SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
71-353 DTP
2001
YOSEMITE VALLEY PLAN
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
March 27, 2001
Serial No. 107-8
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250
Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska,
Vice Chairman
W.J. ''Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana
Jim Saxton, New Jersey
Elton Gallegly, California
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Joel Hefley, Colorado
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
Ken Calvert, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Richard W. Pombo, California
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming
George Radanovich, California
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina
Mac Thornberry, Texas
Chris Cannon, Utah
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania
Bob Schaffer, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada
Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Greg Walden, Oregon
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona
C.L. ''Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
George Miller, California
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Calvin M. Dooley, California
Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Adam Smith, Washington
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands
Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Jay Inslee, Washington
Grace F. Napolitano, California
Tom Udall, New Mexico
Mark Udall, Colorado
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Hilda L. Solis, California
Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado, Chairman
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands Ranking Democrat Member
Elton Gallegly, California
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
George Radanovich, California
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina,
Vice Chairman
Mac Thornberry, Texas
Chris Cannon, Utah
Bob Schaffer, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada
Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Tom Udall, New Mexico
Mark Udall, Colorado
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Hilda L. Solis, California
Betty McCollum, Minnesota
C O N T E N T S
Hearing held on March 27, 2001
Statement of Members:
Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate to Congress from the Virgin Islands
Prepared statement of
Doolittle, Hon. John T., a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Prepared statement of
Hefley, Hon. Joel, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado
Prepared statement of
Map of Yosemite Valley submitted for the record
Summary of Yosemite Valley Plan submitted for the record
Radanovich, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Prepared statement of
Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana, Prepared statement of
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Statement of Witnesses:
Balmain, Doug, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, County of Mariposa, California
Prepared statement of
Gilbert, Gary, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, County of Madera, California
Prepared statement of
Hardy, Ed, Owner and Operator, Bass Lake Lodge, Bass Lake, California
Prepared statement of
Oliver, Gregory J., Tuolomne County Counsel, Sonora, California
Prepared statement of
Reynolds, John J., Regional Director, Pacific West Region, National Park Service
Prepared statement of
Szefel, Dennis, President, Delaware North Parks Services, Inc., Buffalo, New York
Prepared statement of
Watson, Jay Thomas, California/Nevada Regional Director, The Wilderness Society
Prepared statement of
Whitmore, George W., Chairman, Sierra Club's Yosemite Committee
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared statement of
Additional materials supplied:
McConnell, Nancy, President, Board of Trustees/Education, Mariposa County Unified School District, Letter submitted for the record by The Honorable George Radanovich
Ratzlaff, Don, Vice-Chairman, Tuolomne County Board of Supervisors, Letter submitted for the record
Wald, Johanna H., Director, Land Program, Natural Resources Defense Council, Letter submitted for the record
THE FINAL YOSEMITE VALLEY PLAN AND
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Tuesday, March 27, 2001
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Joel Hefley [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HEFLEY. The Committee will come to order.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE JOEL HEFLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. HEFLEY. Good morning. Welcome to the hearing today. This morning, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands will hear testimony on the National Park Service's Yosemite Valley Plan and its accompanying Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
At this point, I would like to ask unanimous consent that Congressman Doolittle be permitted to sit on the dais to give his statement and to participate in the hearing. Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered.
We actually shouldn't do that, Representative Doolittle, after you deserted our Committee to go somewhere else, but—
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I was kicked off, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Mr. HEFLEY. Well, then that's rightly so. So we'll move on.
On December 29th, 2000, the National Park Service signed the Record of Decision for the Yosemite Valley Plan. The Record of Decision, the result of a very lengthy process, will provide direction for managing the natural and cultural resources, facilities, and visitor experiences in Yosemite Valley for the next decade. In its final form, the plan encompasses thousands of pages and, if implemented, would cost a healthy $441 million.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For those of you who are not familiar with the Valley, it encompasses an area within Yosemite National Park that is a mile wide and seven miles long, and is visited annually by 70 percent of the Park's visitors. It is famous for its campgrounds, hiking trails, waterfalls, scenic wildlands and, of course, the sheer walls of El Capitan. Since becoming a national park in 1890, Yosemite National Park has been enjoyed by millions of people every year, and is considered to be one of the crown jewels of the National Park System.
However, according to the National Park Service, the Valley has become congested, especially with private automobiles. It is overcrowded with more than a thousand park facilities, such as stores, homes, garages, apartments, lodging facilities and restaurants. It is bisected by approximately 30 miles of roadway. All of these factors allegedly threaten its natural beauty and suggest that a plan of action is necessary.
While many people in this room would agree that the Valley may be crowded during certain peak times, many would disagree with a number of recommendations slated for action in the Valley Plan. Based on the tenor of our new Interior Secretary, and her approach of inclusiveness, I am optimistic and hopeful that the Bush administration will be open minded in their review of this plan.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, especially their thoughts on the transportation plan, lodging, campsite changes, parking relocation, and the overall effects to the gateway communities.
I now recognize the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hefley follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Joel Hefley, Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Good morning and welcome to the hearing today. This morning, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands will hear testimony on the National Park Service's Yosemite Valley Plan and its accompanying Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
At this point, I would like to ask unanimous consent that Congressman Doolittle be permitted to sit on the dais to give his statement and to participate in the hearing. Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered.
On December 29, 2000, the National Park Service signed the Record of Decision for the Yosemite Valley Plan. The Record of Decision, the result of a very lengthy process, will provide direction for managing the natural and cultural resources, facilities, and visitor experiences in Yosemite Valley for the next decade. In its final form, the Plan encompasses thousands of pages, and if implemented, would cost a healthy $441 million dollars.
For those of you who are not familiar with the Valley, it encompasses an area within Yosemite National Park that is a mile wide and seven miles long and is visited annually by 70 percent of the Park's visitors. It is famous for its campgrounds, hiking trails, waterfalls, scenic wildlands, and of course, the sheer walls of El Capitan. Since becoming a National Park in 1890, Yosemite National Park has been enjoyed by millions of people every year and is considered to be one of the crown jewels of the National Park System.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
However, according to the National Park Service, the Valley has become congested, especially with private automobiles. It is overcrowded with more than a thousand park facilities, such as stores, homes, garages, apartments, lodging facilities and restaurants. It is bisected by approximately 30 miles of roadway. All of these factors allegedly threaten its natural beauty and suggest that a plan of action is necessary.
While many people is this room would agree that the Valley may be crowded during certain peak times, many would disagree with a number of recommendations slated for action in the Valley Plan.
Based on the tenor of our new Interior Secretary and her approach of inclusiveness, I am optimistic and hopeful that the Bush Administration will be open minded in their review of this plan.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, especially their thoughts on the transportation plan, lodging and campsite changes, parking relocation and the overall effects to the gateway communities.
{A map of the Yosemite Valley and a summary of the Yosemite Valley Plan submitted for the record follow:]
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE TO CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today, as you said, the Subcommittee will receive testimony on the Yosemite Valley Plan. I am assuming that's the plan over there. Oh, my goodness. This plan has been years, obviously, in the making. It's a significant document for a significant area of great beauty and majesty.
As the National Park Service notes in its testimony, Yosemite Valley is only seven miles long and less than one mile wide. The floor of the Valley is further reduced by rock fall zones and the flood plain of the Merced River. Within this relatively small area, millions of people come annually to experience the nationally significant resources of the Valley.
How to protect these important park resources and still maintain a quality visitor experience has been a concern going back for many years. In fact, I have been informed by staff that today's hearing is at least the fourth congressional hearing held in the last decade dealing with Yosemite Valley and related matters.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to learning more on what the Yosemite Valley Plan will mean for the Park resources and visitors. I appreciate the presence of our witnesses, including our former Committee member, Congressman Doolittle, here today. I look forward to their insights on the subject of today's oversight hearing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Christensen follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Donna M. Christensen, a Delegate to Congress from the Virgin Islands
Mr. Chairman, today the Subcommittee will receive testimony on the Yosemite Valley Plan. This plan has been years in the making. It is a significant document for a significant area of great beauty and majesty.
As the National Park Service notes in its testimony, Yosemite Valley is only seven miles long and less than one mile wide. The floor of the valley is further reduced by rock-fall zones and the flood plain of the Merced River. Within this relatively small area, millions of people come annually to experience the nationally significant resources of the valley.
How to protect these important park resources and still maintain a quality visitor experience has been a concern going back many years. In fact, I have been informed by staff that today's hearing is at least the fourth Congressional hearing held in the last decade dealing with Yosemite Valley and related matters.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to learning more on what the Yosemite Valley Plan will mean for the park's resources and visitors. I appreciate the presence of our witnesses here today and look forward to their insights on the subject of today's oversight hearing.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much, Mrs. Christensen.
Our first panel is—I'm sorry. Mr. Radanovich, do you have an opening statement?
Mr. RADANOVICH. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do, if I may take the time.
Mr. HEFLEY. You certainly may. I'm sorry. I was about to overlook that.
Mr. RADANOVICH. No problem.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GEORGE RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. RADANOVICH. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing. I think Yosemite is one of the crown jewel parks in our Nation and deserves the attention that this does.
I also want to thank many constituents, frankly, that are out here testifying, and I'm glad that you're here to give some input on this plan, as well as members of the National Park Service.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have been personally involved in the formulation of the Yosemite Plan and all of its manifestations since the 1980 General Management Plan, and since that original plan, Yosemite has been studied, prodded, poked and written about by numerous park planners, with ideas ranging from massive bridges across the Valley to multi-story parking garages in the Valley itself, to trains, guideways, monorail—you name it, it's been considered for Yosemite.
These plans are represented by what's in front of me here. As I was leaving my office this morning, I pulled out these plans that were made available to me, were sitting on my bookshelf, and I believe that this pile of documents demonstrates one of the problems with the Yosemite Valley Plan and the EIS. Frankly, it's just simply too much for the average citizen to comprehend, let alone review and digest.
These massive piles of documents do not do one thing to improve the visitor experience for Yosemite Valley. I understand that they are part of the mandated planning process, that they provide a basis for actions, that they cost a lot and that they keep numerous graphic designers employed. But they serve to confuse and distract from the purpose of the Park Service, to be good stewards to the resources and facilities that it is charged to manage.
To the substance of the plan, in sum, the implementation of the Yosemite Plan and the EIS will cost about $441 million in one-time funds, and an increase of over $10 million in annual spending, in annual operating funding, and large increases in the number of Federal employees serving the Park.
It will do this, while at the same time reduce the services available to the public—the roads, the bridges, parking spaces, stables, camping and lodging units and convenience which provide service for the owners of the Park, the American taxpayer.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This analysis would lead one to start the planning process over, but I must confess that I don't have the patience for this kind of paperwork. I don't think anybody wants to start from ground one, in a process that took over 20 years to develop.
My goal is that the Park Service implement the most incremental, least cost, and least disruptive elements of the flood recovery and park improvements first, and reevaluate each step as the public experiences the improvements. Renovations and rebuilding required by the flood must be first on the list, and other projects that have obvious merit should be pursued.
There are numerous projects contained in the details of this plan that I do support and that I want to ensure get accomplished as soon as feasible within the constraints of the law. For example, transfer of park and concessionaire administrative activities into the gateway communities of Oakhurst, Mariposa, and elsewhere.
The old warehouse and other facilities in the Park were replaced in El Portal, yet the old facilities have not been removed and they should be removed.
Public/private partnerships for the development of new employee housing in the gateway communities should move forward, where appropriate. Employee housing in the Valley for those employees who are required to be near their work was destroyed in the flood and needs to be replaced.
Campgrounds that were an integral part of the visitors' public enjoyment of the Park were closed and have not been reopened since 1997. Specifically, the upper and lower river campgrounds, they need to be renovated, repaired and reopened. And then traffic patterns causing congestion and confusion for the visiting public have been identified and these bottlenecks need to be fixed.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These projects need to be completed quickly. Funds are available for most of these projects as a result of the appropriation which Congress made for the flood recovery, from the flood of 1997, and from Park visitor fees retained by the Park, from donations made to the Park for improvements and from capital improvement funds contributed by the concessionaire.
There are many elements of the plan that I do not support. The most important in the long run is the over-reliance of the plan on the success of the Yosemite Area Regional Transit System, also known as YARTS. This system depends upon the provision of some $850,000 per year of specially approved funds from Congress. We have not considered or approved this request, and until we have, I believe the Park Service must make available sufficient parking and related infrastructure within the Valley to support the public.
We cannot support a plan that prevents the visiting public from enjoying their park. Eliminating parking spaces in the Valley will do just that. I, therefore, do not support that element of the plan.
The Park Service has provided a plan that relies on YARTS nine months out of the year. Instead, I have asked the Park Service to provide an analysis of the level of parking required in order to meet the demands of the visiting public at least nine months per year without YARTS. Many of my constituents claim that the Park Service has already reduced the number of parking spaces in the Valley by as many as 3,300 spaces. I am not sure what the real number is, but I do know that 550 spaces provided in this plan are inadequate by any measure.
Earlier I commented on the sources of funds available to the Superintendent to accomplish the goals of the plan. One concern that you will hear today is that Congress cannot adequately monitor the implementation of the plan because there are too many discretionary sources of funds available to be spent without further congressional review. This is true and is of concern that I intend to correct, with your help, Mr. Chairman, through continued oversight by this Subcommittee, through the appropriations process, and through my continued personal and direct involvement in the implementation of this plan.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I believe the planning process, as implemented by the National Park Service, in this case is fatally flawed. Further review, in conjunction with gateway communities concerning the economic, infrastructure and land use impacts of the proposed actions needs to be accomplished before the plan is finalized.
I recognize that Mr. Babbitt, while he was Secretary of Interior, committed to and accomplished a record of decision for this plan prior to leaving office. I believe that, in this case, as with other cases under the Clinton administration, the plan was finalized because review by the new administration would find that the conclusions were not supported by the facts.
Since that administration would not and could not be held accountable as it left office, arbitrary decisions were fair game. We need to hold the Clinton administration accountable and to stay the record of decision until the Department of Interior has appropriate staff in place to evaluate the plan and its impact on the surrounding communities.
I have asked the Secretary of Interior to take whatever action is necessary to accomplish this because, as you will hear today, a consensus has not been established in the surrounding communities. In fact, my constituents believe that they have not been heard throughout the park planning process.
Last year, I introduced the Gateway Communities Cooperation Act and will shortly reintroduce it. That Act will require Federal land managers to consult with, assist and support local gateway communities that are affected by such massive planning efforts. The gateway communities in my district do not have the resources available to fully participate in such huge planning efforts, nor do the Federal land managers have the mandate from this Congress to involve their local gateways in these efforts. We need to correct that, and I will ask the Subcommittee to move the legislation so that such an oversight will never happen again.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to provide this input at the beginning of this hearing, and to display the incredible plan that we have before us. I look forward to the testimony of the panels.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]
Statement of The Honorable George Radanovich, a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Chairman Hefley, thank you very much for the opportunity to submit this statement on the Final Yosemite Valley Plan and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, and the related concerns, comments and issues identified by gateway communities, concessionaires and interested parties. This plan and planning process has had a significant impact on my district. More importantly, the plan will set the direction for Yosemite Valley for the foreseeable future. That future is important; to the health and vitality of the communities I represent, and to our neighbors.
Let me first say that Yosemite Valley is in my district, and that I grew up not far from that valley. I. have a direct personal knowledge and involvement in what happens in Yosemite and in the mutual dependence of gateway communities on the park, and of the park on the gateway communities. This interdependence cannot be overstated, and I think part of the controversy we will hear about today is based upon the concern that the Park Service does not fully embrace the importance of the gateway community relationship.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, I have been personally involved in the formulation of the Yosemite Valley plan in all its manifestations dating back to the 1980 General Management Plan. Since that original plan, Yosemite has been studied, prodded, poked and written about by numerous park planners with ideas ranging from massive bridges across the valley to multi-story parking garages in the valley itself, to trains, guide-ways and monorails. As I was leaving my office this morning I pulled out the plans that were available on my bookshelf. I believe that this pile of documents demonstrates one of the problems with the Yosemite Valley Plan & EIS - it is simply too much for the average citizen, even one who is directly affected by it - to review and digest.
These massive piles of documents do not do one thing to improve the visitor experience in Yosemite Valley. I understand that they are part of mandated planning processes, that they provide a basis for actions, that they cost a lot, and that they keep numerous graphic designers employed. But they serve to confuse and distract from the purpose of the Park Service to be a good steward of the resources and facilities it is responsible to manage.
Let's move on to the substance of the plan that this subcommittee is charged to review. In sum, implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan and EIS will cost $441 million in one-time funds, over $10 million in annual operational funding, and large increases in the number of federal employees serving in the Park. It will do this while at the same time reducing the services available to the public - the roads, bridges, parking places, stables, camping and lodging units and conveniences which provide service for the owners of the park, the American taxpayer. This analysis would lead one to want to start the planning process over, but I must confess to not having the patience for more of this paperwork.
My goal is that the Park Service implement the incremental, least cost, least disruptive elements of flood recovery and park improvements first and re-evaluate each step as the public experiences the improvement. Renovations and rebuilding required by the flood must be first on the list. Other projects have obvious merit, and should be pursued. There are numerous projects contained in the details of this plan that I do support, and that I want to ensure get accomplished as soon as feasible within the constraints of the law. Examples of this include:
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Transfer of park and concessionaire administrative activities into the gateway communities of Oakhurst, Mariposa and elsewhere;
The old warehouse and other facilities in the valley were replaced in El Portal, and then old facility never removed. Let's remove it;
Public–Private partnerships for the development of new employee housing in the gateway communities should move forward where appropriate;
Employee housing in the valley for those employees which are required to be near their work was destroyed in the flood in 1997, and needs to be replaced;
Campgrounds that were an integral part of the visiting public's enjoyment of the park were closed, and have not been reopened since 1997. Specifically, Upper and Lower River Campgrounds need to be renovated and reopened.
Traffic patterns causing congestion and confusion for the visiting public have been identified. These bottlenecks need to be fixed.
These projects need to be completed quickly. Funds are available for most of these projects as a result of an appropriation which made by Congress for flood recovery, from park visitor fees, retained by the Park, from donations made to the Park for improvements and from capital improvement funds contributed by the concessionaire.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are many, elements of the plan that I do not support. .The most important in the long run is the reliance of the plan on the success of the Yosemite Area Regional Transit System (YARTS). This system depends upon provision of some $850,000 per year of specially appropriated funds from Congress. We have not considered or approved this request, and until we have, I believe the park service must make available sufficient parking and related. infrastructure within the valley to support the public. We cannot support a plan that prevents the visiting public from enjoying their park. Eliminating parking spaces in the Valley will do just that, and therefore I do not support that element of the plan. .
The park service has provided a plan that relies on YARTS nine months per year. Instead, I have asked the park service to provide an analysis of the level of parking required in order to meet the demands of the visiting public at least nine months per year without YARTS. Many of my constituents claim that the park service has already reduced the number of parking places in the valley by as many as 3,300 spaces. I do not know what the real number is, but I do know that the 550 spaces provided in this plan are inadequate by any measure.
Earlier, I commented on the sources of funds available to the Superintendent to accomplish the goals of the plan. One concern that you will hear today is that Congress cannot adequately monitor the implementation of the plan because there are too many discretionary sources of funds available to be spent without further congressional review. This is true, and is a concern that I intend to correct with your help, Mr. Chairman, through continued oversight by this subcommittee, through the appropriations process and through my continued personal and direct involvement in the implementation of this plan.
I believe that the planning process as implemented by the National Park Service in this case is fatally flawed. Further review in conjunction with the gateway communities concerning the economic, infrastructure and land-use impacts of the proposed actions needs to be accomplished BEFORE the plan is finalized. I recognize that Mr. Babbitt, while he was Secretary of the Interior, committed to and accomplished a Record of Decision for this plan prior to leaving office. I believe that in this case, as with other cases under the Clinton administration, the plan was finalized because review by a new administration would find that the conclusions were not supported by the facts.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since that administration would not and could not be held accountable as it left office, arbitrary decisions were fair game. We need to hold the Clinton administration accountable and to stay the Record of Decision until the Department of Interior has appropriate staff in place to evaluate the plan and it impacts on the surrounding communities. I have asked the Secretary of the Interior to take whatever action is necessary to accomplish this stay because, as you will hear today, a consensus has not been established in the surrounding communities. In fact, my constituents believe that they have not been heard throughout the park planning process.
Last year, I introduced the Gateway Communities Cooperation Act and will shortly reintroduce it. That act will require federal land managers to consult with, assist and support local gateway communities that are affected by such massive planning efforts. The gateway communities in my district do not have the resources available to fully participate in such huge planning efforts, nor do the federal land managers have the mandate from this Congress to involve their local gateways in these efforts. We need to correct that. I will ask this subcommittee to move the legislation so that such an oversight will never happen again.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony from our panels today concerning the Yosemite Valley Plan and Final EIS. I believe that today's hearing will highlight the important role of gateway communities in federal planning efforts, and provide a new look at the future of the Crown Jewel of the National Parks, Yosemite.
Thank you for your time.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Mr. Radanovich.
Is there anyone else who has an opening statement they would like to make?
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I do not have an opening statement, but I would like to insert a statement at a later point. I was at Yosemite again the weekend before last and I'm interested in hearing the testimony today and learning from the witnesses.
Thank you.
Mr. HEFLEY. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Souder follows:]
Statement by The Honorable Mark Souder, A Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana
Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this important hearing. Yosemite National Park is indisputably one of our world's foremost natural wonders. Yosemite Valley, with its towering waterfalls and massive granite walls, impresses visitors from all over the world, young and old.
It is perhaps our greatest challenge to balance the desire of increasing numbers to see the greatest wonders of the world—Yosemite Valley, Grand Canyon, Old Faithful in Yellowstone, Glacier Bay—without so degrading the experience that it is no longer memorable in a positive sense. Visitors expect to be awed with nature, not fumes, smog, trash and jockeying for a view.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But we are not arguing over pristine environments. Long ago, Americans decided that providing the opportunity for many to view those magnificent wonders superseded the desire of some to return them to pristine wilderness or the preserve of a privileged few. It is important to preserve wilderness—with limited or no access—but Yosemite Valley is not such a place.
What today's hearing focuses on is the attempt to achieve a balance. Sometimes those on opposing sides imply the other is either for total elimination of human impact or for paving over the last grass in the Valley. The American people not only don't support such radical viewpoints, but they are pretty firmly in the middle: give us reasonable access and stop the drama. The problems addressed in this hearing is illustrative not only of the problem facing Yosemite National Park but in many—if not most—of our national parks.
Since I joined this Subcommittee, I have visited Yosemite National Park twice, including just over a week ago. Over the last two years I have systematically been visiting our national parks to discuss challenges facing the parks with park superintendents and staff. My meetings and visits have included large and small parks, as well as natural and cultural parks. These include, but are not limited to, at least one visit to these natural parks: Yosemite, Yellowstone, Glacier, Mt. Rainier, Grand Canyon, Everglades, Olympic, Grand Teton, Denali, Kenai Fjords, Theodore Roosevelt and Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore; to these cultural parks: Independence, Gettysburg, Fort Clatsop, Golden Spike, Lincoln Home, and Mount Rushmore; and combination parks like Golden Gate NRA (including the Presidio) and Gateway NRA (including Ellis Island). What becomes apparent is that problems are not unique, though specific variations may be.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Today's hearing on the Yosemite Valley Plan highlights a number of the major challenges. I would like to review a few of them.
1) Traffic congestion in the most popular areas
Yosemite, Grand Canyon and Zion are each developing plans limiting automobile usage. Each is different. But today's discussion on Yosemite highlights several points.
a) Traffic congestion is not a year -around problem. It peaks at certain times—usually the summer season. Yet solutions tend to be restrictive of automobile use year around, or at least beyond the peak of the normal bell curve.
b) The cost of mass transit alternatives is high thus tending to attempt to maximize (i.e. force) as many auto passengers out of their cars, even if it means limiting them at off-season times and by greater amounts than necessary.
c) The cost of mass transit adds to pressures to reduce parking spaces in the sought after locations even if additional spaces could be allowed in management plans such as the Yosemite Valley Plan.
d) Other options need to be pursued such as charging higher fees for such parking as is done at airports (e.g. high rates for close access, none or minimal for ''satellite lots'') Those dollars could then help subsidize a shorter season mass transit solution, especially with adequate parking spaces.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
2) Historical/cultural preservation versus natural preservation
At fifty years cultural resources come under the Historic Preservation guidelines. Because this law is universal, it at times has lead to the unintended consequence of letting structures deteriorate that may have been worthy of preserving because scarce dollars and resources must be spent on less significant structures. It also leads to conflict such as at Gettysburg, where a truly significant historic structure sits on one of the nation's most culturally significant pieces of land.
a) At Yosemite one such issue that appears to be resolved is the preservation (through moving) the historic superintendent's office which sits on a flood plain, and was seriously flooded. It clearly needed to be preserved—its historic significance is directly related to Yosemite Park's history.
b) There is a debate about the usage of other buildings in Yosemite Village. These buildings are of also great significance to the Park's history. Hopefully creative solutions can be found similar to these being pursued at Grand Canyon Village and Longmire at Mt. Rainier National Park.
c) There is a debate about a number of historic footbridges. This is the type of debate that needs some serious re-evaluation of the current system (though at least the current law forces such a debate, not just a tear-down). The bridges apparently alter the natural flow of the Merced River, a National Scenic River. Of all the cultural resources in our natural Parks, a strong argument can be made that structures that epitomize the ''National Park'' look are the most important to preserve. Those include the great historic inns like Many Glacier Lodge, El Tovor, Old Faithful and Ahwanee; the works of Underwood and Coulter, the landscaping of Olmsted. But the broadest application is the WPA ''park look''. Bridgework is one of the best examples of this type of architecture. The Yosemite Valley Plan proposes to remove one, and study the impact. But once again, the key point here is that we need to develop and approach that combines historic significance, natural importance of the impacted area, and visitor impact (which at a minimum, should break ''ties'').
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
3) National Scenic River and other environmental guidelines
Let me state this clearly: I support the goals of the National Scenic River legislation. It has been and will continue to be a vital way to continue to clean up our most scenic rivers. The challenges are many. Obviously, a scenic river that has been highly developed along its river banks is going to be treated differently than in a wilderness area. The debates in Yosemite about the Merced River are interesting because they are not as not as clear cut. The Merced is gorgeous as it meanders through the Valley, and then cuts its way out.
a) But the Merced River is already significantly altered. Today's visitors who enter Yosemite Park have no desire to repeat the experiences of John Muir. Few had the time to wander then and few do now. To access the road at the El Portal entrance, the Merced River was ''controlled''. It still has enough force (and speed) to alter its riverbed during the last major flood, but it is significantly altered. The goal should be minimal further alteration, but the Park Service should be commended for its attempts to improve the safety of the road with minimal river damage. The small environmental groups that are suing to stop such improvement should be accountable to lawsuit if someone is hurt or killed because of their grandstanding.
b) It is not an easy question as to removing culturally significant structures to let the Merced River discover its ''natural'' course in the Valley. Moving the Superintendent's residence makes sense because the flooding damages the building. The riprap of the disputed bridges may alter the flow but the question here is destruction of a structure that is not endangered. Perhaps, all things considered, the first bridge should be removed as a trial, but visitor usage should also be a factor.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
4) Closing the horse trails in Yosemite Valley
Once again, this issue is debated in other areas as well. Clearly horseback riding is a historic usage within a National Park. In fact, other than hiking, it is probably the oldest. (And few, if any, of the earliest hikers didn't have a horse or mule.) Banning horseback riding would be akin to banning camping. It is not like the firefalls at Yosemite that delighted visitors for years, nor is it like feeding the bears. They may have been traditions but were ''artificial'' creations for entertainment (and did impact natural behavior). This is also not snowmobiling, air overflights, or engine -powered motorcraft—about which there is much legitimate despite.
But just because horses are allowed, does not mean that they need to be allowed everywhere in the park. It is an especially thorny issue when people are packed into a small area of the park, like in Yosemite Valley. As a general rule, it seems that when one visitors experience negatively impacts a large number of visitors, changes are in order. With a limited number of valley trails, mutual enjoyment is difficult. Therefore, as long as the service is provided and not reduced, and scenic alternatives are found, Valley limitations seem to make sense.
5) Numbers of lodging and camping sites
There is a clear trend toward reducing overnight accommodations inside our national parks. This clearly is not responding to visitor demand: it flies in the face of it. It is one thing to argue that additional accommodations should not be added, and should instead be added in gateway communities (often in national forests). It seems like that whenever a Park develops a plan, they universally have a proposal to reduce overnight accommodations. Not only is it not visitor requested, it is, at most for negligible environmental gain.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Moving campground spaces at Yosemite and other parks because of issues like rock slides or flooding may be needed but then attempting to maintain the number should be undertaken. (At Yosemite, to pre-flood levels).
6) Gateway communities
Nearly every park has inevitable conflicts with the gateway communities. From my experience, each park superintendent spends a lot of their time working with these communities (in disproportion to their numbers—visitors and taxpayers, being far larger constituencies). Furthermore, gateway community leaders almost always say to the superintendent (or the Park Service) is unresponsive if they don't get their way.
But gateway communities do have a vital interest in each park and, quite frankly, are part of the ''National Park experience'' for most Americans. To not work with them would be shortsighted and counter-productive for visitors and those of us who fund the National Parks. Issues include lodging, food services, recreation, and wildlife issues (e.g. wolves, elks, bears) just to name a few.
As a business person with a background in retailing, it is amazing to me to note the often limited vision of the gateway community business leaders. While visitors may prefer, when given the choice, to stay overnight inside the park, it benefits gateway communities if the Park Service limits overnight accommodation, for example. It is obviously clear that all across America excellent accommodations—along with other visitor services like food, shopping, entertainment (e.g. IMAX theaters and museums as well as supplemental visitor centers) and recreation- are booming in gateway communities. It is not clear that the National Park Service has diminished interest in visiting the parks by limitations on visitor services. But it is a delicate balance. The criteria to be evaluated at parks like Yosemite include: Does a proposed transportation system create a disadvantage for one gateway community over another? At what point do rising fees discourage visits? (And which visitors, day, overnight or once-in-a-lifetime)? From the gateway merchants perspective—can visitors be enticed into extending their stay by having more entertainment options at the edges of the parks? From a business standpoint, that is their best financial opportunity.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
7) Employee and Concessionaire Housing
This is a critical issue in nearly every park. Some is sub-standard. Some is far away, making transportation costs increasingly prohibitive for many park employees. The Yosemite Valley plan proposes to move some employee housing to El Portal at the edge of the Park. They have already moved- logically -park services that don't need to be in the valley to El Portal. Some of the moves make sense, even if it is also understandable that people would prefer Valley housing. But for those who must commute in, transfer costs are serious. Furthermore, inside parks if more and more employees are removed it is going to be an increasing problem to provide adequate schooling for the children of remaining employees without resorting to lengthy bus journeys.
8) Demonstration Fees
Two points-they should be made permanent and superintendent should be given more flexibility to utilize them. Excellent visitor friendly projects have been developed in most parks, including Yosemite. Analysis should be made about using fees for personnel but should only be done after careful debate about consequences.
9) Private support groups like the Yosemite Fund
The Yosemite Fund, and groups like it, are critical to the preservation of our parks. In Congress we need to stimulate further charitable giving through the tax code. While I was recently in Yosemite, I visited a Yosemite Fund Session with scientific researchers who study all the aspects of Yosemite's natural history. It is a living laboratory for Yosemite Park and university researchers. The Yosemite Fund is working with researchers to make sure the research is coordinated with what is most needed to make wise decisions.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I also met with major Yosemite Fund donors who are working to raise over ten million dollars to redo the chaotic Yosemite Falls visitor area. We need to constantly thank those thousands of families who give additional dollars to the park they love. Those contributors should not be viewed as a lessening of the obligation of the general taxpayer, but rather a resounding vote of the confidence by citizens in the priority of that particular park. One way to determine whether a park has public support or was a ''pork barrel'' project of a Member of Congress (or a President) is whether it has support public financial support. The concept of ''crown jewels'' is hotly debated, but the size and membership diversity of some parks non-profit groups (often multiple ones) proves the point. Yosemite and Yellowstone, Independence Hall and Gettysburg, to name a few, are in fact, different than your average park.
Mr. HEFLEY. Our first panel will be made up of Mr. Doolittle, from the 4th District of California, a district which encompasses about half of the Park. Is that correct, Mr. Doolittle?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. That's right, Mr. Chairman. Between Mr. Radanovich and me, we encompass the entire Park. I have the high country and he has the Valley.
Mr. HEFLEY. I see. Well, we would recognize you then for your statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members. I appreciate the opportunity to rejoin you today for this hearing. Yosemite is obviously a vital national treasure, and it's a privilege to represent a portion of it.
I would like to specifically express my thanks to my colleague, Representative George Radanovich. His district, as we mentioned, together with mine, do encompass the Park, and he has displayed tireless efforts to maintain continued public access. Those have been very well received throughout our shared region. I know that the Tuolumne County Counsel, Gregory Oliver, is here as well, and I especially appreciate him making the long trip to Washington to represent the views of my constituents, and you will hear from him on the third panel, I believe.
As we all know, Yosemite National Park has long been an international travel destination, drawing millions of tourists every year to marvel at breathtaking waterfalls, Giant Sequoias, and plentiful wildlife. I have long appreciated the beauty Yosemite has to offer, and have made it a priority to preserve this national treasure for future generations to enjoy.
However, I believe very strongly that we should seek to accomplish that objective without compromising the visitor experience and without unnecessarily impacting the economies of the communities that lie at the gateway to the Park. It is in these two/ areas that the Valley Plan falls woefully short.
First, the plan, as Mr. Radanovich mentioned, has unnecessarily and unfortunately decreased the amount of parking spaces in the Valley. You know, this reminds me, this is kind of a ''Jerry Brown'' approach to transportation. You just don't build freeways and somehow we're going to solve the problem. Mr. Chairman, this is a problem. Taking out those parking spaces is something I am strongly opposed to.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, there is a congestion problem at times in the Valley, and it's a heavy congestion problem. Those problems are not good for the Park or for the visitors. However, I want to emphasize congestion, at that level, only exists a few days per year, and for those days, a more efficient traffic management strategy is needed. But permanently reducing the number of parking spaces would only result in unnecessarily hampering the ease of visitation for many day-use travelers during times of the year when traffic volume is low. As such, I will continue to seek alternatives that reduce congestion while preserving auto touring as a viable means for all to visit the Park.
I don't know how many of our members have actually been to Yosemite but, obviously, it's possible to enter one way and leave another, and to cross the mountains in the process. It's a great way to see features of Yosemite without having to make that your end destination. We want to preserve that. But if there's no place for you to park once you drive into the Park, you're not going to be able to see the Park. You'll just have to keep on going. I think that's a great injustice to the day-use visitors.
Second, Mr. Chairman, I object to the Plan's severe reduction in the number of overnight accommodations under the guise of flood management. As one who has been very supportive of the Park's efforts to obtain Federal funds to repair damage resulting from the 1997 floods, it is disheartening to see those appropriations being used to impede the visitor's ability to enjoy what is perhaps the Park's greatest appeal—one's ability to spend the night under the stars in one of the most beautiful places in the world.
Third, although Housekeeping Bridge will remain under the Plan to provide access across the Merced River, the removal of Sugar Pine and Stoneman Bridges remains in the Plan.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, maybe this is just nostalgia on my part, but when we used to go camping in the Valley, we would camp on one side of the Merced River and cross Stoneman Bridge to reach Camp Curry, which had the store with the candy and, you know, all the ''fun'' stuff. It's a marvelous old bridge. It looks like some of the beautiful stone work you see on the GW Parkway. It's all nicely assembled. Those two bridges are a great part of the culture and the history of Yosemite Valley, and I think it would be a travesty to cause those to be removed. So I join many of my constituents in objecting to the elimination of these historic and valued attributes of Yosemite.
Fourth, I am very much opposed to the removal of horse stables from the Valley and the elimination of commercial trail rides. As one who has personally utilized these stables, I can attest to the enjoyable and historical experience they provide to many of the Park's visitors. I might add, I still remember how sorry I felt after my eight-hour trip up and eight-hour trip down—I think it was eight hours—to get to the back of Half Dome. But horses belong in the Valley. It would be a shame to force them out. I think diversity in the type of experience visitors can enjoy has the effect of spreading out congestion in the Valley, which would otherwise be more concentrated under this restrictive Plan.
Finally, I am concerned with the manner in which the Clinton administration force-fed this plan to the people of this country. Former Interior Secretary Babbitt's refusal to extend the diminutive public comment period of a plan that has been 20 years in the making was very disappointing. Furthermore, I received a copy of the Merced River Plan Record of Decision, a plan critical to the implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan, a mere four days prior to the end of the public comment period for the Valley Plan. Needless to say, ample time for both my constituents and me to fully digest and comment on the Plan was effectively denied.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Overall, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Yosemite Valley Plan significantly limits the ability of visitors to enjoy the Park. When this ability is eroded, the value of the Park, as well as the economies of the gateway communities, is compromised. This result is unnecessary, and I encourage Park officials to develop a more appropriate balance between visitor experience and protection of the Park. I am further encouraged that the new Bush administration has signaled a greater willingness to work with communities when developing policies that impact them on such a significant level.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing, and I thank our witnesses for their contributions and their interest in preserving the beauty of and the continued access to Yosemite National Park. I look forward to the testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Doolittle follows:]
Statement of The Honorable John T. Doolittle, a Representative in Congress from the State of California
I would like to thank Chairman Hefley for holding this hearing on this very important matter, the Yosemite Valley Plan. Also, I would like to express my thanks to my colleague, Congressman George Radanovich. His district together with mine contains Yosemite National Park, and his tireless efforts to maintain continued public access have been well received throughout our shared region. I know that Tuolumne County Counsel, George Oliver, is here as well, and I especially appreciate him making the long trip here to represent the views of my constituents.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As you all know, Yosemite National Park has long been an international travel destination, drawing millions of tourists every year to marvel at breathtaking waterfalls, Giant Sequoias, and plentiful wildlife. I have long appreciated the beauty Yosemite has to offer, and have made it a priority to preserve this national treasure for future generations to enjoy. However, I believe very strongly that we should seek to accomplish that objective without compromising the visitor experience and unnecessarily impacting the economies of the communities that lie at the gateway to the Park. It is in these two areas that the Valley Plan falls short.
First, the Plan has unnecessarily and unfortunately decreased the amount of parking spaces in the Valley. I am well aware that at times, Yosemite Valley experiences heavy traffic congestion, and that such congestion is neither good for the Park or for the visitor. However, congestion of this level only exists a few days per year, and for those days, a more efficient traffic management strategy is needed. But permanently reducing the number of parking spaces would only result in unnecessarily hampering the ease of visitation for many day use travelers during times of the year when traffic volume is low. As such, I will continue to seek alternatives that reduce congestion while preserving auto touring as a viable means for all to visit the Park.
Secondly, I object to the Plan's severe reduction in the number of overnight accommodations under the guise of flood management. As one who has been very supportive of the Park's efforts to obtain federal funds to repair damage resulting from the 1997 floods, it is disheartening to see those appropriations being used to impede the visitor's ability to enjoy what is perhaps the Park's greatest appeal - one's ability to spend the night under the stars in one of the most beautiful places in the world.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Third, although Housekeeping Bridge will remain under the Plan to provide access across the Merced River, the removal of Sugar Pine and Stoneman Bridges remains in the Plan. I join many of my constituents in objecting to the elimination of these historic and valued attributes of Yosemite.
Fourth, I am very much opposed to the removal of horse stables from the Valley and the elimination of commercial trail rides. As one who has personally utilized these stables, I can attest to the enjoyable and historical experience they provide to many of the Park's visitors. Diversity in the type of experience visitors can enjoy has the effect of spreading out congestion in the Valley, which would otherwise be more concentrated under this restrictive Plan.
Finally and most importantly, I am concerned with the manner in which the Clinton Administration force-fed this plan to the people of this country. Former Interior Secretary Babbitt's disgraceful refusal to extend the diminutive public comment period of a plan that has been 20 years in the making is nothing but a total affront to our democratic system. Furthermore, it is absolutely appalling that I received a copy of the Merced River Plan Record of Decision - a plan critical to the implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan - a mere four days prior to the end of the public comment period for the Valley Plan. Needless to say, ample time for both my constituents and me to fully digest and comment on the Plan was effectively denied.
Overall, I believe that the Yosemite Valley Plan significantly limits the ability of visitors to enjoy the Park. When this ability is eroded, the value of the Park, as well as the economies of the gateway communities, is compromised. The result is unnecessary, and I encourage Park officials to develop a more appropriate balance between visitor experience and the protection of the Park. I am further encouraged that the new Bush Administration has signaled a greater willingness to work with communities when developing policies that impact them on such a significant level.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Again, I thank the Chairman for holding this very important hearing, and I thank these panels of witnesses for their contributions and great interest in preserving the beauty of, and continued access to, Yosemite National Park.
Mr. HEFLEY. Any questions for Mr. Doolittle?
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I have one.
Mr. HEFLEY. Yes. You're recognized for five minutes.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Doolittle, obviously, since the upper part of the Park is closed during the winter, the eastern gateway, Tioga Pass and that area in your district, would be most heavily impacted by this.
Do you have any visitation figures for how many people would stay at the gateway community and then come into the Park and exit at another point?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. You know, I don't have that at my fingertips, but I will provide them for the record, because the figures illustrate just how significant having the road open is to our gateway communities. It means—as I recall, it's hundreds of thousands of dollars a day when people have the ability to go through the Park. So every day beyond Memorial Day that that road isn't open is of great concern to us.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SOUDER. The time to enter from the east side, going across Columbia Meadows and down into the Valley is about how long?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. You know, I have not entered the Park ever from the east side, but I believe that that would be, well, a good hour or more, probably, an hour-and-a-half.
Mr. SOUDER. And then it's similar if you exited one of the other directions, you're 45 minutes to an hour?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Yes. It would be more like an hour or so, I think.
Mr. SOUDER. Okay. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you. Any further questions?
With that, Mr. Doolittle, I do hope you will stay with us and participate fully in the hearing.
Mr. HEFLEY. The next panel will be Mr. John Reynolds, Regional Director, Pacific West Region, National Park Service, San Francisco, California.
At this point I would like to ask Mr. Radanovich to take the gavel and to chair the hearing. The Valley is in his district; he has a deep and abiding love for Yosemite National Park, and an interest in this Plan. So I would like, Mr. Radanovich, if you would care to, to come and chair the Subcommittee.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. RADANOVICH. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think we will call the next panel up, but first, let me do one quick housekeeping thing. I do have a letter from the Mariposa County Unified School District that has some concerns regarding the Plan, and I would ask unanimous consent that it be included in the record. Hearing no objection, I will go ahead.
[The letter follows:]
Mr. RADANOVICH. Let's go ahead and start then with our first panel. That is John Reynolds, who is the Regional Director of the Pacific West Region of the National Park Service in San Francisco.
John, welcome. We're glad that you were able to come testify today, and we look forward to your statement and follow-up questions.
STATEMENT OF JOHN J. REYNOLDS, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, PACIFIC WEST REGION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE; ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID A. MIHALIC, SUPERINTENDENT, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK
Mr. REYNOLDS. Thank you, Congressman Radanovich, and thank you, Chairman Hefley. It's my pleasure to be here.
My name is John Reynolds. I'm the Regional Director of the Pacific West Region of the National Park Service. I am here today to report on the Yosemite flood recovery efforts, the Yosemite Valley Plan, and how it relates to the flood recovery efforts.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A major flood occurred at Yosemite National Park in January, 1997, causing significant damage throughout the Park. In July 1997, Congress appropriated $186 million for flood recovery repairs, with the proviso that these repairs be carried out to help implement the Park's 1980 General Management Plan. An additional $11 million of funding is available from the Federal Lands Highway Program, for a total flood recovery program of $197 million.
We are on track with the flood recovery program. A substantial portion has been completed. Thirty-two miles of damaged roads throughout the Park have been repaired, and six miles of the El Portal Road has been completely reconstructed. One hundred-and-thirty eight miles of back-country trails have been reconstructed, 25 trail bridges have been repaired or rebuilt, and seven miles of paved bike paths have been reconstructed. The Park sustained substantial damage to the valley water, wastewater and electrical systems, and they have been repaired.
Seventy-seven million dollars has been obligated to date. Of the balance, $106 million is for flood-affected facilities that are included in the Yosemite Valley Plan, with the remainder for flood damage repairs to infrastructure elsewhere in the Park, outside of Yosemite Valley.
At the end of last year, I approved the Yosemite Valley Plan and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. This plan will implement many of the goals of the Park's 1980 General Management Plan, and will ensure Congress' direction that flood appropriations be used for this purpose. The 1980 plan established the broad goals to reclaim priceless natural beauty, to allow natural processes to prevail, to promote visitor understanding and enjoyment, to markedly reduce traffic congestion, and to reduce crowding. The Yosemite Valley Plan was guided by these goals.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since 1980, additional studies and analyses have been conducted, particularly related to natural processes, visitor enjoyment, transportation, and housing. In the early 1990's, work on specific improvement plans for housing in the Yosemite Valley and the Yosemite Falls area was started. These efforts took on greater urgency following the flood of 1997, with the need to replace visitor facilities damaged or destroyed by the flood. The flood reconstruction plan for Yosemite Lodge, in conjunction with other pre-flood plans, spurred litigation against the National Park Service over concerns about fragmented planning. This litigation resulted in the decision to create one comprehensive and integrated Yosemite Valley Plan.
We will soon begin to obligate the balance of the flood recovery funds on those portions of the Yosemite Valley Plan that were affected by the 1997 flood. Campgrounds will be restored or relocated. Lodging units lost to the flood will be replaced at Yosemite Lodge and Curry Village. New facilities will be designed and located where they will not experience damage in future floods. Other projects include natural resource restoration and improved road circulation to reduce congestion and conflicts with people walking or riding bicycles.
Beyond flood recovery, the Yosemite Valley Plan also identifies many important projects that would require additional funding and further approval from Congress and the administration before they could proceed. For these projects, we will do additional regulatory compliance that will involve extensive community and public review and input, specifically including the gateway communities.
In the Yosemite Valley Plan, we commit to fulfilling our housing needs first in local communities. We have authority to create public/private partnerships to build and operate housing outside the Park. We intend to use private fundraising, where appropriate, such as that we are doing with the Yosemite Falls project. We would need to seek additional funding and approval before we could provide out-of-valley parking areas and associated shuttle systems.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are exciting opportunities underway by several of the local counties near the Park to develop regional transit that has dramatic potential for lessening the amount of capital expenditures called for in this Plan. Park visitors staying in nearby communities, leaving their cars in the motel lot and taking regional transit, could lessen the need to develop out-of-valley parking and associated business systems in Yosemite.
Yosemite Valley is only seven miles long, and less than one mile wide. The floor of the Valley is further constrained by rockfall zones on both sides, and the flood plain of the Merced Wild and Scenic River down the middle. Through the Yosemite Valley Plan and extensive public involvement and studies, we have addressed issues concerning space for campgrounds, tent cabins, historic hotels, roads, bike paths, parking lots, Housekeeping Camp and employee housing, while also providing for and conserving the very natural scenery that draws people to this very special park.
For the draft plan, testimony was received at 14 public meetings throughout California. Public meetings were held in Denver, Seattle, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. We held over 60 informal open houses and 59 walking tours to help people see, on the ground in the Valley, what the Plan proposed. We made 150 presentations to interest groups and service clubs. This resulted in over 10,200 comments that were used to modify the Plan into the final Plan.
While the majority of commenters acknowledge that recreational opportunities should continue to be available for Yosemite Valley visitors, people differ, obviously, in their opinions of what sort of activities should be allowed and how they should be managed. While these choices are difficult, I am pleased to report that traditional activities will, for the most part, continue at levels that fit within the rockfall hazard and flood plain that constrain us in Yosemite.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I will be happy to answer any questions you or members may have.
As you know, I have with me Superintendent Dave Mihalic of Yosemite, and I would appreciate your permission to invite him to the table with me, so that we may all benefit from the most knowledgeable answers to your questions as possible.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reynolds follows:]
Statement of John J. Reynolds, Regional Director, Pacific West Region, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name is John J. Reynolds and I am Regional Director of the Pacific West Region of the National Park Service.
I am here today to report on the Yosemite flood recovery efforts, the Yosemite Valley Plan and how it relates to the flood recovery efforts, and future projects that will require us to come back to Congress for more discussion.
As you may recall, a major flood occurred at Yosemite National Park in January 1997 causing significant damage throughout the park. The damage was so severe that Yosemite Valley was closed to the public for three and one-half months and, in fact, reopened to the public four years ago this month. In July 1997, Congress appropriated $186 million for flood recovery repairs, with the proviso that these repairs be carried out to help implement the park's 1980 General Management Plan. An additional $11 million funding is available from the Federal Lands Highway Program, for a total flood recovery program of $197 million.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am pleased to report that since then, we are on track with the flood recovery program. A substantial portion of the flood recovery program has been completed, resulting in restoration of many different types of public services. For example, 32 miles of damaged roads throughout the park have been repaired and six miles of the El Portal Road, one of three major access roads to Yosemite Valley has been completely reconstructed. This road not only connects Highway 140 and Mariposa to the valley, but also provides the connection to the park's primary administrative and maintenance center in El Portal. Moreover, 138 miles of backcountry trails have been reconstructed, 25 trail bridges have been repaired or rebuilt, and seven miles of paved bike paths have been reconstructed. The park sustained substantial damage to the valley water, wastewater and electrical systems, which has been repaired. This vital infrastructure is critical to supporting both park operations and visitor facilities.
As of February 28, 2001, $77 million has been obligated. Of the balance, $106 million is for flood-affected facilities that are included in the Yosemite Valley Plan, with the remainder for flood damage repairs to infrastructure elsewhere in the park, outside of Yosemite Valley. More information on these projects can be found in the Flood Recovery Quarterly Report, which we routinely provide to Congress.
At the end of last year, I approved the Yosemite Valley Plan and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. This plan will implement many of the goals of the park's 1980 General Management Plan and will ensure Congress'' direction that flood appropriations be used for this purpose. The 1980 plan established the broad goals to reclaim priceless natural beauty; allow natural processes to prevail; promote visitor understanding and enjoyment; markedly reduce traffic congestion; and reduce crowding. The Yosemite Valley Plan was guided by these goals.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since 1980, additional studies and analyses have been conducted, particularly related to natural processes, visitor enjoyment, transportation, and housing. In the early 1990's work on specific improvement plans for housing, Yosemite Valley, and the Yosemite Falls area was started. These efforts took on greater urgency following the flood of 1997 with the need to replace visitor facilities damaged or destroyed by the flood. The flood reconstruction plan for Yosemite Lodge, in conjunction with the other pre-flood plans, spurred litigation over concerns about fragmented planning. The litigation resulted in the decision to create one comprehensive and integrated Yosemite Valley Plan.
With the completion of this plan for Yosemite Valley, we are now on track for completing the remainder of the flood recovery program. We will soon begin to obligate the balance of the flood recovery funds on those portions of the Yosemite Valley Plan that were affected by the 1997 flood. For example, campgrounds will be restored or relocated to areas identified in the plan that are better able to sustain their impacts or do not, in themselves, cause impacts to the Merced Wild and Scenic River. Lodging units lost to the flood will be replaced at Yosemite Lodge and Curry Village. As detailed in the Flood Recovery Action Plan, new facilities will be designed and located where they will not experience damage in future floods of similar magnitude. Other projects include natural resource restoration and improved road circulation, to reduce congestion and conflicts with people walking or riding bicycles.
Beyond flood recovery, the Yosemite Valley Plan also identifies many important projects that would require additional funding and further approval from Congress and the administration before they could proceed. For many of these projects, we will do additional regulatory compliance that will involve extensive public review and input, including input from the gateway communities. Some of these projects include moving additional employee housing and services out of Yosemite Valley.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the Yosemite Valley Plan, we commit to fulfilling our housing needs first in local communities. We have authority to create public-private partnerships to build and operate housing outside the park. We intend to use private fundraising, where appropriate, such as what we are doing with the Yosemite Falls Project. We would need to seek additional funding and approval before we could provide out-of-valley parking areas and associated shuttle systems. However, there are exciting opportunities underway by several of the local counties near the park to develop regional transit that has dramatic potential for lessening the amount of capital expenditures called for in this plan. Park visitors staying in nearby communities, leaving their cars in the motel lot, and taking regional transit could lessen the need to develop out-of-valley parking lots and associated shuttle bus systems in Yosemite. In fact, motels in gateway communities could offer their guests a choice in how to visit the park.
Mr. Chairman, Yosemite Valley is only seven miles long and less than one mile wide. The floor of the valley is further constrained by rockfall zones on both sides and the floodplain of the Merced Wild and Scenic River down the middle. Through the Yosemite Valley Plan and extensive public involvement and studies, we have addressed issues concerning space for campgrounds, tent cabins, historic hotels, roads, bike paths, parking lots, Housekeeping Camp, and employee housing, while also providing for and conserving the very natural scenery that draws people to the park.
During the public comment period for the draft plan, testimony was received at 14 public meetings throughout California. Public meetings were held in Denver, Seattle, Chicago, and Washington, DC. In Yosemite Valley, we held over 60 informal open houses and 59 walking tours to help people see on the ground what the plan proposed. And we made 150 presentations to interest groups and service clubs. This resulted in over 10,200 comments that were used to modify the draft and make changes in the final plan in response to public input.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have found that people are passionate in their opinions of what should, or should not happen in Yosemite, and their input is important. While the majority of commenters acknowledge that recreational opportunities should continue to be available for Yosemite Valley visitors, people differ in their opinions of what sort of activities should be allowed and how they should be managed. While these choices are difficult, I am pleased to report that traditional activities will, for the most part, continue at levels that fit within the rockfall hazard and flood plain that constrain us in Yosemite Valley.
We are fortunate that with the funding opportunities of the flood recovery appropriations, the Fee Demonstration program, private donations, public-private partnerships, and future line item projects, we can implement the plan and restore natural processes and visitor services that are vital to the very values people come to Yosemite to enjoy—the meandering Merced River, the views of the thundering water falls and shadowed granite walls, the lush meadows and the wildlife that makes this valley its home.
That concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to answer any questions that you or the members of the subcommittee may have.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Without objection for others to speak on your behalf, I don't see any dissent on that. So ordered.
John, thanks for your testimony. The way I'm going to handle this, I'm going to ask a couple of questions and then we'll go quickly down. I would ask for—You know, typically the thing is five minutes per person. I want to make sure that everybody who has a question gets answers, but I don't want to take up all the time initially, either. So we're going to pass this baton along rather quickly, and we're going to go more than one round. If you don't get every question asked your first go around, you will have a second round. I just want to make sure everybody has a chance to participate.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If you would set the clock to three minutes, then we'll go ahead.
My first question, John, is that, as you know, the budget request for this is $441 million. In the flood of 1997, there had already been appropriated some $200,000 for improvements to the Park. Much of that was spent on Highway 140, getting it repaired and up and running, which leaves a balance of about $106 million that's already available to you to begin spending on this plan, in addition to gateway receipts that add up to about $40 million.
Can you list for me specifically what you have the green light on, to go ahead and begin spending on, and what you intend to spend money on, given that appropriation already?
Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, sir. We would begin immediately on guest lodging and campground replacement and restoration; replacing the existing shuttle fleet with a fleet that is much more environmentally friendly; construct a transit center; reconstruct trails, bridges and utilities; and reconstruct concession employee housing so that the concessionaire can operate in a more effective manner.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Did you mention also the campgrounds, the upper and lower river campground projects as well?
Mr. REYNOLDS. As you know, sir, the upper and lower river campgrounds are called for in the Plan to be restored to their natural environment. They are in the natural waterway and floodway of the Merced Wild and Scenic River. They have been held in place so far by riprapping along much of the bank, on the upper side of the river.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are not, under the constraints of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; we may not continue—we are not allowed to continue to protect that landscape in that manner. So as part of both the mission of the National Park Service and the requirements of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, we would restore the natural environment of those two campgrounds. Work is called for in the 1980 plan to provide campsites, additional campsites, in other parts of the Park.
Mr. RADANOVICH. And that is not lodging facilities outside the Park to account for any loss of campground spaces or anything like that; that is, actual campground spaces may not be in the Valley itself but somewhere in the Park?
Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, sir, that's correct.
Mr. RADANOVICH. What would be an example of some of these projects that are part of the Plan that would require future appropriations for outside that $140 million that's available to you now?
Mr. REYNOLDS. Can I ask Dave to address that in detail, sir?
Mr. RADANOVICH. Sure.
Mr. MIHALIC. Mr. Chairman, I think that the question is which ones are not yet funded, that are part of the Plan?
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. RADANOVICH. Yes, that would require future appropriation from the Congress.
Mr. MIHALIC. A good example of that would be Mr. Doolittle's concern over the historic bridges, which are called for removal in the Plan. Those are not yet—those do not have funding appropriated for them.
Another example might be the satellite and out-of-valley parking. That does not have funding. In fact, the Plan, before we would actually construct those, calls for further environmental review, public input, and a traffic management study that we would do in order to best be able to build those appropriately.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Okay. Thank you.
I'm going to defer to Mrs. Christensen, and we'll have more questions. I do want to make the rounds for everybody first before we answer any more.
Mrs. Christensen.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you.
I'm sort of concerned about the discrepancy and whether there was enough public comment, and your statement about all the outreach that you made and the number of hearings and so forth that you had.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Do you feel that all of the communities that were involved were reached through the various outreaches that were made by the Park Service? Because we're hearing on the other side that the communities have not been properly consulted.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Congresswoman, I would never decide that I should speak for those communities. It was obviously our intent and we tried very, very hard to include those communities. I think, obviously, if they feel that they need additional ways in which we can communicate, it is up to us to meet with them, to find ways with them to do so.
We have started something that I don't think we've done anywhere else with Mariposa County, which is now starting its general plan, and Superintendent Mihalic and the Park are working with the county now to try to come to a way where we can do our plans for El Portal, which is within Mariposa County, and the Mariposa County plan as one document that serves us all and as one process led by the county and participated in by us that results in that kind of thing.
So I think your question is a question that is one that is very, very important. We felt very strongly that the design of our involvement system would include the counties. The counties I think would say that they would have liked additional and different ways to be involved.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. One of the concerns also is about the lodging and whether the new Plan allows for enough accommodation for visitors and so forth. In your plan, do you think there's enough lodging, both within and outside the Park to accommodate the usual number of visitors that would come to Yosemite?
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. REYNOLDS. Congresswoman, in no park has it ever been the intent of the Park Service to accommodate all the demand. Instead, we've tried to accommodate that which is necessary and appropriate, as the law says. Our intent has always been, and continues to be, to provide the maximum amount of access to people.
When the 1980 plan was approved, we expected some development of overnight lodging to take place outside the Park, because we put limits on the amount in the Park, and called for further reductions. We were overwhelmed by the—I mean, in terms of the emotion—by the amount of overnight accommodations that has taken place outside the Park to serve the needs of visitors, so that more people can come and stay in the Yosemite area in the local economy. We expect the same thing to continue to happen.
So I think whether or not visitors can have access to the Park and enjoy the Park is very well taken care of, and will be further taken care of by local private interests.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I will stop here and allow others to ask questions.
Mr. RADANOVICH. All right. Thank you.
My Chairman, Mr. Hefley.
Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, and I will try to be brief.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You have two charges as the Park Service. One of them is to protect the resource and the other one is to provide for the enjoyment of the public to enjoy that resource.
Why in the world would the Plan call for destroying these historic bridges, which are one of the things that people do remember when they leave the Park, in addition to the waterfall and other things, and what is your plan for the horses, which has been a part of the Park experience for, gosh, who knows, generations, I suppose. It's kind of part of the western experience that people enjoy, even if they don't ride the horses anywhere, to see the horses in the park as part of the western experience.
What are your plans for the horses and why would it call for destroying the bridges?
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Hefley, may I ask Mr. Mihalic to give you a good, detailed answer? And if you would like to come back to me, I would be happy to respond.
Mr. MIHALIC. Mr. Chairman, it's an excellent question. With respect to the bridges, as you know, with our mission, we are required to do two things, not one or the other.
With the Merced River having been designated a wild and scenic river under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, we were confronted with the challenge of how to allow the river to be free-flowing, as required by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, yet constrained by these bridges that were put in that cause the river to act in an unnatural way, and sometimes even during the flooding, act as dams.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What the Plan calls for is for the first bridge, the Sugar Pine Bridge, to be removed, and because of controversy, we know that the river will then react in a different way. The Plan then calls for us to do a hydrologic study to determine whether the other bridges need to be removed.
With respect to the horses, the Plan calls for the removal of the commercial horse stable. The government horse stables are also in the Valley. We're taking those stables out. The commercial trail rides have been in conflict with other visitors with respect to hikers, day hikers and backpackers using the same trails. The trails that we're talking about receive literally thousands of people on those trails a day out of the Valley. With respect to the public input, we believe that having the commercial trail rides will reduce that conflict.
It is important to note that private horse users, day users, people who bring their horses into the Valley and wish to ride in the Valley, that will still be possible and trails will still be open. It's only the commercial aspects that we're calling to be removed.
Mr. REYNOLDS. May I also add that the rest of the Park, the entire rest of the Park, is still open to horses, as it is today, under this plan.
Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you.
Mr. Kildee, any questions?
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KILDEE. Thank you. I will be very brief. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If the flood of 1997 had not occurred, would your plan for this Valley been significantly different than what it is now, or how different would it have been, perhaps, from the 1980 plan that had been developed for the Valley?
Mr. REYNOLDS. Sir, thank you. I don't believe, in having participated extensively in both efforts, I don't believe it would have been much different today. The reason for that is we've learned, since the 1980 plan, about the actual extent of the dangerous rockfall zone and the actual location of the flood plain. Even if the flood hadn't occurred, there are other floods that have been very, very near to the same volume and aerial extent. So I think we would have been faced with exactly the same constraints that we had as a result of the flood.
I think what the flood did was give us the opportunity and the direction by the Congress to take that new knowledge into account and create a plan and get on with doing it. So I think the answer is it would not have been significantly different, sir.
Mr. KILDEE. In general, do we have to be careful with our national treasures like this, to make sure that the reason that attracts people to these places is we do not at the same time destroy the very thing they came to see.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, sir, I think that's the charge of the National Park Service and why it's so much fun to work there.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KILDEE. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. RADANOVICH. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Souder.
Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. It's good to see you again, Mr. Mihalic. I appreciated your hosting me while I was there, to explain and help me understand some of the concerns.
I have a quick question about the bridges. Are the bridges historic structures?
Mr. MIHALIC. Mr. Souder, yes, they are. They are designated under the National Historic Preservation Act, because of their age, as historic bridges.
Mr. SOUDER. It is suggested that, in trying to reconcile, that there's a third thing in addition to the fact that we have this dilemma, with different places where we have a historic structure on historic natural ground and which takes preeminence, but visitor enjoyment is also a third charge of the National Park Service. So you're really trying to balance multiple things.
In trying to sort through the parking question, is 550 the maximum amount allowed under the Plan?
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MIHALIC. Mr. Souder, yes, 550 is the amount called for under the Plan.
Mr. SOUDER. Could that be altered? Are there variables in the plan that would allow that to go up, or is that fixed?
Mr. MIHALIC. Mr. Souder, the Plan, as you know, includes an environmental impact statement. As part of the environmental impact statement process, we looked at an area in which the day-use parking of 550 cars would go. It's important to note that the total amount of parking in the Valley is actually over 2,000 cars. The remainder of that are for the Housekeeping Camp, the campgrounds, the lodge, Curry Village, the Ahwahnee Hotel. Everyone going there will have a parking place as well. The 550 figure to which you refer is just for the day-use parking lot.
In that area, we actually did an analysis that we could probably fit as many as maybe half again as much as the 550, maybe 800 vehicles, in that area. It is also important to note that if we were to try to reverse the figure in terms of reliance on buses, that that figure would probably be closer to 1,200 cars for day-use parking.
Mr. SOUDER. Could you explain that last statement again? In other words, if you used buses, you would have fewer, longer-term people in the park. Therefore, your day-use availability of spaces would be higher; is that what you're saying?
Mr. MIHALIC. Mr. Souder, the concern of Mr. Radanovich that he mentioned was that he would like to see less reliance on the out-of-valley parking and the bus system that would serve that parking. The number that it would take to make the out-of-valley shuttle only about three months of the year would be around 1,200 cars for day-use parking.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.
Mr. RADANOVICH. The chair recognizes Ms. McCollum from Minnesota.
Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Reynolds, if I'm understanding your testimony correctly, part of the contributing factor to the floods were some of the man-made structures that were placed in the Park; is that correct?
Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, that's correct, particularly in the case of some of the bridges.
Ms. MCCOLLUM. So part of the management plan was looking at reducing potential flooding in the future by removing some of these obstacles—and I understand you still have some hydraulic studies that are going to progress forward, to see where or not some of the structures should be removed. But the decision to remove them would be to lessen the threat of flooding in the future; is that correct, Mr. Reynolds?
Mr. REYNOLDS. It would be to—that's generally correct. It would be to reduce the aerial extent of the floods above the bridge, above the bridges, and let the natural flow of the water take place.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Chair and Mr. Reynolds, I read in one of the pieces of information that I have that you have about four million visitors a year, is that correct, Mr. Reynolds?
Mr. REYNOLDS. It has actually been as high as four million. I think last year it was about 3.7.
Ms. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, could someone from the Park Service tell me, in the next ten to twenty years, what do you think, based on trending that you did in your Plan, what do you think you might have for annual visitors?
Mr. REYNOLDS. I think we would have to come back to tell you exact numbers, but with the population increases in California and the continuing trends toward travel from all over the United States and all over the world, I think the pressures to visit national parks everywhere, including Yosemite, is just going up.
Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That information coming at a future time is fine.
[The response to the aforementioned question follows:]
In response to a question asked by Ms. McCollum to John Reynolds concerning visitation trends at Yosemite:
While specific visitation projections for the next ten or twenty years are not available, we expect visitation to the park to continue increasing, based on the anticipated growth of California's population and trends toward increased travel to national parks from within the United States and abroad.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. MCCOLLUM. I haven't had an opportunity to be there, gentlemen, but the Yosemite Valley, along with the congestion, often has a smog core to it. Could you tell me about the air quality in the Park, if that's ever been a concern?
Mr. REYNOLDS. It has been a concern, from two sources. The first source is within the Park itself, and it consists of automobile exhausts and campfire smoke, if you will. At some times of the year, it could be from natural or prescribed fires.
The second source is out of the Park and is increasing. The recent studies show that everything in the Sierras, all plant materials in the Sierras below 6,000 feet—and the Valley is just about 4,000 feet—all plant materials in the Sierras are being damaged, about 29 percent of the plant materials in the Sierras below 6,000 feet.
Ms. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, if I could just make sure that I understand the testimony, if I could do a follow up. Mr. Reynolds, the cars that are going through on a heavy day use are contributing to the lack of air quality, the potential smog quality, for people that are hikers who could be suffering from asthma, respiratory disease?
Mr. REYNOLDS. In the Valley itself. The intent of the Plan, of course, is to reduce the adverse air quality within the Valley from emissions produced inside the Park.
Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. RADANOVICH. The gentleman with whom I share the Park with, Mr. Doolittle. John?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The bridges, tell me about the flooding problem. Well, before we get into that, what was the bigger factor, the flooding issue or the incompatibility of the Wild and Scenic River status that dictated the selection of a plan that removes these two bridges?
Mr. REYNOLDS. From my point of view—and if you would like to have Dave answer as well, because we might get a more full answer here—but from my point of view, it is the combination of the two together. Had we not had the Wild and Scenic River mandates, I'm sure we would have had a much more difficult time making this decision.
Nonetheless, that being said, as we understand natural systems better and better from better science, I'm sure we would have had the same kind of discussions and probably come to the same conclusion. But I think that focusing in on the Wild and Scenic River helped us very much to focus in on this issue.
Dave, do you want to add more to that?
Mr. MIHALIC. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Doolittle, it's one of the most difficult parts of not just the bridge question but almost all the questions in the Valley, because our mission from Congress is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein. So it's very difficult to come to an either/or conclusion.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In this particular instance, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act has specific language that says that it shall take precedence over other law. In order to keep the bridges, which are obviously anchored on either side of the river, from washing away during flood events, the river has been riprapped and the channel has been kept in the bridges upstream, and then there's been scouring downstream, which has caused the erosion to occur below the bridges. In essence, what we've had to do is constrain the river to fit where the bridges are.
It's a very difficult issue. It's obviously as much a science issue as well as an emotional issue. I think we came down on the side of trying to retain those natural features and those natural processes in the Valley that the public does come to see, and that's why we had originally proposed in the draft plan the removal of three of the bridges. We said we will remove the first bridge, do a hydrologic study, and then see what happens after that.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let me just observe that certainly a different approach has been taken on other rivers. The American River, below Nimbus Dam to the confluence of the Sacramento, is a wild and scenic river. There are, I believe, close to half a dozen bridges that traverse it. The river itself is impounded by levees on both sides that are about 20, 25 feet high. No one has ever suggested that we remove any of the bridges.
You know, in the case of Yosemite, I think you have erred in the wrong direction by taking out those bridges.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. RADANOVICH. You're welcome.
Tom Udall from New Mexico.
Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Reynolds, it seems to me one of the issues here is the impact on the Valley communities, the community outside of Yosemite Valley. In looking at this and hearing your testimony and the questions of others, it seems like what you're doing is actually a ''win win'' for the communities outside the Valley, in the sense that you're moving parking spaces, many of them, to outside the Valley. So if there are parking spaces outside the Valley, those individuals will park and shop in those communities and be out there and then be able to take a shuttle in.
The same thing is true, I think, for the concessions and the hotel space. There are many new hotels being built, I think, hotel rooms in the outside community. So there is more of an opportunity for those people to spend time there.
Then the ''win'' on the Park side is having people come into the Park and really enjoy the experience. It seems to me that you're reaching a pretty good compromise here.
But could you give me your comments on that, in terms of looking at both sides of this?
Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Obviously, as I came to the time to sign or not sign the Record of Decision, I had to think about that very issue as well as the rest of the issues that have been talked about here. We believe, of course, we're headed there. I think a lot of people actually believe that we're headed there, too.
I think the real issue, in relationship to the communities here, and particularly as we have found out in the last several months as we've gone into very detailed discussions with Mariposa County, it's how we go about creating an understanding between both of us and the need to raise our ability, to improve our ability to do that, which I think many of the counties are coming to.
I think that's one of the reasons that Dave came to the Park almost two years ago, was to increase the relationship between the Park and the communities prior to the time the decisions were made. I would point to the recent developments with Mariposa County to indicate how much we might be able to do that.
I think it's a difficult question. I think it's a question of agencies in transition, plus I think it's a question of communities becoming much, much more concerned with their relationship with their Park areas nationwide, not just in Yosemite.
Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. Could you tell us briefly about the fee demonstration program, how that operates and how those monies are to be used?
Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. If it's all right with you, I'm going to have Dave do that because he can illustrate with exact examples from Yosemite as opposed to some more general things I might be able to cover.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MIHALIC. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Udall, the fees called for in this Plan, we've actually been banking our fee revenue. We get about $12 million a year and we want to apply it toward this Plan.
Some examples of visitor facilities that would be funded by the Plan would be everything from fixing up some of the water and sewage treatment plants and the utilities that support those visitor services, to some of the campground and road projects and other restoration projects, and a lot of the research that is needed to be done before we can actually do the environmental compliance.
Mr. REYNOLDS. I might add to that, sir.
As you probably recall, we have fee demonstration authority from the Appropriations Committee. The Park keeps 80 percent of the fees that it collects in the Park to use for projects, and those are primarily headed toward addressing the backlog of infrastructure and resource projects within the Park.
Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. Thank you both very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have additional questions, but I will do them on the next round.
Mr. RADANOVICH. We'll make sure we get to them all.
Mr. Reynolds, I grew up next to Yosemite, and always the common wisdom was don't go to Yosemite between Memorial Day and Labor Day because it was crowded, that school was out and there were a lot of people visiting. I know this plan attempts to address that problem.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
By the way, the only time it ever got on national TV, that Yosemite had traffic problems, was either Memorial weekend of the 4th of July or Labor Day. I think it created a problem that in some ways could have been easier dealt with, rather than this image that Yosemite has gridlock traffic 9 to 12 months out of the year.
In the development of this Plan, I know there is a direct relationship between YARTS, the busing system that would bus people from points in the Valley, but also points in the outlying communities into the Park and back. There is a direct relationship between that and the amount of parking spaces that this record decision has identified as being sufficient to meet the demands for visitorship in Yosemite. You have settled on 550 spaces, but that includes the operation of YARTS for a nine-month period.
I have always been a supporter of YARTS, but I have always perceived it as being there to make the need when traffic was a problem, when visitorship was at an excess, and that, to my knowledge, would be a three-month period between Memorial Day and Labor Day weekends.
Superintendent, you alluded a little bit earlier that there's a direct relationship between the amount of time that YARTS operates and how many spaces are required.
If YARTS were to operate on a three-month period, just so that I understand it completely, was it said there would be 1,200 spaces required in the Park, different from the 550 that are there now?
Mr. MIHALIC. Actually, Mr. Chairman, I may have misspoken and I apologize if I didn't say it quite correctly.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is not so much the YARTS regional transit system, but the Plan proposes three satellite out-of-valley parking areas—
Mr. RADANOVICH. Correct.
Mr. MIHALIC. —which we would have to run an additional shuttle bus service from that satellite parking into the Valley. It would be that shuttle system that would work nine months out of the year.
What we have said is, if YARTS is successful, YARTS is the regional transit system, then we may not have to build or run such a separate shuttle system. It may be that YARTS could either do it under contract, or YARTS' regular normal regional service may actually serve that need. Therefore, that aspect of the Plan wouldn't have to be built, which would substantially reduce the $441 million capital cost of the Plan.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Satellite parking aside, my question is, if YARTS were to run for three months, from Memorial Day to Labor Day, what would be, in your view, the necessary amount of parking spaces in the Valley, not including the satellite parking spaces, that would meet visitor demand?
Mr. MIHALIC. From the studies—and we did extensive transportation studies with transportation engineers. We worked with Caltrans. We had other reviews of those studies. In order to get it to three or four months, that summer period of which you speak, we believe that you would need around 1,200 spaces for day users in the Valley.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. RADANOVICH. So for a three-month operation of YARTS, you would need 1,200 spaces, not the 550 that were called for in the Record of Decision?
Mr. MIHALIC. That's correct.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Sir, if I may add, partially just for the record, I think that the—Well, let me start over.
There are two trends that have taken place since the 1980 plan came out which are essential in understanding the transportation issues. One is, the percent of the visitation to the Park that is day use has gone way, way up. In addition to that, the percent of the time that the Park has heavy transportation issues has also gone way, way up. So visitation has changed from primarily overnight use to primarily day use, corresponding in large part to the increases in population at the California location. And it has spread through the year farther.
So the plan, just for the record, calls for eight months, and for transportation four months. That was decided based upon when the largest amount of transportation need was, because of the trends in the way use is going. If California continues to develop in the way that we all think it is, electricity aside for the moment, we expect that the amount of time that the Valley is heavily used and the percent of day-use visitation will continue to go in