, it would require
reopening of the plan.
Mr. Radanovich. Is there leeway for changes to the plan
that can be made without reopening it? Can you give me some
input on that?
Ms. Mainella. Again, we can use adaptive management. For
example, when we are going to start some construction coming
up, and this is a parking-related one versus camping, is we are
going to actually increase at Camp 6--at least our vision is to
increase parking there while--because we are removing it during
construction from other areas.
So there is a lot of adaptive management opportunities, and
I think, again, you know, we need to, in my mind, continue to
move forward as best as we can with this plan, get things done,
and succeed. And then if there are other issues as evolve
through the trends and changes that we can use, then be ready
to say if there is something else that needs to be further
addressed, then we can do so.
But at this point, my understanding, it would reopen the
plan; in fact, not just this plan, but the Merced also, I
think, and that would probably slow--almost slows down if not
bring us to a halt on our projects we are working on now.
Mr. Radanovich. On other projects as well?
Recently, the Park Service commissioned a study that I had
asked for that studies the former Lower Pines and Upper and
Lower River Campgrounds. The conclusion of that study stated
that 144 campsites could be accommodated based on a 150-foot
river protection overlay or setback. Obviously, the 144 number
is way short of the 361 sites that existed before the 1997
flood. Does the Service support at minimum building 144
campsites on the former campgrounds?
Ms. Mainella. At this point we would not--we need to follow
the plan at this point, and so we would not be recommending
that 144. But again, we do feel it necessary to continue to
increase the recreational opportunities in that in going after,
again, the increase in day visitors as the way to better
welcome people into the park, and then look at the out-of-
valley opportunities, including even with our partners on this.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you.
Now, I would like to get some detail on a campground study
that has just been released. If you could give me some of that
detail, Fran. Also, as it relates to costs of--to me, the
issues--that there were a multiple, I think, number of issues
that relate to campground replacement, one being the
possibility of more campgrounds in the valley as it contributes
to--whether or not it does--to traffic congestion in the
valley. The other was the cost of infrastructure replacement
and the study of whether or not, if infrastructure was
replaced, in particular water and sewer lines, it can be done
in such a way that would not be affected by a 50- or 100-year
flood in a minimum-use area like that, and I am hoping that the
study addressed that.
And then also the cost of infrastructure costs for locating
these campground spaces, the 204 that you identified outside
the valley. As you know, that there are, you know, water and
sewage treatment and things, issues that need to be addressed
on that, and give me an idea of the cost that would be
associated that compared to the cost of replacing
infrastructure at these campgrounds here in the valley.
Ms. Mainella. I am actually going to turn this to Mike, and
if Jon or anyone else has any comments. But one of the things I
do want to mention is that we are not comfortable with any of
the--some of the numbers or things of that nature, numbers
being dollars and cents on some of the things that were in the
reports. So we are definitely going to be wanting to revisit
that.
And, Mike, I am going to turn to you if you can talk about
in more detail the plan of the report.
Mr. Tollefson. I assume we are referring to the out-of-
valley campground studies.
Mr. Radanovich. Yes.
Mr. Tollefson. I think it is important to recognize, and
for the folks here who haven't had an opportunity to see it
yet, that that is a study and is not a finalized plan; that we
would have to go through the planning process, probably doing
an environmental assessment, to move forward on that project.
And that plan itself identified 788 campsites spread around
throughout the valley off of the existing road system. And
looking at the general management plan through the park, 204 of
those 788 sites match the general management plan and could be,
I will use the word, in-filled. They are sites that were
identified in the general management plan that had never been
built. And for the most part those are in existing campsites
such as Wawona or Tuolumne Meadows or Grand Flat areas, areas
like that where we could expand existing campgrounds and
provide more additional sites. And that is where the 204 comes.
The other sites, the remaining 500 plus, would probably
require an environmental impact statement, because those are
sites that are outside of the existing general management plan
that would require a change to that and require quite a bit of
detail, looking at if it is physically possible to put them
there because the sites are flat. But whether or not it is the
right thing to do is not a question that the study went into in
any way.
Mr. Radanovich. And does the study include the cost of what
the infrastructure replacement cost would be for Upper and
Lower River?
Mr. Tollefson. Yes, it does.
Mr. Radanovich. So that we have something to compare it to,
correct?
Mr. Tollefson. Yes. As the Director said, the costs, we
feel, might be a little bit high, so we would like to take some
time to relook at those, but they are equal in their estimate
right at the moment.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much.
Donna.
Mrs. Christensen. Somewhere in the answers you may have
answered this already, Superintendent. If so, direct this to
you. Based on what Mr. Minault said, and my calculations of
where we could get to was with 229 plus what we have now, we
would be short about 485 compared to back in 1980. Do you
anticipate that, given the shift in the 80-20, that you need to
shoot for the 2,200 that were there before the flood, or is
that your objective?
Mr. Tollefson. The general management plan, which is our
overarching guide, identifies 2,262 campsites. That would be
our ultimate goal. But if part of the equation as we move
forward, and especially looking at out-of-valley campsites, is
what might be offered by the private sector in either case, we
are not charging ahead today on those.
Mr. Tollefson. We need to look at them as we move forward.
If we were looking, for example, Foresta would be a place that
would be considered for a campground, but there are a lot of
issues and concerns around that, and we would want to partner
with a lot of folks in conversation about that before we move
forward. So while that number is our optimum number, whether or
not we reach it really depends on future conversations and
future planning.
Mrs. Christensen. Director Mainella, you mentioned, is it
Zion Park?
Ms. Mainella. Right.
Mrs. Christensen. I am not that familiar with it, but were
the same kind of objections and concerns raised when they were
planning the implementation of their shuttle system? And also
the second part to that question, how is it working?
Ms. Mainella. To my understanding, there were similar
objections, but I am going to ask Randy Jones, our Deputy, who
was at Rocky Mountain National Park at the time and could maybe
speak to what was going on.
Mr. Jones. Thank you.
Actually our experience has been universal, but any time we
initiate a new transportation system, there is a great deal of
controversy and uncertainty as to its effects and how it will
work. We are finding in places like Rocky Mountain and in Zion
that as we are learning and developing, that actually there is
a lot of public acceptance, and we are finding that we can get
smarter and better as to how we manage and get people to the
places they want to visit and, therefore, allow visitation to
continue to grow and avoid situations of gridlock.
And so we are learning, and we are growing. We are working
with the Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway
Administration, who are consultants in developing
transportation systems, and the experience, especially at Zion,
has been very successful.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
The transportation plan based on expanding the system is
going to be phased in, the phasing out of parking is going to
be coordinated, or do we anticipate that we will be losing
parking spaces before the shuttle system is implemented?
Ms. Mainella. This kind of goes back to our adaptive
management.
Mrs. Christensen. Can you explain what that is?
Ms. Mainella. I apologize. I got into park lingo, and I
shouldn't have. Adaptive management is a term that all of us
are using not only national parks, but into our fellow State
parks and local parks. This is where we look at situations and
evaluate the pace for which removal of the parking spaces will
take place. We commit that timing based on making sure that we
do not decrease the visitors' experience here. If it takes a
little longer to get the enthusiasm and the marketability of
the transportation system, then we will not be moving as
quickly on removing parking until we make sure we have
ourselves working forth, and that is the adaptive part. In
other words, we may say, OK, here is the guideline we would
like to work off of, but it adapts based on what is going on.
I mentioned just the fact that weather can come in and
change when we can actually develop something that is even on
the list of 15, and we will not do things to hurt the
visitation or to try to be negative to anyone's experience
here. We can adapt our management and decisionmaking based off
of what is transpiring. It is the same way as if somehow a bad
storm comes through and does something negative here or
somewhere else, we adapt our management strategies and timing.
It doesn't mean, though, that we leave the plan in any way. It
just means we do so in a time fashion that is friendly to our
visitors. Thank you for asking that, though.
Mr. Radanovich. Thanks, Donna.
Devin?
Mr. Nunes. I know that we are pressed for time, Mr.
Chairman, so I will postpone any questions. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. I am going to get something just briefly
done, then we will move on to the next panel. I have got a lot
of questions. Can you tell me, though, in any campground
development or restoration, does the Park Service support the
possibility of privatizing that function to a concessionaire?
Ms. Mainella. The way we look at all our--again, I call
it--it is we look at the business part of how is it best to be
done in our park. Most campgrounds are run by the National Park
Service because they are already existing and things of this
nature. When you are building new campgrounds, then you need to
be asking yourself the question, is it best that we do it? Do
we work with one of our business partners or some others? And
that is always an option. Or does one of our gateway
communities somehow want to partner with us?
We just--I don't have the answer of how we best move
forward, but the biggest thing that I want you to hear from us
today is we have good communication lines open, and there is
never an idea that we certainly can't explore and discuss. This
is what I would ask that we would do as we look at these
different options.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you. Thank you, Director Mainella.
This concludes the questions for this first panel.
Director, if you could make somebody from your staff available,
though, during the time these other panels are testifying, I am
sure some other questions are going to come up. Your expertise
would be appreciated.
Ms. Mainella. Thank you all. I appreciate your time.
Mr. Radanovich. Thanks very much.
Mr. Radanovich. With that, we will call on our second
panel. The second panel represents people who provide
accommodations both in and outside the parks, and while you are
here, plan on going to either the Pines Resort in Bass Lake,
California, the Groveland Hotel in Groveland, or stay here with
the hosting of Yosemite Concession Services. I can say that
because they are all wonderful constituents and fine people.
Our second panel is Mr. Steve Welch, who is the executive
vice president of the Pines Resort in Bass Lake, California.
Welcome, Steve. Ms. Peggy Mosley, who is the owner of the
Groveland Hotel in Groveland, California. You reach that by
taking Highway 120 out of the park. Bass Lake is Highway 41.
Welcome, Peggy. Next, Mr. Kevin Kelly, who is the vice
president of operations at Yosemite Concession Services
Corporation here in Yosemite National Park. Welcome, Kevin.
We are going to begin by everybody speaking for 5 minutes
on your testimony. I didn't set a fine example here by limiting
ourselves to the 5 minutes, but we are going to try to get this
thing over with at 12:30. So if you could limit your statements
to 5 minutes, and then after that when the panel is done, we
will open up the panel to questions from members here.
Steve, again, welcome. It is good to see you. Please begin.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN WELCH, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, THE PINES
RESORT, BASS LAKE, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Welch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would
like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your support of H.R. 620,
the school bill, and also your support of 1014, the Gateway
Communities Cooperation Act. I know we are not here to talk
about that, but we do appreciate your support.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, I
thank you for this opportunity to provide oral testimony about
the Yosemite Valley plan. I am here to present the views of
Madera County. We believe the plan is detrimental to the
gateway communities and the American public and will ultimately
result in environmental degradation of Yosemite itself if
implemented. Therefore, we urge you to set aside the Yosemite
Valley plan, including YARTS, and to put a hold on future
funding requests.
I will focus my oral comments in two areas, one, parking
spaces and, two, the camping issue. First of all, parking
spaces. The valley plan we see as an urban and mass transit
busing plan with all projects focused on the stated goal of
ultimately eliminating private vehicle access to Yosemite
valley. Parking spaces previously available to our residents
and our customers, those known as day users, will be
eliminated, and they will be forced to travel on buses to
access their national park. Incidentally, in 1980 there were
2,500 parking spaces for day users. The plan is calling for a
reduction to 550.
What is the logic behind inconveniencing so many persons?
The concept began in the 1970's when there was legitimate
concern with respect to vehicle emissions. However, since that
time new environmental regulations and advances in technology
have resulted in near zero auto emissions. The same cannot be
said of buses. Yet the predetermined bus agenda is as
entrenched today as it was in 1980. The vision of the Park
Service is to replace all clean cars with big, dirty buses. Bus
traffic will replace car traffic with more noise, more glare,
more sell, more visual intrusion and significantly more
environmental degradation.
Imagine a business today relying on a business plan with
flawed functions that go back 25 years. What chance would it
give of providing good direction today? So with this plan. An
urban style system with massive park-and-ride lots, more than
500 daily round trips, and a 22-bay transit center as the point
of arrival in Yosemite Valley hardly seems environmentally
superior.
How about the social considerations? Most of our visitors
live in urban areas and come to the mountains to get away from
the citylike environment in search of freedom and flexibility.
This system unnecessarily complicates and delays the families'
visit. Herding visitors like cattle from place to place is the
antithesis of a back-to-nature experience. The 1994
transportation study even stated the greatest drawback would
be, and I quote, loss of visitors' personal freedom to
experience portions of Yosemite at their own pace and in their
own way, end quote.
We believe visitors should have the right to access their
national park in any manner they choose. All should have a
choice, not just those who can afford a $300 plus hotel room at
the Ahwahnee. As presented, this urban mass transit plan
promises to socially reengineer the national park experience.
How about the economics of a mass transit system feeding
the park? The initial estimated cost of buses alone is $28.2
million, followed by annual operating costs of $13 million. Who
will fund this? If the true costs were placed on the riders, it
would be a financial hardship on many of our lower-income
citizens. If the U.S. Treasury assumes the burden, then it
becomes a taxpayer-subsidized program. Congress needs to
exercise proper fiscal restraint and oversight. Can this
expenditure be justified at any time, let alone now with our
current projected budget deficits? Any busing, we believe,
should be voluntary and private, self-supporting and not
subsidized. So we see from an environmental, social and
economic standpoint if a mass transit system doesn't make
sense, why is it in the plan?
We believe the plan process was fatally flawed and was a
top-down plan driven by the prior administration with
predetermined opinions. We ask now that you step back and sort
through the rhetoric and apply common-sense judgments to the
process. When you do, the answer becomes crystal clear:
Maintain at least the current number of parking places;
implement some simple, low-cost, low-impact traffic management
measures; and scrap the unnecessary, costly and environmentally
damaging mass transit system.
No. 2, valley camping spaces. We support restoring valley
campgrounds to the pre-1997 level. Camping is an activity
enabling the visitor to enjoy nature up close and personal and
is the consummate park experience, and it is at a very
affordable cost. The reduction of driving sites in the valley
from 828 to 330, that is a 60 percent reduction, is
unacceptable. These sites are very important for families,
seniors and the physically challenged. Relocation out of the
valley, which is the ideal elevation for camping activity, will
only increase traffic as those campers will want to access the
services that are already located in the valley. Closing the
river campgrounds and popular picnic areas for the purpose of
claiming restoration appears to negatively target young
families and those of limited means.
In conclusion, I will wrap this up. These are the views of
Madera County and are shared also by the Yosemite Sierra
Visitor Bureau and a majority of the Highway 41 gateway
community. The valley plan will adversely affect the visitor
experience in terms of access and affordability. If access is
not affordable and convenient, visitation will decline further
and cause more economic hardship in our gateway communities. We
urge you to set aside the Yosemite Valley plan so we won't
cause irreparable damage to the environment, waste hundreds of
millions of dollars, of taxpayer dollars, gamble with the
economic vitality of our gateway communities and ultimately
restrict the freedom of Americans to access and enjoy their
park. Thank you very much.
Mr. Radanovich. Thanks, Steve, very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Welch follows:]
Statement of Stephen R. Welch, Executive Vice President,
The Pines Resort
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you
for this opportunity to represent the concerns of the people of Madera
County with respect to the Yosemite Valley Plan.
Your written communication indicates that the purpose of this
Public Hearing is to ``examine the implementation of the Yosemite
Valley Plan.'' Once again, we respectfully request that the Committee
thoroughly investigate the flawed process by which this Plan was
developed, calling into question the validity of the Plan itself.
Charged with oversight of the National Park Service, the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and thus the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) which NEPA created, the Committee is in a unique position
to recommend that this Yosemite Valley Plan be rescinded before the
magnificent splendor that is Yosemite National Park is destroyed
forever.
Madera County continues to stand by our testimony presented at the
2001 Subcommittee Hearing in Washington, DC. We believe our comments
are every bit as valid now as they were then--especially as we observe
the negative impacts of the 15 Valley Plan projects that have garnered
the Committee's support. Restating our position, we request:
1) LNo funding be appropriated for this Yosemite Valley Plan (and
YARTS)
2) LSet aside/rescind this Yosemite Valley Plan (and YARTS)
3) LAll excess flood funding ($110 million) be returned to the U.S.
Treasury
4) LRedo the Merced River Plan in full compliance with the
protective mandate of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, thus creating a
solid foundation for all future plans
As Congressman Radanovich has publicly stated in the press, ``the
preparation of the plan, in fact the entire planning process, has been
fatally flawed.'' To allow these Plans (Yosemite Valley Plan authorized
by the Merced River Plan) to be implemented, as legally enabled by a
Record of Decision, reflects the same lack of integrity as the corrupt
process by which they were developed. We urge Congress and the Bush
Administration to exercise jurisdictional oversight and demand agency
accountability.
And though we recognize that camping and parking issues are of
particular interest today, they are only two isolated ``symptoms.'' The
Committee needs to address the root ``disease''--the expired 1980
General Management Plan, the Merced River Plan, and the Yosemite Valley
Plan--clear and compelling evidence of a planning process corrupted by
a predetermined agenda.
YOSEMITE NEVER HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR DECEPTIVE FLOOD REQUEST
When Congress passed Public Law 105-18 in June of 1997 awarding a
$187,321,000 flood recovery package to Yosemite National Park, it was
with the understanding that it would be used ``...for `construction'
for emergency expenses resulting from flooding and other natural
disasters...'' Yet then-Superintendent B.J. Griffin testified at the
Subcommittee El Portal Oversight Hearing (3/22/97) that more than $123
million was for pre-flood projects.
And as stated in the ``Trip Report for Field Hearing on Yosemite
Floods and to Conduct a review of the $200 million Emergency
Supplemental Request for Appropriations for Yosemite'' prepared for
this Committee (3/26/97) by a member of your professional staff:
``According to the transmittal by the White House to Congress,
``Each request has been kept to the absolute essential level
and is limited to the amount necessary to restore damaged
property--that is, damage caused directly by the disaster--to
its pre-damaged condition.'' This is not true with respect to
the request for Yosemite Park. In addition, the National Park
Service has stated that its recovery proposal is guided by
three principles: (1) the 1980 General Management Plan, (2)
protection of park facilities from a similar level of flooding
in the future, and (3) reduction of the development footprint
in Yosemite Valley. These statements are also not accurate.''
``It is also clear that the National Park Service is using the
occasion of the flood to advance an entirely separate agenda
from flood restoration.''
Apparently, such controversial warning signs were pushed aside in
favor of the political capital that could be gained in solidifying
funding to repair one of the world's treasures; you trusted that the
funds would be used with integrity--even though in most cases there was
no valid plan in place. But the ``red flags'' that were courageously
raised in that congressional report have come back to haunt all of us;
they are the centerpiece of why we're here today and they have fueled
the controversy that has surrounded the Yosemite planning process for
the past six years. Yosemite planning is driven by funding already
received--money that is burning a hole in the agency's pocket.
AN URBAN BUS PLAN--PERIOD!!!
Yosemite planning efforts since 1980 have obsessed about the
``evil'' of cars and plotted their ultimate removal from Yosemite
Valley.
The Carter Administration's 1980 General Management Plan (GMP)
advocated freeing the Valley ``from the noise, the smell, the glare,
and the environmental degradation caused by thousands of vehicles.''
Insistent on removing all private automobiles from Yosemite Valley, it
further stated ``the ultimate solution...in parks generally and in
Yosemite specifically rests upon integration with regional
transportation systems.''
The 1994 Alternative Transportation Feasibility Study, in response
to Public Law 102-240, recommended changes in Valley traffic
circulation to facilitate implementation of a mass transit system: a
shuttle transfer point and tour bus parking at Camp 6; elimination of
visitor traffic on Northside Drive, except for emergency use;
relocation/removal of Upper and Lower River campgrounds, restoring
campgrounds to natural conditions; closing Stoneman Bridge road between
Curry Village and Yosemite Village; widening Southside Drive for two-
way traffic as major access to the Valley; removal of stables; and
more. The goal was to restrict access to the East end of the Valley,
routing traffic instead across Sentinel Bridge to the transit center.
The 1997 Flood Recovery Action Plan states ``the Draft Yosemite
Valley Implementation Plan, must be approved before the transportation
or campground replacement components of recovery can go forward.'' What
replacement components of recovery? There was nothing to recover! As
stated in the Trip Report for the El Portal Field Hearing (3/26/97):
``The cost to re-open the campgrounds would be far less than relocating
them elsewhere within the floodplain. The concessioner expressed an
interest in taking over the campgrounds and could `rehabilitate' them
at little cost to the Federal Government.'' A review of the campground
and transportation packages makes it immediately apparent that the
flood was used as occasion to garner funding for the predetermined
agenda.
Actively involved in gaining endorsement of the Flood Recovery
Package, Secretary Babbitt was soon a co-signer with Secretary Rodney
Slater as part of a Department of Interior/Department of Transportation
Memorandum of Understanding orchestrated by President Clinton (November
1997); the MOU specifically targeted three parks for vehicle reduction
and mass transit implementation--the Grand Canyon, Zion, and Yosemite.
This action was nothing more than an executive order, a Federal
mandate--the public never had any say.
Then in May of 1998, Congress passed the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (TEA 21)--a comprehensive bill which funded
various surface transportation programs at a total of $217 billion over
6 years. This bill opened up a tremendous number of additional funding
opportunities to the National Parks ($165 million annually) and
specifically referenced development of ``a regional transportation
system as well as in-park transit and intermodal transportation
circulation plans'' at Yosemite National Park. Shortly thereafter, DOT
shared full-time staff on site at Yosemite specifically charged with
implementing a transit program.
The 2000 Merced River Management Plan laid out the zoning blueprint
that will ultimately forbid placement of camping or parking where it
has existed for years. Additionally, the Plan eliminated air quality
and natural quiet as Outstandingly Remarkable Values. The Plan has been
steeped in litigation claiming a lack of scientific credibility and
failure to quantify carrying capacity; that zoning decisions were made
arbitrarily to accommodate plans that had been on the table for more
than 20 years. (Appeal hearing was held March 11, 2003 with judgment to
be rendered within 2-3 months.) Designed to amend the GMP, the River
Plan laid the foundation for the ultimate busing plan--the Yosemite
Valley Plan.
The 2000 Yosemite Valley Plan alternatives were named by virtue of
their bus staging areas and forecast more than 500+ roundtrip shuttles,
76+ tour buses, and an unspecified number of YARTS buses entering the
park daily during peak season. Buses arrive at a 22-bay transit center
near Camp 6, one every 1.4 minutes. Mirroring the 1994 Transportation
study, the Upper and Lower River Campgrounds are gone, the stables are
gone, Southside is to be widened for two-way traffic, and Northside
closed to visitor traffic. And though the 1994 study refused to even
consider remote staging areas for reasons of cost, visitor confusion,
visitor delay, information challenges, management difficulties, and
loss of personal freedom--remote staging areas are exactly what the
Yosemite Valley Plan proposes. As stated in the Los Angeles Times (11/
14/00), ``Babbitt personally intervened in the drafting of the final
report. He has said he regards the Yosemite Valley Plan as central to
the Clinton administration's environmental legacy.''
What we have is a planning process fiercely clinging to the goals
of Carter's 1980 GMP--a plan which in its own preface states an
expiration date of 10 years (or 1990), and which violates the mandate
of NPS Director's Order 2 (Park Planning). Since 1980 there have been a
host of environmental regulations as well as advances in technology
that have mandated cleaner air and resulted in near-zero emissions in
autos; the same cannot be said of buses. Yet no reevaluation has
occurred. More than 20 years later, the ``visionary'' plans of the
National Park Service are to replace clean cars with dirty buses; bus
traffic will now replace auto traffic; buses make more noise, buses
fill the air with diesel fumes; buses have expanded surface glare; and
buses require massive amounts of man-made infrastructure which will
result in significant and permanent environmental degradation. This is
resource stewardship at its worst.
A BUS PLAN WITH NO JUSTIFICATION
One would think that after obsessing over buses and implementation
of a mass transit scheme for the past 20 years, the National Park
Service would have a well-developed plan, strongly supported by
scientific documentation and validated by carrying capacity research to
justify their case.
In a recently released (11/15/02) report, ``National Park Service:
Opportunities to Improve the Administration of the Alternative
Transportation Program,'' a U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO)
investigation reveals the lax and unsubstantiated manner by which the
Park Service implements its busing mandates. Of the 20 projects studied
(which included two from Yosemite), only one (Mesa Verde) provided
thorough analysis.
Each busing proposal is supposed to address non-construction
alternatives (i.e., simple remedies such as traffic management that
would not involve road widening/realignment, bus depots, etc.). Each
proposal mandates park capacity data (i.e., carrying capacity) to
guarantee that a bus won't bring in more people than what the carrying
capacity will allow. Each proposal is supposed to address total cost
including operations and maintenance costs. Each proposal is supposed
to address analysis of cost effectiveness.
The first Yosemite project ($3,100,000) was to ``expand shuttle
service in the park to meet increasing demand.'' When evaluating that
project, the GAO determined that NO information was provided in any of
the four categories mentioned above. The second project ($990,080) was
to ``develop a new traffic information system to help park address
increased congestion and resource degradation.'' The park provided
information for only 1 categor--non-construction alternatives; the
other 3 categories were left blank.
A particularly revealing statement: ``A major objective of the
program [alternative transportation] is to improve the quality of
visitor enjoyment by relieving traffic and parking congestion in parks.
However, because the agency has not established performance goals for
reducing such congestion or identified how congestion is measured,
there is no effective means of evaluating performance to determine
what, if any, progress is being made. In the absence of specific
programmatic performance goals and measures, evaluating the results of
the program, and individual projects, is based on the subjective
judgments of program managers.''
It appears we have a ``force people out of their cars'' program, a
draconian measure that will forever transform the way the American
public will visit their national parks. Personal freedom, privilege and
responsibility will be removed; visitors will be herded like cattle
onto an assembly line of buses; resource degradation will occur from
diesel fumes, increased paving and infrastructure to accommodate
massive bus fleets, as well as mass trampling at on/off stops. Congress
continues to throw millions of dollars behind the program--and all the
while there is no environmental, social, or economic justification. A
savvy park manager who knows how to lobby can push a project through
because those with approval authority apparently overlook requisite
documented justification and analysis that identifies whether the
project is even needed, park carrying capacity data, detailed operation
and maintenance details and costs, or even a cost-benefit analysis.
This is unacceptable.
PARKING--now you see it, now you don't...
A 1998 letter from a 37-year park ranger, now an official park
document, states ``it is estimated there are roughly 3050 parking
places left in Yosemite Valley. In my most conservative opinion, that
is probably a third of what the Park had in the early 1960s.''
The 1980 GMP states there are 2,513 existing day-visitor parking
spaces; the Plan proposes to reduce that number to 1,271.
The 1994 Alternative Transportation Study states that the
consultants were told by the National Park Service that there were
5,055 parking spaces in the entire Valley, including formal and
informal lots and roadside areas. The consultants could only find 2,247
spaces available for visitor use, about + of those available to day
visitors.
The Yosemite Valley Plan states there are approximately 3,500 total
Valley parking spaces. Approximately 1,600 are used by day visitors:
904 spaces in the East Valley and 700 in the West Valley. It is the
Plan's intention to reduce the total number of day visitor spaces to
550 in one consolidated location at Camp 6. However, a review of park
documents clearly suggests those 550 are only temporary and that the
ultimate goal is to remove ALL day visitor parking from Yosemite
Valley.
LNPS Squad Meeting minutes, 5/27/99: ``consensus that Camp
6 works well as a parking facility; better than Taft Toe...immediate
dispersion, less stress on shuttle system. Reality is that buses for
next 10-15 years will be limited to diesel fuels (technology not there
yet to improve them)...Camp 6 enables us to pull back in phases and
ultimately remove parking from the East Valley (meeting GMP goals)
while bringing the public along.''
LNPS Merced River Plan meeting and process notes--DEIS
Workshop 4, 10/6/99: ``Camp 6 and/or Taft Toe would be destination hubs
and would be the start of the regional transportation system, introduce
transit. While still looking toward the long-range goal of GMP to
reduce vehicles in valley, in the meantime still need to accommodate
visitor vehicle--when elimination of private vehicle is accomplished,
and it is not needed for transit, then would revert back to background
zone.''
LDraft Yosemite Valley Plan, 3/27/00: A total ban on
private vehicles was ``recommended because it is considered an ultimate
goal of the 1980 General Management Plan. However the General
Management Plan also recognized that the goal was infeasible at the
time of its initial approval, and that a phased, collaborative approach
would be needed to ultimately achieve this goal. Collaboration is
ongoing to develop a regional transportation system [aka YARTS] that
would provide initial and developmental steps toward achieving the
ultimate goal. It is not possible to project when it would be feasible
to remove all private vehicles from Yosemite Valley.'' (ES, page 2-28)
LFinal Yosemite Valley Plan, 11/13/00: ``Potential
wetlands at the proposed Yosemite Village parking site [aka Camp 6]
would be addressed by future compliance.'' (Volume 1B, page 4.2-17)
The National Park Service has failed to disclose to the public that
Camp 6 is a temporary parking area. Furthermore, they have structured
the zoning in the Merced River Plan so as to forbid parking in any
other locations.
As stated previously:
LTHE YOSEMITE VALLEY PLAN IS A BUSING PLAN THAT CLEARLY
INTENDS TO PHASE OUT DAY VISITOR PARKING COMPLETELY; ALL PROJECTS ARE
DESIGNED AROUND ACCOMPLISHING THAT GOAL
LREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION (aka YARTS) IS REGARDED BY THE
NPS AS THE SOLUTION FOR REMOVING ALL PRIVATE VEHICLES FROM THE YOSEMITE
VALLEY
LTHE ZONING IN THE MERCED RIVER PLAN LEGALLY ENABLES
IMPLEMENTATION OF AN URBAN BUSING SCHEME RESULTING IN REMOVAL OF DAY
VISITOR PARKING.
FAMILY CAMPING AND PICNICKING--on the way out. . .
As mentioned earlier, the Upper and Lower River Campgrounds were
slated for removal in 1994 as a means of streamlining traffic
circulation. If such an idea had been suggested then, the public outcry
would have been deafening. However, the 1997 flood provided the perfect
opportunity to ``take care of business.''
It didn't matter that camping is a resource-focused activity as
opposed to the resource exploitation that occurs with lodging,
restaurants, stores, and other commercial ventures. It didn't matter
that camping requires minimal permanent infrastructure; a flood can
wash over a campground and merely cleans it--there is no permanent
damage. In fact, in the case of the Rivers Campgrounds, the utilities
were still intact following the flood; the damage resulted from the
Park Service-constructed cement fireplaces that broke loose and
battered everything in their path. It didn't matter that camping
requires no special guest services, as does lodging; therefore, there
is no need for additional employees and no need for more employee
housing. Camping is a low-impact activity.
Interestingly enough, the National Park Service claimed in the 1997
Flood Recovery Action Plan, A Report to Congress that they needed
$17,673,476 for three packages (920, 921, 922) dedicated to campground
flood recovery. As you recall, the White House and Congress stipulated
that flood funds were to ``restore damaged property--that is, damage
caused directly by the disaster--to its pre-damaged condition.'' But
since there was no real damage, the flood became the ultimate
opportunity to fund the demise of the campgrounds. The Trip Report for
the Field Hearing warned there were no plans in place for what was
being proposed; it further made mention that what was being proposed
would ``result in the reduction of about 300 campsites or about 40%
below the level recommended in the General Management Plan'' (the only
valid(?) plan at the time). Yet Congress still appropriated the
funding--plan or no plan--trusting that at such time as a plan was
actually approved, the funding would be released. In effect, money
already in hand poisoned the planning process; the agency had what they
needed and public input was cast aside.
The 2000 Draft Yosemite Valley Plan, the only plan in which the
Park Service actually itemized costs, shows campground-related projects
that total $11,407,000. What happened to the other $6 million from the
original flood request? And why did Congressman Radanovich feel the
need to appropriate another $2.1 million for a campground study? Why
isn't the National Park Service being held accountable?
Adding insult to injury, the Yosemite Valley Plan reflects another
sleight of hand. Making much ado about how they listened to public
input, the final Plan increased the number of campsites from 475 to
500. But what escaped the public was that of the 500, only 330 would be
drive-in sites. Compare that number with the 684 drive-in sites
specified in the 1980 GMP and the more than 800 drive-in sites that
existed prior to the 1980 GMP. That's a 60% reduction or a loss of more
than 470 drive-in sites that will directly impact families with
children, seniors, low-income, and those with limited physical
capabilities. That is unacceptable.
Leveraging the media, the National Park Service with help from the
Clinton Administration promoted the Merced River Plan and Yosemite
Valley Plan as restoration plans--returning the Valley to nature.
However, when the public protested the loss of campsites--an outcry to
which this Committee is listening--it became clear that the Park
Service needed to lay claim to the campgrounds and picnic areas to
offer up any restoration at all. In a recent LA Times article (2/8/03),
Jay Watson of the Wilderness Society revealed ``This [removal of the
River Campgrounds] is the heart and soul of the restoration effort in
the Valley, and to renege on it would totally undermine the integrity
of the plan.'' In effect, the National Park Service has lied to the
American people that the Yosemite Valley Plan is a restoration plan;
follow the money--94% of the $441 million price tag is allocated for
facilities, transportation/circulation, administration/infrastructure,
and employee housing; only 6% is dedicated to resource stewardship.
Meanwhile, popular picnic areas such as Swinging Bridge and Church
Bowl are being closed while the remaining picnic areas will only be
accessible by bus. As stated in the Plan: ``The style of picnicking is
thus likely to change for many visitors from car-based (grills,
coolers, etc.) to daypack or box lunch picnics, with major adverse
impacts. Some visitors might find it more convenient (and costly) to
purchase food at food service facilities, losing the picnic
experience.''
It appears that any Valley Plan claims of restoration and
preservation are on the backs of campers and picnickers. Is it because
these populations don't spend enough money in the park in relationship
to their length of stay? This is unacceptable.
To restate--the Yosemite Valley Plan is a busing plan. Removal of
the Rivers Campgrounds and Swinging Bridge/Church Bowl picnic areas
will consolidate traffic circulation for busing; less drive-in
campsites and bus-only picnic grounds will mean less cars in the
Valley. The 1980 GMP clearly states ``a total ban on private vehicles''
using a ``phased and collaborative approach'' is the ultimate goal
(i.e., one step at a time).
DO PARK PLANS FURTHER ECONOMIC DISCRIMINATION?
Delaware North Parks Services, commenting on its successful entry
into the parks concessions business, was quoted (Buffalo News, 10/3/99)
as looking for ``full service kinds of parks...don't think we would be
so interested in day-tripper kind of parks.'' Yet Yosemite is 80% day
visitors.
The Merced River Plan states, ``As required by the NPS Concessions
Management Improvement Act of 1998, the NPS cannot deny the park
concessioner a reasonable opportunity for net profit. Should the
application of the management zoning prescriptions result in the
potential removal of sufficient concession facilities to deny the
primary park concessioner a reasonable opportunity for net profit (as
required by law), this would constitute a major adverse impact to the
concessioner under the socioeconomic impact analysis.''
To avoid such a scenario, the Yosemite Valley Plan explores a
combination of three mitigation options: increased prices for visitor
services; entrance fee revenue to support facility use; and modify
concessioner operations to improve profitability. Some interesting
observations:
Overnight opportunities
Prior to the 1980 GMP, Yosemite Valley had 1528 lodging units and
800 drive-in campsites for a total of 2,328 overnight accommodations.
The 2000 Yosemite Valley Plan reduced the numbers to 961 lodging units
and 330 drive-in campsites for a total of 1,291 overnight
accommodations. Simple subtraction shows a reduction of 1,037 overnight
accommodations.
What does the 1,037 reduction include?
Lremoval of 470 drive-in campsites (originally 800 sites)
Lremoval of 200 tent cabins from Housekeeping (originally
300 units)
Lremoval of 253 tent cabins from Curry Village (originally
427 units)
Lremoval of 91 rustic cabins without bath at Yosemite
Lodge
It would appear that low-end, inexpensive accommodations are the
bulk of this reduction. Tent cabins rent for approximately $50 per
night; if room rates are raised $50, the financial difference can be
mitigated with less work and greater profit.
The Valley Plan states that ``camping provides the lowest-priced
accommodations in the park'' and reductions will significantly impact a
large user group (27%). Campers also tend to be a low-spending
population.
Conversion to bus travel
The Valley Plan states ``While in the park, about 35% of visitors
arriving by private vehicle eat at a sit-down restaurant, 30% eat at a
fast-food establishment, 30% buy groceries, 15% purchase books, 30%
shop for souvenirs, and 15% shop for clothes. Except for grocery
shopping, these percentages all increase for bus passengers.''
Separating visitors from their private vehicles (i.e., rolling
storage lockers) increases dependency on the concessioner resulting in
a visitor experience that is more controlled, more costly, and more
commercialized. Additionally, a 1988 report to Congress on the
Feasibility of Increasing Bus Traffic to Yosemite recommended against
any increase because ``increasing the number of...buses allowed in the
park would increase the number of bus passengers who represent an
older, slightly wealthier, and a non-family unit, and would cause a
resulting decrease in the number of traditional families, especially
those with children, who rely upon an automobile to travel.''
Minority and Low-Income Visitors/Environmental Justice
The Valley Plan states ``It is generally believed that low-income
and minority visitors to the park are under-represented in the total
visitor population. However, the overnight accommodation and recreation
patterns of low income and minority park visitors have not been studied
in detail. As a result, the impacts on low-income and minority
overnight and day visitors cannot be analyzed quantitatively. It may be
assumed that visitation patterns of low-income visitors tend toward the
more inexpensive methods: day visits, camping, housekeeping, tent cabin
rentals...'' And yet with minimal socioeconomic data, the Valley Plan's
most significant changes are with respect to day visits, camping, and
rustic/tent cabin rentals. That is unacceptable.
In comparison, the Plan states ``the largest percentage of visitors
to Yosemite National Park (26%) have an annual household income greater
than $100,000. The smallest proportion of visitors (5%) have an annual
household income of less than $20,000. By contrast, in the State of
California the largest percent of the population (37%) has an annual
income below $20,000. The data illustrate that people from low-income
households are largely underrepresented in the population of visitors
to Yosemite'' This is true on both a statewide and regional basis.''
Perhaps that is why Yosemite recently sent representatives to the
16th annual International Travel Expo in Hong Kong to promote
visitation to National Parks, including Yosemite within the Asian
market. The National Park Service International Tourism Department
chose this international trade show with 450 exhibitors from over 50
countries to reach the Asian tourists and various National Tourism
Organizations.
It apparently is all right for the American taxpayer to pay for our
national parks; but as our parks transition toward becoming elitist
enclaves, unaffordable to the average American, the National Park
Service focuses efforts on recruiting visitors from overseas. Something
is wrong with this picture.
COMMUNITY IMPACTS OF ILL-CONCEIVED PLANNING PROCESS
In response to the 1980 General Management Plan directive,
restaurants, lodging and other services began investing along gateway
corridors outside the park, thereby enabling park administrators to
avoid further commercial development in Yosemite Valley. Yet nowhere in
the General Management Plan or in the core principles that govern the
actions of the Park Service is there any acknowledgment of, or concern
for, the mutually dependent relationship that has subsequently evolved
between the park and the gateway communities as a result of that
directive. It is that apparent lack of concern that is particularly
troubling to Madera County.
Dependent on the tourist dollar, the fledgling communities along
the Highway 41 corridor are all too familiar with the extreme
fluctuations that occur based on the park press release, policy or
disaster of the day. Any rise or fall in visitation directly impacts
business income and job generation, and consequently the economic
vitality of the area. Visitation over the past five years has steadily
dropped from a high of 4.1 million visitors in 1996 to 3.4 million
visitors in 2002 to an NPS projection of 3.1 million for 2004.
The proposed urban-designed mass transit system that threatens to
eliminate automobile touring in Yosemite Valley is the biggest gamble
yet. Client surveys and park studies already predict busing will
degrade the visitor experience--bad news for any economy based on
tourism. In fact, from the moment the draft Yosemite Valley Plan was
released, local businesses began receiving telephone calls from
potential visitors asking if they had to ride a bus to get into the
park--and the plan hasn't even been implemented yet. As proposed in
this Valley Plan, guests of any lodging facility outside the park are
considered ``day visitors''--such visitors will directly incur
increased economic hardship and inconvenience resulting from mandatory
bus travel.
To date, the park has avoided conducting an independent
socioeconomic analysis of day visitors to determine what eliminating
cars and mandating buses will really cost the gateway communities. In
fact, the Yosemite Valley Plan doesn't even recognize gateway
communities, instead focusing on the ``local communities'' of El
Portal, Foresta, Wawona, Yosemite Village, and Yosemite West--
communities that, for the most part, can only be accessed inside park
gates. The tourist dependent towns of Oakhurst, Mariposa, and Groveland
are now included as part of a regional economy that the park claims
will benefit from an increase in construction jobs as part of the
numerous development projects planned inside the park. Such an
``analysis'' is of little use to the local lodge owner or restauranteur
who invested his/her savings in a gateway business trusting that such
an effort would help park administrators avoid further commercial
development inside the Park.
The small town character of healthy, vibrant gateway communities
are the first stop on the way to a pleasurable visit to Yosemite; the
warmth and energy of our people, the attractiveness of our businesses,
low crime rate, and an environment that mirrors the Park set the stage
for a quality visitor experience. It is important that the Park take
pride in the gateway communities just as our communities take
tremendous pride in the Park. What has made this Yosemite Valley Plan
such a flashpoint is that residents recognize the tremendous
environmental damage that will occur inside as well as outside the park
as it is converted from a nature center to a profit center; dealing
with a nonresponsive but highly political and arrogant bureaucracy,
that is funded by a never-ending supply of tax dollars, with large
corporations poised to displace small local businesses, in a system
that offers no recourse other than litigation--this is not the American
way.
SUMMARY
As a Committee you have an invaluable opportunity to revisit a
decision that was made in haste 6 years ago, in the midst of an
emergency; we ask you to exercise courage and integrity as you provide
oversight with respect to funds not yet expended in the name of flood
recovery. We further request your intervention in a planning process
that has gone awry. The ``legacy'' plans that are before you today will
cause irreparable damage to the environment, waste hundreds of millions
of taxpayer dollars, gamble with the economic vitality of our gateway
communities, and ultimately restrict the freedom of Americans to access
and enjoy their park.
To restate, we urge you to address the disease rather than dabbling
with the symptoms:
LNo funding be appropriated for this Yosemite Valley Plan
(and YARTS)
LSet aside/rescind this Yosemite Valley Plan (and YARTS)
LAll excess flood funding ($110 million) be returned to
the U.S. Treasury
LRedo the Merced River Plan in full compliance with the
protective mandate of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, thus creating a
solid foundation for all future plans
In closing, we have attached a copy of a letter submitted by the
Madera County Board of Supervisors to former Superintendent David
Mihalic (6/27/00) for your review. This letter proposes a five-year
interim plan during which time the park would focus on completing all
necessary research up front rather than during the five years following
the record of decision; such information (e.g., inventory/monitoring
program, quantified carrying capacity, sociological studies on
recreation patterns of low-income and minority populations,
socioeconomic analysis of impacts on gateway communities, accessibility
plan, etc.) is absolutely critical to an informed planning process.
Additionally, this option outlines opportunities to embrace the value-
added benefits of involving a diverse public in plan development rather
than postponing their participation to the final comment period.
______
[The attached letter follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6612.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6612.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6612.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6612.005
Mr. Radanovich. I really appreciate the enthusiasm of the
crowd, but we can't have the clapping. I apologize, but that is
just not the way we have to run these hearings.
Peggy, welcome to the Committee, and if you would begin
your testimony, that would be terrific.
STATEMENT OF PEGGY A. MOSLEY, OWNER,
GROVELAND HOTEL, GROVELAND, CALIFORNIA
Ms. Mosley. Thank you very much. It is my pleasure to be
here. Thank you for giving us this opportunity. Today I am
representing Tuolumne County in total. I represent also the
Visitors Bureau and the Chamber of Commerce.
As you have previously stated, preparation of the plan, in
fact the entire planning process, has been fatally flawed. This
is particularly true in planning for the visitor experience.
The national park belongs to every American, not just the rich
who can afford to stay at the Ahwahnee or even the less
expensive lodge or the Wawona. The draft Yosemite Valley plan
states that the largest percentage of visitors to Yosemite, 26
percent, have an annual household income of greater than
$100,000. The smallest proportion of users, 5 percent, has an
annual household income of less than $20,000. This fact should
be a major concern to the Congress who maintains vigil over the
equity of resources in our great country. Perceived access to
the park is a major contributor to the loss of visitation for
the past 6 years. Visitation is now about 3 million people per
year, down 25 percent from the peak 4 million.
I have written a little scenario on the all-American family
who decides to visit Yosemite on the YARTS system. I believe
this provides the insight to the issues of limiting access to
Yosemite, eliminating the nonaffluent Americans from the park,
and the frustration of dealing with a bureaucracy. Please come
with me and put yourself in the hearts and minds of this
family, then please make your decision based on the Golden
Rule. Imagine this scenario, and then decide if you really want
to take a bus.
It is 8:30 a.m. You, your spouse and two small children are
totally excited about the prospects of visiting Yosemite for
the very first time. You have debated about taking your own
private vehicle, which could soon be forbidden, or leave the
driving to them and take the bus. You elect to try the bus. You
gather your family, your Yosemite freight, which consists of a
stroller, diaper bag, picnic basket for lunch, camera bag,
bicycle, clothing change for the kids, et cetera, open your
wallet for the $28 fare for the four of you, remembering, of
course, that the gate fee is $20 for a 7-day pass for as many
people as you can safely put in your vehicle--for a seven-
passenger van, that is 41 cents per person day--and board the
bus by 9 a.m.
The bus arrives, and you load your freight on the bus.
Since Buck Meadows, Highway 120, is the last pickup stop prior
to entering the park, you rumble along the scenic highway into
Yosemite. Perhaps your first stop will be Bridal Veil Falls,
where you have heard about the spraying mist, the hike up the
backside of the falls, et cetera.
You arrive at Bridal Veil and get off the bus. Yes, you,
your family and all your freight. Now what? The kids are antsy
after the hour plus ride and need to stretch their legs, not to
mention the adults. Where will you leave all your belongings
while you experience the falls? Or what about that desire to
hike up the backside? Someone must stay back to watch the
freight.
Now that you have done Bridal Veil, the next bus arrives to
spirit you off to the next stop, maybe the big meadow for your
picnic. You load your freight and family and head for the next
stop, where you get to unload again, haul your freight to the
picnic site and proceed to have lunch. One of the kids is
fascinated by the cute little striped yellow thing flying
around the clover. Bingo. Now that is some sting on the tender
little finger that begins to swell amidst all the piercing
screams of a child in great pain. What to do? Your vehicle with
its trusty first aid kit is back at your hotel in Buck Meadows,
and there is no YARTS bus in sight to take you for first aid.
Finally, you get to the Visitor Center in the valley, and
everyone needs a treat after the harrowing ordeal with the bee.
Stop at Degnans for something and prepare to unload your wallet
a second time. If you decide to take the 2-1/2-hour tour of the
valley floor, expect to spend about $18 per person. If you get
out for under $100 for the day, consider yourself most frugal.
It is finally nearing 5 p.m. and almost time to find the
YARTS bus where you can finally load your freight for the final
time and head back to your hotel, where you will arrive about
6:30 p.m.
Wow. What a day. What a Yosemite experience. Do you suppose
Teddy Roosevelt ever imagined he was creating such a monster? I
don't think so.
Beyond that, I pulled up some information from the YARTS
site. It seems as though the ridership of YARTS, and I heard it
mentioned 60,000 for the last year, I think if you delved into
the ridership component, you would find that probably 90 to 95
percent of these people are employees of either Yosemite
National Park, the Yosemite concession or students who are
using the service. I don't believe this ridership represents
visitors to the park. In fact, Route 1 and 6 is not even open
on weekends and holidays. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Peggy. I appreciate
that.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mosley follows:]
Statement of Peggy A. Mosley, President/CEO, The Groveland Hotel at
Yosemite National Park, Representing District 4, Tuolumne County,
California
Thank you, Congressman Radanovich, for the opportunity to address
this Subcommittee on the implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan
(YVP), regarding parking, personal vehicles and campsites in the
valley.
As you have previously stated, ``the preparation of the plan, in
fact, the entire planning process, has been fatally flawed''.'' This is
particularly true in planning for the visitor experience. The national
parks belong to every American--not just the rich who can afford to
stay at the Ahwanee, or even the less expensive Lodge or the Wawona.
The Draft YVP states that the ``largest percentage of visitors to
Yosemite (26%), have an annual household income greater than $100,000.
The smallest proportion of visitors (5%) has an annual household income
less than $20,000''.
This fact should be of major concern to the Congress who maintains
vigil over the equity of resources in our great country.
Access to the park is a major contributor to the loss of visitation
of the past six years--visitation is now about 3 million people per
year--down 25% from the peak 4 million.
What is contributing to this reduction?
a. LFrequent press releases by the National Park Service (NPS),
that Yosemite is overcrowded, cars are being turned around at the gate
and lack of parking in the Valley. These releases have continued, even
though visitation has been reduced significantly.
LThe American Automobile Association (AAA) Tour Books (Northern
and Southern California editions), even carried false information
provided by NPS in their 2002 and previous issues, stating that
``public transportation must be taken into Yosemite Valley''.
LI believe the major news media draw straws each Spring, to see
who will carry the ``Yosemite is Crowded'' item!
Response: The self-fulling prophecy of removing parking places in
the Valley, contributes to the shortage of parking places. It appears
the Valley parking inventory has been as high as 5000 in 1994 and has
been reduced to something less than 1500 now.
Gate closures occurred only in 1995 and were not really needed
then, had generally accepted traffic management systems been invoked.
This flawed information was pointed out to the San Francisco AAA
Office, who verified the status of private vehicles and made the
correction in the 2003 issues. Unfortunately, these Tour Books are
maintained by AAA members for many years, and it will take several
years to get the correct message disseminated.
b. LThe touting of YARTS (Yosemite Area Regional Transportation) by
NPS and Yosemite Concession Services (YCS), as the preferred way to
visit Yosemite has created major confusion among would-be Yosemite
visitors. Dozens of calls are received by Visitor's Bureaus, lodging
properties, Chambers of Commerce, inquiring about reservations to visit
the park, how to get into the park, etc.
Response: The YARTS demonstration was scheduled to run for two
years. Since it was so successful, it only ran for one year. It clearly
demonstrated that most visitors to Yosemite WILL NOT ride a bus! The
only park visitors who ride the bus are those few, who do not have
their own transportation, with minimal luggage, who fly into regional
airports, and take the train/bus to Merced. This is a very small
minority of visitors. Please see the item, entitled, ``Yosemite Freight
and YARTS'' at the end of this testimony.
If ridership were viable, YARTS would not have to offer reductions
in fares to entice riders.
The YARTS system is operating primarily for the use of NPS and YCS
employees, and students from Merced College and other schools, to
points along the YARTS Route, up Highway 140. This is the only route
operating and is heavily subsidized for these riders.
A review of the YARTS financial statement, identifying revenue from
the ridership by employee, student and paying park visitor would be
most interesting and I strongly recommend this committee pursue this.
Dollars from this demonstrated failure would be far better spent
restoring the campgrounds, the crumbling sewer system, etc.
If YARTS were intended to be used by visitors to Yosemite, it would
operate all week. YARTS is not available on weekends or holidays--the
times NPS says they need to get private vehicles out of the park! (This
information was taken from the YARTS website, www.yarts.com)
c. LThe Yosemite Experience has been evolving for many
generations--from the days of arrival on horseback, to the hordes of
``Tin Lizzies'' seen in Yosemite parking lots in the 1920s, to today's
visitors in cars, campers, bikes and yes, even busses. This, too, has
become a part of American life, with generations coming together to
celebrate the most beautiful, spiritual place on earth.
Response: The campsites along the Merced are a major part of the
Yosemite Experience, and should be replaced. Camping along the river at
Wawona is still intact. It would seem the cost of restoring the
campsites along the lower Merced would be a great investment in the
Visitor Experience.
So, they have to be replaced every 50-100 years--doesn't everything
have to be replaced/maintained? The 361 campsites lost in the flood
need to all be restored.
For NPS to believe that building 788 campsites OUTSIDE Yosemite
Valley is an option to the river experience is preposterous! This is
another example of NPS trying to eliminate part of the Visitor
Experience for all Americans.
d. LThe Yosemite Valley is deemed to be overcrowded during the
Summer months. There are thousands of acres of Yosemite not in the
valley. No effort is being made to make visitors aware of these
incredible areas to visit, thereby dispersing the visitors away from
the Valley for Day Trips into other areas of the park, for an enhanced
Visitor Experience.
Response: I asked former Superintendent Mihalic why this issue was
not being addressed, and more effort being made to educate visitors.
His response was, ``we don't have any marketing money to do this''. I
suggested their contract with YCS should include the requirement for
this information to be made available on a priority basis to visitors.
It's clear the reason YCS does not want to do this. They have no
revenue generating sources in places like Hetch Hetchy and other ``out
of the way'' places.
Other Issues
In addition to the access and Visitor Experience issues discussed
above, another significant consideration is economics. The economic
value of Yosemite National Park is felt throughout the United States.
It begins with the local gateway communities, whose only source of
revenue is the tourism industry.
Thousands of jobs are created in this region. Many of them are
entry level for high school students, just learning about the free
enterprise system and the job opportunities being provided by
individual entrepreneurs. Many tipped employees earn in excess of
$20.00 per hour. Many management level positions are also created in
this industry. The value of employment is major and should not be
ignored.
These jobs, in turn generate the much needed tax dollars needed for
a strong economy. They provided income to the local community, state
and Federal coffers. As an example, Mariposa County, recipient of all
the Sales Tax and Room Tax from Yosemite, is the beneficiary of over $5
million annually.
The tourist dollars also provide much needed revenue to the local
businesses, but also contribute heavily to the local and state tax
programs.
Every tourist dollar received in a community turns over seven (7)
times before it leaves the county. Example: Yosemite was closed for
three (3) months in 1997 from the flood. My vet was in for dinner and
discussing how his business had slowed. My kitchen staff had been cut
severely and one of them had scheduled a cat spaying and then cancelled
due to no work. The vet's comments--I never realized that I benefitted
from Tourism until now!
The gateway communities have an extremely high number of welfare
recipients. Every dollar earned by the local employees are dollars not
required to be spent by welfare.
Conclusion
There are many issues with the YVP. All are important, but I
believe, perhaps, the most significant is the devastating impact to the
American People--the owners of Yosemite National Park, who will
literally be locked out from their own sacred spot.
Yosemite is not just a pretty place to visit--it has a spiritual
value, that is special only to Yosemite! One cannot be in the park and
not feel the hand of our maker--a place of peace and solitude, that in
today's environment is absolutely priceless.
Again, thank you, Congressman Radanovich, for the opportunity to
address this Subcommittee. I hope you will consider the issues
described here and put yourself on the bus with the All-American Family
to experience the YARTS Experience vs. the Yosemite Experience!
Yosemite Freight and YARTS
(Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System)
Imagine this scenario and then decide if you really want to take a
bus.
It's 8:30 AM. You, your spouse and two small children are totally
excited about the prospects of visiting Yosemite for the very first
time. You have debated about taking your own private vehicle (which
could soon be forbidden) or leave the driving to them, and take the
bus.
You elect to try the bus. You gather your family, your Yosemite
Freight, (which consists of a stroller, diaper bag, picnic basket for
lunch, camera bag, bicycle, clothing change for the kids, etc.), open
your wallet for the $28.00 fare for the four of you, (remembering, of
course, that the gate fee is $20.00 for a 7 day pass, for as many
people as you can safely put in your vehicle--for a 7 passenger van,
that's 41 cents per person day) and board the bus by 9 AM.
The bus arrives and you load your ``freight'' on the bus. Since
Buck Meadows (Highway 120) is the last pickup stop prior to entering
the park, you rumble along the scenic highway into Yosemite. Perhaps,
your first stop will be Bridal Veil Falls, where you've heard about the
spraying mist, the hike up the backside of the falls, etc.
You arrive at Bridal Veil, and get off the bus--yes, you, your
family and all your ``freight''. Now what? The kids are antsy after the
hour plus ride and need to stretch their legs--not to mention the
adults. Where will you leave all your belongings while you experience
the Falls? Or what about that desire to hike up the backside? Someone
must stay back to watch the ``freight''!
Now that you've ``done'' Bridal Veil, the next bus arrives to
spirit you off to the next stop--maybe the big meadow for your picnic.
You load your ``freight'' and family and head for the next stop, where
you get to unload again, haul your ``freight'' to the picnic site and
proceed to have lunch.
One of the kids is fascinated by the cute little striped yellow
thing flying around the clover. Bingo!!! Now that is some sting on a
tender little finger, that begins to swell amidst all the piercing
screams of a child is great pain. What to do? Your vehicle with its
trusty first aid kit is back at your hotel in Buck Meadows, and there's
no YARTS bus in sight to take you for first aid.
Finally you get to the Visitor Center in the Valley and everyone
needs a treat after the harrowing ordeal with the bee. Stop at Degnans
for something and prepare to unload your wallet a second time.
If you decide to take the 2.5 hour tour of the Valley Floor, expect
to spend about $18/person. If you get out for under $100.00 for the
day, consider yourself most frugal.
It's finally nearing 5 PM and almost time to find the YARTS bus
where you can load your ``freight'' for the final time and head back to
your hotel, where you'll arrive about 6:30 P.M.
Wow!!! What a day--What a Yosemite Experience!!! Do you suppose
Teddy Roosevelt ever imagined he was creating such a monster? I don't
think so!
______
Mr. Radanovich. Next up is Kevin Kelly from Yosemite
Concession Services.
Kevin, welcome to the Committee and if you would begin your
statement, that would be terrific.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN KELLY, VICE PRESIDENT OF OPERATIONS,
YOSEMITE CONCESSION SERVICES CORPORATION, YOSEMITE NATIONAL
PARK, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Kelly. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
members of the Subcommittee. My name is Kevin Kelly, and I am
the chief operating officer of Yosemite Concession Services, a
division of Delaware North Companies Parks and Resorts. We
operate lodging, food and beverage, retail, interpretive
programs, recreational activities and transportation services
for the National Park Service in Yosemite National Park. I want
to thank you for this opportunity to testify today on the issue
of campgrounds in Yosemite, particularly as it relates to our
role as park concessionaire and our ability to provide quality
services to guests of the park. Our role in Yosemite is to
provide goods and services to park guests with the goal of
enhancing their overall experience, while living up to our
important role as a steward of the park.
Our contract with the National Park Service in Yosemite
began in 1993. In the 10 years we have been here, we have
witnessed some of the most traumatic events in the park's
history, and have faced many challenges as a result. Over the
course of our contract, the park has suffered rock slides,
government shutdowns, wildfires that closed the park, a
catastrophic flood, five different superintendents, and murders
outside the park that generated unprecedented publicity around
the world. At the same time, attendance figures have ranged
from over 4 million visitors annually in 1996 to slightly over
3 million per year this past year.
The flood of 1997 brought forth a renewed endeavor in
planning for the future of Yosemite within the new footprint
that this historic flood left behind. After 5 years and several
avenues of litigation, the Yosemite Valley plan was finally
adopted as a blueprint to redevelopment and restoration of the
park. We are in support of this plan and are proud to
contribute to its ongoing implementation.
We recognize from our very unique perspective and history
in Yosemite the daunting task and complex processes that this
document represents. We understand and we are in agreement with
the need to preserve this resource for future generations and
limit our impact on the ecosystem.
Throughout our tenure, visitor access has remained at the
forefront of our guest service initiatives, and we have worked
as a partner with the Park Service to ensure that all
Americans, as well as the many travelers from around the world
who want to experience this national treasure, can come to know
Yosemite. We believe that providing additional campsites to
bring the park closer to its preflood level would go further
toward making Yosemite accessible to people of all income
levels.
It is our opinion that providing a quality visitor camping
experience in a manner that is consistent with the Yosemite
Valley plan is a positive step for the park, and we look
forward to reviewing the campground study. Having said that, we
are not in favor of a scenario in which the valley plan itself
becomes embroiled in a new round of revisions as to render it
incapable of moving forward. We believe it would benefit no one
for a plan that provides direction for the future of Yosemite
to lie dormant rather than restoring and safeguarding the park
as it was intended to do. For too long, improvements to
infrastructure and facilities have been held up in this
planning process, and having a plan in place after several
years of uncertainty is a very positive step to move Yosemite
beyond the flood.
We are confident that given your commitment and the
commitment of the leadership in Yosemite, the Yosemite Valley
plan can move forward while certain elements may be modified to
ensure the best possible balance between providing for visitor
enjoyment of the park and protecting this irreplaceable
national treasure. Consistent and reliable funding is paramount
to delivering this goal.
In the spirit of partnership that has always been a strong
point of our relationship with the National Park Service, we
again state our willingness and desire to contribute to the
ongoing implementation of this plan. We thank the National Park
Service for its continued efforts in establishing the best
possible balance between the visitor experience and protection
and preservation of this incredible landscape.
Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelly follows:]
Statement of Kevin Kelly, Chief Operating Officer,
Yosemite Concession Services Corporation
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name
is Kevin Kelly. I am the chief operating officer of Yosemite Concession
Services Corporation, a division of Delaware North Companies Parks &
Resorts, which operates lodging, food and beverage, retail,
interpretive programs, recreational activities, and transportation
services for the National Park Service in Yosemite National Park.
I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify today on the
issue of campgrounds in Yosemite, particularly as it relates to our
role as park concessioner and our ability to provide quality service to
guests of the park. Our role in Yosemite is to provide goods and
services to park guests with the goal of enhancing their overall
experience, while living up to our important role as a steward of the
park.
Our contract with the National Park Service in Yosemite began in
1993. In the 10 years we have been here, we have witnessed some of the
most traumatic events in the park's history, and have faced many
challenges as a result. Over the course of our contract, the park has
suffered rockslides, government shutdowns and wild fires that closed
the park, a catastrophic flood, five different superintendents, and
murders outside the park that generated unprecedented publicity around
the world. At the same time, attendance figures have ranged from over
four million visitors annually in 1996 to slightly more than three
million per year this past year.
The flood of 1997 brought forth a renewed endeavor in planning for
the future of Yosemite within the new footprint that this historic
flood left behind. After five years and several avenues of litigation,
the Yosemite Valley Plan was finally adopted as a blueprint to
redevelopment and restoration of the park.
We are in support of this plan, and are proud to contribute to its
ongoing implementation. We recognize from our very unique perspective
and history in Yosemite the daunting task and complex processes that
this document represents. We understand and are in agreement with the
need to preserve this resource for future generations and limit our
impact on the ecosystem.
Throughout our tenure, visitor access has remained at the forefront
of our guest service initiatives, and we have worked as a partner with
the Park Service to ensure that all Americans, as well as the many
travelers from around the world who want to experience this national
treasure, can come to know Yosemite. We believe that providing
additional campsites to bring the park closer to its pre-flood level
would go further toward making Yosemite accessible to people of all
income levels.
It is our opinion that providing a quality visitor camping
experience in a manner that is consistent with the Yosemite Valley Plan
is a positive step for the park and we look forward to reviewing the
campground study.
Having said that, we are not in favor of a scenario in which the
Valley Plan itself becomes embroiled in a new round of revisions as to
render it incapable of moving forward. We believe it would benefit no
one for a Plan that provides direction for the future of Yosemite to
lie dormant rather than restoring and safeguarding the park as it was
intended to do. For too long, improvements to infrastructure and
facilities have been held up in this planning process, and having a
plan in place after several years of uncertainty is a very positive
step to move Yosemite beyond the flood.
We are confident that given your commitment and the commitment of
the leadership in Yosemite, the Yosemite Valley Plan can move forward
while certain elements may be modified to ensure the best possible
balance between providing for visitor enjoyment of the park and
protecting this irreplaceable national treasure. Consistent and
reliable funding is paramount to delivering this goal.
In the spirit of partnership that has always been a strong point of
our relationship with the National Park Service, we again state our
willingness and desire to contribute to the ongoing implementation of
this plan.
We thank the National Park Service for its continued efforts in
establishing the best possible balance between the visitor experience
and protection and preservation of this incredible landscape and look
forward to being a part of the successful implementation of the
Yosemite Valley plan.
Thank you for the opportunity to come before you. I would be happy
to respond to questions.
______
Mr. Radanovich. I am going to open up with questions. Mike,
can you tell me, is there anything in the valley plan that you
like? I am sorry, Steve. Forgive me. Anything worth doing?
Mr. Welch. Frankly, I agree with the concept of moving on
after the flood. What we are concerned about is what is stated
in there is the ultimate goal of the removal of the automobile,
and we think a lot of the things go toward that. I have
submitted a detailed written testimony that hopefully will
become part of the record and details a lot more, but many of
the items of the 15 projects that were reviewed by the
Superintendent this morning I would support personally, and I
think many of the people in the entrances do. What we are most
concerned about is the access and affordability issues for our
customers and the day users, as I stated.
Mr. Radanovich. Which I agree with. The problem with the
issue of stopping the plan is it puts in jeopardy some of the
things that, frankly, I think once they are done, like
rerouting the road around Yosemite Lodge, is going to solve the
traffic problem. I have always believed that solving the
traffic problem at Yosemite was going to be whatever made the
most common sense and cost the least, which is rerouting some
intersections, and doing some improvements in key places in
Yosemite in my view is going to preclude the need for any
satellite parking.
The problem with getting a lot of this stuff done is that
if we stop or reopen, lawsuits happen, and everything freezes.
That is the counterbalancing concern I think that we are trying
to work through.
Mr. Welch. Certainly I appreciate that.
Could I respond?
Mr. Radanovich. Certainly.
Mr. Welch. As a layman and a businessperson and a citizen,
it is very difficult to understand these studies. They are
pages and pages and reams and reams, and to understand the
mechanics of whether it is better to amend the plan or modify
it or reconstruct it or throw it out and start over is a
judgment call that I would have to defer to you and your
Committee and those who are part of this.
I am personally less concerned with the mechanics of how it
is accomplished, but the end result. Sometimes these things are
insidious. There were 2,500 parking places in 1980. I am told
there are somewhere between 12- and 1,600 today. That is what
has caused a lot of the perceived overcrowding and congestion
that occurs now, and to reduce that further would be a real
problem, we believe.
Mr. Radanovich. Peggy, can you envision a YARTS being--I
want to try to separate, if it is separable, the issues with
YARTS. If there was assurance or there was knowledge as an
absolute fact that YARTS was not going to be the first step in
what will eventually be forcing everybody out of their cars and
into buses, would you see the need for some supplemental
alternative transportation to the park that a bus service would
provide?
Ms. Mosley. We have looked at this. I spent 5 years on the
Citizens Advisory Council for YARTS. When I realized the vast
cost of this system that would serve so few citizens and not
employees or students, which was the original purpose of it, I
find that there is absolutely no way that a system like this
could be economically justified under any economic environment,
particularly today.
There are private bus companies that come into the park
every day. I had a woman call me yesterday from Sacramento
saying, well, I would like to be able to take a bus. There are
bus systems like VIA, has operated for decades up and down the
140 corridor. Every now and then I can see one on 120. So I
think that a private entity should be able to maintain this
service for the number of people that will ride.
Beyond ones that will ride it are the ones that were
perhaps on it the day we did a demonstration ride for the YARTS
group. We took a bus, a VIA bus, from Amtrak in Merced and went
into the park. Besides the YARTS group that was on it, there
was a couple from Napa Valley, and there were a couple who
wanted to just take a train-bus experience for the day. They
had a very small overnight bag. There was a couple from Japan
who had a hotel in San Francisco. Again, they just wanted a day
trip to Yosemite. There were two guys from Australia. They also
were boarded in San Francisco. These are the kind of people
that use YARTS.
If you are going as someone who wants to visit the park,
experience picnics, take cameras, we have some people in our
local community who are photographers and artists. They love to
come here for their painting and photography. They can't begin
to load all their art freight, if you will, on a bus. It
totally eliminates the positive visitor experience if they are
forced into that.
Mr. Radanovich. If that is their only alternative or choice
to get there--
Ms. Mosley. If that is their only alternative, VIA does a
wonderful service for bringing people into YARTS that want to
use it.
Mr. Radanovich. So the issues really are the possibility of
it becoming the only alternative to get in the park, the only
choice to get in the park, and the cost of the system itself.
Ms. Mosley. That is right. And as a taxpayer, I totally
resent having to pay for the subsidized transportation of
employees.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you.
Donna?
Mrs. Christensen. Just to see if we have some common ground
here, I think, Mr. Kelly, you have been clear about your
position with the plan. I would like to ask Mr. Welch and Ms.
Mosley, are we in agreement on the five goals of the plan,
reclaiming the natural beauty, reducing traffic congestion,
allow natural processes so they will reduce crowding, promote
visitor understanding and enjoyment? You are not opposed to the
goals of the plan; am I correct? You support the goals of the
plan?
Ms. Mosley. I think the goals are pristine. I think it is
how we achieve them that is significant. For instance, on
Memorial Day weekend of 1999, it is a Saturday, when you would
expect this place to be totally packed, our fourth district
supervisor and one of our public county transportation people
took a video, started at the top of Priest Grade going into
Yosemite on 120. They came all the way into the valley, and
they found very, very little problem. In fact, the parking
issue was so minimal that the Park Service had pulled two
trams--or a tram across two separate parking lots that were
totally unavailable to the public.
This is a self-fulfilling prophecy of transportation and
parking problems. When you pull away all the parking places
that we have seen go in the last 10 years or so, yes, you are
going to have a parking problem.
The other issue would be to invoke professional traffic
management in the valley. We have also seen that work. After
there was so much problem with the parking problems, the gate
closures, et cetera, the Park Service did invoke professional
management, and we saw a massive difference.
Mrs. Christensen. So you are saying that there is--let me
ask the question that I wanted to ask. You probably partially
answered it, and I would ask it again to Mr. Welch and Ms.
Mosley. With day users apparently increasing, you said, Mr.
Welch, that there were 1,500 parking spaces in 1980?
Mr. Welch. In the general management plan, it indicates
there were 2,500 in 1980. I am not sure, I have seen 1,200 and
I have seen 1,600 in different places in print for what exists
today.
Mrs. Christensen. Given the fact that the day user--the day
user population is apparently increasing, to me that could mean
that managing traffic, which has already been cited as being a
problem, could be just impossible. Wouldn't you agree that
given the increase in day users, that we would need to have
some other means of getting people around rather than being a
greater number of people driving into the park?
Mr. Welch. I think a couple of things. Five hundred fifty
parking places is the number that you would find in a small
shopping center in any city in this country. It seems to me
that in 7 square miles you could find a place for a handful of
parking. I think the key is to properly manage. I think it is
dispersed, and I think it is a management issue more than it is
a space issue. As Peggy alluded to, the reduction in the last
few years has caused a lot of these problems, and they are
perceived problems.
If I may address your first question about do we support
the goals, absolutely. I support all the goals of the valley
plan. The one phrase in there is a little misleading about
overcrowding. Overcrowding is a very relative term. One
person's perception of crowding is not somebody else's. The
valley is about 5 percent of the Yosemite Park. There is 95
percent out there. There are thousands of acres of wilderness.
If somebody wants a wilderness experience--I don't think the
people visiting this national park want a wilderness
experience, nor do they need to have one. They need the
facilities and service, accessibility and affordability. Again,
it seems that you could find in this beautiful place absent--I
understand the flood plain and the rock falls and so forth, but
there certainly has got to be someplace to have a handful of
parking places properly managed and a few river campgrounds to
accommodate the demand and still preserve this wonderful
environment.
I want to preserve it for my kids, too. I was here in a
tent cabin when I was 10 years old. That was my first
experience. Recently I have had the pleasure of staying in an
Ahwahnee hotel room. That is wonderful, too. But we need all of
it, and we shouldn't be discriminating one over the other.
I hope that helped to answer your question.
Mrs. Christensen. On the campsites, wouldn't the possible
addition of new campsites along the road corridor address the
demand for increased campsites and still protect the public
from the flood areas that are likely to flood?
Ms. Mosley. I think the fact that this is a 50/100-year
flood is something that we really need to consider. This is not
the kind of devastation that occurs on a regular basis, even
every two or three decades. It is like a once-in-a-lifetime-
type event. And I think that we all recognize that even in our
own private residences, we put things in, we maintain them, and
I think that the Park Service needs to look at these
campgrounds in a similar sense. I believe that some of the
things I have seen about the building of campsites in the
outlying areas, outside the valley, the cost of these that I
have seen, it seems to me they could build houses out there
instead of campsites. And I think that we really need to look
at the viability of what this means. And when I hear the Park
Service ask for more money, I am devastated. I just can't
imagine.
What we need to do is spend that money to repair the
crumbling sewer system and some of the really important issues.
And also on the congressional site that I had pulled up, there
is mention of how the Park Service needs to spend their money
on better prioritized lists. I really think we need to go back
and look at that, too. I think the campsites are a viable part
of this experience, and I think along the river is why people
come into the park.
And if I might address your earlier question to Steve about
the 80 percent-20 percent. This park has lost 25 percent or 1
million visitors a year over the last 6 years. They are
certainly not coming into the gateways, because my business is
down 25 percent as well. So I don't think it is an 80-20
perspective just clear-cut across the line. I think the reason
people are not coming is because I almost believe that every
spring the media draws straws on who is going to write the
Yosemite is closed part. It is something that deters people
from coming. They are convinced they can't get into the park.
As a matter of fact, the Triple A tour guide last year in
previous issues stated that you must take public transportation
into the park, which is totally false. They did correct it this
year because we helped them. I think that when this information
is provided by the Park Service to an agency like Triple A that
this entire country uses, it is wrong. It is wrong. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you. Thank you for your job.
Devin?
Mr. Nunes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Welch, in your testimony you get to the question that I
was asking the first panel, and that is essentially since 1980,
according to your numbers, you have seen a 50 percent reduction
in campsites, overnight lodging, and parking spots. Would you
say that is correct? Using approximate numbers.
Mr. Welch. I believe for parking spaces that is true. I am
not sure that the campsite reduction is quite that much.
Mr. Nunes. I see the concern here, and that was my question
to the first panel is that incrementally, over the last 20
years, you have seen a reduction in campsites, parking spots. I
think the concern that you folks have, and you can correct me
if I am wrong, is what is going to happen in the next 20 years?
Are you going to continue to see another 50 percent reduction
in parking spots and campsites? Is that accurate to your
concern?
Mr. Welch. Yes, it is.
Mr. Nunes. When you look at daily traffic, I remember when
I came up into this area for the first time, my family had a
1978 Ford Bronco that got about 7 miles to the gallon. We came
up last night in a four-wheel drive pickup because of the snow
that Mr. Radanovich didn't tell me about. Anyway, it was a
pickup that gets closer to 20 miles a gallon.
I share the same concerns as you. I am confused by these
strange numbers that seem to vary from testimony to testimony.
I am wondering, are you satisfied with the process that this
plan has been developed through, in the numbers? Are you
satisfied with the numbers that have been used and the
scientific system that accounts for these numbers? Would you
say it has been adequate, inadequate? Would you like to see it
looked at again?
Mr. Welch. We think the process was flawed and sort of
finalized in the waning hours of 2000, which was the last
administration, and I think the prior Park Service
administration was not as receptive to gateway community input
and disregarded a lot of our concerns.
Visitation has declined 17 percent since 1996. My business
is down. Peggy's and many others are affected by this decline.
The concessionaires' business must be suffering as well. The
population certainly in California, and I understand 75 percent
of the visitation here comes from California, I can't quote you
the statistics, but I am sure there are more people in
California now than there were 20 years ago, and it is going to
continue to grow, and we need to provide access in an
affordable fashion for these folks to use this. We can't do
that by declining convenience and accessibility.
Mr. Nunes. In your testimony, you are not asking to go back
to 1980 levels. You are just asking to go back to pre-1997
flood levels of parking and campsites.
Mr. Welch. In terms of camping, pre-1997 levels in the
valley would seem reasonable and certainly a goal that could be
achieved. Parking, I would like to see it increased more to
what it was. I have had old-timers tell me there used to be
5,000 places in the valley, many undeveloped in dispersed areas
and just used seasonally. I am not sure how environmentally
wise some of those things were, but, again, we have a lot of
people in this country, and we need to accommodate them in a
practical, reasonable way. I would think somewhere in the
neighborhood of 1,500 to 2,000 parking places for day users to
bring in their camping gear and picnic gear and all the things
that they want to come is not an unreasonable or unachievable
goal.
Mr. Nunes. Thank you, Mr. Welch.
Real quickly, Ms. Mosley, could you quickly go over the
busiest times of the year for your business? Either describe
your weekends or periods of time.
Ms. Mosley. Yes. Our busiest months are July and August.
Obviously we have heavy visitation on Memorial Day, the Fourth
of July and the Labor Day weekend. But July and August,
absolutely.
Mr. Nunes. And so if it is not July or August or Memorial
or Labor Day, how is the traffic, how is your business? Are
there plenty of parking spots available here? Isn't the need
for the surrounding areas and for the valley here to
accommodate these high-traffic periods of time?
Ms. Mosley. It is extremely limited, and it is limited to
the holiday periods, and like I said, the July and August. Even
in July and August I have been over here just to check it out,
and, yeah, I had to drive around a little bit, but it wasn't
anything that was terribly frustrating. It was something that
was accessible.
I feel that we are sort of killing flies with sledgehammers
with YARTS. It just doesn't fit.
Mr. Nunes. Thank you, Ms. Mosley.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Devin.
Kevin, can you tell me, in this report, the campground
study, you did mention the cost--and granted they have got to
go back and refigure these numbers--the cost of relocating 144
campgrounds was quoted something like $18.7 million. You could
build the Ahwahnee for that, I think.
Mr. Kelly. You could build a Marriott hotel for that.
Mr. Radanovich. Exactly.
Taking out the equation of the price tag--we are going to
look at those numbers, we are going to talk a little more about
that later with you as being the concessionaire to Yosemite--
would you be interested as a concessionaire of possibly going
in and doing the work on the campgrounds and running them?
Mr. Kelly. Well, certainly we have expertise in running
inventory like a campsite or a reservations system. Building
campsites, we would have to look into it. And certainly if the
Park Service, our client, came and asked us to take a look at
it, we would be open to looking at it. Again, as it applies to
the valley plan, though, it would be a concern that, again, it
would stop these 15 projects that we have in the works right
now, and that would be our greatest concern.
As we talked about parking as well, I think the 1,600
places we have in place is what we had in 1997 as well. Our
visitation has steadily gone down since then. I think that is
in part because we are shooting ourselves in the foot here. We
are telling everyone there are only 500 parking spaces. Don't
come to Yosemite.
I think we need to stop having the negative press out there
and saying, please come. You come here midweek in the summer,
it is gorgeous. The water is wonderful in the river. There is
plenty of parking. Come and visit. I think we need to stop
being negative and say that there is plenty of parking, that we
are not down to 500, you don't have to take YARTS. Drive your
car and park and enjoy the park. It is a beautiful place.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you. And I think the number is around
1,600 spaces that are considered day use parking spaces that
are in existence now. The issue is reducing it to 550. And so
that you know, those numbers are tied to this satellite parking
system, bus them in the park issue, and that is if you are
going to use that satellite bus parking system for 9 months out
of the year, you only need 550 spaces. If you are going to use
it 3 months out of the year, you need 1,200 spaces. If you are
not going to use it at all, you probably need 1,600 spaces. So
they are connected. I appreciate those comments.
I want to ask Steve and Peggy to respond to the same
question, if you would, please, and, that is, Kevin in his
opening statement went through a long litany of all these
problems that have happened in Yosemite over the last 5 to 8
years, including the murders and the flood. Can you tell me
why, give a reason for the decrease in business in both the
Pines and the Groveland Hotel and also your idea of what the
Park Service can do to contribute to an increased visitorship
at your facilities?
He said we need to get positive press rather than negative
press, and every time I pick up the paper and see something
about some devastating thing--or it does not even have to be
real, but perceived--it creates problems.
And, granted, the things that had happened, many of them
have been natural, but the ones that really upset us are the
ones like when Congress closes the park because there is no
money. It is the things that are manageable that don't have to
be; and again I think media is where we are at. And I know that
the people I talk to feel that the negative media is coming
from the National Park Service, and we feel that they have
major control over what goes out to the press; and we feel, at
least in our neighborhood, that this has been a major
contributor. Again, every time they see something that says the
park is closed, the park is crowded, they don't come because
they don't want to get embroiled in that kind of thing and my
business started dropping off right after the 1999 flood. 1999
was my best year, and it has continually decreased since then,
but I feel that we could get major assistance from the Park
Service.
One other thing that I would like to--
Mr. Radanovich. In communications it sounds like--
Ms. Mosley. Yes.
One other thing that I would like to mention that I think
would help the, quote, ``crowding in the valley'' would be
making the general public aware of all the magnificent areas
outside this 7 square miles. When Superintendent Mihalic first
came to town, he came to visit, we talked about that. He said
we have no money to market that kind of thing, and he indicated
that WCS was the marketing of the park, and it seems to me if
that is the case, then perhaps something needs to be done to
assist WCS in directing more of their marketing to the outside
areas of the valley, even though they don't have--
Mr. Radanivich. You mean Tuolumne Meadows or that kind of--
Ms. Mosley. Anywhere. But they don't have revenue-
generating sources there, so as an entrepreneur, I can
appreciate their desire not to market a place that they can't
get into my wallet. So I think this is a major issue of how the
message gets out.
Mr. Radonivich. Thank you.
Steve?
Mr. Welch. I would share Peggy's comment about the press
and the public perception. We--our visitor bureau goes to
numerous trade shows up and down the State, and many people,
their first question is, I understand I have to get on a bus.
Other people say, gee, do I need a reservation? That idea was
kicked around a few years ago and somehow it is still floating
around, and these things are negative perceptions. At least,
you know, they think it is overcrowded, they might need a
reservation, they might have to get on a bus, et cetera, et
cetera, and that all plays into this. So I think the Park
Service and the media in general could assist getting out the
proper image.
There is one other factor that hasn't been discussed today
and that is the gate fee. In 1997 it was raised from $5 per car
to $20. That is a quadrupling. I can't imagine any business
person raising his prices overnight four times and not
expecting a decline.
It was a demonstration program. I think there is something
like $60 million out there from this. That really discourages
our residents and the people from our county.
We have 15 percent unemployment in our county. The San
Joaquin Valley has double-digit unemployment, twice the Federal
average. Those folks would like to come up and have a picnic.
They would like to drive through, and maybe it should be $20 on
the peak weekends in May when the people want to see the
waterfalls, but how about Wednesday in March? Maybe that should
be $5. Maybe it should fluctuate with our rates. All the
businesses, whether you are in airlines or hotels or what have
you, you base your rates on demand and maybe that is a concept
that could be used in a positive way.
But I think that has had a negative impact as well as the
other--the press that has been mentioned.
Mr. Radonivich. Thank you, Steve.
Donna?
Mrs. Christensen. Mr. Chairman, as I asked you, I think it
would be good for us to get--and time won't permit us to get it
today, but to get some answers from the Park Service in
response to Ms. Mosley's concern about how the Park Service
would attempt to pay for the maintenance and operation of the
shuttle, whether it be taxpayer dollars, or how would they
propose to pay for it; and also an answer or have them address
the adverse impact on low-income potential visitors to the park
and maybe the issue around the media and the type of
information that is sent out.
I have one question, because Mr. Welch said that most of
the visitors probably come from California; and in a letter
from members of the California House delegation, they cited
polls that show that 80 percent of people polled in California
supported reducing cars in the valley to a shuttle system, that
71 percent oppose building new permanent parking lots, and 71
percent supported limited future development along the Merced
River.
And I would just like the panelists to comment on that poll
and the results. That is my question.
Mr. Kelly. Well, certainly when you look at coming to the
Yosemite National Park and coming to the valley, we do have a
shuttle system that exists here. We transport 2.8 million on
that valley shuttle right now. You can drive here, park your
car, and ride a shuttle. You don't have to drive your car
around this park. So I think that what the population is
supporting is the fact that you come and park your car and
still enjoy the parking, still get from point A and B on a
transit system within the valley.
Certainly, 80 percent of our visitation does come from
California, and they are certainly an important constituent
that we need to pay attention to. So on development, again I
think there it is pristine valley, and I think people are
always concerned about what you build where in this park. So I
think that is the general statement as well.
Mr. Radanovich. Anybody else?
Ms. Mosley. I would just like to have a little better
definition. Eighty percent of, what was that again?
Mrs. Christensen. It said that 80 percent of people polled
in California alone.
Ms. Mosley. Where did they poll these people and how many
did they poll?
Mr. Welch. I don't know that I can comment on the study
exactly, but I do know there is a big perception of crowding.
When I go to the Bay Area or Los Angeles, that is where the
crowding occurs, and a lot of the visitors, if they are polled
there and they are given this mental picture of what they deal
with on a daily basis is occurring in their national park, they
probably would support those kinds of things.
But I--we do support valley shuttle. We support the shuttle
around the big trees. There are some really logical, great
applications of that kind of thing. But we are back to the
access issue of being able to get in here and then making your
choice or making your choice freely if you want to come on a
bus from Fresno or Bass Lake or San Francisco or wherever and
do a private tour, that is wonderful. Some people prefer that,
and it works well for them.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much.
I think if you asked the polling question, if you were to
drive up from Los Angeles and come into the park and on any
given day be told once you got to the valley that you had to
turn around and drive back 10 to 20 miles and park your car and
get on a bus and come into the valley, the polling numbers
probably would not be that high.
Thank you very much for your valuable testimony. And with
that, we will excuse our second panel and introduce our third.
Thank you very much.
Our third panel is Mr. Allan Abshez, camping enthusiast
from Los Angeles, California; Mr. Paul Minault, Northern
California Regional Coordinator of The Access Fund, San
Francisco; Mr. Jay Thomas Watson, California/Nevada Regional
Director of The Wilderness Society; Mr. George Whitmore,
Chairman of the Sierra Club, Yosemite Committee, Fresno,
California.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for taking
the panel. I will ask, though I know it has been a couple of
hours already, we are going to try to wind this hearing up as
fast as we can, but, with you, still need to get all the
information on the record. So if we can have it quiet, I would
sure appreciate it.
We will begin with you, Mr. Minault. Thank you very much
and welcome to the Committee. You do have 5 minutes of not
stopping you. So summarize up and take it for 5, please. Please
begin.
STATEMENT OF PAUL MINAULT, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL
COORDINATOR OF THE ACCESS FUND, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Minault. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My name is
Paul Minault, Northern California Coordinator for The Access
Fund. The Access Fund is America's largest national climbers
organization. And I am pleased to submit this testimony for
inclusion in the public record.
Our testimony concerns the failure of the Park Service to
provide campgrounds within Yosemite National Park as set forth
in the Yosemite General Management Plan. The Access Fund
respectfully recommends that the National Park Service replace
campsites lost to flooding and bring the total number of
campsites in the valley up to the level prescribed in the 1980
Yosemite General Management Plan.
We submitted extensive comments on the Valley
Implementation Plan, the Yosemite Valley Plan, the Merced River
Plan and the Lodge Plan with a particular reference to the need
for more camping opportunities in Yosemite. These comments were
too long to attach, but I have brought copies of them with me
for reference and for any member of the audience who would like
to see them.
We also submitted suggestions to the consultant team
preparing the Parkwide Out of Valley Campground study. And much
of our comment focused not only on the numbers, which we have
talked about today, but on the values which support camping and
which we feel were not adequately discussed in the valley plan
or represented in the Park Service planning documents.
In our letter to Chip Jenkins of the Park Service dated
July 11, 1999, which is a part of our package, we pointed out
that the park is almost 1,000 campsites short of the number
called for in the 1980 General Management Plan with a shortfall
in Yosemite--it will not be a shortfall after the plan is
completed, but a shortfall in Yosemite Valley of almost 300
sites. We feel strongly that these campsites should be built as
soon as possible to comply with the 1980 GMP.
Let me say something about the values which we feel support
these numbers that we recommend. The National Park Service
bible, the Management Policies 2001 version, states that it is
the policy of the Park Service to encourage visitor activities
that foster an understanding of and appreciation for park
resources and values, or that promote enjoyment through a
direct association with, interaction with, or relation to, park
resources.
In our comments of the Valley Plan, we listed the ways in
which camping enhances the visitor experience and furthers
these values. First, we pointed out that camping is a form of
recreation unlike staying in developed accommodations which is
a form of leisure. I think that is an important distinction.
Second, camping promotes a closer relationship to park
resources than any other form of overnight accommodation,
furthering the park value which we discussed a moment ago.
Third, camping distances the visitor from the commercial
values of comfort and convenience, from the expression of
social status through consumption that pervade American
society. Camping brings the visitor closer to nature, the
simple necessities of daily life, and the way people lived in
the past.
Fourth, camping is democratic. In campgrounds, social
distinctions account for little, and camping has the potential
to bring people together in shared appreciation of the natural
surroundings in a manner that reduces social barriers.
The Nation's great parks present an opportunity to be a
force for social equality. Unfortunately, the lodging picture
in Yosemite preserves the social distinctions of the greater
society rather than leveling them, which we believe should be a
goal of the parks.
Fifth, camping is inherently communal. Campers have an
enhanced opportunity to associate with other people, develop
new relationships, and broaden their social horizons.
Unfortunately, the Valley Plan largely ignored these values
with the result that camping suffered the loss of 300 campsites
through the Valley Plan. Instead, the park now emphasizes
exclusive and expensive lodging over traditional camping
accommodations that are more in line with NPS management
policies.
We also pointed out the need for the Park Service to
coordinate the development of new camping facilities with the
national forests outside the park. In recent years the national
forest has eliminated approximately 50 campsites along the
Merced River west of the park, and just last fall Inyo National
Forest closed all the informal camping areas along Highway 120
east of the park and along the road to Saddlebag Lake,
eliminating about 100 informal overnight parking and camping
areas.
These actions have increased demand for camping outside the
park and need to be taken into account in the park's planning
for new campgrounds.
The Yosemite Valley Plan noted that over 1,200 new lodging
units are proposed for construction outside the park. No new
campgrounds were proposed, however. This suggests to us that
the park should focus on developing new campgrounds and shift
the provision of developed accommodations to the private sector
outside the park.
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Minault, I am enjoying your testimony.
If you could submit, however, I promised I would stick to this
rule.
Mr. Minault. I am done. Thank you very much for the
opportunity.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Minault follows:]
Statement of Paul Minault, Northern California Regional Coordinator,
The Access Fund
Dear Chairman Radanovich and Members of Subcommittee on National
Parks, Recreation and Public Lands:
The Access Fund, America's largest national climbers organization,
is pleased to submit this testimony for inclusion into the public
record regarding the implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan.
Specifically, this testimony concerns the failure of the National Park
Service to provide campgrounds within Yosemite National Park as set
forth in the Yosemite General Management Plan (``GMP''). The Access
Fund respectfully recommends that the National Park Service replace
campsites lost to flooding and bring the total number of campsites in
the Valley up to the level prescribed in the Yosemite GMP.
THE ACCESS FUND
The Access Fund is a 501 (c) 3 non-profit advocacy group
representing the interests of approximately one million rock climbers
and mountaineers in the United States. We are America's largest
national climbing organization with over 15,000 members and affiliates.
The Access Fund's mission is to keep climbing areas open, and to
conserve the climbing environment. For more information about the
Access Fund, log on to www.accessfund.org.
THE ACCESS FUND HAS BEEN ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN YOSEMITE PLANNING
The Access Fund submitted extensive comments on the Valley
Implementation Plan, Yosemite Valley Plan, Merced River Plan, and Lodge
(Camp 4) Plan with a particular reference to the need for more camping
opportunities in Yosemite Valley. These comments were too long to
attach, but I have brought copies of them with me for your reference.
We also submitted suggestions to the consultant team preparing the
Parkwide Out of Valley Campground Study which are in your attachments
YOSEMITE HAS A SHORTFALL OF 1,000 CAMPSITES, 300 OF THEM IN YOSEMITE
VALLEY
In our letter to the Chip Jenkins of the Park Service dated July
11, 1999, which is also attached, we pointed out that the park is
almost 1,000 campsites short of the number projected for the park in
the 1980 Yosemite General Management Plan, with a shortfall in Yosemite
Valley of almost 300 sites. We feel strongly that these campsites
should be built as soon as possible to comply with Yosemite National
Park planning documents and National Park Service Management Policies
CAMPING FURTHERS PARK MANAGEMENT POLICIES
National Park Service management policy is to ``encourage visitor
activities that . . . foster an understanding of, and appreciation for,
park resources and values, or will promote enjoyment through a direct
association with, interaction with, or relation to park resources.''
Management Policy 2001- 8.2 Visitor Use (emphasis added). In our
comments to the Valley Plan, we listed the ways in which camping
enhances the visitor experience, furthers park values, and promotes the
enjoyment of Yosemite National Park through a direct association with
park resources.
LFirst, we pointed out that camping is a form of
recreation, unlike lodging in developed accommodations, which is a form
of leisure.
LSecond, camping promotes a closer relationship to park
resources than any other form of overnight accommodation.
LThird, camping distances the visitor from the commercial
values of comfort and convenience and the expression of social status
through consumption that pervade American society. Camping brings the
visitor closer to nature, the simple necessities of daily life, and the
way people lived in the past.
LFourth, camping is democratic. In campgrounds, social
distinctions account for little, and camping has the potential to bring
people together in shared appreciation of their natural surroundings in
a manner that reduces social barriers. The nations' great parks present
an opportunity to be a force for social equality. Unfortunately, the
lodging picture in Yosemite preserves the social distinctions of the
greater society, rather than leveling them, which we believe should be
a goal of the parks.
LFifth, camping is inherently communal. Campers have an
enhanced opportunity to associate with other people, develop new
relationships, and broaden their social horizons. Unfortunately, the
Valley Plan largely ignored these values, with the result that camping
suffered the loss of 300 campsites in the Valley. Instead, the park now
emphasizes exclusive and expensive lodging over traditional camping
accommodations that are more in line with NPS management policies.
THE PARK SERVICE SHOULD COORDINATE CAMPGROUND PLANNING WITH NATIONAL
FORESTS OUTSIDE THE PARK
We also pointed out the need for the Park Service to coordinate the
development of new camping facilities with the National Forests outside
the park. In recent years, the Sierra National Forest Service has
eliminated approximately 50 campsites along the Merced River west of
the park. Just last fall, the Inyo National Forest closed all the
informal camping areas along Highway 120 east of the park and along the
road to Saddlebag Lake, eliminating about 100 informal overnight
parking and camping areas. These actions have increased demand for
camping opportunities inside the park and need to be taken into account
in the park's planning for new campgrounds.
PARK PLANNING FOR OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS SHOULD FOCUS ON NEW
CAMPGROUNDS AND SHIFT DEVELOPED LODGING TO THE COMMERCIAL
SECTOR OUTSIDE THE PARK
The Yosemite Valley Plan noted that over 1200 new lodging units are
proposed for construction outside the park. Valley Plan at II-55 - II-
57. No new campgrounds were proposed, however. This suggests to us that
the park should focus on developing new campgrounds and shift the
provision of developed accommodations to the private sector outside the
park. Such a shift is supported by the values we discussed earlier.
Chairman Radanovich and members of the Subcommittee on National
Parks, Recreation and Public Lands, the Access Fund appreciates the
opportunity to provide testimony on the Yosemite National Park Parkwide
Out of Valley Campground Study. We hope you will acknowledge the
problems caused by the 1000 campsite shortfall in Yosemite National
Park and direct the National Park Service to construct new campsites.
Thank you,
Attachments: January 11, 1999 letter to Chip Jenkins
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6612.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6612.007
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Abshez, welcome to the Committee and
please begin your testimony?
STATEMENT OF ALLAN ABSHEZ, CAMPING ENTHUSIAST,
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Abshez. Good morning. Before I start, I hope you have
had a chance to take a look at the photographs I submitted, if
you ask me about them in the Q and A. Also up there on the
easel is a photograph of myself and my wife. My wife is not
able to be here today, but that was shot on a 2-week backpacker
in Tuolumne Meadows on the occasion we decided to become
parents.
Mr. Radanovich. Terrific. We won't go into detail.
Mr. Abshez. We won't go there.
Mr. Chairman and honorable Subcommittee members, thank you
for inviting me to testify today. I am very honored to be part
of this distinguished panel and sit side by side with The
Wilderness Society, the Sierra Club and the Americans for
Access. But I represent no organization and I am here only on
behalf of myself, my family, my friends and people like me
whose lives have been enriched by the spirit and tradition of
Yosemite.
We owe this place a great personal debt. I am making a
small installment payment on that debt by urging you to ensure
that no one constrains access to the valley through planning
efforts that offer little real benefit, but would diminish the
education, enjoyment, and enrichment of millions.
I am appearing today as a typical Yosemite visitor, but I
am no stranger to the complex issues you are facing. By
profession, I am a lawyer and that is one of the reasons you
have got to indulge me on the time limit here.
Mr. Radanovich. I will hold you to it, though.
Mr. Abshez. OK.
I am specializing in land use planning and environmental
law. I also serve on a planning commission in Los Angeles,
where I reside. One of my proudest professional accomplishments
though was my representation of the Ansel Adams Publishing
Rights Trust for several years. Ansel Adams was always a
personal hero to me, a person whose image could equally express
the awesome power of granite mountaintops and the aisle of
willows along a sun-speckled street.
I remember reading in his autobiography that Ansel first
visited Yosemite when he was 14. My first visit occurred in
1968; I was 12 years old, and it was my first visit to any
national park. My family and I stayed at the Lodge. My
grandmother was along. My family had no camping experience or
inclination and my grandmother was elderly and not able to get
around well. Had the accommodations at the Lodge not been
available we might have passed over Yosemite entirely.
I remember the feeling of walking to the Lodge cafeteria in
the pine-scented air and looking up at the blue sky and amazing
cliffs each morning. I felt as if I were standing in the most
magnificent cathedral in the world.
Why do I remember this feeling so vividly? Because it is
the same feeling I experienced this morning and experience
every morning that I wake up in Yosemite. It is an importance
that deeply touches the soul. Members of the Subcommittee, I
hope that you will ensure that we restore the facilities
necessary to let people have that extraordinary experience. You
can do that and protect the park. That is the point of
everything in my testimony.
While I was in high school, I attended the Yosemite
Institute in the valley. When I was 16, my friends and I
slipped our parental leashes and we rode the Greyhound bus here
to camp at the upper river campground. As campers we were
largely buffoons, but we were enthusiastic and were willing to
tolerate a moderate level of discomfort. Camping in Yosemite
Valley offered us the attraction, but more importantly, the
opportunity to learn and mature. Like it was for Ansel Adams,
like it is for so many others, Yosemite Valley was our
schoolroom.
During college, I visited the valley every year and
sometimes several times a year. Sometimes I camped in the
valley for fun. At other times it was all I could afford.
Yosemite Valley became my jumping-off point to explore other
parts of the park. I began with no experience or equipment to
speak up of and made every foolish mistake in the book.
In his autobiography, Ansel Adams tells the same story.
During his first visit to the valley, Ansel Adams and his
family lodged at Camp Curry. He later camped and made short
hikes out of the valley. He was a beginner and had the same
awkward misadventures as all beginners do. It was only in 1920
after several visits to the valley that he made his first high
Sierra trip under the supervision of an early mentor, Francis
Holman.
I grew and took on greater challenges, too. When I was a
sophomore at Cal, I thought I would try winter backpacking.
That trip ended in my being carried out of the back country
with hypothermia. I recovered, but I certainly learned a lesson
in humility. By the time I graduated college, I took many
wondrous destinations throughout the back country.
Together with my family and friends, I have enjoyed most of
the experiences the park has to offer and have stayed at every
type of accommodation here. I learned how to ski at Badger Pass
from Nick Fiori, another living legend. I cross-country-skied,
snowshoed, rock-climbed, rafted, fished most everywhere that
offered a decent prospect, skated on Glacier Point and swam
every lake whose temperature I could tolerate.
I have ridden into the back country on mules. Let us not
forget mules and horses in all of this. I have had my food
stolen by a bear in the upper reaches of Tuolumne Meadows even
though I hung my sacks according to the Park Service
guidelines, or so I thought. The rest of the trip was a hungry
one and to this day I still resent the bear who stole my food.
In 1985, I brought my future wife to the valley and
proposed marriage. The park has since been the scene of many
memorable experiences of our family life.
The reason I relate these experiences is not just that they
are important to me. They are the stuff that lifelong
conservationists are built from and they are offered in a
wholly unique combination and setting in Yosemite Valley. If we
curtail the availability of these experiences or eliminate
them, we not only deny people life enrichment, but we also
destroy the future audience for our national parks and
wilderness areas. We will tend to create bus tours who are
content to be bussed in and bussed out instead of independent
and self-reliant outdoorsmen and women.
It is ironic that we in the conservation organizations,
whose membership foundation is built upon people who simply
enjoy the outdoors, would support reducing access to formative
outdoor experiences. After all, Ansel Adams started as a basic
family camper and became a conservation icon. Our goal should
be to foster the creation of more people like Ansel Adams. Our
goal should not be to shut people out of the valley and that is
why this plan needs to be readjusted.
It is true that the 1997 floods washed away some eyesores,
but it is shocking that the preparers of the plan choose the
word ``opportunity'' to describe the devastation they wreaked.
The plan presents itself as increasing visitor accommodations,
but that is a distortion of the picture and therefore the final
EIS really contains little information that is useful to public
discussion.
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Abshez, I am sorry you have got to wind
up. Please know in the audience we are cutting these people
short, but their full written testimony is for the record. So
your testimony is in there.
Mr. Abshez. Rigorous discussion and analysis reveals that
the claimed benefits of the plan are questionable. It is true
that the plan would revert certain areas to passive use, but if
one seeks it, quietude in the valley has always been available
in many wonderful places. And if it is true, as the preparers
of the plan contend, visitation won't be diminished, then there
is no reason to assume that popular destinations such as trails
and waterfalls will be any less congested during peak periods.
Similarly, the ecological benefits of the plan are
overstated. The areas formerly used for camping represent about
30 acres, less than 1 percent of the valley's 4,480 acres, but
they provide opportunities for about 19,680 families to camp in
the valley every summer.
People like me are relying on you to correct the plan by
insisting the Park Service restore preflood camping and lodging
opportunities while furthering resource protection. We can
educate park visitors and plan to distribute valley campgrounds
and sensitive riparian areas are respected. When asked to do
so, people have acknowledged--
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Abshez--
Mr. Abshez. I am going to close it.
Mr. Radanovich. Are you closing?
Mr. Abshez. I am closing.
Mr. Radanovich. Good.
Mr. Abshez. OK.
Mr. Radanovich. There will be plenty of time during Q and
A.
Mr. Abshez. OK. Two more paragraphs. When I do visit the
valley crowded with families and children and fumbling campers
and hikers, I smile. I see my own experience reflected in
theirs. I think we all do. And I would like to think that Ansel
Adams would smile, too.
This morning all of you enjoyed the soul-stirring
experience of waking to stand in the most magnificent cathedral
in the world. Let us restore that opportunity for others.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Abshez follows:]
Statement of Allan J. Abshez, Camping Enthusiast,
Los Angeles, California
Mr. Chairman and Honorable Subcommittee Members:
Thank you for inviting me to testify before the Subcommittee with
respect to the implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan. I represent
no organization, and will appear only on behalf of myself, my family,
friends, and people everywhere like me. I will be testifying to repay a
great personal debt to the place, tradition, people and spirit that are
Yosemite Valley. I represent the many millions of people whose life-
experience and life-outlook has been formed by their visits to Yosemite
Valley and Yosemite National Park. We have a love affair with this
place, and want as much as anyone to protect and preserve it. I hope my
testimony on behalf of those people will provide a foundation for your
oversight to ensure that no one constrains access to Yosemite Valley
through planning efforts that offer little real benefit to the
environment, and diminish the education, enjoyment, and enrichment of
visitors to the crown jewel of our National Park system.
Background
I will be testifying as a typical Yosemite camper and enthusiast;
one who today is a father, a husband, and a lawyer, and as one who has
visited Yosemite many times as a student and a child. My law practice
today focuses on land use planning, environmental law, and related
litigation. I have been responsible for coordinating major planning
efforts for university campuses, hospitals, art museums, movie studios,
shopping centers, hotels, and residential and commercial developments.
I have significant expertise in air, water quality, biotic, traffic and
parking and historical issues. I serve on a community planning
commission in Los Angeles, where I reside.
One of my proudest professional accomplishments though, was my
representation of the Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust for several
years. In fact, the primary reason I chose the first law firm for which
I worked was that one of their clients was the Ansel Adams Publishing
Rights Trust. I figured that even though they were a ``corporate'' law
firm (you must understand that I was a graduate of Boalt Hall at U.C.
Berkeley), they couldn't be all bad if they represented Ansel Adams. I
was right.
Ansel Adams was a personal hero. My father had passed on to me a
love of photography and art, which I combined with a passion for the
mountains and wilderness. Ansel saw many things as I did. As the
Trust's lawyer, I created its copyright protection program, and oversaw
many of its licensing activities.
Ansel Adams first visited Yosemite Valley when he was fourteen. My
first visit occurred in 1968, when I was 12 years old. It was also my
first visit to any National Park. My family and I stayed at the Lodge.
My grandmother was along. My family had no camping experience and my
grandmother was elderly and not able to get around well. If the
accommodations at the Lodge had not been available, our visit would not
have been possible, and we might have passed-over Yosemite entirely.
I remember the feeling of walking to the Lodge cafeteria, breathing
the fresh air scented with pine, and looking up at the blue sky and
amazing cliffs surrounding me each morning. I felt as if I was standing
in the most magnificent cathedral in the world. Why do I remember that
feeling so vividly? Because it is the same feeling I experience every
morning I have woken up in Yosemite. It's an experience that deeply
touches the soul. Members of the Subcommittee, I hope that you and the
National Park Service will ensure that as many people as possible are
able to have that extraordinary experience. We can preserve the
opportunity for that experience and protect the Park. That's the point
of everything in my testimony.
While I was in high school, I attended the Yosemite Institute in
the Valley. That kindled my interest in mountaineering. When I was 16,
my friends and I slipped our respective parental leashes, and rode the
Greyhound bus to camp in Yosemite Valley. We camped at the Upper River
campground. As campers and hikers, we were largely buffoons, but we
were enthusiastic and willing to tolerate a moderate level of
discomfort. Camping in Yosemite Valley offered us the attraction, but
more importantly the opportunity to learn and mature. Like it was for
Ansel Adams, and like it is for so many others, Yosemite Valley was our
school room.
I moved to Berkeley, California to attend college. Yosemite Valley
became my jumping off point to explore other parts of the Park and the
High Sierra. I visited the Valley every year, and sometimes several
times a year. Sometimes, I camped in the Valley for fun. At other
times, it was all I could afford. Because of its peaceful setting,
Upper River was always my campground of choice, although I have
probably camped in every campground in the Valley, including the
Climbers' Camp.
I began exploring Yosemite National Park from the Valley base;
hiking up and out of the Valley on every one of the trails beginning
there. As a young backpacker, I made every mistake in the book. I began
with no money and no equipment of which to speak. In his An
Autobiography, Ansel Adams tells the very same story. During his first
visits to the Valley, Ansel Adams and his family lodged at Camp Curry.
He later camped and made short hikes out of the Valley. He had no real
equipment or knowledge, and had the same awkward misadventures that I
did. It was only in 1920, after several visits to the Valley that he
made his first High Sierra trip under the supervision of his early
mentor, Francis Holman. In the Valley, Holman could always be found at
the river campground.
As I became more experienced, I took on the High Sierra with
extended backpacking trips throughout Yosemite, Kings Canyon and
surrounding National Forest lands. I studied the mountains as a
librarian's assistant at the U.C. Berkeley Map Library. I camped in the
summer and winter. When I was a sophomore at Cal, I was carried out of
the backcountry with hypothermia one winter (boy, did I learn a
lesson!). By the time I graduated college, I'd hiked to many wondrous
destinations in the backcountry, which are infinite in number, and all
of which I will never be able to see. I've hiked the marked trails and
have navigated and clambered cross-country as well.
All of my friends had to suffer my passion for Yosemite and the
mountains. Together with them, I've enjoyed most of the visitor
experiences the Park has to offer and stayed at every type of
accommodation here, including the campgrounds, Curry Village,
Housekeeping, the Lodge, the Ahwanee, Wawona, and the High Sierra
camps. I learned how to ski at Badger Pass from Nick Fiori, another
living legend. I've cross-country skied and snow-shoed. I've rock
climbed with the Yosemite Mountaineering school. I've rafted raftable
portions of the Merced, and fished most everywhere that offered a
decent prospect. I've skated in the Valley in the winter, and swam
every lake whose temperature I could tolerate in the summer. I've
ridden into the backcountry on mules, and plan to do a stock trip to
the high county this summer with my family out of Red's Meadow in the
eastern Sierra. Horses and mules can be a wonderful experience, and are
part of the mountain tradition. I've had my food stolen by a bear in
the upper reaches of Tuloumne Meadows even though I counter-weighted
the stuff-sacks and hung them ten feet from the trunk and twelve feet
off the ground (or was it the other way around). I starved the rest of
the trip (it was a solo hike), but refused to leave out of resentment
against the bear.
The reason I relate these experiences is not just that they are
important to me. They are the stuff that life-long conservationists are
built-from. And they are offered in a wholly unique combination and
setting in Yosemite Valley. If we curtail the availability of these
experiences or eliminate them, we not only deny people life-enrichment,
but we also destroy the future audience for our National Parks and
wilderness areas. And as a nation, we will tend to create tourists who
are content to be managed and ``bussed-in'' and ``bussed-out,'' instead
of independent and self-reliant outdoorsmen and women. It is ironic
that organizations like the Sierra Club and Wilderness Society, whose
membership foundation is built upon people who simply enjoy the
outdoors, would now support reducing access to formative outdoor
experiences.
After all, the classic outings of the Sierra Club are described by
Ansel Adams in his An Autobiography with great enthusiasm as anything
but ``zero impact.'' Adams relates backcountry trips to magnificent
settings featuring fifty or more mules, roaring bonfires, feasts,
orchestras and plays staged in full costume. One would think that
organizations with this rich heritage would be supportive of enhanced--
not reduced--basic family and introductory camping. Ansel Adams started
as a basic family camper and became a conservation icon. Our goal
should be to foster the creation of more people like Ansel Adams.
To briefly conclude, and then on to the Yosemite Valley Plan. In
1985, I became engaged to my wife at an outlook on the Snow Creek trail
in Yosemite Valley. At the time, I couldn't afford a diamond ring. In
1986, while on a two-week backcountry trip out of Tuloumne Meadows, my
wife and I decided to become parents. I threatened to name my first
daughter ``Townsley'' after the lake where we made the decision.
Several years later we came back on a winter trip to the Valley, and I
presented with my wife with a diamond ring in front of our kids during
a day hike through the snow. When we lived closer to the Park, we
celebrated my wife's birthday (December 16th) at the Ahwanee dining
room (the most beautiful dining room in California) every year. My kids
(now 15 and 12) have grown up with the Park being a part of their life.
My younger daughter, Natalie, caught her first keeper--an 18''
rainbow--at Vogelsang Lake (at 10,500 feet). What a place to catch your
first keeper. It was cooked-up for us at breakfast at Vogelsang High
Sierra Camp. The whole dining room stood up and cheered Natalie when
the fish was served.
The Yosemite Valley Plan
As a planner, a land use attorney, and a lover of Yosemite National
Park, I've reviewed the plan before you today. The Yosemite Valley Plan
contains many ideas that are commendable, but it is deficient in that
it fails to restore sufficient visitor accommodations in the Valley. It
is true that the 1997 floods washed-away some eyesores (floods always
do), but it is shocking that the preparers of the Plan would choose the
word ``opportunity'' to describe the devastation wreaked by the floods.
See Executive Summary at Page 7.
The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Plan presents its
Preferred Alternative as increasing the amount of visitor
accommodations in the Valley. As many commentors to the EIS recognized,
this is only technically true and not useful to meaningful public
discussion.
The 1997 floods destroyed about 40% of the campsites in the Valley,
and a significant number of hotel and cabin units as well. The Final
EIS presents post-flood conditions as a baseline, and does not focus on
what has been lost or what is necessary to replace it. Not even as an
alternative. The Final EIS states that the Plan will increase the
number of existing campsites in the Valley from about 475 to 500. But
this is no increase at all. If you and the National Park Service
implement the Preferred Alternative before you, you will permanently
eliminate 40% of Yosemite Valley's historic camping sites.
The Plan's treatment of the Lodge is similarly deficient. The Plan
does not discuss pre-flood conditions. Before the floods, there were
approximately 495 rooms at the Lodge. According to National Park
Service information, today there are only 245. The Plan proposes 251
units. Thus, if the Plan is implemented, approximately half of the
accommodations at the Lodge will be lost forever.
The picture at Curry Village is not clear. Today according to
internet information, there are approximately 628 guest accommodations
(motel rooms, cabins and tent-cabins) at Curry Village. The Preferred
Alternative suggests 487 future units; an apparent reduction of 141
units. Similarly, Housekeeping Camp is described as providing 266 tent-
cabin units. The Preferred Alternative proposes 100; a 62% reduction.
If these assumed numbers are correct, the Plan will eliminate
approximately half of the Valley's historic visitor accommodation
capacity; approximately 325 campsites, 385 units at the Lodge and Curry
Village, and 166 units at Housekeeping Camp.
I am fully aware that there are those who would affirmatively
support reducing visitor access to the Valley because of their
commitment to what they term ``ecological values.'' However, most of
those who espouse this viewpoint know that their reasoning and
objectives would never be accepted by the public or by Congress. We
entrust the great men and women of the Park Service the stewardship of
the Parks so that current and future generations can enjoy them; a
noble mission.
It is a shame then, that the Final EIS terms the 1997 floods an
``opportunity.'' The only apparent opportunity in what was in fact a
tragedy, was the ``opportunity'' to avoid confronting a serious public
policy decision--an affirmative decision to decrease public access to
Yosemite Valley--a decision that would never stand up to meaningful
public discussion or analysis. For this reason, the Final EIS
conveniently assumes there will be no impact on visitation levels if
the Plan is implemented.
People like me are relying on you, as our elected representatives,
to consider whether the Plan will in fact, reduce the access and
enjoyment of visitors to the Valley. The only reasonable conclusion is
that it will. Half of those historically able to experience an
overnight stay in the Valley will be shut out and reduced to the status
of ``bus tourists.''
You should be insisting that the Park Service investigate ways to
restore and preserve the experience of a stay in Yosemite Valley while
furthering resource protection. The Final EIS does not ask that
question. For example, automobile management has been improved in the
Valley over the past decades. We should be looking at and investing in
more ways to reduce unnecessary automobile trips to Yosemite. We should
be looking at ways to improve the Valley's air quality (particulate
emissions) by, for example, controlling visitor campfires. We can do
these things without being anti-people. We can educate Park visitors,
and plan and distribute Valley campgrounds, so that they respect
sensitive riparian areas. When asked to do so, people have acknowledged
and respected Yosemite's resources. That's part of Yosemite's
tradition.
The Final EIS makes no real effort to analyze the planning,
logistical and environmental issues that would be required for its
Preferred Alternative to succeed (indulging the counter-intuitive
assumption that the Plan would not cause visitation to be reduced). For
example, there has been no real analysis of the ability of communities
and areas outside of the Valley to successfully absorb the displaced
level of overnight accommodations, or the environmental impacts of such
displacement. Similarly, there has been no real analysis of the
feasibility or timing of the transportation system (YARTS) that would
be needed to successfully bring visitors to and from the Valley. The
Final EIS simply states that these issues are beyond its scope. This is
technical, but not true, planning. Hiding behind the procedural and
scope limitations of the EIS process is just an excuse for failing to
confront the obvious implication that if the Plan is implemented, many
persons who would have otherwise visited the Valley will not come at
all.
Moreover, the real benefits of the Plan are questionable. It is
true that the Plan would revert historic accommodation sites to a more
natural condition, and create more areas for passive use in the Valley.
But, if one seeks quietude in the Valley, it has always been available
at wonderful places away from the Valley's most notable features and
destinations. Those who seek those places out know that. Further, if we
indulge the Final EIS' assumption that the Plan will not diminish
visitation, then there is no reason to assume that popular visitor
destinations (trails, waterfalls, etc.) will be any less congested
during peak visitation periods.
The real ecological benefits of the Plan, particularly as part of
the bigger picture of the Park and regional ecosystem, are equally
questionable. That is, of course, unless one assumes that the objective
of the Plan is to decrease visitation to the Valley. Many areas to be
restored are immediately adjacent, or proximate, to urbanized areas of
the Valley. These areas will still both experience and be surrounded by
visitation activity. The Valley is not and will never be a true
wilderness area. Thus, it must be managed as most appropriate. While
the appearance of certain areas of the Valley would admittedly be
improved by the Plan, decreasing access cannot be truly justified on an
environmental basis.
Conclusion
These days I do not often camp in Yosemite Valley. I am, in fact,
somewhat crowd-averse and have learned to avoid the Valley during peak
visitation periods. I also have acquired the interest and skill-set
necessary to seek solitude and wilderness in other locations. Those who
prefer to avoid Yosemite Valley's crowds can make the very same choice.
They need not pressure the National Park Service to shut people out of
Yosemite Valley. When I do visit Yosemite Valley crowded with families
and children and fumbling campers and hikers, I smile. I see my own
learning, love, and experience reflected in theirs. They are ``in
school.'' I hope they will go further into the outdoor experience and
become life-long conservationists. I would like to think that Ansel
Adams would smile too.
On the morning of April 22nd, each of you will enjoy the soul-
stirring experience of rising from your slumber to stand in the most
magnificent cathedral in the world. Let's restore the opportunity for
that experience to as many people as possible. Please don't relegate
Park visitors to ``bus tourist'' status. Let's recognize the value of
Yosemite Valley as one of our nation's most important school rooms.
There are many more Ansel Adams coming along. Let's put our resources
and attention to work on solving Yosemite Park's real environmental
issues and challenges. A second Yosemite Valley sits not far away
beneath a reservoir. Someday, I would like to stroll through its
woodlands and meadows, maybe camp there, and ponder the problem of
dealing with the throngs who will want to come to experience it.
Thank you very much for your time and attention.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Please keep it to 5 minutes. I hate doing
this, you guys, but we are going to be here until 4 o'clock.
STATEMENT OF JAY THOMAS WATSON, CALIFORNIA/NEVADA REGIONAL
DIRECTOR, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY
Mr. Watson. Chairman Radanovich, members of the
Subcommittee, on behalf of The Wilderness Society, thank you
for the opportunity to present testimony on the implementation
of the landmark Yosemite Valley Plan.
While the 1997 floodwaters of the Merced River disrupted
local businesses as well as the expectations of park visitors,
there was a silver lining to the storm clouds that produced
those floods: the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to transform
into reality what had long been a grand but elusive vision for
Yosemite.
To its credit, the Park Service seized that opportunity by
writing the Yosemite Valley Plan. Intellectual honesty,
rigorous analysis, and extensive public participation
characterized that planning process, including 18 public
hearings, 11,000 comments and countless walk-throughs with Park
Service staff regularly scheduled during the week. Virtually
every newspaper in the State supports the Valley Plan including
even today's Fresno and Modesto Bees.
The final plan was adopted on December 29, 2000. On that
day the Park Service presented the American people a plan that
struck an elegant balance between protecting Yosemite's natural
and cultural resources and providing the visitor use and
enjoyment. The Wilderness Society is pleased to see the Park
Service moving forward on implementing the plan, but more must
be done still. Staffing assignments, preplanning, and
sequencing of decisionmaking must be initiated if longer-term
transportation and parking changes are to be realized.
With respect to upper and lower river campgrounds, the
habitat restoration opportunities presented there are the
single largest restoration component of the plan, and it would
restore some of the most biologically productive habitat types
found in Yosemite Valley, as well as providing new and
different day-use opportunities.
Similarly, the reduction and centralization of day-use
parking at Camp 6 is a vital component of the plan. Indeed,
habitat restoration and transportation changes are the heart
and soul of the Valley Plan and neither should be compromised.
In adopting the final plan, the Park Service showed its
responsiveness to public comment. Both campgrounds and lodging
best demonstrate that responsiveness. Under the final plan,
assuming a 2-night stay during maybe the most crowded 4-month
period in the summer, 94,000 families can camp inside Yosemite
National Park, but the Park Service isn't stopping there. They
have found a way to locate another 204 sites outside the
valley, boosting total camping opportunities to over 106,000 in
just 4 months. We support the addition of those additional
sites outside of the valley.
Similarly, in direct response to public comment, the Park
Service restructured the mix of total overnight opportunities
in the plan to emphasize accommodations at the lower end of the
cost scale. Under the plan, out of 1,461 total possible
overnight stays in Yosemite Valley on any given day, a total of
1,179 are campsites, rustic tent cabins; and economy-scale
cabins are 81 percent of all overnight accommodations.
Because of the Park Service's success in developing the
Valley Plan, the future of Yosemite is bright. Some of the park
employees that produced that plan are still here at the park.
Others have moved on to other parks like Fort Clatsop, Channel
Islands, and Mt. Lassen. Wherever they are, the folks who
produced this plan should be deeply proud of what they
accomplished.
It has been 23 years since the Park Service set forth the
vision for Yosemite and saw it embraced by the American people.
Yosemite's time has come. Let us get the job done and done
right as set forth in the final Yosemite Valley Plan. Reopening
it and changing individual components of it will simply turn it
into a house of cards or a set of dominos; the whole thing will
come tumbling down because all the different components that we
have talked about today are linked together. If you change one,
it's going to affect another.
Just like John Muir said years ago, everything is hitched
together, everything is hitched together in the Valley Plan,
and like I said earlier, it did strike a delicate balance that
has long been needed in Yosemite; and we look forward to its
continued implementation. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Watson.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Watson follows:]
Statement of Jay Thomas Watson, California/Nevada Regional Director,
The Wilderness Society
Chairman Radanovich, members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
have the opportunity to join you here today in this Incomparable
Valley. You have picked quite a location for this hearing--Half Dome as
a backdrop, the sound of water rushing over Yosemite Falls--it is
indeed a pleasure to present testimony on behalf of The Wilderness
Society on the implementation of the landmark Yosemite Valley Plan.
It is hard to believe that it has been more than six years since
the floodwaters of the Merced River passed through Yosemite Valley.
While the 1997 flood caused a lot of damage, disrupting the lives and
economic well-being of local residents and businesses, as well as the
expectations of park visitors, there was a silver lining to the storm
clouds that produced those floods--a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to
transform into reality what had long been a grand, but elusive vision
for Yosemite.
Realizing that vision has indeed been elusive since it has been 23
years since it was first articulated to the American people in the 1980
General Management Plan for Yosemite National Park. The vision is
captured in five key goals:
LReclaim priceless natural beauty
LAllow natural processes to prevail
LPromote visitor understanding and enjoyment
LMarkedly reduce traffic congestion
LReduce crowding
In other words, a more natural Yosemite, where hydrological and
other natural process operate freely, a Yosemite with less asphalt,
fewer automobiles, less development, less congestion, a Yosemite with
an improved and enhanced visitor experience.
Fortunately, the National Park Service seized upon the opportunity
presented by the floods by launching a three-year planning process that
culminated in the adoption of the Yosemite Valley Plan and the Merced
River Plan. Intellectual honesty, rigorous analysis, and extensive and
open public participation characterized these planning processes. At
the end of the trail, on a bright but chilly November day, the Final
Yosemite Valley Plan was formally announced by then Secretary of the
Interior, Bruce Babbitt.
It is important to note that more than 10,000 comments were
received on the Yosemite Valley Plan. In addition to public comments,
the planning process was characterized by 18 public hearings and
meetings in 18 locations and cities, regularly scheduled on-the-ground
tours led by Park Service staff, written planning updates and
newsletters, and extensive media coverage.
In other words, the Final Yosemite Valley Plan was the product of a
comprehensive, open, and honest process that offered unprecedented
opportunities and avenues for public review and input. To this day, the
Park Service and the planning team deserves credit and applause, not
only for the process they undertook, but also for the product they
developed as well.
The Final Yosemite Valley Plan was duly adopted through a signed
Record of Decision dated December 29, 2000. On that day, the National
Park Service bestowed a gift upon Yosemite Valley. Moreover, on that
day, the Park Service showed that it had struck an elegant balance
between protecting Yosemite's natural and cultural resources and
providing for visitor use and enjoyment of a popular national park.
Accordingly, The Wilderness Society is pleased to see the Park
Service moving forward with vigorously implementing the Yosemite Valley
Plan. We support the projects currently moving forward--particularly
the Yosemite Falls Project, the Cascades Dam Project, the acquisition
of clean fuel shuttle vehicles, and the restoration to natural habitat
of the area currently known as Upper and Lower River Campgrounds.
I would also like to state clearly that The Wilderness Society is
unalterably opposed to reopening the plan to changes, particularly in
the area of campgrounds, parking, and transportation.
With respect to Upper and Lower River Campgrounds, the habitat
restoration opportunities presented there not only are the single
largest restoration component of the entire plan, they also would
restore some of the most biologically productive habitat types found in
Yosemite Valley--riparian, wet meadow, and Black oak.
With respect to the proposed reduction and centralization of day-
use parking to a 500-space lot at Camp Six, please understand that this
also a vital component of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan and is of
elemental importance if congestion is to be reduced in Yosemite Valley.
It is not only an answer to those handful of days when gridlock is
achieved, it is also an answer to the countless number of days during
the visitor season when automobile congestion, while short of absolute
gridlock, renders a visit to Yosemite Valley an exercise in
frustration.
Indeed, habitat restoration and transportation changes are indeed
the heart and soul of the Valley Plan. Neither must be compromised or
undermined.
In adopting the final plan, the Park Service also showed its
responsiveness to public comment by making significant changes in
moving from draft to final. Two issues that continue to be hot topics
perhaps best demonstrate this responsiveness--campgrounds and lodging.
Under the final plan, there would be 500 campsites in the valley.
Assuming a two-night stay, that is enough for 30,000 families or groups
of friends to camp out over a four-month summer camping season. Add in
the 1,065 other campsites within the boundaries of Yosemite National
Park, and there is enough for a total of 94,000 camping opportunities
during a four-month period.
But the Park Service isn't proposing to stop there, the agency has
found a way to locate another 204 sites in the park, yet outside the
valley--boosting total family camping opportunities to 106,140 two-
night stays over a four month period.
Similarly, in direct response to public comment, the Park Service
restructured the mix of total overnight opportunities in Yosemite to
emphasize accommodations at the lower end of the cost scale.
Under the final plan, there will be a total of 1,461 total
overnight accommodations in Yosemite Valley. Out of this total, 1,179
are campsites, rustic tent cabins, and economy-scale cabins, or 81
percent of all overnight accommodations. Only 282 beds so to speak, or
19 percent would be at the upper cost levels.
In other words, the Park Service has more than adequately found a
way to accommodate camping and low cost overnight accommodations in
Yosemite. While we support this effort, we will vigorously oppose any
modifications to the Yosemite Valley Plan to increase camping any
further in Yosemite Valley.
It is time to realize that Yosemite Valley is a finite place. Over
the years, far too much development and infrastructure was crammed into
the valley. The Yosemite Valley Plan sought to reverse that trend. It
is exciting to see it being implemented.
But more work needs to be done. In addition to the implementation
activities currently underway, I would like to touch on several other
efforts that must be started sooner, rather than later.
As I mentioned earlier, changes in transportation and parking are
vital to the success of the Valley Plan and to the future of Yosemite.
Staffing assignments, pre-planning activities, and up-front analysis,
and sequencing of decision-making must be initiated now to facilitate a
smooth transition to centralized parking and reduced day-use parking.
Similarly, with the help of this committee, the National Park
Service must see its authorities expanded by legislation to enable
fuller engagement in the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System
or YARTS. While the Valley Plan is not dependent on YARTS, the success
of YARTS could significantly reduce overall implementation costs.
Several factors are converging during the next few years that will
increase ridership on YARTS--the ramping up of UC-Merced, employees
moving out of Yosemite Valley into surrounding communities, reduced
day-use parking in the Valley, and the increased activities of the UC
Merced/Sierra Nevada Research Station.
YARTS was a homegrown idea that continues to deserve support. To
this day, I applaud Mariposa, Merced, and Mono Counties for having the
courage of their convictions to stick with YARTS. Their belief that
local, state, and Federal Governments can work together to solve a
common problem or serve a shared purpose is an inspiration. And yet,
additional funding is needed through TEA III legislation, as are
additional Park Service authorities similar to what the agency has at
Zion National Park.
Because of the Park Service's success in developing the Yosemite
Valley Plan and the Merced River Plan, the future of Yosemite is
bright. Think about it, in just a short time, an unsightly and
dangerous dam will be removed from the Wild and Scenic Merced River, a
parking lot removed and the Lower Yosemite Falls area restored and made
accessible to people with disabilities so they can feel the spray of
Yosemite Falls in their faces, the clean fuel shuttle fleet expanded,
congestion relieved, and one day soon, vital habitat restored along the
Merced River.
There is much to cheer about. There is much to be thankful for. And
there are people in the National Park Service who are true heroes of
public service. Some of them continue to work at Yosemite, some have
moved on to other parks like Fort Clatsop, Channel Islands, and Mt.
Lassen Volcanic.
Wherever they are, the folks who produced this plan should be
fiercely proud of their accomplishment. I am pleased to see the Park
Service embrace and implement the plan. On behalf of The Wilderness
Society, I ask that the Park Service, with the full support of this
committee, do even more by acting now on the tasks necessary to realize
the full promise of the Valley Plan--promises that will only be
realized when the full Yosemite Valley Plan is implemented, not just
those components represented by the fifteen or so projects currently
under way.
It has been 23 years since the National Park Service set forth a
majestic vision for Yosemite and saw it embraced by the American
people. Yosemite's time has come. Let's get the job done and done right
as set forth in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan. Thank you.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Whitmore, welcome to the Committee and
please begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE WHITMORE, CHAIRMAN,
YOSEMITE COMMITTEE, SIERRA CLUB, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Whitmore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee, for having invited us to testify here in the
Yosemite Valley, the heart of the crown jewel of the entire
national park system. You will be glad to know that I have
truncated my summary. I will hit just the major points in hopes
of encouraging more questions.
From the very beginning, we have found some things in the
Valley Plan which we like and some things which we believe are
not desirable. Being human, we tend to focus on the negative,
which you will find in our written testimony. But something we
need to make clear is that we believe the plan can be improved
without throwing it out and starting over.
Using the plan as a starting point, we need to move on,
evaluating individual actions on their merits. We need to
implement the less controversial provisions first, leaving the
more questionable ones for later consideration. The point has
already been made; we would like to emphasize that we agree
with it.
There are a lot of simple, inexpensive, low-impact measures
that would significantly reduce the perceived need for massive,
costly, and harmful actions called for in the Valley Plan. And
some examples have been given, like redesigning both
intersections and better directional signing.
There has been relatively little mention of a day-use
reservation system. For us, that is a major issue. We think
that it would go a long way toward dealing with the problems,
both real and perceived. By directing people away from the peak
periods, we feel will it would vastly reduce the perceived need
for massive parking lots and bussing systems that probably
would result in a net increase in annual visitation because
people would be assured of getting in and would find their
visit more enjoyable. But that does assume that a reasonable
number of slots would be set aside on a first-come-first-serve
basis, ensuring that people would usually get in even if they
did not have a reservation.
We feel that North Side Drive should not be closed because
this would lead inevitably to the widening of South Side Drive,
and we find the widening of South Side Drive totally
unacceptable. As I think anyone who looks carefully as they
drive along there would realize, it cannot be widened without
massive damage.
One point that might seem minor, but I will mention it
because I think it is symptomatic of a lot of the problems that
are occurring and will occur in implementing the Valley Plan,
we feel that the realignment of North Side Drive in the
Yosemite Lodge vicinity is not necessary. It would have been
possible to design or redesign the problem for a wide
intersection without the damage which is being done by the
Lower Fall project and without moving overnight accommodations
closer to the rock falls as is being planned.
Just to go on the record, we do support efforts, including
those by organizations such as YARTS, to address regional
transportation issues which affect Yosemite, provided those
efforts advance the goals of the 1980 General Management Plan.
One of the biggest deficiencies of the Valley Plan is its
failure to address the ever-increasing demand for access to the
valley by highly polluting and noisy tour buses. It is
inconsistent to focus on getting rid of cars while doing
nothing to prevent the polluting intrusion by buses of all
kinds, including tour buses.
Expansion of the valley shuttle routes to the west end of
the valley, as called for in the Valley Plan, should be
implemented sooner rather than later and most certainly before
making it even more difficult for people to use their cars. We
strongly feel that no more day-use parking should be removed
without providing suitable alternatives to use of the private
automobile.
And as far as campgrounds, my last point, we support the
decision to restore the Upper and Lower River campground sites
to natural conditions. We also support the expansion of
additional camping outside Yosemite Valley as suggested by
recent studies. Providing free shuttle service for outlying
campgrounds into the valley would greatly enhance the appeal of
these campgrounds and would fit well with expansion of the
valley shuttle to the west end of the valley.
So again we thank you for the opportunity to testify and I
would be happy to take any questions.
Mr. Radanovich. I thank the panelists. Thank you, Mr.
Whitmore for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitmore follows:]
Statement of George W. Whitmore, Chairman, Yosemite Committee, Sierra
Club
INTRODUCTION.
We appreciate having been invited to testify before the
Subcommittee.
OVERVIEW of the Valley Plan and associated problems.
A. Too much is being done too quickly.
A chaotic situation has been created wherein so much is being
attempted so quickly that it seems inevitable that one project will end
up conflicting with another, or simply create more problems because
other things should have been done first.
As an example, we cite the Lower Yosemite Fall project. Replacement
parking for the tour busses ultimately is supposed to be created behind
the Village area, but that project is not even being mentioned. In the
meantime the tour busses will be shunted from one temporary site to
another in the Lower Fall area because their previous parking is being
removed. And, continuing a long tradition, more automobile parking is
being removed without any improvement in the Valley shuttle bus service
to facilitate a transition to less reliance on private autos.
B. Problems with public notification and input.
Adding to the chaos, the Park Service keeps asking for public
input, but it is difficult for the public to be aware of what is
happening. So it's hardly surprising that they don't have enough
information to comment in a rational manner.
The Park Service has been conducting a series of Open Houses on
their planning and projects. These offer an immense amount of
information and are very useful. But they have almost all been during
the week and during the day, so very few people would be able to attend
them even if they were aware that the event was occurring. (There will
be another one on Wednesday, the day after this hearing, from 2:00 p.m.
to 6:00 p.m.)
The Park Service relies excessively on their web site. Many people
simply are not in the habit of getting their information this way.
There needs to be more use of mailings to update the public on
projects, planning, and comment deadlines.
C. Potential problems because of litigation.
Another reason for slowing the pace of development in the Valley is
because litigation over the Merced River Plan still has not been
resolved. It is currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and
the likely outcome is not at all clear. The River Plan is supposed to
provide a foundation for the Valley Plan (as directed by a District
Court judge), and projects now underway might have to be placed on hold
if the Circuit Court should find even one problem with the River Plan.
Particularly if that one problem happens to be the failure to ``address
user capacity'' as called for by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. That
issue alone could pull the underpinnings out from much of what is in
the Valley Plan.
D. Simple measures would yield large results.
Much of the development called for by the Valley Plan would not be
necessary if simple steps were taken to deal with congestion. There are
a few problem road intersections which have been allowed to fester for
decades. Why not redesign those intersections instead of turning the
whole Valley upside down? Again, inadequate or confusing directional
signs has been a problem for decades. Instead of providing better
signs, the Park Service points to the confused drivers going around and
around and says the solution is to get rid of the drivers and their
cars.
E. Day-use reservation system: simple and effective.
And the most obvious solution of all to deal with the congestion
which occurs a relatively small portion of the year would be to
implement a day-use reservation system with a portion of the slots
being available on a first-come-first-served basis. That way those who
need to be assured of getting in on a specific date would have that
assurance, while those who prefer a more spontaneous approach would
probably still get in. Most of the time there is simply not a problem
of too many people or too many cars.
There is much anecdotal evidence that many people don't come
because they think it is crowded, or they won't be able to get in, or
they won't be able to drive their car in. A reservation would ensure
their getting in, and would steer them away from the times that do tend
to be crowded. We suspect that a reasonably implemented day-use
reservation system would actually reverse the continuing decline in
annual visitation, as well as improve the quality of the visitor's
experience.
We hasten to point out that the Valley Plan actually moved AWAY
from the concept of a day-use reservation system. The idea was implied
in the 1980 General Management Plan, but that seminal beginning was
deleted by amendment through the Valley Plan process. It is one of the
reasons that we are less than enthusiastic about the Valley Plan.
This action of the Valley Plan was actually in contravention of the
Park Service's own regulations, which direct that every unit of the
National Park System address the carrying capacity issue. This
requirement was brought out in the General Accounting Office's November
15, 2002 report on transportation projects in the National Park System
(``National Park Service: Opportunities to Improve the Administration
of the Alternative Transportation Program'').
OTHER TRANSPORTATION ISSUES in addition to those mentioned above.
A. South Side Drive widening and North Side Drive closure.
While it is not on the table yet, we dread the day that the Park
Service starts widening South Side Drive in anticipation of closing
North Side Drive. At present, South Side Drive (as well as North Side
Drive) provides two lanes of one-way traffic, making for the safe and
pleasant movement of movement of different types of vehicles in one
direction. Faster and slower--autos, busses and bicycles--all are
accommodated smoothly.
In order to move traffic as well if it were two-way, as called for
in the Valley Plan, four lanes would be required. Huge numbers of trees
would have to be removed, and an ugly swath of asphalt inviting high
speeds would take their place. The very idea is an abomination which
never should have found its way onto paper. To keep it at two lanes
(one in each direction) would result in gross traffic congestion, a
high accident rate, and an unpleasant visitor experience.
And all this because someone thought it would be a good idea to
close North Side Drive to traffic. JUST LEAVE THINGS ALONE! This is a
prime example of failure to anticipate that ``restoration'' of North
Side Drive would inevitably result in gross destruction of natural
values and quality of the visitor experience on South Side Drive.
B. Realignment of North Side Drive in vicinity of Yosemite Lodge.
Again, why can't it just be left alone? Because the Lower Fall
project has already committed the Park Service to another project which
doesn't make sense. The four-way problem intersection could easily have
been fixed without a massive realignment of North Side Drive, or moving
overnight lodging closer to the rockfall zone. The entire Lower Fall,
Lodge redevelopment, and North Side Drive realignment complex of
projects is an example of planning run amuck. A massive urban
redevelopment project, without regard for the fact that this is a
national park.
C. Segment ``D'' of the El Portal road (Highway 120/140 junction to
Pohono Bridge).
While it is not on the table yet, and the environmental reviews
have not been started, it is quite clear that the Park Service has
every intention of raising this segment of road to the same standard as
the newly completed section. And this is in spite of the fact that the
gradients and curves that provided the rationale for the other
construction do not exist on Segment ``D''. Although portions of the
road require stabilization because of flood damage, this could be
accomplished without the massive impacts to the landscape that would be
required if the road were reconstructed to the same standard as that
already done. Rather than a blind insistence on uniform widths just for
the sake of uniformity, we ask that the road not be rebuilt except as
necessary for safety.
D. YARTS.
Because there continues to be misunderstanding as to the Sierra
Club's attitude toward YARTS, we wish to make it clear that we support
efforts, including those by organizations such as YARTS, to address
regional transportation issues which affect Yosemite provided those
efforts advance the goals of the 1980 General Management Plan. Those
goals include reduction of traffic congestion, reduction of
overcrowding, and promotion of visitor enjoyment.
We should also add that we strongly urge that transportation
systems be implemented in such a way as to make progress toward cleaner
air.
E. Tour (excursion) busses.
One of the biggest deficiencies in the Valley Plan is its failure
to address the ever-increasing demand for access to the Valley by tour
busses. The Plan makes much of the problems which are perceived to be
caused by autos, with Draconian restrictions on their use. Yet it
simply ignores the potentially far worse problem which will be caused
by unlimited numbers of highly polluting and noisy tour busses.
It is our understanding that the Park Service has the authority to
regulate tour bus access to the Park, and could require that the busses
meet specific emission standards as a condition of entry. If the Park
Service does not have that authority, it seems that enabling
legislation would be appropriate. If they already have the authority,
it seems that they need to be encouraged to move in that direction.
And, to the extent that tour busses are carrying day-use visitors,
our comments above regarding the wisdom of a day-use reservation system
would apply to tour busses also.
F. Fuel cells.
We appreciate Mr. Radanovich's interest in seeking cleaner air for
Yosemite, and we support a fuel cell project provided the goal is to
make progress toward cleaner air in Yosemite. Apparently the project
would not necessarily be for a bus; if it is for a stationary facility,
we suggest Crane Flat because the electricity supplied there now is
from a diesel generator.
G. Valley shuttle busses.
We would like to see the present fleet of old and polluting diesel
busses replaced with vehicles which would match former Western Regional
Director John Reynolds' vision of ``the cleanest busses in the world'',
as articulated by him before this Subcommittee on March 27, 2001.
We are not convinced that a diesel powered electric hybrid bus
would meet that vision. We would like to see a comparison of the
alternatives, including propane powered electric hybrid, gasoline
powered electric hybrid, and straight propane powered. If emissions
data shows that diesel powered hybrids would be the cleanest and
otherwise suitable, we could support that. But diesels have such a bad
reputation that it seems hard to believe they would prove to be the
cleanest just because they are put into a hybrid application. It seems
as though the others would also be cleaner in the hybrid application,
still leaving diesel at a relative disadvantage. Like I said, we would
like an opportunity to review the comparative data, but have been
having some difficulty getting the information.
H. Expansion of the Valley Shuttle Routes.
It would seem that this is one of the less controversial actions
called for in the Valley Plan, and has the potential for reducing
congestion and facilitating visitor access. Yet we see no indication
that the Park Service has any plans for taking it up in the foreseeable
future. We believe they have indicated that they would first have to
build a series of stops complete with rest rooms, so they are looking
upon it as a massive undertaking.
It seems self-evident that people drive all around the Valley now,
stopping and getting out of their cars, at countless places where there
are no rest rooms. We see no reason why public transportation could not
be provided on the same basis.
I. Day-use parking.
As alluded to above, we find it highly inappropriate for the Park
Service to continue to remove day-use parking without first providing
suitable alternatives to the use of the private auto. Much of the
congestion which actually occurs is the result of removal of parking,
which has been ongoing for at least the last twenty years. We are
usually in favor of removing asphalt, but not if it is simply going to
get laid down somewhere else (as called for in the Valley Plan), and
not if it results in degradation of the visitor experience (as called
for in the Valley Plan)
IV. CAMPGROUNDS.
We support the decision in the 2000 Yosemite Valley Plan to restore
the Upper and Lower River Campground sites to natural conditions. We
also support the expansion of additional camping opportunities outside
Yosemite Valley as suggested by recent Park studies. In particular, we
support the 1980 General Management Plan provision that there be ``in
kind'' replacement of camping opportunities to compensate for those
which are removed from Yosemite Valley.
We note that there has been a continuing long-term process of
reducing camping opportunities throughout the Park. It appears to be
part of the pattern of phasing out lower-cost accommodations, and
putting in higher cost accommodations, which has manifested itself so
clearly in the Yosemite Valley Plan. Recognizing that it is difficult
to find suitable locations for new camping opportunities in the Valley,
we feel there is all the more reason to make every effort to find
appropriate locations as near as possible outside the Valley.
Another way of compensating for the loss of campgrounds within the
Valley would be to provide adequate shuttle service into the Valley
from outlying campgrounds.
V. CONCLUSION.
We thank you for the opportunity of testifying.
______
Mr. Radanovich. We will move to the asking of questions by
the panel.
Let me begin by asking Mr. Minault--thank you for being
here--in your testimony, you stated that based on the 1980
General Management Plan, the valley has a shortfall of over 300
campsites. I am wondering how you would reconcile that with Mr.
Watson's belief that the 500 campsites slated for the valley is
sufficient.
Mr. Minault. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our feeling is that
the overnight accommodation pattern in the valley is skewed
toward developed lodgings and that really the purpose of a park
is to provide a recreational experience, that campgrounds do
that, that developed lodgings are a form of leisure, as we have
stated, and that there should be a shift to have a greater
number of campgrounds and a gradually reduced number of
developed lodgings.
And it is hard to identify a perfect number, and we won't
attempt to do that, but in our comments on the Valley Plan we
did show that there was room for increased campsites east of
the Ahwahnee, and in fact, we would love to see the Ahwahnee
cabins, which are the valley's single most space-consumptive
and most expensive lodgings and which were untouched in the
Valley Plan while campsites were radically reduced--we would
love to see those cabins removed and the part of the valley
east of the Ahwahnee made into a Royal Arches campground so
that east of the side valley where you have the most sun and
the Ahwahnee has its own waterfall could be shared with some of
the riffraff who have enjoyed camping, like myself.
And, incidentally, we also believe that the Park Service's
goal of adaptive management requires that they be a little bit
more on the balls of their feet in handling NEPA documents,
environmental documents, and that it is not necessary to bring
the Valley Plan to a grinding halt in order to consider some of
these campground options, that supplemental and environmental
documents can be prepared and will have to be prepared as the
plan goes on and as the concept of adaptive management is
implemented and that additional campgrounds can be developed
under those sorts of documents.
Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you.
Mr. Abshez, we appreciated your testimony, what I have
gotten from it, and I am sorry to have to cut all of you off,
or most of it, on this, but I do have a question. I want to ask
you, you mentioned in your testimony the discrepancies in the
final Yosemite Valley Plan regarding the number of campsites.
Can you elaborate on that for me?
Mr. Abshez. Well, when I was referring to discrepancies, I
was referring to the baseline, the assumed baseline of post-
flood conditions.
One of the alternatives which was not included in the
discussion was the alternative of restoring the level of
accommodations and campsites. So we are 40 percent down in
campsites. I think we are approximately 500 units down in
lodging, and yet there is no alternative that addresses
restoration.
If you look at campsites alone, using the map that was
developed by The Wilderness Society, which looks like a good
map, the campsites that were lost represent opportunities for
19,680 family camping vacations every summer. And with regard
to camping opportunities outside of the valley, there are lots
of camping opportunities outside of the valley. They are
available all over the Nation.
The valley is unique. There is no substitute for a camping
experience in the valley.
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Watson, I do have a question. It is my
understanding that the mission of The Wilderness Society is to
deliver to future generations an unspoiled legacy of wild
places with all the precious values they hold, such as
biological diversity, towering forest, rushing rivers, and
safe, sweet, silent deserts.
Assuming that you stand by the mission, how can a family
truly experience all that the Yosemite Valley and the park have
to offer without somehow disturbing nature? Can you reconcile
those things for us?
Please, no more comments from the audience. I have got to
tell you it is just not appropriate for a congressional
hearing.
Mr. Watson. The Wilderness Society is fully supportive and
thinks one of the highest and best uses of the national parks
is for the public to visit them. That is in large part their
purpose. It is balanced with sort of a dual mission in the
organic act of protecting the underlying resources, but we do
believe that restorative visits to the public lands are one of
the highest and best uses of the public lands, including the
parks.
We all have impact. Backpackers have an impact. I am not
saying we can't have any impact in the Yosemite Valley.
Clearly, there is impact. There is impact in the back country
from a backpacker. So I recognize that there is impact through
that use, and that is just the way it is.
It is the purpose of agencies to try to minimize that use,
but not at the expense of locking people out, and I don't
believe the purpose of the Valley Plan in any way is to lock
people out of this park. It was to find a balance between
habitat restoration and conservation and public use and
enjoyment. Sure, you could have more people camping in Yosemite
Valley. You could tear down the Lodge and build a campground
and you wouldn't have as many hotel units. Under the plan it is
interesting to note that while 300 campsites are being removed,
lodging is decreasing by 262 units. So there is less of
everything in the Yosemite Valley Plan, and camping has not
been targeted for reductions at the expense of everything else.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you.
Donna?
Mrs. Christensen. Just two brief ones. Mr. Chairman and
panelists, the goal here is sometimes difficult to achieve, but
I want to commend you, Mr. Chairman, on the balance of the
testimony that we have had here this morning.
Mr. Whitmore, both the Chairman and I have felt that our
desire to improve the gateway community process, gateway
process--in your written testimony you stated you didn't feel
that it was adequate. I thought we had established that with
the 14-plus hearings, town meetings that were held around this
particular plan, that it had been a very open process and there
has been a lot of opportunity. Yet you don't seem to think the
process has been as it should have been or provided the
opportunity it could have.
Mr. Whitmore. I don't recall having said that recently, but
we have been involved in the past--well, in fact, currently--
with litigation challenging basically the planning processes on
both the Merced River Plan and the Valley Plan--well, not the
Valley Plan yet; that was perhaps a Freudian slip. But the
Merced River Plan and a couple prior to that, we were actually
the plaintiffs on two prior lawsuits, but we are not on the
current Merced River litigation.
So, yes, we did have some concerns with the process, but it
mostly had to do with the internal procedures of the Park
Service. I do not think that we ever felt that there had been
an inadequate opportunity for the public to make its feelings
known.
And I do feel that while I realize it may be beyond the
purpose of this hearing, but I think that I should point out
that we do feel the Park Service was quite responsive to public
input following the close of comment period on the draft Valley
Plan. The final Valley Plan as it came out was substantially
improved over the draft Valley Plan, and probably largely
because of the input from the public which the Park Service
listened to and acted upon.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
Just one last question. Mr. Minault, in your testimony, and
you said it in response to a question also, that the National
Park Service plans for lodging in the valley is geared to the
upper end of the income scale.
In contrast, Mr. Watson, in your testimony, you noted that
81 percent of the overnight accommodations are economically
minded campsites, tent cabins, et cetera, with 19 percent at
the upper cost levels.
I am trying to reconcile that. So my question is, what is
the lodging situation? Do you feel that a broad economic range
of options is being offered, or is it really geared to the
upper end? I am just trying to reconcile those two views.
Mr. Minault. My feeling is that the park has an affirmative
obligation to create a situation of social equality in the
parks, not simply to accommodate the social distinctions which
exist in the greater society and which--
Mrs. Christensen. And you--
Mr. Minault. --which any careful observer will see are
increasing as the society matures.
I think we need to be compressing the distance between
people socially in the parks rather than just reflecting the
distance between classes that we have in our society now.
So my feeling is--also the parks are a recreational
resource. My feeling is, we should not be using the parks as a
place where people come and enjoy leisure. This is a place for
recreation, and campgrounds, more than developed lodgings,
foster leisure. And I also believe that the lodging situation
we have in Yosemite right now reflects the history of Yosemite
when there were not accommodations outside the park and the
park needed to have accommodations geared toward guests. That
is increasingly changing, and I do not think the plan that we
have now recognizes that change. So--
Mrs. Christensen. Even though the number of lodging units
are also decreasing?
Mr. Minault. Yes. I don't think they are decreasing as fast
as I would like to see them decrease.
Ms. Christensen. Mr. Watson?
Mr. Watson. Yes. Thank you.
In my calculations, what I do is combine five categories.
There are campsites, there are rustic tent cabins, there are
economy-level cabins, mid-scale lodge units, and upscale, the
Ahwahnee. So I included the three at the lower-end campsites,
rustic tent cabins and economy cabins would probably cost less
than motel unit outside the valley and added those all up and
that is how I came up with 81 percent.
You could perhaps count it a different way, but that is how
I chose to do it. I think it was accurate and fair.
You know, The Wilderness Society would certainly support
more campgrounds in the Yosemite Valley, but there is only so
much room. Something else is going to have to come out, and I
guarantee you whatever comes out to replace campgrounds has a
local constituency for it, just like everything else.
Ms. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. Thanks, Donna.
Devin?
Mr. Nunes. Mr. Watson, assuming that the 1980 baseline is
correct, that there are 2,500 campsites, do you agree with that
number?
Mr. Watson. You know, I really don't know. I would have to
go back and look at documents in my office. But assuming it
is--
Mr. Nunes. Assuming it is--
Mr. Watson. Let us just assume it is.
Mr. Nunes. --and we are down to 50 percent of that number
23 years later, where do you think that number should go over
the next 20 years?
Mr. Watson. Well, I am assuming that other types of
facilities have, in part, replaced some of those campsites that
were lost. Perhaps others have been--have become natural
habitat. I tend to kind of doubt that. I think, if anything,
the trend in the valley over the years was to cram on more
stuff in here.
You know, I think if the Park Service could find a way,
like they have in this study, to locate 204 some-odd sites
outside of the valley, that is a terrific start. I am assuming
that those would be attached to existing campgrounds, and that
is why they would be easier to do through a regulatory process
that is less complicated to add on to an existing site than
build a brand-new campground somewhere in the park.
There is one location for an additional campground, though,
and that is on a piece of private land that is currently on the
market called Hazel Green. It has been eyed for resorts and for
ecoresorts in the past by a company that went out of business.
So it is now on the market. That could be a relief out there
for additional camping and that is something that we would be
more than interested in looking at because we fully support
camping in Yosemite National Park.
Mr. Nunes. Those are not on the valley floor?
Mr. Watson. They are not on the valley floor. That is
correct.
Mr. Watson. You can certainly have more camp sites and they
would fill up, but then they would compromise other aspects of
the plan. I mean, there was a balance between providing for
visitor use and enjoyment, allowing natural processes to
prevail and restoring scenic beauty. Those are three goals that
date back to the 1980 plan. So it was a balance between those,
and I know ``balance'' is a loaded word. It means something
different to everyone. But I believe they have struck that now.
Like I said, if there is a way to find additional camp sites
outside of the valley, we will have to allow the Congress to
make the money available to build those.
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Abshez, could you answer that same
question from the 1980 baseline in comparison to now? Where do
you think, as a hiker and an avid user of the park, where do
you think the numbers should go?
Mr. Abshez. I think we need to bring back up the number of
camp sites throughout the park. I personally know that there
are many cases when I have sought to come in places other than
the valley where camp site accommodations have not been
available, even that other than peak seasons. And I personally
am familiar with many camp grounds that have been abandoned.
There might be good reasons for abandoning those particular
camp grounds.
In the valley, I agree with Mr. Radanovich, that their use
of floodplains for a campground is a good use. In fact, if you
would examine the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in First
Evangelical Church versus County of Los Angeles, you will see
that the County of Los Angeles once took the position that they
would prohibit building in floodplains but that the property
owner could still make viable use of it for camping, which is
an interesting point. And I am informed that the camp sites
after the 1997 floods were not destroyed by the floods, but
they were damaged, but they were removed after the floods.
So I think we--you know, there is a lot of reason to look
at responsibly planning the reintroduction of the camping in
the valley and increasing the camping in other parts of the
park so that people can enjoy it. They are being denied that
visitation, and sometimes when you can't get in it is not an
option to stay outside the park. Often that is a good option, I
want to support the gateway communities, but other times people
would just pass on because they feel they can't visit their
destination.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you.
Mr. Abshez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Abshez, can you tell me--tell me, help me to reconcile
this. Do you believe that the Park Service must reduce access
in Yosemite to save the valley for future generations?
Mr. Abshez. I don't know that the Park Service believes
that. I certainly don't believe it. We look at the history of
human development in the park. We have seen that there has
been--previously there has been much more intensive use of the
valley as a city, as farmland. There have been bowling alleys
and pool halls in the valley. We have had much more parking
here previously. We had driving all over the valley. There was
reform and the valley is a lot better for that today.
I think we have the tools to have intelligent land planning
and management in the valley and enable all sorts of people to
come here, stay in all sorts of accommodations. I like to camp
but I have nothing against people who don't like to camp and
would rather stay in a lodge. My grandmother was an example. I
like economy accommodations. I have stayed in them. Sometimes I
was flat broke. I love the chance to stay in Ahwahnee. I
wouldn't deny that opportunity to anyone. Let's get the access
for people.
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Minault, can you--you represent through
the access fund and promote the need for camping. Does that
type of camping go anywhere from minimal-use, walk-in
campgrounds to the 40-foot RV, beer-popping camper that likes
to fish and everything else with him when he goes camping? Do
you have some parameters as to what you support and what you
don't support or--well.
Mr. Minault. Well, I am afraid I do. You know, climbers are
famous for being able to subsist on very minimal conditions.
And we have many climber campgrounds in the United States with
no water, no trash facilities, no really developed facilities,
simply minimal toilets. And in Yosemite we have recommended in
the outer valley parkwide--I have to remember the name of
this--parkwide out of valley campground study--that there be
development of those type of campgrounds, walk-in campgrounds
that serve climbers and backpackers and people who are able to
live successfully in a campground with less developed
facilities as a balance to the more developed campgrounds.
And frankly, you know, I have to say personally, an RV to
me is really--is not really a campground use. It is a movable
building and doesn't really belong in a campground in a place
like Yosemite where there's so much competition for space.
Mr. Radanovich. If somehow some camping sites were to go
back into upper- and lower-river campgrounds, without reopening
the general plan or creating havoc, what kind of campgrounds
would you like to see?
Mr. Minault. We would like to see some group sites which
are missing or lacking in the valley, walk-in sites that allow
people to--basically get more people in a small space,
fundamentally--and a mix of regular family and car camping
sites. And the political reality is you would have to have some
RV sites as well.
But I think if I could just speak for climbers, we are
content with less. If less is what it takes to get us in the
valley and housed here, then less is what we will be happy to
take.
Mr. Radanovich. Can you define for me this idea of group
camp sites? Is that some like Boy Scout group or is that--what
do you mean by group camping?
Mr. Minault. Right. They are group sites like those in
Tuolumne Meadows Campground. There may be groups sites in the
valley that were. I think they were lost in the floods. But
there are a half a dozen group sites in Tuolumne Meadows
Campground where you have school camps, church camps, Boy
Scouts, that kind of thing, and you may have 20 or 30 people.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you.
Mr. Whitmore, thanks for your testimony. And I am
interested in your support of the North Side Drive staying in,
and Mr. Watson had mentioned there is always--you know, this
plan is so interconnected; one thing out, one thing in has some
pretty dynamic effects to the whole plan all together.
How do you reconcile, though, the issue of North Side Drive
is the fact that it is in the floodplain, Stoneman Bridge down
to Yosemite Village, the idea of removing that which is in the
floodplain of the river, as are the campground spaces; how can
you reconcile leaving a road in there and removing--but
removing the campgrounds?
Mr. Radanovich. They are both in the floodplain. It is a
floodplain issue that drives both of these, and yet if you are
respecting--or of the opinion that they should be removed
because they are in a floodplain, why would you allow one and
not the other?
Mr. Whitmore. Well, I don't think that we can use presence
in the floodplain to be an absolute standard in Yosemite Valley
as to whether something is permitted or not. If you wait long
enough you will get a very giant flood; and, potentially,
practically all of the valley floor is a floodplain. And so I
think you are going to have to make compromises just with
everything else.
I think that having a road in a floodplain is probably a
little more practical than having buildings or structures or
restrooms, other constructed facilities. But actually as far as
closure of North Side Drive, I was referring to the section
from Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4 to the west, to the El Capitan
crossover where they are proposing to make that into a walking
and bicycle trail. A lot of that does get flooded.
But I think the main reason that--their main rationale, I
believe, for proposing that to be closed to autos was simply to
make more of the valley more natural, which is normally
something we would support. But in that particular case, I
think the impact on South Side Drive would be so immense and
unacceptable that we just cannot see that it is feasible to
close North Side Drive.
Mr. Radanovich. OK, thank you. We may be closing down on
our questions.
I have got to ask this thing because this has really been
in my craw for a long time. During the plan--and I guess I can
direct this to you, Mr. Whitmore, because it is regarding the
Le Conte Memorial. Why was there no consideration--or was
there--to removing the Le Conte Memorial and getting it out of
the valley for habitat restoration? It just bothered me that
that building is still there and, you know, John Muir would be
turning over in his grave to have something built in his memory
that is a man-made object in the valley. And I--why is that? I
mean, it seems to me if we are really interested in habitat
restoration, it ought to be in areas that affect us, not other
people, and I have got to ask this question.
Mr. Whitmore. Well, it is not in its original location, as
I understand it. I don't know where it was first built.
Mr. Radanovich. It was somewhere else.
Mr. Whitmore. It was somewhere else and it was relocated to
where it is now.
Mr. Radanovich. Right.
Mr. Whitmore. And it is my understanding that it is
considered to be a national historic site, and so that
immediately invokes a bunch of rules that don't apply to other
things. I think it is sort of like the Ahwahnee in that regard.
It is sort of a landmark structure, and it may be inconsistent
with the natural scene but it is there and it is one of the
things we live with.
Mr. Radanovich. Right. It troubles me that--it just seems
to me that it is for a special interest group in some ways, and
if we are willing to shut down certain areas for habitat
restoration, it seems to me that that would be an ideal spot.
And it is where it affects perhaps your interest group as well,
and maybe not others--other interest groups. And I just--I see
a double standard there and I don't, you know--it troubles me.
Mr. Whitmore. I think it would be well to note that there
is some question as to ownership of the building. The title has
been sufficiently obscure over the years; that it is my
understanding that the Park Service and the Sierra Club just
came to an understanding: We will talk about management and
never mind who owns it. So it is not known that it belongs to
the Sierra Club, it may belong to the Park Service.
Mr. Radanovich. Right.
Mr. Whitmore. And so basically the Sierra Club operates it
as a tenant of the Park Service, you might say.
Mr. Radanovich. Right. Which to me--yeah. That just chaps
me, I have got to tell you. I think this should go because of
that. And I--it is mainly because what I want to make sure, you
know, that everybody has--if we are going to limit access, we
should do it for everybody. And I just want that on the record.
I am sorry, but that just really troubles me.
Mr. Whitmore. I would hasten to note that the Sierra Club
is not favoring limiting access. We favor a reservation system
in order to spread out the access and manage it better.
Mr. Radanovich. Right.
Mr. Whitmore. So that the experience becomes more pleasant
and is more predictable, and my feeling is it probably would
result in a decrease in annual visitation by removing the
uncertainty that we have now--
Mr. Radanovich. Right.
Mr. Whitmore. --as to whether someone will get in or not.
Mr. Radanovich. OK. Well, it is that question of balance,
and their results probably seems to be different in everybody's
mind. So I think that is what we are trying to get here, so--
Donna, any more questions, or Devin?
Well, listen, I want to thank everybody for being here. I
know it went a little bit longer than what we thought, but I
think that we got out all the issues out on the table. I think
that we have adequately addressed them for now. This is going
to be a long process. And I appreciate you being here. And with
that, the hearing is closed.
[Whereupon, the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
-