Final Yosemite Valley Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
This document is the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. It is a revision of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement that was released for public review in April 2000. It presents and analyzes alternative proposals for managing natural and cultural resources, facilities, and visitor experience in Yosemite Valley. Following a required 30-day period of no action, the Pacific West Regional Director of the National Park Service is expected to sign a Record of Decision. This Record of Decision will represent the conclusion of the planning process and provide guidance for future actions in Yosemite Valley.
Focusing primarily on Yosemite Valley, the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS) would implement many of the provisions found in Yosemite National Park's 1980 General Management Plan. The General Management Plan established the five broad goals listed below to guide the management of Yosemite National Park and to perpetuate its natural splendor:
• Reclaim priceless natural beauty
• Allow natural processes to prevail
• Promote visitor understanding and enjoyment
• Markedly reduce traffic congestion
• Reduce crowding
The General Management Plan recognized that new analyses would be necessary to determine how best to accomplish these goals. Since 1980, additional studies and analyses have been conducted (along with additional planning and public involvement), particularly related to natural processes, transportation, and housing. Information from these analyses has been used in the preparation of this singular, comprehensive planning effort for Yosemite Valley. Because information from these additional analyses has been incorporated into this planning effort, the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would modify some specific provisions while implementing many other provisions of the General Management Plan. Therefore, the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would amend the 1980 General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for Yosemite National Park.
THE MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
One of the principal results of analyses completed since 1980 is the clear recognition that, along with Yosemite Valley's granite formations and waterfalls, the Merced River is central to the Valley's scenery and ecological processes. In 1987, Congress designated the Merced River a Wild and Scenic River to protect the river's free-flowing condition and protect and enhance its unique values for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations.
In August 2000, the National Park Service signed the Record of Decision for the Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan/FEIS (Merced River Plan) (NPS 2000c). The Merced River Plan provides direction and guidance on how best to manage Yosemite National Park and El Portal Administrative Site lands within the river corridor for the protection and enhancement of Outstandingly Remarkable Values. The Merced River Plan will now become a foundation for related implementation plans and provide general direction and guidance for future management decisions. The action alternatives considered in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS are consistent with the Record of Decision for the Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan/FEIS.
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE ACTION
The purpose of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS is to present and analyze comprehensive alternatives for Yosemite Valley‹from Happy Isles at the east end of the Valley to the intersection of the El Portal and Big Oak Flat Roads at the west end. It also presents and analyzes actions in adjacent areas of the park and the El Portal Administrative Site that would occur as a result of actions implemented in Yosemite Valley.
Specific purposes of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS within Yosemite Valley are to:
• Restore, protect, and enhance the resources of Yosemite Valley• Provide opportunities for high-quality, resource-based visitor experiences• Reduce traffic congestion• Provide effective park operations, including employee housing, to meet the mission of the National Park Service
The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS presents four action alternatives for consideration to enable the National Park Service to move toward meeting the General Management Plan's broad goals for the Valley. Each of the four action alternatives presents a distinct vision for preserving the resources that contribute to Yosemite Valley's splendor and uniqueness while making the resources available to people for their enjoyment, education, and recreation. In conjunction with protecting the Valley's natural and cultural resources and providing for high-quality visitor experiences, there is a need to provide improved facilities and services for people who visit and work in Yosemite Valley.Previous Yosemite Valley Planning Efforts
The 1980 General Management Plan envisioned that additional planning, comprehensive designs for specific areas, and environmental compliance would be needed to evaluate how to best achieve its broad goals. Several major planning efforts relative to Yosemite Valley were initiated to implement aspects of the General Management Plan (1980) as amended by the Concession Services Plan (1992). These include the Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan/SEIS (1992 and 1996 addendum), the Draft Yosemite Valley Implementation Plan/SEIS (1997), the Yosemite Lodge Development Concept Plan/EA/FONSI (1997, modified 1998), and the Yosemite Falls Project. In response to litigation and public comments requesting a comprehensive plan to examine all of these activities together, the National Park Service consolidated these planning efforts into one single, comprehensive approach. Thus, the Yosemite Valley Plan would incorporate many of the goals of these previous plans and re-evaluate their interactions.Direction for this Planning Effort
PARK PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE
Yosemite National Park was established and is managed in accordance with a series of laws, regulations, and executive orders. Two primary purposes for Yosemite National Park have been established:
To preserve the resources that contribute to Yosemite's splendor and uniqueness, including its exquisite scenic beauty, outstanding wilderness values, and a nearly full diversity of Sierra Nevada environments.
To make the varied resources of Yosemite available to people for their enjoyment, education, and recreation now and in the future.
GOALS
In the mid-1970s, the National Park Service began the comprehensive planning process that was completed in 1980 with approval of the Yosemite National Park General Management Plan. Nearly 60,000 individuals, organizations, and government agencies received planning information during plan development, and 20,000 actively participated in the planning process. The broad goals identified in the General Management Plan and described below have been reaffirmed repeatedly and have guided development of the alternatives evaluated in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.
Reclaim priceless natural beauty
Yosemite Valley is recognized worldwide for its unique, stunning beauty. The proposed alternatives should build on actions already initiated to reduce the amount of administrative functions and commercial services and visual intrusions in Yosemite Valley.
Allow natural processes to prevail
Many of Yosemite Valley's natural processes have been altered, thus affecting the dynamic ecosystem that plays a major role in maintaining the Valley's scenic beauty. The proposed alternatives should restore significantly altered natural systems and protect unaltered systems.
Promote visitor understanding and enjoyment
Yosemite Valley offers visitors opportunities to experience the Valley's scenic, natural, and cultural resources. An appropriate balance of development and use should preserve nature's wonders and keep them from being overshadowed by the intrusions of the human environment. The alternatives should foster these diverse opportunities and resource stewardship through enhanced interpretive programming and effective, high-quality educational facilities.
Markedly reduce traffic congestion
Since 1917, private vehicles have provided increased access to Yosemite Valley. But these vehicles also affect resources and intrude on visitor experiences. The alternatives should seek to reduce traffic and congestion and move toward the General Management Plan's ultimate goal of freeing the Valley of the environmental and experiential degradation caused by thousands of vehicles.
Reduce crowding
Yosemite National Park's popularity continues to grow, and during peak visitation, crowding can diminish the quality of visitors' experiences. The National Park Service proposes to continue studies on the character of the Yosemite visitor experience and effects of crowding, and how best to achieve desired future conditions.
CRITERIA
Criteria were developed to provide guidance for accomplishing the broad goals of the 1980 General Management Plan in Yosemite Valley and the specific purposes of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The four action alternatives were selected based on the degree to which they met, and as appropriate, integrate these criteria:
Protect and enhance natural and cultural resources
Enhance visitor experience
Provide effective operations
Provide appropriate land uses
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Public participation in the planning process helps to ensure that the National Park Service fully understands and considers the public's interest. Through public involvement, the National Park Service shares information about the planning process, issues, and proposed actions.
Scoping
The scope of issues addressed in the environmental analysis of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS was identified through consideration of concerns and issues expressed by the public about Yosemite Valley planning. Scoping has been ongoing since 1991 as part of the previous planning efforts consolidated into the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Concerns and issues identified during scoping fell into five topic areas: natural environment, cultural resources, visitor experience, transportation, and social and economic environments. These five topic areas were the basis for formulating a reasonable range of alternatives and guiding the environmental impact analysis.
Public Comment
The public comment period on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS (April 7 to July 14, 2000) brought forth approximately 10,200 letters, postcards, e-mails, faxes, comment forms, and public hearing testimony. Every comment was read and analyzed by a member of the planning team. After careful consideration of each of the issues and the range of public comment, and consultation with federal agencies and American Indian Tribes, the management/planning team recommended changes to the draft document. See Volume III, Public Comments and Responses, for a complete record of public comments and National Park Service responses.
In addition to written public comment, the National Park Service held 14 public meetings throughout California. Approximately 1,500 people attended the public meetings. Meetings were also held nationwide, in Seattle, Denver, Chicago, and Washington, D.C.
Concerns and Issues
Concerns identified during the public comment period that were within the scope of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS helped determine the need to revise the draft. Issues receiving the largest proportion of comments, or presenting difficult choices, included air quality, bridges, historic resources, camping, lodging, regional transportation, development, equity, timing of plans, environmental compliance, community impacts, phasing, and stock use.Issues Beyond the Scope and Direction of this Planning Effort
PREPARING A NEW GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Yosemite Valley Plan would amend the General Management Plan; however, it is not intended to replace it. The scope of the 1980 General Management Plan includes all of Yosemite National Park. The objective of the Yosemite Valley Plan is to provide more specific detail in carrying out the goals and actions that relate to Yosemite Valley.
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
Decisions on development of a regional transportation system will not be made through the Yosemite Valley Plan. Instead they will be made through processes coordinated through the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) or other regional planning efforts. The General Management Plan guides Yosemite National Park in the development of a regional transportation system as a preferred long-term approach for transporting people to the park. The National Park Service does not have authority to create a regional transportation system outside park boundaries. However, park management will continue to work cooperatively with surrounding communities, the State of California, and the U.S. Department of Transportation to create a regional transit system, as called for in the General Management Plan.
Relationship to Other Park Plans and Projects
Yosemite National Park has many other current plans and ongoing planning efforts. Those most directly related to the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS or potentially affected by it are described below.
MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
In 1987, Congress designated a 122-mile section of the Merced River as a Wild and Scenic River. The National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management administer the Merced Wild and Scenic River in separate segments. In 1999 and 2000, the National Park Service developed a comprehensive management plan for the 81-mile section of the Merced Wild and Scenic River under its jurisdiction. The Draft Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan/EIS was reviewed by the public in early 2000 and the Record of Decision was authorized in August 2000. The purpose of the finalized Merced River Plan is to provide direction and guidance on how best to manage National Park Service lands, including the El Portal Administrative Site, within the river corridor to protect and enhance river values. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS follows management direction established in the Merced River Plan for actions proposed within the river corridor in Yosemite Valley, Wawona, and the El Portal Administrative Site (see Vol. 1a, Chapter 3, Merced Wild and Scenic River; Vol. 1b, Chapter 4; and Vol. 1c, plates G-1 through G-3).
CONCESSION SERVICES PLAN
The Concession Services Plan/SEIS, approved in 1992, presented guidance for management of concession services in Yosemite National Park to meet General Management Plan goals. The Concession Services Plan amends the General Management Plan, and provisions of it are incorporated into the action alternatives of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. The intent of the Yosemite Valley Plan would be to implement the provisions of the Concession Services Plan, unless data on floodplain, geologic hazard, or highly valued resource areas or new operational requirements suggest the need for adjustment. In these instances, the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would modify the Concession Services Plan.
RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Resources Management Plan for Yosemite National Park was updated in 1994. It presents an inventory and description of natural and cultural resources; describes and evaluates the current resources management program; and prescribes an action program based on legislative mandates, National Park Service policies, and provisions of related planning documents. Actions within the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS have been developed in harmony with the goals of the Resources Management Plan.
FLOOD RECOVERY PROJECTS
In early January 1997, one of the greatest floods in the park's history occurred. The flood came just as the Draft Yosemite Valley Implementation Plan was being prepared for release. This timing increased both the complexity of and opportunities for the planning process.
The January 1997 flood was comparable to three other floods over the last 100 years. It demonstrated the vulnerability of facilities constructed in the floodplain. The flood also allowed visitors to experience Yosemite Valley with reduced development. It presented opportunities and some funding to relocate damaged facilities and to increase restoration of riverside environments. It is these post-flood conditions that are being used as a fresh starting point for the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.
EL PORTAL ROAD CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
The El Portal Road, a main route into Yosemite Valley, was damaged extensively during the January 1997 flood. An environmental assessment was prepared in 1997 to propose repairs and safety improvements, including widening travel lanes by 1.5 feet, improving drainage, and constructing guardwalls to meet crash-test standards. Litigation was brought against this project; the resultant court ruling allowed 6 miles of road to be reconstructed, but enjoined work on the remaining 1.1 miles (from the intersection of the El Portal and Big Oak Flat Roads east to Pohono Bridge) pending further compliance. Reconstruction of the 6 miles of road was completed in the fall of 2000. The removal of the Cascades Diversion Dam, safety improvements at the intersection of the El Portal and Big Oak Flat Roads, and the final 1.1-mile segment of the El Portal Road have been delayed until further environmental analysis can be completed.
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Four comprehensive alternatives were developed for the management and use of Yosemite Valley. Each of these four action alternatives meets the General Management Plan goals to a varying degree. The action alternatives incorporate information from three previous Yosemite Valley planning documents and from public comments received during scoping and the public review period. Each of these alternatives, as well as the No Action Alternative, has been analyzed and evaluated against specific environmental, economical, and operational criteria to identify the preferred alternative.
Changes Between the Draft and Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS
Public and agency comments received on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS assisted park management and planners in identifying substantive concerns, new analyses, and applicable laws and policies. These comments were considered in developing the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Major changes that were made as the planning process moved from draft to final are identified in Chapter 2 and shown in Table A.
Changes include making each of the action alternatives comply with the Preferred Alternative and Record of Decision for the Merced River Plan/FEIS. Several notable changes occur in the Preferred Alternative as a result of public comment.
Lodging was re-evaluated and the range of cost options was shifted toward lower-cost units.
A greater number of Housekeeping Camp units would be retained and the historic integrity of Curry Village would be retained and rehabilitated.
The number of higher-cost Yosemite Lodge units would be reduced, while Yosemite Lodge guests' connections with the park environment would be enhanced.
Campsite numbers would be increased.
The National Park Service would take a phased approach to the removal of historic bridges, re-evaluating its actions based on ecological and hydrologic monitoring findings.
Out-of-Valley parking along the Big Oak Flat Road would be located on a privately owned parcel known as Hazel Green, or alternatively, at Foresta.
The medical clinic would continue in its present location.
Development Considerations and Resource Stewardship
In narrow Yosemite Valley, both the cliffs and river present potential hazards to visitors, staff, and facilities. The National Park Service has identified those areas of the Valley better suited for providing the services and facilities necessary to meet the goals of this planning process. Additionally, the National Park Service has determined that particular natural and cultural resources in Yosemite Valley have the highest priority for protection and restoration, based on their sensitivity, biological productivity and diversity, and cultural value. The highly valued natural resources are the Merced River ecosystem, wetlands, riparian communities, meadows, California black oak woodlands, sensitive wildlife habitat, and rich soil areas. The highly valued cultural resources are cultural landscapes, National Historic Landmarks, archeological sites, and burial sites.The Process of Formulating Alternatives
The action alternatives considered in the Draft and Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS were developed over the last 9 years. Issues raised during several public comment periods, beginning with scoping on the 1992 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan/SEIS and including the public comment period on the Draft Yosemite Valley Implementation Plan/SEIS (1997), were carried forward into the scoping for the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. A range of reasonable approaches to address these issues and achieve the goals of this plan was discussed, and alternative concepts were developed. Through an internal review process, including a Choosing by Advantage workshop, four comprehensive action alternatives were refined to form the alternatives considered in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.
After the scoping period for the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS closed, comments were analyzed and a scoping comment analysis report was prepared (USFS 1999b). Public concerns from the report were combined with a re-analysis of comments received on the 1992 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan/SEIS (and its 1996 supplement, the 1997 Draft Yosemite Lodge Development Concept Plan/Environmental Assessment) and the 1997 Draft Yosemite Valley Implementation Plan/SEIS. As discussed previously, most of the concerns identified for the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS fell within five main issue categories: natural environment, cultural resources, visitor experience, transportation, and social and economic environment (see Vol. Ia, Chapter 1, Issues and Concerns). These issues, along with other approaches, were evaluated as to whether they were reasonable and/or feasible.
At this point in the process, some actions were considered and dismissed from detailed study. In general, reasons for dismissing these actions included:
Technical or economic infeasibility
Inability to satisfy guidance criteria, meet project goals, or resolve park planning needs in Yosemite Valley
National Park Service staff used the project goals and criteria as well as regulations and policies to combine individual actions and thus develop four concepts for action alternatives. When the alternative concepts had been developed, they were put through a series of evaluations. First, alternative concepts were evaluated within the framework of meeting or, as appropriate, balancing the criteria outlined in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need. This evaluation ascertained whether alternative concepts would need to be modified to better satisfy the guidance criteria for accomplishing the broad goals of the 1980 General Management Plan and the specific purpose and need of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Next, alternative concepts were evaluated against several factors in the process workshop mentioned earlier called Choosing by Advantage. Although the Choosing by Advantage factors were similar to the aforementioned guidance criteria, they were used in a different way‹that is, to evaluate the relative advantages of the alternative concepts. Together, these evaluations enabled the National Park Service to determine where the four alternative concepts required strengthening. The evaluations also assisted the National Park Service in identifying which actions provided the greatest advantage, and how best to combine these alternative concepts to optimize achievement of plan goals.
The Preferred Alternative was chosen after evaluating each alternative based on the following: (1) how well it achieved the goals of the 1980 General Management Plan; (2) how well it protected park resources while providing for a quality visitor experience; and (3) how well it addressed issues and concerns expressed by the public. The planning team recommended Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.
Actions Common to All Action Alternatives
As the action alternatives were developed and refined, some elements became common to all action alternatives, including:
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RIVER PROTECTION OVERLAY
The River Protection Overlay prescribed in the Merced River Plan would be implemented to provide a buffer area for natural flood flows, channel formation, riparian vegetation, and wildlife habitat while protecting riverbanks from human-caused impacts and associated erosion.
CASCADES DIVERSION DAM PROJECT
As part of implementing the Merced River Plan, all action alternatives propose the removal of the historic Cascades Diversion Dam. The dam removal would be subject to site-specific environmental compliance, including public involvement. The Cascades Diversion Dam is an impediment to the free-flowing character of the Merced Wild and Scenic River.
EL PORTAL ROAD PROJECT
Improvements to El Portal Road are included in each action alternative. Between Pohono Bridge and the intersection of Big Oak Flat Road with El Portal Road, roadway improvements for safety and minimization of roadway failure risk would be undertaken after removal of the Cascades Diversion Dam and stabilization of the river channel following dam removal. The road improvements would be subject to site-specific environmental compliance, including public involvement.
VISITOR USE IN YOSEMITE VALLEY AND LAND MANAGEMENT ZONING
About 70% of all summer visitors to Yosemite National Park travel to Yosemite Valley, which causes recurring problems with traffic congestion and parking during the peak season. The action alternatives provide for day-visitor parking and overnight parking for private vehicles and tour buses sufficient to accommodate this level of visitation. The number of parking spaces varies in each alternative to match the levels of overnight use in the corresponding alternative. (Chapter 2, table 2-1, shows expected visitor use based on overnight and day-visitor parking facilities for each alternative.)
The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does not propose specific limits on visitation. The General Management Plan prescribed a maximum daily use (i.e., day and overnight use) level for Yosemite Valley, based on analysis of facilities and vehicles, with no criteria for protection of resources or visitor experience. In the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, a Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) study and program is to be implemented within 5 years of the Record of Decision for the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.
Based on data obtained during the VERP study, the National Park Service would:
Establish management zoning that complements the management zoning established in the Merced River Plan
Develop indicators to measure visitor experience and resource conditions
Develop standards that define acceptable measurements for each indicator
Develop an assessment program to monitor standards
Develop a decision-making process to be used in identifying management actions necessary to maintain or restore desired conditions
Develop visitor-use level recommendations for each zone
TRAVELER INFORMATION AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
To ensure that the number of vehicles entering the eastern portion of Yosemite Valley would not exceed roadways and parking capacities, each action alternative proposes the design and implementation of a traveler information and traffic management system. This system would be designed to improve visitor experience and safety, reduce congestion, and protect natural and cultural resources.
The traveler information and traffic management system would provide visitors with information about where to park private vehicles and the availability of overnight accommodations in Yosemite Valley well before they arrive at the park. The system could provide information and incentives to encourage day visitors to use out-of-Valley parking or (if available) use transit buses during times of peak visitation. If other measures of the system do not sufficiently reduce the number of visitors who travel into the Valley and sufficiently reduce traffic congestion, a traffic check station may be constructed on Southside Drive in the area of the El Capitan crossover.
McCAULEY RANCH STABLE OPERATIONS
The National Park Service proposes removing the National Park Service and concessioner administrative stables operations from Yosemite Valley and relocating them to McCauley Ranch near Foresta. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS analyzes potential environmental impacts of this action; however, before any action is taken, a Wilderness suitability or nonsuitability assessment must be prepared.
If McCauley Ranch is suitable for designation as Wilderness, stable operations would be relocated within Yosemite Valley to a site in the vicinity of the historic Curry dump, east of Curry Village. In this case, in all but Alternative 5, Yosemite Valley stables would support only district stock and trails operations.Identification of the Preferred Alternative
Developing a single alternative that takes a maximum-benefit approach to (1) achieving the broad goals established in the General Management Plan; (2) meeting the purpose of this planning process; and (3) meeting the guidance criteria (see Chapter 1) is challenging because of inherent conflicts among the various goals and criteria. In many cases, an alternative that yields a maximum benefit to one project goal or criteria would likely result in reduced benefits in achieving another goal or criteria. Therefore, the alternative that best meets the various goals and their criteria would yield the highest sum of benefits.
The Preferred Alternative was selected based on:
A comparison of the intensity, magnitude, and duration of environmental consequences of alternatives • The alternative's ability to best satisfy the stated purpose and need for action
How well the alternative satisfies the goals and criteria discussed in Chapter 1
Based on the above, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Alternative 2 provides the best approach to demonstrating success at accomplishing the purpose and need for action: to restore, protect, and enhance natural and cultural resources, including the Merced River's Outstandingly Remarkable Values; reduce automobile traffic congestion; provide opportunities for enhanced, high-quality, resource-based visitor experiences; and provide effective park operations.Overview of the Alternatives
Brief descriptions of each of the five alternatives evaluated in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS are presented below. A fully developed, more detailed description is provided in Chapter 2, with an overview summary in Table A. A thorough discussion of the environmental impacts of each of the alternatives is described in Vol. Ib, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. Graphical representations of actions presented in the alternatives are included in Vol. Ic, Plates.
ALTERNATIVE 1 (THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE)
This alternative maintains the status quo in Yosemite Valley, as described in Vol. Ia, Chapter 3, Affected Environment. It provides a baseline from which to compare other alternatives, to evaluate the magnitude of proposed changes, and to measure the environmental effects of those changes. There are currently 407 acres of existing development within Yosemite Valley.
No dramatic or comprehensive changes would take place in the management of Yosemite Valley. Primary modes of transportation into Yosemite Valley would be by private vehicle and bus. Access would continue to be controlled by the Restricted Access Plan during periods of high visitation. A combination of scattered parking and formal and informal parking lots would be maintained. Campsites and lodging units would remain at current levels (i.e., the number remaining after the January 1997 flood and its subsequent cleanup). The Valley Visitor Center would remain in its present location in Yosemite Village. A comprehensive approach to restoring highly valued natural communities in Yosemite Valley, such as the Merced River corridor, meadows, and wetlands, would not take place. The west end of Yosemite Valley would remain largely undeveloped.
ALTERNATIVE 2 (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)
Yosemite Village and Out-of-Valley Parking (El Portal, Badger Pass, and Hazel Green or Foresta)
Alternative 2 would restore approximately 176 developed and disturbed acres in Yosemite Valley to natural conditions. In addition, 173 acres of developed land would be redeveloped and 73 acres of undeveloped land would be developed to accommodate visitor and employee services such as campgrounds, day-visitor parking, and employee housing. Alternative 2 would consolidate parking for day visitors at Yosemite Village, where a new Valley Visitor Center would be located, and in parking areas outside Yosemite Valley. There would be more campsites and fewer lodging units than there are now. This alternative would result in a major reduction in vehicle travel in the eastern portion of Yosemite Valley during periods of peak visitation. The area of the former Upper River and Lower River Campgrounds would be restored to a mosaic of meadow, riparian, and California black oak woodland communities. Roads would be removed from Ahwahnee and Stoneman Meadows, and parking and fruit trees would be removed from Curry Orchard and the area restored to natural conditions. Southside Drive would be converted to two-way traffic from El Capitan crossover to Curry Village, and Northside Drive would be closed to motor vehicles and converted to a multi-use (bicycle and pedestrian) paved trail from El Capitan crossover to Yosemite Lodge. There would be minimal new development west of Yosemite Lodge. The net effect of this alternative would be to reduce development in Yosemite Valley by 71 acres.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Taft Toe Parking (No Out-of-Valley Parking)
Alternative 3 would restore approximately 209 developed and disturbed acres in Yosemite Valley to natural conditions. In addition, 148 acres of developed land would be redeveloped and 99 acres of undeveloped land would be developed to accommodate visitor and employee services. This alternative would consolidate parking for day visitors in the Taft Toe area in mid-Yosemite Valley. A new Valley Visitor Center would be constructed at Taft Toe. There would be fewer campsites and lodging units than there are now. The area of the former Upper and Lower River Campgrounds and the Camp 6 parking area near Yosemite Village would be restored to riparian habitat, roads would be removed from Ahwahnee and Stoneman Meadows, and parking and the historic fruit trees would be removed from Curry Orchard. Northside Drive would be converted to a multi-use paved trail for pedestrians and bicyclists from Yosemite Lodge to El Capitan Bridge. Southside Drive would be converted to two-way traffic from Taft Toe to Curry Village. The net effect of this alternative would be to reduce development in Yosemite Valley by 72 acres.
ALTERNATIVE 4
Taft Toe and Out-of-Valley Parking (El Portal, Badger Pass, and South Landing)
Alternative 4 would restore approximately 194 developed and disturbed acres in Yosemite Valley to natural conditions. In addition, 154 acres of developed land would be redeveloped and 99 acres of undeveloped land would be developed to accommodate visitor and employee services. Parking for day visitors would be consolidated in the Taft Toe area in mid-Yosemite Valley and in three parking areas outside the Valley. A new Valley Visitor Center would be constructed at Taft Toe, and there would be fewer campsites and lodging units than there are now. The area of the former Upper and Lower River Campgrounds and the Camp 6 parking area near Yosemite Village would be restored to riparian communities. Roads would be removed from Ahwahnee and Stoneman Meadows, and parking would be removed from Curry Orchard. Northside Drive would be converted to a multi-use paved trail for hikers and bicyclists from Yosemite Lodge to El Capitan crossover. Southside Drive would be converted to two-way traffic from Taft Toe to Curry Village. The net effect of this alternative would be to reduce development in Yosemite Valley by 66 acres.
ALTERNATIVE 5
Yosemite Village and Out-of-Valley Parking (El Portal, Henness Ridge, and Foresta)
This alternative would restore approximately 157 developed and disturbed acres to natural conditions within Yosemite Valley. In addition, 181 acres of developed land would be redeveloped and 54 acres of undeveloped land would be developed to accommodate visitor and employee services such as campgrounds, day-visitor parking, and employee housing. It would consolidate parking for day visitors at Yosemite Village, where a new transit center would be located, and in parking areas outside of Yosemite Valley. There would be more campsites and fewer lodging units than there are now. The area of the former Upper River and Lower River Campgrounds would be restored to a mosaic of meadow, riparian, and oak woodland communities. Traffic circulation would remain the same as at present; however, one lane of Northside and Southside Drives would be converted to a multi-use paved trail between El Capitan crossover and Yosemite Lodge. There would be minimal new development in the mid-Valley and west Yosemite Valley. The net effect of this alternative would be to reduce development in Yosemite Valley by 63 acres. Mitigation Measures Common To All Action Alternatives
A consistent set of mitigation measures would be applied to actions resulting from this plan to ensure that implementation of the selected action alternative protects natural and cultural resources and the quality of visitor experience. These mitigation measures would also be applied to future actions guided by this plan. The National Park Service would prepare appropriate environmental review for these future actions, and as part of the environmental review, would avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts when practicable.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES DURING CONSTRUCTION
Best Management Practices would be implemented, as appropriate, prior to, during, and/or after specific construction. This would include a variety of operational and construction-related measures, such as implementing a compliance-monitoring program, implementing education programs, and developing architectural character guidelines for new construction in or near historic districts. In addition, resource-specific mitigation measures have been developed for the resource topics evaluated in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS (see Vol. Ib Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences). Best management practices and resource-specific mitigation measures are described in detail in Chapter 2. Alternatives Considered But Dismissed
A diverse range of actions were considered for projects or activities taking place within Yosemite Valley. While many of these actions are reasonable, others were eliminated from detailed study based on the following reasons:
Technical or economic infeasibility
Inability to satisfy guidance criteria, meet project goals, or resolve park-planning needs in Yosemite Valley (see Chapter 1, Purpose and Need)
Less environmentally damaging or less expensive options are available
Unacceptable environmental, cultural, or scenic impacts would be caused
Conflicts with the guidance and direction provided in the Merced River Plan for protecting the Merced River¹s Outstandingly Remarkable Values
Alternatives that were considered and dismissed are described in Chapter 2. Many of these dismissed potential actions related to transportation and parking, while others considered housing, visitor services, and recreation.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
A list of specific resource topics was developed to focus on and compare environmental impacts among the alternatives. These resource topics were selected based on federal law, regulations, executive orders, National Park Service Management Policies, National Park Service subject-matter expertise, and concerns expressed by the public or other agencies during scoping and comment periods. Resources evaluated in the Draft and Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS are listed below:
Natural resources: water resources, floodplains, wetlands, soils, vegetation, wildlife, special-status species, and air quality
Geologic hazards
Scenic resources
Cultural resources: archeological resources, ethnographic resources, cultural landscape resources, museum collection
Merced Wild and Scenic River
Visitor experience
Transportation
Noise
Social and economic environments
Park operations
Energy consumption
The existing environment that could be affected by actions proposed in this Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS is described in Chapter 3. These conditions establish the baseline for the analysis of effects found in Vol. Ib, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. Two additional specific resource topics, wilderness and geology, were dismissed from further analysis. None of the alternatives considered in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would appreciably affect these resources.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
An impact analysis for each of the impact topic areas (listed above) has been completed for each of the five alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, describes both beneficial and adverse impacts in detail. A summary of environmental impacts for all five alternatives is included in Table B in Vol. Ia, Chapter 2.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires identification and characterization of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts in the impact analysis for each alternative. Analysis for each impact topic includes identification of impacts of the various actions in each alternative; characterization of the impacts (including duration and intensity); applicable mitigation measures and their effect on reducing impacts; a conclusion; and an assessment of cumulative impacts.
A key tool in analyzing impacts to resources is the graphic portrayal of new development and redevelopment areas (see Vol. Ic, Plates). Direct impacts were analyzed in part by overlaying areas of new development and redevelopment on top of mapped resources and then evaluating the implications. While areas of potential development must often be generalized because precise locations and delineation at the planning stage are unknown, for purposes of this impact analysis, impacts to vegetation, wildlife habitat, wetlands, and other resources were assessed assuming the entire area delineated would be disturbed.
The National Park Service Director¹s Order 12 and its attachment, the NPS-12 Handbook (NPS 1999d) suggest an approach to identifying the intensity (or magnitude) and duration of impacts. That approach has been implemented in this evaluation. Indicators of the intensity of an impact, whether it be negligible, minor, moderate, or major, are included in the impact analysis and specifically defined by topic area. Impact duration is noted as either short-term or long-term. Where duration is not noted in the impact analysis, it is considered to be long-term. Mitigating actions listed in Vol. Ia, Chapter 2 would be taken during implementation of the alternatives. With the exception of the cultural resource analysis, all impacts would be assessed assuming that mitigating measures have been implemented.
Projects within the region surrounding Yosemite National Park with the potential for impacts on related resources were identified. Reasonably foreseeable future projects include planning or development activity currently being implemented or that would be implemented in the reasonably foreseeable future. These actions were evaluated in conjunction with impacts of each alternative to assess whether they have any additive effects on a particular environmental, cultural, or social resource. A comprehensive list of reasonably foreseeable future actions is provided in Vol. II, Appendix H, Considering Cumulative Effects.