Chapter 1 ~ Purpose and Need

Section 1.1 ~ Purpose and Need for the Project

10. Public Concern: The National Park Service should reduce the level of development in Yosemite National Park.

"The way National Parks are managed must change. We realize now that we do not need to build attractions and glorious lodging to draw visitors. Slowly but surely, the man made obstacles and impact should be removed, beginning with the dams. The golf course should probably get phased out as well, especially if its irrigation needs strain the resources." (Individual, No Address - #8)

"We have visited Yosemite every year for many years. We have long thought it was overused with too many cars, too much unsuitable development, too much commercialization." (Individual, Simi Valley, CA - #6140)

"In my view, the National Park Service is jeopardizing the preservation of the national treasure called Yosemite National Park by attempting to serve too many masters. Yosemite Valley is in grave danger of being further developed and urbanized for the short-term benefit of commercial interests and misguided visitors." (Individual, San Francisco, CA - #1638)

INCORPORATE FIRM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR REDUCING DEVELOPMENT

"The language in the Merced River Plan leaves a considerable amount of discretion to the Park Service. . . . A strong, conservation-based Yosemite Valley Plan would presumably make substantial changes in the river corridor, while a more modest Valley Plan would accommodate few changes. The Merced River Plan appears to provide for either path to be followed. . . . The incorporation of firm goals and objectives in the Merced River Plan with regard to issues such as infrastructure reduction, habitat restoration, campsite removal, and bridge removal would rectify this situation. For example, rather than allowing for an action like the removal of Cascade Dam, the plan should clearly state such an objective." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #6360)

HALT DEVELOPMENT IN THE PARK

"We are dismayed that the Park Service intends on bringing new development projects into Yosemite Park. Hotels should not be expanded; Roads should not be widened; Parking lots should not be enlarged; Tourist facilities should not be increased. Yosemite is a treasure that should remain wild and offer only minimal human access and comfort." (Individual, Portland, OR - #1410)

AVOID DEVELOPMENT AT THE WEST END OF THE PARK

"At the West end of the Valley, avoid construction of any new facilities. . . . The Merced River Plan should provide maximum protection to the entire west end of the Valley." (Individual, Yosemite National Park, CA - #1632)

Response: The mission to preserve and restore natural processes and ecosystems in Yosemite is complicated by a long history of development and practices that predated the ecosystem approach to management and set into motion traditions and habits which did not anticipate such rapid increases in visitation levels. The National Park Service now understands more clearly and comprehensively the impacts of development. The Merced River Plan provides guidance for the restoration of much of the river corridor while limiting impacts to levels that will not impair ecological processes. This is done by way of management zoning, including the River Protection Overlay. Future implementation plans will follow the guidance provided by the Merced River Plan and may call for significant reductions in development in some areas in order to allow for the restoration and protection of ecologically or culturally important resources. In order to provide adequate access and facilities to support park visitors while enabling overall park preservation, some facilities may have to be located in areas where such impacts have not previously occurred. Such locations will be chosen based upon their ability to withstand the impacts and for the benefits afforded to preservation and restoration in other more sensitive areas. The zoning prescriptions of the Merced River Plan map out where those locations may be, but for each future proposed action planning and compliance will have to be undertaken in light of careful consideration of environmental consequences.

468. Public Concern: The National Park Service should prevent and remove development in the Merced River floodplain.

"I think all development has to stop along the river. . . . I think if you build more roads either in the Wawona area along the Merced River or the Valley it would be even more disruptive to the river. But short of that, I think all development should be stopped. In fact, I think all development should be removed, short of the roads." (Individual, Bakersfield, CA - #3014)

"I urge you to strengthen the Draft Merced River Plan/EIS by incorporating more specific environmental protections that will guide decision-making in the future and adopting a vision for Yosemite Valley that calls for removing all non-essential development from the floodplain over time. This is another important step that can be taken to preserve the environment for future generations." (Individual, No Address - #6168)

"Yosemite Valley, El Portal and Wawona, and the enclosed Merced River need to be protected, not developed. The present RMP is a document that disguises commercial intentions of further development. Zoning for future development is appalling and indefensible. I do not want my grandchildren, and future generations, to encounter a Yosemite Valley and Merced River that look like they were designed by Walt Disney Inc. This area must be protected from further development and degradation!" (Individual, Aptos, CA - #126)

USE EXISTING DEVELOPED AREAS

"We would like to point out that our group believes that future development in the Park along the river corridor should be limited to the use of existing degraded sites rather than degrading new areas." (Conservation Organization, Camp Nelson, CA - #242)

Response: The Merced River Plan provides management guidance to preserve and restore integral river communities and natural river processes within the river corridor and the floodplain. The plan provides a range of management tools. These tools include: management zoning for all areas within the river corridor; a River Protection Overlay for areas 100-150 feet on either side of the river; a Section 7 determination process for assessing potential impacts to ORVs from projects occurring in the bed or banks of the river; a process for making future decisions in the river corridor with a set of criteria and considerations; and an adaptive management approach (VERP) that includes monitoring for visitor experience and resource degradation over time. Project-specific implementation for protecting the Merced River corridor within Yosemite Valley will come in the Yosemite Valley Plan. The areas of the Merced River that are in designated Wilderness areas will continue to receive protection of their natural condition, as mandated in the Wilderness Act.

469. Public Concern: The National Park Service should keep the Merced River corridor in a natural state.

"The Merced River should be preserved in its natural state. It is one of the last remaining natural rivers in California. This is what people come to see – they can see dammed and channeled rivers at home. It is a natural river that is a wonder to behold and worth traveling miles to see. Mother Nature, by flooding the Yosemite Valley, has given us a second chance to preserve the river in its natural state, to be enjoyed as it is. Man-made accoutrements detract from the river and destroy the values we are trying to protect." (Individual, Santa Monica, CA - #163)

"We never went to Yosemite for ‘what we could do on the River.’ We came to enjoy the beauty of the whole experience and would prefer to see the river within the boundaries be kept natural and the camping sites away from it. I have taken river raft trips outside the boundaries – which are great and this is a good use of the river. Please do all you can to preserve the river the way it wants to be – not as people want it to be." (Individual, Modesto, CA - #6015)

"Since the Merced River is the key to all life in the watershed I would like to urge you to move to repair the flood damage, but otherwise to leave it alone for the surrounding ecosystem to recover. Do not widen the road. Instead protect and enhance the entire Merced drainage, in compliance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This should be the beginning of an overall re-greening plan of all of Yosemite." (Individual, Camarillo, CA - #6070)

"The prime objective of the plan should be to leave the river alone as much as possible to protect and restore the natural processes. We have too long been managing the river; let it run free as it should always have been allowed to do. Remember you are planning for a natural park, the purpose of which is to protect all the natural values. Facilities for the visitor or expansions by the concessionaire must not be allowed where they will adversely affect natural values. Yosemite Valley is already far too overdeveloped. The flood started a cleansing process, which should not be reversed." (Individual, Oakland, CA - #177)

90. Public Concern: The National Park Service should ensure protection for the Merced River corridor.

"The new draft plan for Yosemite is definitely a step in the right direction, but it must be strengthened in order to protect and enhance the ecologically critical and sensitive areas along the river and provide a strong framework for future actions to protect and restore Yosemite Valley’s natural beauty." (Individual, No Address - #6135)

"Keep in mind that congressional action set only minimal standards for the protection of the wild and scenic rivers. . . . The many waterfalls, the Valley setting, and the river and its tributaries are deserving of a much higher set of protection standards." (Individual, Yosemite, CA - #303)

"This plan is too vague about to how to protect the river. Specific standards and guidelines should be adopted in the plan to ensure protection of the river’s free-flowing character, outstanding values, and segment classifications. The plan does not protect the river from road widening and proposed visitor facilities. No widening of the road or the intersection along the untouched segment of the Merced River canyon from the Highway 120/140 intersection to Pohono Bridge should be allowed. Other untouched portions of the Merced River must not be degraded or adversely impacted." (Conservation Organization, Mammoth Lakes, CA - #878)

Response: The Merced River Plan/FEIS has been prepared in accordance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as well as other applicable legislation and planning or policy documents such as the Yosemite National Park General Management Plan (1980). This final plan has been revised in response to public comment. Several organizations with experience in Wild and Scenic River planning were consulted, as were the Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council and other National Park Service specialists. The Merced River Plan is designed to protect the values for which the Merced River was originally designated as a Wild and Scenic River. The preferred alternative would achieve this using several management tools that are currently not available to the National Park Service. These include: management zoning for all areas within the river corridor; a River Protection Overlay for the areas 100-150 feet on each side of the river; a process for making future decisions in the river corridor with a set of criteria and considerations; and an adaptive management approach that includes monitoring for visitor experience and resource degradation over time. These tools would enable the National Park Service to manage the river corridor to prevent degradation of resources and, in many instances, to enhance and facilitate restoration of resources.

21. Public Concern: The National Park Service should allow natural processes to continue in Yosemite National Park.

"I have noted in a few places, comment about ‘restoring’ an area to its earlier condition, as in 1880 or 1930. This seems to me inconsistent with the current policy of letting nature take its course – ‘let natural fires burn.’ I realize compromises must be made (keep Mirror Lake from becoming a meadow), but in most cases, the natural processes should be allowed to continue." (Individual, San Francisco, CA - #45)

Response: The Merced River Plan is based on several foundational goals: one set derived from the 1980 General Management Plan and the other set specifically developed for this plan. These goals include: "Allow natural processes to prevail," "Protect and enhance natural resources," and "Protect and restore natural hydrological and geomorphic processes." These goals are to be achieved through a number of management tools. These include: management zoning for all areas within the river corridor, a River Protection Overlay for areas 100-150 feet on each side of the river, a process for making future decisions in the river corridor with a set of criteria and considerations, and an adaptive management approach that includes monitoring for visitor experience and resource degradation over time. As part of its management framework, the National Park Service will follow the Section 7 determination process, as per the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, which works to prevent adverse effects to the free-flowing condition of the river and the values for which the river was designated.

377. Public Concern: The National Park Service should restore Yosemite National Park to a more natural environment.

"It angers me that an area which was once considered pristine wilderness; is threatened, once again, by more development. I am disgusted that my tax dollars will be used to fund any development project. I do not support development, and I don’t want to see my tax dollars support it. Instead of an upscale resort, why not spend the money on restoration projects? People visit Yosemite to experience the beauty and serenity of the wilderness. Who will want to visit Yosemite Valley when it’s covered in asphalt? I know I won’t. So instead of using money to build a new parking lot or restaurant, why not use it for restoration of Yosemite to its full potential. Use the money to find ways to lessen the impact that tourism has instead of increasing the impact with over development." (Individual, Sacramento, CA - #134)

308. Public Concern: The National Park Service should define visitor experience and its relationship to other core values of Yosemite National Park.

"The visitor experience and its intrinsic relationship to the esthetic, scenic, historic, archaeological, and scientific features or ‘core values’ of Yosemite National Park must be clearly defined. Resource-focused opportunities unique to a national park setting, based on resource preservation as opposed to resource exploitation, provide the framework for such a definition (e.g., camping as a resource-based activity that requires minimal permanent infrastructure vs. lodging replete with buildings, paved parking, and a host of guest services)." (Madera County Board of Supervisors, Madera, CA - #603)

"One ‘undefined’ point is the realm of ‘visitor experience.’ In the General Management Plan Goal, it is loosely associated with visitor understanding and enjoyment with interpretive and educational programs. This is fulfilled in the Merced River Plan Goal of providing diverse recreational and educational experiences that ‘...provide opportunities for enjoyable and educational experiences with the river’s natural and cultural landscapes.’ This definition of experience has much potential to degrade the whole experience of Yosemite park over the long term because it caters to the individual’s preference and predilections and not to an understanding of the park as a system. The experiences defined in the plan are an open-ended proposal where much leeway is given to park and ecosystem modification for the sake of voluminous visitors and their particular interests and desires of how they see the park as satisfying their needs. The use of the term ‘visitor experience’ thus can be defined from one emphasizing an individual-benefiting experience to one tied up in a process of natural system understanding and respect. A different sort of philosophy is especially relevant in this day and age of ecosystem destruction and other environmental blight." (Individual, Washington, DC - #281)

Response: The Merced River Plan adopts the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) framework as a way to address carrying capacity, as required by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. An important aspect of the VERP framework is defining the desired visitor experiences and desired resource conditions – both of which the VERP framework endeavors to protect. The Merced River Plan provides a management framework in which visitor experience is linked to the resource values that must be protected and enhanced.

The Merced River Plan is a programmatic plan, as opposed to an implementation plan. Therefore, specifying the exact amount and configuration of camping and lodging and associated impacts to the visitor experience is beyond the scope of the Merced River Plan. The Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS contains a range of alternatives that consider different actions related to lodging and camping.

13. Public Concern: Yosemite National Park planning documents should address balancing visitor experience with protecting the natural environment.

"The general approach in the Yosemite Valley Plan has been weighted in favor of resource preservation and against human enjoyment of the trails, river and natural scenic beauty. The Park Service’s direction, which says the beauty needs to be preserved for future generations, means for future generations to see, use and enjoy. My hope is to see Yosemite balance nature, people, preservation, and enjoyment. Let’s maximize the human enjoyment and minimize the harmful human impact." (Individual, La Jolla, CA - #3034)

"To allow the Merced River to ‘run its course’ through the valley unrestricted would be a case of gross mismanagement. The park was established in order to enjoy its beauty by mankind. To allow nature to consume access to the park by man is in contradiction to the original purpose of the park." (Individual, No Address - #6014)

"Documents often refer to maintaining the quality of the Park for future generations; however, if future generations will not be able to visit the Park due to rigid constraining rules then who are we really maintaining the Park for? Yosemite is in a constant state of change. The documentation acts as if the environment is static and that actions can be taken to maintain it as such. It is very important to realize that change will occur and that man is a part of the environment and to some extent will influence and promote such change in a natural way. The key is that man is a part of the environment!" (Individual, Simi Valley, CA - #3070)

"When you preserve for the future are you condemning the present? The future is never now. Mother Nature is reworking the park all the time. The people have never ‘hurt’ the park. Sheep grazing did not ‘hurt’ the park. Give us back the park instead of preserving it for park rangers." (Individual, Indio, CA - #155)

"When making choices affecting man, plants and animals, please defer all issues based on what’s best for man. Please no Herculean efforts to save a three toed lizard, spotted owl or valley oak when determining priorities for man." (Individual, Orosi, CA - #70)

470. Public Concern: The National Park Service should base Yosemite National Park planning decisions on the desires of the majority of park visitors.

"YNP offers something for all types of visitors. The high country offers the challenge to those seeking solitude and the wilderness experience. But judging from the small number of those requesting wilderness permits, the overwhelming majority of visitors want a more ‘civilized’ Yosemite experience as found in the Valley. Then why is it assumed that Valley visitors want more wilderness experience when the numbers indicate the opposite?" (Individual, American Canyon, CA - #3126)

"I had the pleasure of speaking with one of the drafters of the Merced Wild and Scenic River Plan during a recent forum at Berkeley. His only response to my plea not to build housing or parking in the valley was that many people want to drive their RV’s into the valley or to stay in a motel room. Therefore, these folks should be accommodated. After reading the plan, I see that none of the Goals of the Merced Wild and Scenic River Plan supports - even remotely - the desires of these individuals." (Individual, Stanford, CA - #1633)

376. Public Concern: The National Park Service should emphasize resource protection in Yosemite National Park planning.

"I strongly support an effort to assess visitor capacity to determine the maximum level of visitor use acceptable for resource protection. . . . I would hope that river protection would be weighted more heavily than visitor experience when there is a conflict." (Individual, Snelling, CA - #946)

"Your ‘proposed alternative’ (2) was correctly touted by planners as the middle path balancing visitors and river protection. But national parks, especially today’s Yosemite, are not middle ground. They are the remaining ground of an otherwise overdeveloped, overpopulated human domain altered for human comfort, concerns and entertainment. . . . The very laws that formed and defined the park could not have foreseen the negative human impacts we witness today. . . ." (Individual, Carpinteria, CA - #1251)

112. Public Concern: The National Park Service should retain all current Merced River uses and opportunities.

"Offer the general public maximum utilization of all presently offered Merced River experiences." (Individual, Pleasanton, CA - #3148)

Response: Section 10(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires that a designated river be administered "to protect and enhance the values which caused it to be included in said system without…limiting other uses that do not substantially interfere with public use and enjoyment of these values." The Merced River Plan FEIS presents a range of alternatives that vary in the way they accommodate visitor use while protecting the free-flowing condition and Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) of the river. All alternatives ensure some level of continued visitor use as well as the protection of ORVs.

103. Public Concern: The Merced River Plan should de-emphasize recreational development.

"Sec. 1274(d)(1) might be misread as to its intent. In specifying what plans shall address, it includes a number of elements, including development of lands and facilities and user capacities, as well as resource protection. However, these fall within the scope of the requirement that they be ‘necessary and desirable to achieve the purposes of the [Act].’ That this is the case is indicated by the prefix ‘other’ before ‘management practices,’ suggesting that such developments must be those that also are needed to achieve the purposes of the Act. And with regard to what the Act calls for in administration, sec. 1281(a) provides direction. It specifies that ‘…primary emphasis shall be given to protecting its [i.e., the river’s] esthetic, scenic, historic, archeological, and scientific features.’ Nowhere in this list is ‘recreation.’ Thus, there should be no emphasis in management planning in providing developments to accommodate recreation." (Conservation Organization, Berkley, CA - #3129)

Response: Some public comments refer to Section 1281(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, which specifies that "…primary emphasis shall be given to protecting [the river’s] aesthetic, scenic, historic, archeologic, and scientific features," a list that does not include "recreation." This statement in the act is immediately preceded by: "Each component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System shall be administered in such manner as to protect and enhance the values which caused it to be included in said system without…limiting other uses that do not substantially interfere with public use and enjoyment of these values." Thus, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act recognizes both the importance of preserving the values of the river and of providing opportunities for the public to enjoy these values. The Merced River Plan meets the needs of visitor use and resource protection through the application of management zoning and the implementation of the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) monitoring framework.

296. Public Concern: The National Park Service should use year-round statistics to develop Yosemite National Park planning documents.

"Yosemite is a year-around park, and planning decisions should not be made based on the most crowded two or three weekends of the year." (Individual, Livermore, CA - #6348)

Response: The National Park Service does not base planning decisions solely on peak-season park use, but on full annual data. Although planning decisions are not based solely on peak-season park use, the National Park Service is considering how to accommodate such use while protecting park resources. In all cases, the framework for this plan is based on the protection and enhancement of the Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs.)

68. Public Concern: The National Park Service should consider population changes when making planning decisions regarding Yosemite National Park.

"Documents do not address the growing population and need to provide greater number of services. It is National Park Service’s responsibility to provide access and usage of the Valley to a greater number of visitors and at the same time keeping a balance between the use and the integrity of the Park. The key is balance!" (Individual, Simi Valley, CA - #3070)

142. Public Concern: Management plans for Yosemite National Park should not be driven by political or monetary motives.

"The Delaware North Concessions Corporation has plans to make its fortune in as many of the national parks as it possibly can. Please stop this threat of the ‘men of great enterprise’ to Yosemite, and to all of our parks forever, if you can. The foolish plans of material man have no place in the gardens of God. What part do businessmen and financiers in the surrounding communities play in these plans, all of them gearing up on all sides for mass accommodations and parking? And what part do the politicians play? Should any of this have anything at all to do with the way you manage our national parks for us? I think not!" (Individual, Midpines, CA - #131)

"Opposed totally to the River Plan. It uses pseudoscience to achieve pseudocompliance. The River Plan is an attempt to justify a political legacy in giving Delaware North huge profits at the expense of Yosemite, the visitors, and the taxpayers." (Individual, Oakhurst, CA - #3172)

"Yosemite is not a destination resort and it should not be set aside for the rich. Replacing campgrounds, where a modest tent can be pitched, with a hotel room may fill the pockets of a politically savvy corporation, but it does not serve the people, the park, or the future. It directly contradicts the purpose of the National Park Service and it is contrary to the spirit of stewardship that should govern your actions. . . . We can imagine a Yosemite that is natural and enjoyable for our grandchildren. It may take some ingenuity and it may mean that greed has to take a back seat to integrity. But why would we want Yosemite to be ruled by greed instead of by integrity and ingenuity? . . . Perhaps no one will get rich with a sane and ethical plan, but Yosemite will enrich the lives of generations. That is why we hold it in trust. And that is why you, the people in charge, are there." (Individual, Coarsegold, CA - #128)

69. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not promote Yosemite National Park as a tourist destination.

"The obvious solution is to reduce congestion by ceasing to promote the park as a tourist attraction. Less people will mean less traffic. If people really want to go to Yosemite, let them make the effort on their own." (Individual, La Habra Heights, CA - #3040)

"We don’t need a Starbucks. We don’t need a roller coaster. It’s not Disneyland. It’s Yosemite Valley. It’s there for the enjoyment of its beauty. It’s not there for recreation, basically. If you want to play golf; you want to ice skate? There are plenty of places to do that." (Individual, Harbor City, CA - #3055)

Response: Yosemite National Park is a place of extraordinary beauty and a place where people may learn more about the nation’s land and history. While the National Park Service does not promote a national park experience for the sake of making money for the National Park Service or for any concessioner, it does have a mission to serve the public’s interests, which include opportunities to visit such places that are held in common by all. To do this and to provide for fair access, it must make information easily available to all segments of the public.

14. Public Concern: The National Park Service should encourage the use of the larger Sierra Nevada environment surrounding Yosemite National Park.

"Somehow the plan needs to be tied into other beautiful parts of the Sierra, that would absorb some of the load. Each place could provide some facet of the Yosemite Valley experience." (Individual, Orange, CA - #76)

Response: The need for "Sierra-wide natural planning" is outside the scope of the Merced River Plan. The Merced River Plan addresses only the segments of the Congressionally designated Merced Wild and Scenic River within Yosemite National Park and within the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. The Merced River Plan incorporates scientific information from the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, as well as from other sources relevant to the Sierra Nevada. Interagency planning involving the numerous federal, state, and private land managers of the Sierra Nevada would need to occur under a different planning mechanism.

5. Public Concern: The National Park Service should consider cumulative impacts from park projects both inside and outside Yosemite National Park.

"The Yosemite National Park Service has assumed that cumulative effects and impacts apply only to future projects outside the Park such as the anticipated Hazel Green development. There is the potential for numerous projects inside the Park which must conform to the Council on Environmental Quality’s directive that even minor projects must include an assessment of cumulative impacts." (Individual, Mariposa, CA - #62)

"One area of special concern is that all alternatives appear to have a commonality of purpose, that of eagerly promoting overbuilt lodging complexes and transit depots often miles away from the Valley floor, all located outside the Park. . . . Fourteen foreseeable development projects are mentioned in this draft. . . . This draft recites adverse environmental effects from these proposed developments ranging from regional wildlife, vegetation, water and soil destruction." (Public Hearing, Fish Camp, ca - #3233)

Response: The Merced River Plan/FEIS analyzes cumulative impacts of projects located both within and outside of Yosemite National Park. Appendix E, "Potential Cumulative Actions," of the Draft Merced River Plan/EIS provided a list of the cumulative actions assessed in the alternatives analysis. Potential cumulative actions within Yosemite National Park include the Yosemite Valley Plan, the Wilderness Management Plan Update, and the South Fork Merced River Bridge Replacement. Examples of potential cumulative actions outside Yosemite National Park include the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) and Tioga Inn in Lee Vining.

The cumulative impact analysis does not endorse any of the identified potential cumulative actions. Rather, the Merced River Plan/FEIS provides an objective analysis of the impacts of the cumulative actions in conjunction with the impacts of an alternative to determine if they would have any additive effects on a particular natural, cultural, or social resource.

Section 1.2 ~ Planning Context

1.2.1 ~ Relationships to Other Planning Efforts

210. Public Concern: The National Park Service should slow down the Yosemite National Park planning process.

"The current Valley Management plan is ill conceived. You cannot put a comprehensive plan about the future of Yosemite together in a few months. And you cannot designate it to a consulting firm. My understanding is that a federal judge gave you as much time as you wanted to complete this plan. So the National Park Service comes up with a poor plan in only four months. This issue deserves more thoughtful attention than the park service has given it." (Individual, Monte Sereno, CA - #50)

"We believe that the Park has moved too quickly to prepare this Draft and that the science, surveys, and full consideration of environmental effects which should form the basis of an adequate River Management Plan may be lacking. We again appeal to the National Park Service to take the time required to do this Plan right. Congress contemplated a 3-year preparation period, yet the National Park Service has imposed an accelerated schedule in which it has prepared the draft in about 90 working days (or less, allowing for weekends)." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #49)

"The Merced River Plan should be a plan which protects the River, its environs and processes. The unnecessarily rushed timetable for the Valley Plan’s completion has compressed the River Plan into an unacceptably short time period. This schedule does not allow for the initiation let alone completion of the necessary surveys and studies in order to form an environmentally responsible and protective plan which assesses adverse impacts in order to truly protect the River. e.g. ring tailed cats, the many sensitive species of bats and amphibians." (Individual, No Address - #6021)

IGNORE POLITICAL PRESSURE

"Do not let politics stop you from doing your job well. The Clinton Administration wants to see the Yosemite Valley Plan completed by the November election - hence, squeezing the Merced River Plan into a needlessly short deadline." (Individual, Berkeley, CA - #215)

"The NRC Action Plan requests answers to the following: ‘What are we protecting and preserving in the parks?; What is the condition of park resources?; How does the condition of our resources change over time?; What actions need to be taken for preserving the species?’; and more. Such questions indeed require sound science and a time line not determined by election cycles and political agendas. Pseudoscience to achieve pseudo compliance is inappropriate when it’s the future of the Merced River and Yosemite National Park at stake." (Madera County Board of Supervisors, Madera, CA - #603)

"It is obvious that this plan - despite its weight and bulk - has been put together quickly, with an eye to meeting a self-imposed July deadline. The protection of the Merced River is far too serious an issue to be thus treated. The July deadline is not mandated by any form of legislation. This false deadline appears to serve the wishes of the Park Service to move quickly to establish for future plans . . . It is also suspect that there are political ‘drivers’ to push this plan to completion in a hasty manner . . . such ‘drivers’ being the Clinton-Gore-Babbitt wish for an environmental legacy (as they see it) by the end of the year 2000. Yosemite Nat. Park must not be sacrificed for these politically-motivated goals." (Individual, Midpines, CA - #598)

REQUEST ADDITIONAL TIME

"If the Park wants more time to prepare a really adequate plan that protects and enhances the River, they have that time. Judge Ishii said specifically to the Park Service if you need more time, I want you to take the time because I want you to do it right the first time. So I’m kind of getting tired hearing that excuse coming out of the Park that they have a July 2000 deadline. It’s just not the case." (Individual, San Francisco, CA - #3125)

"Under ‘Background, Recent Events,’ is the statement: The legal decision for the lawsuit required the National Park Service to complete a comprehensive management plan for the Merced River by July 2000.’ While this statement is correct, it is a half-truth. What is omitted is any mention of the contents of the August 20, 1999 telephone conference in the chambers Judge Anthony W. Ishii . . . ; which provided the National Park Service with the option to request additional time to complete preparation of the Merced River Plan. . . . The statement in the Merced River Plan creates the impression that the Park Service had no choice other than to rush the plan to completion whether or not the science to support the proposals had been developed. In fact, there was a choice; and the Park Service chose to not exercise the option – provided by the Court – to request additional time and produce a scientifically defensible plan." (Conservation Organization, Mariposa, CA - #1630)

281. Public Concern: The National Park Service should use the Merced River Plan as a basis for other park planning efforts.

"California Trout, Inc. would like to take this time to thank you and your staff for producing one of the best Draft Environmental Impact Statements we have ever had the privilege to review. By setting the basis for further planning through this ‘programmatic’ document we believe you have set your standards high in regards to other analyses we have reviewed. We believe that this in the long run, will make the process of tiering follow up site-specific decisions much easier and also help to prevent future appeals or litigation." (Conservation Organization, Camp Nelson, CA - #242)

Response: The Merced River Plan provides direction and guidance on how best to manage visitor use, to develop lands and facilities, and to provide resource protection within the river corridor. It is the intention of the National Park Service to use the Merced River Plan as a template against which future project implementation plans will be judged to determine whether such project will protect and enhance the river’s Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Therefore, the Merced River Plan does provide general direction and guidance for future management decisions.

471. Public Concern: The National Park Service should complete the Merced River Plan before issuing the Yosemite Valley Plan.

"The most important purpose of the Merced River Plan is that it will provide clear, conservation-based guidance to the National Park Service as it develops the Yosemite Valley Plan. . . . The solid, conservation-based and river protection tenor underlying the Merced River Plan must be incorporated into the upcoming Yosemite Valley Plan." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #6360)

"The Merced River Plan should focus exclusively on protecting the river and its environs. It should not plan for or allow for any development that will adversely affect the river. It must be completed before the Valley Plan is issued and the Valley Plan should be based on the protections in the River Plan. The River Plan should not consider what the Valley Plan may be; it should focus on protecting the river." (Individual, Oakland, CA - #177)

"It would be illegal for the Park to issue a draft VP, which could affect the wild and scenic Merced River, its protected corridor, its ORVs and its free-flowing character, for public comment prior to completing a ‘legally adequate’ Comprehensive Management Plan for the river and issuing a Record of Decision pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations. The Friends of Yosemite Valley objects to this unethical, unscientific and illegal process." (Conservation Organization, Yosemite, CA - #6441)

"It is most important that this river plan be finalized before any more plans for the Yosemite Valley are developed. Your selection of the preferred Alternative 2 indicates that continuing development in the Valley is what is driving the Merced River Plan. This is like placing the ‘cart before the horse.’ The Merced River Plan should be driving the Valley Plan." (Individual, Barstow, CA - #85)

Response: Although the Merced River Plan and the Yosemite Valley Plan have progressed on parallel tracks, with the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS following the Draft Merced River Plan/EIS, the Yosemite Valley Plan is not predetermining a decision on the Merced River Plan. As is clearly stated in the Merced River Plan, the plan provides a template for future implementation plans such as the Yosemite Valley Plan. As a result, the alternative that is ultimately selected from the Yosemite Valley Plan must conform to the alternative selected from the Merced River Plan, and not vice versa. This hierarchical relationship has remained consistent throughout the dual planning process. For example, the management zoning and River Protection Overlay created by the Merced River Plan became limiting factors for decision-making in the Yosemite Valley Plan. The Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS also addressed the impacts of its alternatives on the Draft Merced River Plan/EIS’s preferred alternative. During the preparation of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, members of the Merced River Plan team met with members of the Yosemite Valley Plan team to advise them of the planning decisions proposed in the Draft Merced River Plan/EIS. As the planning process continues, the National Park Service will take the opportunity to review the elements of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS and determine whether modifications are necessary to conform the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS to the Merced River Plan/FEIS.

Coordination between these plans is also appropriate because they both concern many of the same areas in the park, Yosemite Valley and El Portal in particular, and because much of the same scientific information was used in decision-making process for each plan. The General Management Plan also forms a backdrop for both of the plans.

66. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not use the Merced River Plan to justify existing plans.

"This River Plan is proof that the National Park Service is using pseudo-science to justify what they want – not what’s best for Yosemite. . . . Further proof that this River Plan is wrong, and the National Park Service has already predetermined the outcome, are the following facts: The valley plan was finished before the River Plan as evidence by this Yosemite Daily Service Report. . . . The River Plan is being used by the National Park Service to justify its already existing Valley Plan." (Individual, Oakhurst, CA - #3010)

"The report does not provide information on how management of the Merced corridor fits into overall future management of Yosemite Valley. Piecemeal reports will not solve the Valley’s many problems. This EIS seems to be an attempt to justify the ill-considered El Portal road widening. A Merced River management plan should have been in place long ago, and certainly should have been completed before the road widening began (as the Courts have ruled)." (Individual, Albany, CA - #235)

Response: Although the Merced River Plan and the Yosemite Valley Plan have progressed on parallel tracks, with the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS following the Draft Merced River Plan/EIS, the Yosemite Valley Plan is not predetermining a decision on the Merced River Plan. As is clearly stated in the Merced River Plan, the plan provides a template for future implementation plans such as the Yosemite Valley Plan. As a result, the alternative that is ultimately selected from the Yosemite Valley Plan must conform to the alternative selected from the Merced River Plan, and not vice versa. This hierarchical relationship has remained consistent throughout the dual planning process. For example, the management zoning and River Protection Overlay created by the Merced River Plan became limiting factors for decision-making in the Yosemite Valley Plan. The Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS also addressed the impacts of its alternatives on the Draft Merced River Plan/EIS’s preferred alternative. During the preparation of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, members of the Merced River Plan team met with members of the Yosemite Valley Plan team to advise them of the planning decisions proposed in the Draft Merced River Plan/EIS. As the planning process continues, the National Park Service will take the opportunity to review the elements of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS and determine whether modifications are necessary to conform the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS to the Merced River Plan/FEIS.

215. Public Concern: The National Park Service should postpone the Merced River planning process until the Yosemite Valley Plan is completed.

"In response to the lawsuit concerning Camp 4/Sunnnyside Campground and the reconfiguration of Yosemite Lodge, Secretary Babbitt announced, some months ago, that all of the pending plans for Yosemite Valley would be held back, until a single, coordinated, overall plan could be developed. Now comes this Wild and Scenic River Plan, which promises to substantially impact the river corridor, and yet we know nothing about the plans for the rest of the Valley. This leads to all sorts of fear and suspicion in the minds of many of the Park’s strongest supporters. It is, most emphatically, not the way to achieve agreement or buy in on planning efforts. Therefore, I would earnestly request that this plan be held in abeyance at least until the plan for the remainder of the Valley, which I understand will be forthcoming in a few months, is available for review." (Individual, San Pedro, CA - #214)

Response: It is important to reach a Record of Decision on the Merced River Plan prior to completing the Yosemite Valley Plan for several reasons. The Merced River Plan is a congressionally mandated action that is overdue, as was reiterated in a recent lawsuit brought against the National Park Service. Because of that lawsuit, the National Perk Service has to develop a comprehensive management plan for the river on a priority basis. It also makes sense on a practical level to have the river plan in place prior to the Yosemite Valley Plan. The river plan will establish overall management guidance, which will assure that future proposed actions within the river corridor comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and will not degrade the values for which the river received its Wild and Scenic designation. But it is management guidance that must be implemented in other planning efforts. The Yosemite Valley Plan will propose specific actions and, in doing so, will have to comply with Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requirements.

472. Public Concern: The National Park Service should clarify the relationship between the General Management Plan and all other Yosemite National Park planning documents.

"The Park Service decided that this was an important document and got elevated to equal stature with the General Management Plan, which then raises a concern. If we aren’t getting public input and understanding of this document and it becomes then the guide for the Valley Plan when people are really interested in looking at that. And it comes along and they’re talking about removing bridges and the existing infrastructure and so on. They’re going to find that the decisions are mandated by a document that’s been approved without their awareness. So my concern is that this document went from an unnecessary requirement, in the minds of the Park Service, to something that now is equal stature to the GMP." (Civic Organization, Wawona, CA - #3178)

"We strongly support using the 1980 General Management Plan (‘GMP’) as the guiding document for all Park planning. After extensive public review and environmental study, the GMP set levels for day use visitation and overnight accommodations which, in the opinion of many organizations, remain appropriate today." (Business, Yosemite National Park, CA - #1524)

"You say that the Merced River Plan is a ‘foundational plan’ and that it does not direct specific actions. However, it is clear that the intent of the Merced River Plan is to set the stage for future actions to occur without additional public comment. The Park Service will simply claim that ‘such actions were allowed for by the Merced River Plan zoning.’ Having the Merced River Plan attempt to supercede the General Management Plan is not appropriate." (Individual, Union City, CA - #1595)

473. Public Concern: The National Park Service should ensure consistency between the Merced River Plan and the 1980 General Management Plan.

"The document purports to be consistent with the 1980 General Management Plan. One of the objectives of that plan was to allow natural processes to prevail. The document has loopholes which authorize future activities that will offset and negate the effects of the most recent natural process which was the 1997 flood." (Individual, Mariposa, CA - #3175)

"The GMP and Merced River Plan will be considered with equal weight in guiding future implementation plans and therefore must be compatible with each other. One plan cannot allow for future development while the other forbids it." (Individual, Campbell, CA - #871)

"The 1997 flood and the Merced River Plan (Merced River Plan) are being used to amend the Yosemite General Management Plan (GMP). The Merced River Plan states that it must be consistent with the GMP, however, by placing the Merced River Plan on the same level with the GMP, it adds language to the GMP and therefore amends this plan. . . . This language allows for substantial commercialization, new facilities and numerous construction projects to be planned and implemented. In addition, the Merced River Plan restricts and eliminates plans called for in the General Management Plan. This allows the Park Service to pick and choose which actions they prefer to implement without the level of public participation that might otherwise occur. Provisions that were not included in the General Management Plan are provided for in the Merced River Plan." (Individual, Malibu, CA - #6079)

Response: The Merced River Plan derives its authority from the 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act directs federal agencies to develop river management plans that are "coordinated with and may be incorporated into resource management planning for affected adjacent Federal lands" (16 USC 1274). The 1980 General Management Plan is the overall guiding document for planning in Yosemite National Park. The Merced River Plan derives its goals from both the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the 1980 General Management Plan. The Merced River Plan and the General Management Plan are both considered "general management planning" documents, and together create a policy framework that must be followed by all park implementation plans affecting the river corridor and the Outstandingly Remarkable Values for which the river was designated.

307. Public Concern: The National Park Service should ensure that the Merced River Plan is consistent with The Natural Resource Challenge.

"We further request the Plan’s conformity with "The Natural Resource Challenge: The National Park Service’s Action Plan for Preserving Natural Resources" (NRC), a Service-wide initiative announced last Fall by Director Robert Stanton with the full support of Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt." (Madera County Board of Supervisors, Madera, CA - #603)

Response: The Natural Resource Challenge (NRC) is a framework for improving the National Park Service’s management of natural resources. Specific elements of NRC relevant to the Merced River Plan include increasing the role of science in decision-making, gathering baseline data on resource conditions, and merging resource preservation into mainstream park planning. The Merced River Plan is driven by Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requirements to protect and enhance the Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs), including a number of natural resources ORVs, and to protect the free-flowing condition of the river. The Merced River Plan also commits to the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) framework to address carrying capacity, and the science necessary to establish VERP monitoring indicators and standards.

1.2.2 ~ Legal Framework

4. Public Concern: The National Park Service should comply with the National Environmental Policy Act when planning actions in Yosemite National Park.

"In the future, construction projects, such as the El Portal road widening project, should not be developed with out attention to NEPA." (Recreational Organization, Silver Spring, MD - #1592)

"NEPA requires a broad range of alternatives with clear and distinct differences. What we see in this document is a plethora of almost identical alternatives. NEPA requires analysis of cumulative effects of potential future activities. The document postpones the cumulative effect analysis to the Yosemite Valley Plan. This fails to provide the full and frank disclosure of consequences that NEPA requires. The document did not include the biological assessment; NEPA requires that that be done. There is a biological assessment, but it wasn’t distributed." (Individual, Mariposa, CA - #3175)

IDENTIFY FUTURE SITE SPECIFIC ACTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

"How can this Environmental Impact Statement cover future projects without definitive locations? Are you trying to grandfather future projects into this document when their location, impacts and affects are not yet quantified? (Individual, Fresno, CA - #6260)

"The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an EIS for plans that provide for future actions in the Park. Since this plan enables future action through various implementation plans, it should reveal all future environmental impacts. The fact that the DRP [Draft River Plan] is qualitative is not an excuse to avoid the statement of such impacts." (Individual, Mariposa, CA - #62)

"The BA [Biological Assessment] postpones analysis of ‘site specific actions’ – by a plethora of ‘Reasonably Foreseeable Activities’ – on . . . native species. This effectively defeats the intent of the NEPA requirement to perform comprehensive analysis of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. This is known as ‘Piecemealing’ and is prohibited by NEPA." (Conservation Organization, Mariposa, CA - #1630)

"The significance of the Plan as a NEPA document in relation to future actions is unclear. The Plan characterizes itself as a prescriptive plan that merely describes zones, without recommending implementation of any specific actions. . . . If an action is contemplated in the Plan. . . does that mean that there would be no further NEPA compliance or documentation required for that action? The Plan says only that the Park Service will decide this question when the time comes to take the particular action. . . This is not good enough. The public has a right to know whether or not a particular recommendation in the Plan constitutes as ‘action’ for which the Plan represents the final NEPA compliance document. Without this assurance, the public has no idea what ‘actions’ in the Plan are considered final for NEPA purposes." (Recreational Organization, San Francisco, CA - #1599)

ANALYZE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

"The plan has a long list of development projects which are contemplated. In addition, the Valley Plan. . . will have a list of proposed or possible projects. Since this information is available, the cumulative impacts of these projects on ORVs should be analyzed. The plan merely gives a laundry list of possible impacts without specific analysis. It essentially states things could get better, worse or stay the same." (Individual, Mariposa, CA - #1684)

ENSURE ADEQUATE MITIGATION MEASURES

"Under NEPA, an EIS must identify appropriate mitigation measures, including measures to avoid, minimize, or rectify an environmental impact. Although the Merced River Plan does discuss mitigation measures common to all alternatives . . . we are concerned that the plan does not provide enough detail." (California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA - #6171)

CONSIDER PUBLIC INPUT

"You have already decided what course of action to take, that you are simply having a public review period because you are required to, and that you are not demonstrating a good faith intention to accept public comment." (Individual, El Portal, CA - #1686)

Response: The National Park Service is required by federal law to fully comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In addition, every federal agency must prepare procedures to supplement NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA Regulations. Director’s Order #12: Conservation Planning and Environmental Impact Analysis sets forth the policy and procedures by which the National Park Service complies with NEPA. All planning actions and construction projects conducted by the National Park Service are to comply with NEPA and Director’s Order #12.

The Merced River Plan is a prescriptive plan that focuses on management zoning. A variety of actions could occur within a particular zone, depending on the zoning prescription. Specific actions are allowed (or not allowed) within management zones, but are not recommended or required as part of the plan’s alternatives. Therefore, depending on the nature of actions that are proposed, NEPA compliance may be required in the future. It is not possible at the present time to predict what future actions may be proposed.

It would not be accurate to simply say that all implementing actions will require preparation of NEPA documentation, as some actions may be categorically excluded from the NEPA process. As indicated in the Draft Merced River Plan/EIS on page IV-1, second paragraph, the National Park Service would evaluate all future specific actions resulting from the Merced River Plan to determine the need for project-specific NEPA documentation. Appropriate NEPA compliance documentation, including public involvement, would then be prepared consistent with Council on Environmental Quality, Department of the Interior, and National Park Service requirements. NEPA documents prepared for future actions related to the Merced River Plan may be "tiered" to the Merced River Plan, as per 40 CFR 1508.28.

The Biological Assessment analyzes the potential effects of the Merced River Plan on federally protected and other special status species. The Biological Assessment was prepared in accordance with Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and implementing regulations [19 USC 1536 (c), 50 CFR 402.14(c)], National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements (USWC 4332(2)(c), and direction provided in the 1988 National Park Service Management Policies (4:11). It was prepared at the request of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Sacramento Office, at a meeting on September 9, 1999 (USFWS 1999). The purpose of the Biological Assessment is to:

• Evaluate the effects of the proposed action on federally listed and proposed (for listing) species and/or critical habitat
• Determine the need for consultation and conference
• Achieve compliance with the Endangered Species Act and NEPA

An overriding assumption of the Biological Assessment is that each site specific action that could occur under the proposed action will be analyzed as required by NEPA and the Endangered Species Act and that all federal laws will be complied with during implementation. Since the decision made under the EIS is programmatic, no specific commitment of resources is made by the decision. Therefore, a Biological Evaluation and/or Biological Assessment will be made for all site-specific projects, as warranted. Some site-specific projects could have the potential to adversely affect threatened or endangered species. Therefore, site/project specific assessments and determinations in accordance with the provisions of the Endangered Species Act and in cooperation with the USFWS may be required for future actions. The Biological Assessment is part of the Merced River Plan Administrative Record, and is available, upon request, for public review.

The Merced River Plan analyzes cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the Yosemite region in combination with potential effects of the Merced River Plan alternatives. These cumulative actions are evaluated in the impact analysis in conjunction with the impacts of an alternative to determine if they have any additive effects on a particular natural, cultural, or social resource. Because most of these cumulative actions are in the early planning stages, the evaluation of cumulative impacts was based on a general description of the project. Since the publication of the Draft Merced River Plan/EIS, the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS has been released for public review. The cumulative impacts analysis of the Merced River Plan has been updated to include analysis of the preferred alternative of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS since more specific information is now available.

To ensure a high standard of protection to resources and values of the Merced River corridor occurs, all potential future actions that could occur under each of the action alternatives would apply a consistent set of measures to mitigate for potential environmental and social impacts. Since the Merced River Plan is a programmatic document, and does not specify detailed actions, the mitigation measures provided in the Merced River Plan are not as specific as would be required under an implementation plan. However, the Merced River Plan will provide broad guidance for any future approved actions. The National Park Service would use the management elements of the Merced River Plan as a set of decision-making criteria with which to evaluate projects relating to visitor use and facility siting, design, and other potential actions in the Merced River corridor. For actions that meet these mandatory criteria, the National Park Service would apply an additional set of considerations to further evaluate the actions. All proposed actions would be evaluated against the criteria and considerations. Also, existing facilities in the Merced River corridor would be evaluated when major reconstruction is needed, a facility is no longer of use, or management initiative occurs (such as those based on planning efforts or new information). All of the action alternatives rely on this decision-making approach.

212. Public Concern: The National Park Service should clarify how the Wild and Scenic River Act relates to other legislative and executive mandates.

"We feel that the Park Service has made an assumption that the Organic Act is equal to and on par with both the Wilderness and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. We do not agree with that. We think the Wilderness Act was an overlay to the Organic Act, and we believe the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is an overlay to the Organic Act. We believe once that legal position is established, many of the controversies occurring over the development in the Valley will no longer exist." (Conservation Organization, Mariposa - #3171)

THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT SUPERSEDES THE AUTHORITY OF THE ORGANIC ACT AND YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK’S GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

"The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act takes precedence over other planning processes. In addition a premier goal of Yosemite’s 1980 General Management Plan calls for letting natural processes prevail. This must be the prime directive of the Merced River Plan." (Individual, No Address - #6021)

"The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was passed after the Organic Act and was designed to provide an overlay of legal restriction on the exercise of discretion under the Organic Act . . . In the case of any doubt about this, a provision of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act directly addresses the question of conflict between them. Sec. 1281 states that in that event ‘the more restrictive provisions shall apply,’ which generally will be those of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act . . . other authorities cannot be used to override the purposes of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. In light of this specific wording, the earlier reference to ‘coordination’ is best read as providing authority to dovetail plans, rather than overriding the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act." (Conservation Organization, Berkley, CA - #3129)

"The Merced River Plan . . . presents the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) as equivalent to the GMP. This is incorrect. The GMP is a PLAN not legislation. The GMP is intended to be an implementation of the provisions of the Organic Act (OA) of 1916. As the more recent legislation, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act supersedes both the OA and the GMP. If there is a conflict between the requirements of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the activities permitted under the GMP and the OA; the more restrictive constraints of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act – particularly with respect to protection and enhancement of the ORVs – must be the determining factor." (Conservation Organization, Mariposa, CA - #1630)

"The Wild and Scenic River Act . . . unequivocally overrides everything else and calls – and demands protection and enhancement of the values of the river and the river corridor." (Conservation Organization, Cupertino, CA - #3137)

FLOODPLAIN EXECUTIVE ORDER

"Since the National Park Service is subject to Executive Order 11988 relating to protection of floodplains and is also under direction of National Park Service guidelines on Floodplain Management (1993), this plan should explain how it intends to comply with directives to avoid construction of facilities in floodplains if alternative locations are available. . . . The report only pledges to avoid constructing facilities in floodplains and wetlands ‘to the extent practicable, which is a weaker commitment than that required under the Executive Order.’" (Conservation Organization, Portland, OR - #3129)

Response: This Merced River Plan is being completed to comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act’s requirement for a comprehensive management plan. However, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act does not demand that the Merced River Plan be created in a vacuum. Section 10(c) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act specifically envisions that for rivers administered by the National Park Service, the legal authorities relating to the management of national parks shall also apply. Section 10(c) of the Act states that:

Similar language appears in the act regarding coordination with the Wilderness Act. In addition, Section 3 of the act states that comprehensive management plans shall "be coordinated with and may be incorporated into resource management planning for affected adjacent federal lands." The intent of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as reflected in Sections 3 and 10, is the development of a plan based on coordination between National Park Service authorities and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, rather than a plan that ignores general National Park Service authorities. Moreover, there is nothing in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act suggesting that, in the event of a conflict, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act will always be the "more restrictive" legal authority.

Statutes generally applying to national parks include the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 and the General Authorities Act of 1970, as amended. These statutory authorities direct the National Park Service to protect park resources and to provide for appropriate visitor use of the parks. For example, the Organic Act states that the National Park Service shall "conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." 16 USC Section 1.

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the authorities under which the National Park Service manages national parks emphasize resource protection, but also recognize the importance of recreational uses of parks and river corridors. As a result, courts have found that both the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the National Park Service Organic Act impart broad discretion to the National Park Service in determining how best to achieve their respective goals. In developing the Merced River Plan, the National Park Service considered the requirements of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and general National Park Service authorities and then developed alternative approaches that would satisfy the intent of each.

475. Public Concern: The Merced River Plan should provide clear standards and guidelines under the Wild and Scenic River Act for protection of the Merced River.

"We think the fundamental problem with this plan is it fails provide clear standards and guidelines to assure the mandates of the Act; that is the protection of the Merced’s free-flowing character, and it’s outstanding values. This plan needs to have very clear, very decisive, very definitive standards and guidelines to assure that these values are protected." (Conservation Organization, Sacramento, CA - #3141)

Response: The Merced River Plan/FEIS provides numerous mechanisms and tools to manage the river to protect and enhance the Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) and free-flowing conditions. Among these are the decision-making criteria and considerations (including a procedure for determining compliance with Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for projects within the bed and banks of the river), management zoning, and the River Protection Overlay. The River Protection Overlay and the Section 7 determination process provide clear guidance for assessing future management actions and ensuring that the ORVs of the Merced River are protected. In addition, the plan includes a guide for on-going monitoring called the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection framework that will inform management decision-making with the most current and comprehensive data on resource conditions in the Merced River corridor. The development of indicators and standards will be an ongoing process. This final plan incorporates changes in response to this public concern and is much more specific regarding how compliance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act will take place.

371. Public Concern: The National Park Service should detail in the Merced River Environmental Impact Statement how responsibilities under Section 7 of the Wild & Scenic River Act will be met.

"The Draft Merced River Plan/EIS does not make clear that planning and constructing of water projects must be anchored by National Park Service responsibilities to implement Section 7 of the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act. . . . The Draft Merced River Plan/EIS does not explicitly . . . acknowledge the requirement for the river manager to make a Section 7 determination when reviewing, approving , or constructing water resources projects. Identify the types of projects that may trigger the need to make a Section 7 determination. Construct . . . the decision making framework that will be used by the river manager to make a Section 7 determination. Discuss the procedural aspects of Section 7 determinations. . . . Discuss strategies for achieving wild & scenic river management goals . . . when the National Park Service is not the construction or permitting agency. The final Merced River Plan should contain a discussion of the statutory, regulatory, and policy framework for Section 7 decision making." (Conservation Organization, Sacramento, CA - #1529)

AVOID ADVERSE EFFECTS

"Specifically, the Draft Merced River Plan/EIS (Comprehensive Management Plan) does not make clear that planning and construction of water resources projects must be anchored by National Park Service responsibilities to implement Section 7 of the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act ‘to avoid direct and adverse effects on the values for which the river was established.’" (Conservation Organization, Sacramento, CA - #6410)

IMPLEMENT A CONSULTATION PROCESS

"We think there needs to be a clear process delineated in this plan of how the Park Service is going to go about its critical Section 7 consultation process in review of any project that may impact the Merced’s water resources. It’s kind of awkward because right now the Park Service would have to consult with itself, and it needs to come up with a process to assure that there’s an independent, unbiased source out there to conduct that consultation." (Public Hearing, Sacramento, CA - #3142)

DEVELOP A COORDINATED STRATEGY

"In the future I think it will be very important that all three Agencies [National Park Service, Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management] have a consistent approach to Section 7 determinations on the Merced Wild and Scenic River. This is an area where the Forest Service in California is just learning how to work with Section 7 determination requirements. With this in mind I recommend that all three Agencies agree to meet as a follow up to the Merced Management Plan and develop a coordinated strategy for working through Section 7 determinations for the Merced River." (Forest Service, Nevada City, CA - #1284)

Response: The Draft Merced River Plan/EIS did not explicitly address Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, although much of its management framework addressed it indirectly. The Merced River Plan/FEIS explicitly addresses Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in a number of ways. The "Decision-Making Criteria and Considerations" in Chapter II, which serves as the management framework for the plan, includes a Section 7 determination process for federal water resources projects. The River Protection Overlay that guides management of the bed and banks and adjacent riparian areas also incorporates a Section 7 determination process. Section 7 requires that any federal water resources project (an action supported by a federal agency occurring on the bed or banks of a Wild and Scenic River) must go through a determination process to assess any potential direct and adverse impacts on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the river. To meet this requirement, the National Park Service, under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior, shall assess all proposed water resources projects relative to their potential direct and adverse impact on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Merced River.

372. Public Concern: Merced River Environmental Impact Statement should state how section 9 of the Wild & Scenic River Act has or will impact the availability of public lands within the Merced River corridor for mining activities.

"The final Merced River Plan should clarify… if the statutory 1992 withdrawal encompassing some of the Federal lands in (and near) the El Portal Administrative Site limits the discretion of the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to make these lands available under the mining laws of the United States…. The Merced River Plan should also clarify whether there are any remaining valid existing rights to mine within the one-half mile wide corridor established by section 9 and the 1992 designation legislation. The Merced River Plan should also discuss and determine whether the National Park Service intends to extinguish these rights… by purchase or other options." (Conservation Organization, Sacramento, CA - #1529)

Response: In response to this concern, the Merced River Plan/FEIS includes a discussion of mining claims in accordance with Section 9 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Lands within one-quarter mile of the main stem and South Fork of the Merced River have been withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under mining and mineral leasing laws of the United States. The legislation creating Yosemite National Park, which was enacted in the late 1800s and early 1900s, prohibited the location of mining claims within the park. This legislation withdrew lands within the park from the public domain and reserved the lands for park and recreation purposes. Sec, 13 Stat 325 (1864); 34 Stat. 831 (1906) and 41 Stat. 731 (1920). In 1976, the Mining in the Parks Act (16 USC Section 1901, et seq.) was passed. This statute invalidated all mining claims within units of the National Park System that were not properly recorded with the Secretary of the Interior before September, 1977. Today, there are no existing mining claims within the Yosemite National Park portions of the Merced Wild and Scenic River. Following transfer of the El Portal Administrative Site from the U.S. Forest Service to the National Park Service in 1958, the National Park Service acquired all of the previously existing mining claims, and new mining claims were prohibited in the El Portal Administrative Site. (See, Public Land Order No. 2136.25 Fed. Reg.6210 (1960).) Today, there are no existing mining claims within the National Park Service-administered El Portal segment of the Merced River.

Section 1.3 ~ Overview of the Planning Process

1.3.1 ~ Public Involvement

19. Public Concern: The National Park Service should extend the public comment period for the Merced Wild and Scenic River Plan.

"The comment period needs to be extended to give the public a chance to fully consider the scope of the crucial plan. The importance of leaving the Merced River unimpaired any further for future generations, the length of the document and, under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the mandate to ‘protect and enhance’ the values of the river demand the time necessary to consider this plan." (Individual, No Address - #6021)

"We currently are still studying the plan and have it being reviewed by the scientific experts. . . .Whether we can meet the current deadline for comment is questionable." (Civic Organization, Mariposa, CA - #202)

ANOTHER 30 DAYS

"I’m requesting a response time extension of 30 days. I will be too rushed to finish work on my sixth alternative by the March 14th deadline." (Public Hearing, Fish Camp, CA - #3230)

ANOTHER 45 DAYS

ANOTHER 60 DAYS

"Both Friends of Yosemite Valley and MERG have requested a 60-day extension of time for filing their comments on the Draft River Plan. I am aware that other organizations, individuals and government entities have also requested extensions of varying time. It is in the best interest of the public and Yosemite National Park that the comment period be extended. There are both extenuating circumstances and legal requirements which make an extension necessary." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #428)

ANOTHER 90 DAYS

"The public hearing process should be extended for at least another 90 days." (Individual, Malibu, CA - #3077)

Response: The National Park Service is required by the National Environmental Policy Act to allow for public comment over a period of 45 days. The National Park Service exceeded that minimum requirement by initially providing a 60-day comment period. In response to requests from the public for an extension of the time allowed for formal comments on the Draft Merced River Plan/EIS, the National Park Service granted an additional extension of 10 days from the original 60-day comment period. The National Park Service considered 70 days to be an adequate timeframe for interested individuals to respond.

15. Public Concern: The National Park Service should improve public involvement strategies.

PROVIDE ADVANCE NOTICE OF HEARINGS

"It would be nice if you would give more advance notice of public meetings. Less than a month is just not acceptable, especially when the meetings are during the week. More people would be able to participate if the meetings were held on the weekends. Also, it would be helpful if the plans were sent to people sooner. That’s a lot of reading to be done before the public comment time is over." (Individual, Los Angeles, CA - #5)

INCLUDE CAMPERS

"The Park Service did not include a majority of the public who uses the Park, specifically thousands of new and returning campers each year. Camper’s register before entering the Park, and the Park Service has a database of campers’ information available. The Park Service could have informed this specific group of these hearings with a postcard that would have costs 20 cents to mail. However, the Park Service has admitted that they did not address or inform this particularly large group of potential participants about the public hearing process." (Individual, Malibu, CA - #6079)

FORM AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE

"We suggest public involvement every step of the way in the form of—for lack of a better term—an advisory committee composed of representatives from all sectors of the public. This solution will only work as long as the selection process is conducted with impeccable integrity. We believe such an advisory board with park planners and scientists working together every step of the process offers the greatest assurance for the Merced River and Yosemite." (Individual, Oakhurst, CA - #6081)

No agency, no matter how competent or well intentioned its staff may be, can claim to have a complete grasp of the range of issues and needs that must be addressed in a given plan. In recognition of this, public input is sought for major planning efforts. This enables the agency to help develop the range of issues that any given plan should address, as well as to allow the public scrutiny of proposed plans to ensure that actions are consistent with the National Park Service mission and enabling legislation.

There are numerous tools available to inform the planning process. The establishment of an advisory committee is one such tool. The National Park Service has chosen to use those mechanisms and tools that provide the greatest opportunity for broad and equitable public involvement. Some of those mechanisms are described above. In addition, the National Park Service has used news releases, planning updates, the park guide, pre-release meetings, and other tools to help inform the public.

135. Public Concern: The National Park Service should continue to actively involve the public in Yosemite planning.

"First I want to express my thanks for all the work the Yosemite National Park team has put into working on the Merced River Plan and into taking the plan around the state for comment. I attended and spoke at the Berkeley sessions and was favorably impressed by the amount and quality of information that was available, and on the level of expertise in the group working on the plan. Perhaps most of all, I appreciate the attitude of openness to different opinions and the encouragement to express my views that I felt from the Park personnel." (Individual, Berkeley, CA - #138)

"Thank you for holding your meeting in the Mid-Peninsula (Palo Alto) rather than San Francisco or Berkeley. It was easier to park; and they provided information handy and easier to read! The Park Staff were very available to hear our comments and to help us better understand your Merced Wild and Scenic River Plan. . . . I hope you (National Park Service) will hold future meetings in the general Peninsula Area." (Individual, San Jose, CA - #3103)

FRESNO

"We are also concerned that when public meetings are held, Fresno is omitted from hosting a public workshop. With a population of ½ million people and a major point of access to the park, it would seem a good location to gather information for your plan formulation. We understand you are dealing with the Merced River Plan, but I believe you will find significant interest in the park in this region." (Business, Fresno, CA - #606)

"It has come to my attention that Fresno County has not been included as one of the areas for public meetings. Would it be possible to schedule a meeting in Fresno County? As you stated in your letter, public input is vital to park planning and we in Fresno County are very much interested in Yosemite." (Board of Supervisors, Fresno, CA - #61)

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

"During the initial public scooping comment period for the Merced River Plan, the Park Service limited public hearings to six meetings. None of these meetings was held in Los Angeles or San Diego." (Individual, Malibu, CA - #6079)

"I cannot attend the public meetings, their (sic) too far and I have no transportation. If you had one here in Santa Cruz I would attend. Santa Cruz has a Civic Auditorium that would easily hold every one from throughout the area wishing to attend and you would have a great attendance this is an Environmentally concerned area." (Individual, Santa Cruz, CA - #77)

OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA

"I just want to state that I have an objection that these hearings are not being held anywhere but in California for a visitor population that is much greater than that. And I’m speaking as a non-native resident of this area." (Public Hearing, El Portal, CA - #3200)

71. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not impose time restrictions on public verbal comments.

"The ‘moderator’ for the February 3rd meeting was quite rude. He was obviously paid for by the National Park Service which means he was paid by the tax payers. Since there were so few people in attendance, it would have been good p.r. to allow the people there to have their say. One more minute here or there would have caused little problems." (Individual, No Address - #6029)

"Public hearing participants should have been allowed to use the entire length of time allotted for the comment session – to make comments – even if they had addressed the group before. A two-minute limitation was imposed to limit public comments, participation, dialogue and education." (Individual, Malibu, CA - #6079)

"I might suggest that to create a document of this size and then to hold public hearings in which you limit public comments to two minutes gives a rather unfortunate impression of how much you value public participation in this process. It appears the National Park Service would prefer not to know very much- if anything- about what the public thinks about this plan for protecting one of the nation’s most unique and priceless resources the river that runs through Yosemite National Park." (Individual, Coursegold, CA - #1688)

"Many are not willing to give up two to four hours for only two minutes of input on 1,300 pages." (Individual, Oakhurst, CA - #3172)

Response: The National Park Service understands and appreciates the concern that the two-minute time frame for public oral comments was relatively brief. However, the two-minute requirement was instituted at every public hearing so that all speakers would be given exactly the same opportunity for comment. In several of the public hearings, there were many speakers, and time limits were necessary to give everyone an opportunity to comment and still have adequate time for the public open house portion of the meetings. In addition, there have been many other opportunities for public input, including written comments and letters, e-mail comments, and direct comments written at the open house or input into the computer. The comment period was also extended to allow for additional public input opportunities.

72. Public Concern: The National Park Service should ensure that presenters at public meetings are well informed.

"The public speakers came across as having a passion for camping in Yosemite. The presenters came across like hired guns not really familiar – or passionate about – the place. Their credibility was low." (Individual, Altadena, CA - #3073)

Response: The primary presenter at the public hearings was very well informed about not only about the specifics of the Merced River Plan/FEIS, but about the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and other significant legislation and policy affecting this plan. The primary presenter at the public hearings was a National Park Service employee specializing in interpretation and a member of the Merced River Plan/EIS core team. All members of the core team were fully involved in the development and review of the Merced River Plan/EIS and the public participation and input process.

247. Public Concern: The National Park Service should consult with other relevant organizations and agencies.

THE FISH CAMP ADVISORY COUNCIL

"Due to the magnitude and the potential impact of the Merced River Plan, we would urge you to meet with the Fish Camp Advisory Council to discuss the impact of your Plan on this gateway community and Mariposa County." (Non-governmental Organization, Fish Camp, CA - #261)

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY

"Consider close interaction with the State of California Department of Forestry." (Individual, Pleasanton, CA - #3148)

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

"The Board of Supervisors is concerned that there was no effort made to coordinate any of the contents of the River Plan with local governments prior to the River Plan being prepared and distributed for public comment. It is the position of the Board that there must be close coordination between the National Park Service and local governmental entities at the earliest possible stage in projects such as this." (Mariposa County Board of Supervisors, Mariposa, CA – #1637)

Response: The Merced River Plan proposes for the National Park Service to assist, advise, and cooperate with governments or their political subdivisions, private landowners, private organizations, and individuals to protect and manage private lands along the Merced River. As per section 6 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the National Park Service does not have authority to manage private lands within a Wild and Scenic River corridor. The National Park Service (as all Wild and Scenic River managers) is encouraged to assist private landowners and local jurisdictions orient their management activities to comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

The National Park Service received a number of comments from agencies and organizations seeking closer consultation on the Merced River Plan and other related planning efforts. The National Park Service would be glad to meet with local organizations and agencies—including Mariposa County, the California Department of Forestry, the Fish Camp Advisory Council, and others—to discuss the Merced River Plan, as well as the Yosemite Valley Plan and other park plans affecting the area.

139. Public Concern: The National Park Service should clarify the role of consultants in the preparation of the Merced River Environmental Impact Statement.

"It is not explained anywhere in the document what role this consultant named MIG, Inc. played in the preparation of the document. Do they have expertise in the Sierra Nevada? How much were they paid? How did they interact with the National Park Service team? Who actually wrote the basic document?" (Individual, Redding, CA - #130)

"How was the Core Team composition derived? Why are no National Park Service research staff a part of this? Why are a number of staff no longer at Yosemite?" (Individual, Fresno, CA - #6260)

Response: The Merced River Plan was developed as an integrated team effort combining the expertise of two consulting firms, MIG and ESA, the Yosemite National Park Core Team, resource experts from Yosemite National Park and the Denver Service Center, and Yosemite National Park management. MIG, Inc. (Moore Iacofano Goltsman) was the lead consulting firm, with responsibility for the planning component of the project (generally Chapters I and II and maps), logistics and coordination, and the public input strategy. ESA (Environmental Science Associates) was responsible for the environmental impact statement components (generally Chapters III and IV) and technical resource issues.

The entire project was developed as a team effort from the first day to the Record of Decision. The Yosemite National Park core team, made up of representatives from all aspects of the park (such as Interpretation, Flood Recovery, Enforcement, and Resources Management), worked alongside the consultants in a series of intensive workshops to develop methodologies and craft the basic plan components. The consultants were responsible for producing an administrative draft document. The core team and others then reviewed every aspect of the administrative draft and agreed on changes for the Draft Merced River Plan/EIS. The same procedure was followed in developing the Merced River Plan/FEIS. Major issues and decisions were brought to the Yosemite National Park management team for their input and decisions.

Assisting the core team throughout the process were a number of National Park Service resource experts in wetland s and wildlife biology, cultural resources, water quality, and other disciplines, as well as NEPA experts, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act experts, and others. Brief biographical information about the various participants can be found in the Draft Merced River Plan/EIS on pages VI-1 and VI-2.

1.3.2 Environmental Impact Statement Document Critiques

1. Public Concern: The National Park Service should address the wastefulness of the Merced River Environmental Impact Statement.

"I felt honored to receive your beautiful huge books on the river plan. But with due respect I felt it was quite extravagant. It could have been largely condensed and the money used for prospective projects." (Individual, Roseville, CA - #5)

"I was surprised by the use of plasticized paper for the report. A report from National Park Service should be low impact on paper printed with soy-based inks. The National Park Service should lead by example." (Individual, Northampton, MA - #8)

"I am appalled at how lavish the documents of the Merced Plan are. The hugeness of the volumes, the unnecessarily heavy paper, the pretentiously wide margins, the excessive wordiness, the gratuitous use of color photographs, and the obviously large mailing cost are all inappropriate for a document which has a straightforward legal purpose. I’ve seen many environmental impact documents, and they are almost always overdone, but this one exceeds all limits." (Individual, Woodland, CA - #2)

"We hope you are being flooded with comments on how wasteful the production of this temporary document was. Money and resources are two things the National Park Service is faced with reduction of, yet are abusing in the production of this document. Again, what’s done is done. We hope you are preparing a massive recycling program for this document. Money, in this case, should not be a factor. Your integrity is at risk and so are trees. For when there is a next time, why not print on recycled paper, print all the way across the page, and have a summary for the majority of the public unless otherwise requested. On a brighter note, it is good to see that the plan was made available to so many people." (Mariposa County Board of Supervisors, Mariposa, CA - #1637)

Response: Since the time that National Environmental Policy Act guidelines were written, federal agencies, including the National Park Service, have come under criticism—and even legal challenge—for not providing enough adequately detailed analysis in environmental documents. (A lawsuit over the El Portal Road Project focused attention on the need for a Merced River Plan and environmental impact statement, elevating it to Yosemite’s highest priority project.) In order to "foster excellent action" (NEPA Regulations, Sec. 1500), the Draft Merced River Plan/EIS sought with the greatest intent to provide high-quality information and analysis based on a thorough examination of environmental consequences. In its entirety, the plan and its environmental impact statement represent nearly 100 years of research and inventories of the Merced River and the Sierra Nevada ecosystem.

2. Public Concern: The National Park Service should send a copy of the Merced River Environmental Impact Statement only to those who request one.

"A while back, I wrote a letter commenting on the new Management Plan for the Merced River and redevelopment in Yosemite Valley after the flood. I was very surprised, however, to find the entire EIS on my doorstep yesterday! I don’t remember asking for it (although I have received newsletters about the ongoing process), and if I did ask for it I did so by mistake. Anyway, I am happy to just receive the newsletters with the condensed versions of the alternative actions. As for the EIS, I really don’t have a use for it – I don’t have the time or expertise to read it and understand it." (Individual, Chevy Chase, MD - #15)

"We should have received a postcard or 1 page . . . instead of automatically being sent the 1,000+ page draft Jan. 2000 ‘Merced Wild & Scenic River Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement.’ I’m sure the priority mail postage alone was at least twelve dollars! The thick white paper and colored photos and maps and sheer bulk of this report by Moore, Iacofano, Goltsman of Berkeley, and Environmental Science Associates of San Francisco reeks of ‘Didn’t we do a wonderful professional job on our report’ backslapping and a waste of my hard-earned money. . . . Plus now I have to dispose of this stinky (the paper or ink is chemically toxic to my sinuses) report. Oh the wasted trees and full landfill!" (Individual, Saratoga, CA - #80)

"I received this notice a few days ago, and I intended to mail it back before the January 31 deadline. However, yesterday the mailman delivered twenty (20) pounds of unwanted material. What is going on in your department? Do you not know that careless mistakes such as this lower the credibility of government and contribute to the all too prevalent opinion that tax dollars are wasted? Now what do I do with all this paper? Certainly you must know that only the most involved Yosemite planners want all this detail. Please let me know what to do with it. I don’t want to spend the return postage. If you don’t resolve this, I feel I must bring this carelessness to the attention of my Congressman." (Individual, San Jose, CA - #18)

Response: The mailing list used by the National Park Service was comprised of the names of those who have asked to receive planning updates and generally desired to be kept informed of progress on planning projects in the park, particularly the Merced River Plan and the Yosemite Valley Plan. Some of the addresses were collected from those who specifically requested that they receive the draft plans so that they would have the material they needed to comment on them, but many were from people who had not been specific about the extent of the documentation they desired. The release of the plan was complicated by several factors, including the extent of material included in the Environmental Impact Statement, and the timing of document printing and mailing relative to the time advertised for public comment. Some public comments received regarding recent projects, particularly the Highway 140 project, indicated that more information and documentation would have been helpful in making informed comments on the project and the process, and some people even thought that the National Park Service intended to withhold information from them. The National Park Service therefore decided to send the complete plan and impact statement to the entire mailing list. In future planning projects, including the Yosemite Valley Plan, the National Park Service will assemble mailing lists more carefully so it can be responsible in the use of materials when releasing documents that are so large while ensuring that people have what they need to make well-informed comments.

476. Public Concern: The National Park Service should ensure the public is able to understand the Merced River Plan Environmental Impact Statement.

"The Council on Environmental Quality which provides oversight for NEPA requires that an EIS should ‘normally be less than 150 pages and for proposals of unusual scope or complexity . . . less than 300 pages.’ Those designated sections in the River Plan total 1,136 pages - a clear violation raising questions as to whether this was a deliberate attempt to overwhelm the public and consequently reduce input. The Council on Environmental Quality further states that an EIS ‘shall be written in plain language . . . so that . . . the public can readily understand." (Madera County Board of Supervisors, Madera, CA - #603)

Response: Preparation of an environmental impact statement that exceeds Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for page limits (40 CFR 1502.7) is not a "clear violation" of CEQ regulations as stated by one public comment. 40 CFR 1502.7 states "the text of final environmental impact statements…of unusual scope or complexity shall normally be less than 300 pages." Given use of the term "normally," these page limits are typically interpreted as recommendations or guidelines. In practice these page limits are often exceeded (Bass and Herson 1993).

477. Public Concern: The National Park Service should ensure that Yosemite National Park plans are adaptable to future changes.

"Yosemite National Park, especially the valley, has been influenced and changed by human activity for many more years than history has recorded. The National Park Service finds itself at a point where through the General Plan, the Merced River Plan & EIS, and the future plans (Fire Management, Yosemite Valley and the Wilderness Management Plan) under consideration will provide direction into the future. How long into the future? With the vision to allow minor adjustments within a chosen alternative each plan can stand for many years. Any plan must have the ability to change." (Individual, Quincy, CA - #6258)

"Any planning effort of this type must look far ahead into the future, because whatever is done today will establish precedents, and set the direction for future planning. If the wrong decisions are made, and the wrong direction taken, the effects can ultimately prove disastrous." (Individual, Los Angeles, CA - #57)

Response: In carrying out its mandate, National Park Service managers are constantly required to make difficult decisions about how to preserve significant natural and cultural resources and recreational opportunities, and about how to resolve competing demands for these limited resources. As a result, the National Park Service is continually conducting planning activities intended to provide the public, and an others involved in the decision-making process, with the best possible information. Planning provides the tools and methods to resolve conflicts and promote solutions, and it is not uncommon for new information to influence earlier decisions, and require that they be re-evaluated and possibly modified. That notwithstanding, it is the intent of the National Park Service to develop plans that not only have the vision and adaptability to respond to changing conditions, but also have the ability to effectively commit the National Park Service to following those long-term strategies that are created during the planning process, and are thereby endorsed by the participants of that process.

478. Public Concern: The National Park Service should include more detailed proposals in the Merced River Plan.

"This draft needs to be replaced by a Merced River Management Plan (MRMP) with alternatives which are detailed enough so that citizens can determine exactly what level of protection the river and its corridor would receive. Smoky promises of documents and studies in the future are not adequate for a satisfactory planning process - rather, it appears disingenuous and nothing more than a tactic for maintaining maneuverability for future construction proposals." (Individual, Coarsegold, CA - #1688)

"In a larger view, there is a considerable amount of vagueness in all the options, in the sense that each option ‘could result in . . .’ and ‘might do . . .’ various actions, and very few concrete proposals for what they will do. While this may make sense for a long-term plan, it makes it very difficult to really recommend any one option over the other and, perhaps, makes such a large and detailed Plan relatively useless. We would be better served by a short and simple guiding statement as the Management Plan and more short-term plans that fit in with that easily expressed guiding philosophy than a series of layers of large, complicated (and conflicting) plans." (Individual, San Francisco, CA - #391)

"We recognize and understand that this is a programmatic document. We believe, however, that the plan as written does not give either the public or park planners a sufficiently detailed mechanism to ensure that all of the carefully prepared resource protection policies developed in the plan are actually implemented. While the plan discusses the National Park Service’s intent to ‘develop indicators . . . to measure . . . the conditions of natural and cultural resources’ and to ‘establish standards . . . that define acceptable conditions for each indicator’ (page II-55), it neither develops these indicators and standards or explains how and when the National Park Service intends to do so." (California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA - #6191)

Response: The Merced River Plan is a programmatic document and is not intended to provide detailed, project-level decisions. These decisions would be left to future implementation plans, such as the Yosemite Valley Plan. However, as noted in Chapter I of the Merced River Plan, all implementation plans must be consistent with the management direction of the Merced River Plan for areas within the Merced River corridor. For example, any plans for roads or other proposed projects in the bed or banks of the river would have to go through a Section 7 determination process (as established in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act) to ensure that it does not have an adverse effect on the values for which the river was designated. The final plan contains more specific information on how Wild and Scenic Rivers Act compliance will take place.

479. Public Concern: The National Park Service should revise the index in the Merced River Plan Environmental Impact Statement.

"The index for the plan should be revised in the final draft. To put it bluntly, the index in the draft plan was useless. Pages and items did not correspond to each other. This made it very difficult to evaluate the planning components, and made the huge planning tomes less approachable for the public. One of the points behind NEPA is that the review process is not meant to generate more paperwork, even excellent paperwork; rather, it is designed to generate excellent resource management guidelines and objectives that protect the natural and human environment. The confusion over the index did nothing to contribute to the success of the project or NEPA compliance. Future plans should also list an address for comments on the cover or back of the document. The draft plan did not include this information in an easily identifiable location." (Conservation Organization, Silver Spring, MD - #1592)

"While the Park Service wrote and printed hundreds of pages of text, spread out over two volumes, they did not provide a meaningful and useful index to readers as a courtesy or tool for better comprehension. The Park Service did not mean for this to be an easily referenced document. In addition, many critical programs and issues are embedded under broad categories that people might not expect to find them in." (Individual, Malibu, CA - #6079)

Response: To make the Merced River Plan index more user-friendly, the index in the Merced River Plan/FEIS was revised to include listings of major discussions of index topics, rather than a comprehensive listing of every occurrence of the index topic in the plan.

378. Public Concern: The National Park Service should ensure maps in the Merced River Environmental Impact Statement are easy to understand.

"To help the viewer clearly understand some of the maps, the scale needs enlargement. The legend and its application needs clarity and the roads and bridges need emphasis." (Individual, Terrance, CA - #224)

"The Plan needs to have clearer maps. The Plan should include a baseline conditions and constraints map that shows: 1) the extent of the 1997 flood, or the 100-year flood, if these differ significantly, 2) areas where the depth and velocity of flood waters preclude development of campgrounds and other uses, after considering potential changes to Valley bridges and approach roads, 3) areas designated as wetlands, since these carry obvious use constraints, and 4) areas designated as meadows, since along with wetlands define the planning boundary in the valley for Alternatives 1-3." (Recreational Organization, San Francisco, CA - #1599)

"The EIS does not delineate the 100 year floodplain in a map form for any portions of the Merced River (Main Stem or South Fork). This needs to be done on a map with contour intervals of no more than five (5) feet. Without this datum the public cannot make valid statements about what is or is not within the 100-year floodplain. The data of Cella Barr and Associates (EIS pate II-6 footnote) needs to be presented in the EIS for the public to inspect." (Individual, Sanger, CA - #6409)

Response: Detailed data such as floodplain, flood velocities, wetlands, and meadows are not available in comprehensive spatial form for the entire Wild and Scenic River corridor and therefore not included in the maps of the Merced River Plan. Furthermore, detailed mapping is not appropriate to this type of programmatic (as opposed to implementation) document. Future projects and implementation plans will use best available data and on-site surveys, as necessary, to ensure protection of Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

1.3.3 Use of Science in Decision-Making

143. Public Concern: The National Park Service should complete baseline studies and surveys for the Merced River Plan.

"Do the science: Up to date and complete scientific studies and surveys of flora, fauna, and the river’s processes must be completed as an integral part of the Merced River Plan planning process in order to determine how best to protect and enhance these values. As it stands now, that information is not currently available." (Individual, Granada Hills, CA - #125)

"It seems that the way to start a process of protecting the river an managing for its outstandingly remarkable values would be an inventory of the status of the river and its ORVs. This is not done in the document. For instance, scientific ORVs should include an inventory of the various species of flora and fauna throughout the river’s course. Their locations and numbers should be listed as well as any information as to their historic directions. . . . How else can monitoring have any meaning if there is no known point of departure? . . . Similar inventory work needs to be done for ORVs in the other categories such as scenic, . . . geologic, cultural-archeological, hydrologic, . . . air quality, soils, wetlands, and historic." (Individual, Mariposa, CA - #1684)

"No baseline scientific reports for the present ‘no build’ alternative are referenced. This baseline information is needed to build upon the additional four alternatives. Is there no ‘third’ volume as a part of this NEPA document to be used and quoted as the ‘baseline’ upon which quantitative and qualitative data is given to support choosing an ‘action’ alternative? These scientific reports are to be available to the public for review and study, if not included in the distributed document." (Individual, Fresno, CA - #6260)

Response: Baseline scientific studies used to develop and evaluate the "No Action" and other alternatives are listed in the bibliography. These include studies on hydrology, vegetation, soil, economics, and cultural resources. Baseline data are also found in the form of maps and geographic information system (GIS) analysis. Baseline maps included vegetation, soils, cultural resources, floodplain boundaries, and rockfall zones. All biological and natural resource data presented in the EIS are based on scientific principals including field reconnaissance, review and analysis of existing literature, consultation with agency and local experts, and extensive review by National Park Service resources staff. Cultural resource data presented in the EIS are based on field reconnaissance, review and analysis of existing literature, consultation with agency and local experts, and extensive review by National Park Service cultural resources staff. Readily available locational information for special-status species and other sensitive natural and cultural resources was intentionally omitted from the EIS to promote protection and discourage harm, collection, or other damage. Reports referenced in the bibliography are available (for a copying fee) from the park at (209) 372-0280.

424. Public Concern: The National Park Service should expand the research, monitoring, and feedback components of the Merced River Plan.

"The ‘research, monitoring, and feedback’ component of this Plan consists of just slightly over two pages of text, which in turn merely outline the contours of . . . the Service’s Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) methodology. . . . Accordingly while VERP may one day (when completed) be adequate for the purpose for which it was intended, it was never intended to monitor specific, biologically rich ecosystems such as the Merced River." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #1631)

"Monitoring with physical and biological components should be an integral part of the plan. Money spent on a restoration project that is actually ‘mitigation’ for negative impacts should demonstrate thorough monitoring if the project is successful and how long those benefits are maintained. Fluvial geomorphology, hydrology, and other physical monitoring are very valuable but the plan is lacking adequate biological monitoring." (Individual, Sacramento, CA - #3149)

Response: The Draft Merced River Plan/EIS contains a general description of the proposed research and monitoring process on pages II-54 to II-56. It describes the VERP (Visitor Experience and Resource Protection) methodology used by the National Park Service in assessing and managing for visitor experience and potential impact on resources.

422. Public Concern: The National Park Service should provide specific resource data in the Merced River Plan.

"The problem with the River management Plan is lack of specificity and real data. The Plan provides generic descriptions of the kinds of vegetation and the kinds of wildlife that occur in Yosemite and along the river corridor. Most of the mid-Sierra, as indeed they should since the wildlife information is based on the Wildlife Habitat Relationships program (a coarse tool if there ever was one)." (Conservation Organization, San Francisco, CA - #1705)

"A brief overview of the Merced River Plan appears to show that this document lacks hard scientific data, and indulges in generalities based on limited observations of Yosemite Valley natural processes. It is apparent that much historic data on cultural resources, natural resources, infrastructure impacts, and people impacts has yet to be compiled by the National Park Service. Consequently, despite the document’s length, the Merced River Plan provides an incomplete analysis of the river management zone." (Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors, Sonora, CA - #1535)

480. Public Concern: The National Park Service should use qualified personnel to prepare the Merced River Plan.

"Upon review of the relatively meager bibliography as well as the credentials of the ‘List of Preparers’ presented in the Merced River Plan, we register further concern about the level of participation by practicing resource scientists in development of the Plan. Though the Biological Resources Division of the USGS maintains a Yosemite Field Station staffed by 3 scientists and a technician, the Planning Team does not appear to include any of these individuals. Though they most likely were included in a technical review prior to the Plan ‘going to press,’ such participation is ‘after the fact’ - a bit disturbing since the Plan under review is supposed to be a scientifically based resource preservation plan. Additionally, the ‘consultants’ listed under MIG, Inc. and Environmental Science Associates appear focused more on computer modeling and the environmental compliance process than on performing the sound science required of ORV delineation and documentation." (Madera County Board of Supervisors, Madera, CA - #603)

"None of the document preparers has a degree in geomorphology. This is a major shortcoming of the project team as the detailed study of the river meander and its sedimentation processes is at the heart of the study. Hydraulic engineers and hydrologists do not have the depth of knowledge necessary to evaluate the potential for restoration of such an important river. It is not explained anywhere in the document what role this consultant named MIG, Inc. played in the preparation of the document. Do they have expertise in the Sierra Nevada? How much were they paid? How did they interact with the National Park Service team? Who actually wrote the basic document?" (Individual, Redding, CA - #130)

481. Public Concern: The National Park Service should use local scientists to prepare the Merced River Plan.

"As required by NEPA . . . the Merced River Plan includes a list . . . of ‘scientific and other sources relied upon for conclusions in the statement.’ There are more than 375 entries in the bibliography. 31 of the total entries appear to be articles that would have been subjected to Peer Review. . . . None of the referenced articles is attributed to any of the National Park Service personnel identified in the list of preparers. Neither are any of the listed members of the consulting team identified as authors in the reference list. The failure to include locally available scientists from the USGS office in the Plan Preparation Team reflects the contempt for science that has characterized the entire planning effort." (Conservation Organization, Mariposa, CA - #1630)