| Table of Contents | Abstract | Executive Summary | Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3 |

---

CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE ACTION

It should be noted that [in] permitting the sacrifice of anything that would be of the slightest value to future visitors to the convenience, bad taste, playfulness, carelessness, or wanton destructiveness of present visitors, we probably yield in each case the interest of uncounted millions to the selfishness of a few individuals ... Before many years, if proper facilities are offered, these hundreds will become thousands and in a century the whole number of visitors will be counted by millions. An injury to the scenery so slight that it may be unheeded by any visitor now, will be one of deplorable magnitude when its effect is multiplied by these millions. But again, the slight harm which the few hundred visitors of this year might do, if no care were taken to prevent it, would not be slight, if it should be repeated by millions. At some time, therefore, laws to prevent an unjust use by individuals of that which is not individual but public property, must be made and rigidly enforced. The principle of justice involved is the same now that it will be then; such laws as this principle demands will be more easily enforced, and there will be less hardship in their action, if the abuses they are designed to prevent are never allowed to become customary but are checked while they are yet of unimportant consequence.

INTRODUCTION

Yosemite Valley is but a mile wide and seven miles long, yet this tiny place on the face of our planet is a premiere masterwork of the natural world. It is of incalculable value to those who seek it, and it is cherished in the consciousness of those who know it only through works of art and the written word. Yosemite Valley . . . possess[es] superlative scenic grandeur and [is] a constant test of our wisdom and foresight to preserve as a treasure for all people. Yosemite is now at a crossroad. During a century of public custodianship of this great park, many decisions have been made, all well intended, which have resulted in a march of man-made development in the Valley. Today, the Valley is congested with more than a thousand buildings—stores, homes, garages, apartments, lodging facilities, and restaurants—that are reflections of our society; the Valley floor is bisected by approximately 30 miles of roadway which now accommodate a million cars, trucks, and buses a year. But the foremost responsibility of the National Park Service is to perpetuate the natural splendor of Yosemite and its exceedingly special Valley. — General Management Plan, 1980

The 1980 General Management Plan established five broad goals1 to guide the management of Yosemite National Park and to perpetuate its natural splendor:

These five goals are intertwined, and no one goal can be emphasized to the complete exclusion of the others. In fact, achieving every goal in the General Management Plan to its fullest extent is not possible due to inherent conflicts among the goals. While broad, these goals are also ambitious, and the challenges associated with accomplishing them are both significant and complex. To that end, the National Park Service and the public must work together to achieve a plan that meets these goals to ensure long-term preservation for public enjoyment of Yosemite Valley.

In addition to the five broad goals, the General Management Plan established a number of management objectives and proposed a host of specific actions. However, the General Management Plan recognized that new studies and analyses would be necessary to determine how best to accomplish its goals and objectives and to temper or refine its specific prescriptions. In particular, studies of natural processes, transportation, and housing requirements were envisioned. In the early 1990s, work on specific action-oriented plans was started to analyze and recommend actions for the effective preservation of Yosemite Valley's interconnected resources and visitor experiences in the face of rapidly increasing visitation.

These individual planning efforts, including plans for housing, restoration of areas to natural conditions, transportation, and visitor services, took on even greater urgency following the flood of January 1997. Through both extensive public comment and litigation, questions were raised about the wisdom and legality of these separate, yet connected, planning efforts. As a result, the National Park Service pulled four distinct planning projects together into one comprehensive planning effort for Yosemite Valley ­ the Yosemite Valley Plan.

The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) would implement many of the Yosemite Valley provisions found in the General Management Plan's proposed action, while—because of new and more current information—it modifies other provisions. In its regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, the Council on Environmental Quality directs federal agencies to prepare a supplement to a final environmental impact statement (in this case, the environmental impact statement for the 1980 General Management Plan) when "(i) the agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns, or (ii) [t]here are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts" (40 CFR 1502.9). Because of the changes proposed by the Yosemite Valley Plan to the General Management Plan, guided by new information developed since 1980, the National Park Service has prepared this final environmental impact statement for the Yosemite Valley Plan to amend the 1980 General Management Plan/EIS for Yosemite National Park.

While the 1980 General Management Plan addresses parkwide issues, the Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS focuses primarily on issues in Yosemite Valley. Out-of-Valley actions addressed in the Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS occur as a result of actions taking place in Yosemite Valley. The Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS provides more details about the actions and excludes from consideration some of the Yosemite Valley issues already decided by the 1980 General Management Plan. However, potential actions identified in the 1980 General Management Plan that are outside the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan still remain, and the National Park Service would continue to strive to implement those actions necessary to achieve the General Management Plan goals.

After the Record of Decision for the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS has been issued, a summary document, the Yosemite Valley Plan, will be prepared to provide a description of the actions selected for implementation and discuss recommendations that were recorded as part of the Record of Decision. Additional planning and compliance would be necessary before some of the actions that will be included in the Yosemite Valley Plan can be implemented (see Chapter 2, Regulatory Compliance Process, and Vol. II, Appendix M, Sequencing).

The Merced Wild and Scenic
Comprehensive Management Plan

One of the principal results of analyses completed since 1980 is the clear recognition that, beyond the extraordinary grandeur of Yosemite Valley's granite formations and waterfalls, it is the Merced River that is central to the Valley's scenery and ecological processes. The Merced River ecosystem—the mosaic of aquatic, riverside, and meadow communities—relies on dynamic natural processes to sustain its diverse and productive plant and wildlife communities. These dynamic processes include allowing the Merced River to migrate and change course as it has over the centuries, and allowing annual high-water flows to move between the main river channel and adjacent floodplains. Park development and human activities have altered these and other natural processes, changing the ecological characteristics of the Valley. The restoration of these processes has guided the preservation effort for this exceedingly special place.

In 1987, Congress designated the Merced River a Wild and Scenic River to protect the river's free-flowing condition and protect and enhance the river's unique values for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations (16 USC 1271). The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act directs management agencies to prepare comprehensive management plans for Wild and Scenic Rivers under their jurisdiction. In August 2000, the National Park Service signed the Record of Decision for the Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan/FEIS (NPS 2000c). The Merced River Plan provides broad management direction for managing visitor use, land and facility development, and resource protection within the Merced River corridor. The goals of the Merced River Plan are consistent with both the General Management Plan goals and the requirements of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act:

These goals are intended to guide decision-making processes for actions within and adjacent to the river corridor to ensure that proposed projects would protect and enhance river values. To accomplish these goals, the Merced River Plan established a number of management elements, including the Merced River corridor boundary, river segment classifications (wild, scenic, or recreational), Outstandingly Remarkable Values, management zoning prescriptions, and a River Protection Overlay. The action alternatives considered in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS are consistent with the Record of Decision for the Merced River 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. Areas affected by actions presented in the Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS are shown in Vol. Ic, plate C.

The specific purposes of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS within Yosemite Valley are to:

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. These four action alternatives are based on a thorough evaluation of the best-available information on park resources and the visitor experience. One additional alternative is addressed, the No Action Alternative, which presents the status quo. It is used as a basis of comparison for evaluating the effects of the four action alternatives.

Each of the four action alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS 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.

While there are some differences among the action alternatives in the emphasis they place on the individual goals of the 1980 General Management Plan, each of these alternatives would allow the National Park Service to achieve the five broad goals of the General Management Plan as they relate to Yosemite Valley. However, the specific actions contained in the Yosemite Valley Plan alternatives would, if selected, modify some of the actions proposed in the General Management Plan, as well as in the Concession Services Plan. Since publication of these two plans in 1980 and 1992, respectively, new operational requirements have evolved and new information has been gained through research, resource studies, visitor studies, and planning efforts. The development of the specific actions proposed in the Yosemite Valley Plan was guided by this new information and by the results of recent planning efforts. For example, each of the actions contained in the four Yosemite Valley Plan action alternatives has been evaluated in light of the guidance established by the Merced River Plan. The Yosemite Valley Plan's action alternatives would therefore implement the guidance and direction prescribed for the Merced River by the Merced River Plan in areas that are affected by specific Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS actions.2 Similarly, new information on floodplains has led to the development of actions that would, if selected, modify actions called for in the General Management Plan and the Concession Services Plan.

In conjunction with protecting the Valley's natural and cultural resources and providing for high-quality visitor experiences, there is also a need to provide improved facilities and services for people who visit and work in Yosemite Valley. Planning efforts need to focus on enhancing the visitor experience, protecting natural and cultural resources, and on reducing congestion and crowding by managing traffic and parking in the Valley. Management actions should focus on using transportation options that are available now, that have been proven to work well within the Yosemite environment, and are cost effective. In addition, the National Park Service would continue strategies to implement technologies that reduce mobile sources of air pollution.

Working toward the achievement of the broad goals is critical to the long-term management, operation, restoration, and preservation of Yosemite Valley for the benefit of present and future generations. Furthermore, the development of this comprehensive planning process addressing these goals and incorporating previous Yosemite Valley planning efforts, as well as the Merced River Plan, is key to success.

PREVIOUS YOSEMITE VALLEY PLANNING EFFECTS

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), including 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 to public comments requesting a comprehensive plan to examine all of these activities together, the National Park Service has consolidated these planning efforts into one single, comprehensive approach. Thus, the Yosemite Valley Plan would incorporate many of the goals of these previous plans (summarized below) and re-evaluate their interactions.

Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan/
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(1992 and 1996 addendum)

This plan had two purposes: to implement the General Management Plan objective to remove nonessential employee housing from Yosemite Valley, and to improve employee housing for National Park Service, concessioner, and other employees who provide visitor services in Yosemite Valley. The plan prescribed the number and locations of new or relocated employee housing, identified housing to be rebuilt to comply with housing codes, and defined housing to be removed from Yosemite Valley to reduce overall development levels and allow for restoration to natural conditions.

Draft Yosemite Valley Implementation Plan/
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (1997)

The purpose of this plan was to provide steps for carrying out the goals of the 1980 General Management Plan for Yosemite Valley; specifically, to enhance the quality of the visitor experience and to help ensure the preservation of the park's resources. The plan included the removal of nonessential structures, restoration and protection of natural areas, relocation of facilities out of sensitive or hazardous areas, and reduction of traffic congestion. The Preferred Alternative was a comprehensive approach that include detailed actions for visitor facilities and resource management, as well as a phasing schedule, but it did not include employee housing or the Yosemite Lodge complex. Those actions were considered in other plans, as discussed in this section.

Yosemite Lodge Comprehensive Design /Environmental
Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact
(1997, modified 1998)

This environmental assessment addressed changes in visitor accommodations, employee housing, and vehicle circulation at Yosemite Lodge in response to the January 1997 flood. The number and mix of accommodations were derived from the Concession Services Plan (1992), which called for reducing lodging numbers in the park and Yosemite Valley below General Management Plan levels. Lodging and employee housing were to be relocated out of the floodplain to accommodate an extensive restoration project for riparian and floodplain values. Litigation on this project led to its being folded into the Yosemite Valley Plan's comprehensive approach to actions in Yosemite Valley.

Yosemite Falls Project (initiated but not completed)

This project focused on identifying design options for the corridor leading to Lower Yosemite Fall. The project identified actions to rehabilitate existing trails, repair bridges, remove parking, relocate restrooms, and restore disturbed natural resources and scenic areas within the site.

---

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 (see Vol. II, Appendix A). On June 30, 1864, Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Big Tree Grove were granted to California by the federal government to "be held for public use, resort, and recreation" to be "inalienable for all time." On October 1, 1890, Congress passed an act establishing Yosemite National Park as a "forest reservation" to preserve and protect "from injury all timber, mineral deposits, natural curiosities, or wonders" within the park area and to retain them in their "natural condition." The act excluded Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Big Tree Grove, leaving them under the jurisdiction of California, as provided for in the 1864 act. A joint resolution of Congress on June 11, 1906 accepted the transfer of Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Big Tree Grove from the State of California to the federal government as part of Yosemite National Park.

Two primary purposes for Yosemite National Park were established in the 1864 act and subsequent legislation:

In 1916, the Organic Act established the National Park Service by act of Congress to:

National Park System General Authorities Act (1970) states:

The international importance of Yosemite National Park was recognized by the World Heritage Committee in 1984 when the park was designated a World Heritage Site.

In 1958, Congress passed legislation for the Secretary of the Interior to provide an administrative site for Yosemite National Park in the El Portal area (16 USC 47-1). This land is under National Park Service jurisdiction, but is not included as part of Yosemite National Park (see Vol. II, Appendix A, Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Executive Orders). The purpose of this act is to:

Section 5 of that act states:

Goals

In the mid-1970s, the National Park Service began the comprehensive planning process that was completed in 1980 with the approval of the General Management Plan. Nearly 60,000 individuals, organizations, and government agencies received planning information during the plan development, and 20,000 actively participated in the planning process. The 1980 General Management Plan provides basic management direction for Yosemite National Park, based on the 1916 Organic Act (the law that established the National Park Service), the park's enabling legislation (the laws that established Yosemite National Park), and the 1958 act that established the El Portal Administrative Site. The broad goals identified in the General Management Plan have been reaffirmed repeatedly and are guiding 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. This beauty is made up not only of grand vistas and landmarks, but also of its components, such as the river and its banks, meadows, forests, wildlife, and a healthy ecosystem. Honoring Yosemite Valley's beauty requires more than simply removing structures; it requires the preservation of the natural environment and its processes. The alternatives considered in this Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS should build on actions already initiated to reduce the amount of administrative and commercial services and visual intrusions in Yosemite Valley.

ALLOW NATURAL PROCESSES TO PREVAIL

Many of Yosemite Valley's natural processes that shape and maintain its dynamic ecosystem have been altered. It is recognized that natural processes play a major role in maintaining a healthy ecosystem and the Valley's scenic beauty. Primary among these are the hydrologic processes. The Merced River and its tributaries provide a mosaic of habitats, including meadows, wetlands, and woodlands, that support wildlife and biological diversity. The alternatives being considered should seek to restore significantly altered natural systems and protect unaltered systems. Facilities should be integrated into the park landscape and environs with sustainable designs and systems so as to avoid environmental impact. Development should not compete with or dominate park features, nor interfere with natural processes, such as the seasonal migration of wildlife or hydrologic activity associated with wetlands.

PROMOTE VISITOR UNDERSTANDING AND ENJOYMENT

Yosemite Valley offers opportunities for people from around the world to experience the Valley's scenic, natural, and cultural resources. Contributing to an enjoyable visit for diverse users are the Valley's scenery and resources; appropriate, efficient, and high-quality visitor services and facilities; and interaction with other visitors. A balance of development and use should preserve nature's wonders and keep them from being overshadowed by the intrusions of the human environment. Educational programs, orientation, and interpretation should increase understanding of the Valley's resources and ecological processes. They should acquaint visitors with the many opportunities and experiences available in the Valley, and instill a sense of resource stewardship and understanding. The alternatives considered in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS should foster these diverse opportunities 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 they have affected park resources and have intruded on some visitors' experiences. That intrusion is more prevalent today, when during peak visitation periods the noise, smell, glare, and congestion associated with motor vehicles can overwhelm the resource-related visitor experience. Roads and parking areas that vehicles require have direct effects on natural processes, such as the flow of water through meadows, and they intrude on the Valley's natural beauty. However, while the General Management Plan calls for the eventual removal of private vehicles from Yosemite Valley, there remains, for the time being, a need to provide for their managed use. The alternatives considered seek to reduce traffic and its related congestion, and facilitate non-motorized modes of transportation around the Valley, moving toward the ultimate goal of freeing the Valley of the environmental and experiential degradation caused by thousands of vehicles.

REDUCE CROWDING

The popularity of national parks, including Yosemite, continues to grow. During peak visitation periods in Yosemite Valley, crowding can diminish visitors' experiences, causing traffic delays, visitor frustration, and impacts to park resources. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes continuing studies on the character of the Yosemite visitor experience and the effects of crowding, and on how best to achieve desired future conditions. Data from these studies would be used to ensure resource protection and enhancement of positive visitor experiences by building upon the management zoning prescribed in the Merced River Plan.

Criteria

The criteria below 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 have been selected based on the degree to which they meet and, as appropriate, integrate these criteria.

PROTECT AND ENHANCE NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES

PROVIDE EFFECTIVE OPERATIONS

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Public participation in the planning process helps to ensure that the National Park Service fully understands and considers the publicsı interest. Through public involvement, the National Park Service shares information about the planning process, issues, and proposed actions, and in turn, the planning team learns about the concerns of individuals and groups. Through public involvement, the National Park Service makes informed decisions and thus improves plans.

Scoping

The purpose of scoping is to identify issues and concerns related to the planning process and to determine the scope of issues that will be addressed in the environmental analysis. Typically, scoping occurs at the beginning of a planning process. In the case of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, however, scoping had been taking place since 1991 as part of previous planning efforts for the Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan/SEIS (1992 and 1996 Addendum), Draft Yosemite Valley Implementation Plan/SEIS (1997), and the Yosemite Lodge Development Concept Plan/EA/FONSI (1997, modified 1998). These planning efforts each involved scoping and a public comment period. Public comments from these previous efforts were reanalyzed, and issues and concerns raised since 1991 were included as part of the scoping process for the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

The formal scoping period for the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS began with a Federal Register notice on December 16, 1998 that described the intent of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS and solicited comments from the public through January 15, 1999. In response to requests from the public, the formal scoping period was extended through February 1, 1999. The Federal Register notice, in addition to announcing the formal scoping period, stated that all comments associated with previous planning efforts would be ³duly reconsidered" in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS planning process.

A total of 598 comment letters were received during the formal scoping period. Initially, a team of park staff evaluated the scoping comments and prepared a summary report (NPS 1999h). Later, these comments were included in the comprehensive reanalysis, which included all previous public comments from associated planning efforts. Because the comments from previous plans were originally analyzed in diverse contexts using different methods, they were reanalyzed using a common methodology developed by the U.S. Forest Serviceıs Content Analysis Enterprise Team. The Content Analysis Enterprise Team also read and analyzed all letters, e-mails, and faxes received during the formal scoping period for the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS in conjunction with previous comments.

In the reanalysis of previous comments, 6,468 letters, e-mails, and faxes were read and analyzed by the Content Analysis Enterprise Team. These responses contained 23,768 individual comments that were coded, categorized, and entered into the comment analysis database. This analysis, Summary of Public Comment (USFS 1999a), was a key tool used to ensure that public comments were addressed in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Concern statements raised through the public comment process and the parkıs response to those concern statements were included as Volume III of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. These public comments have not been republished as part of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

Public Comment

During the period of public comment on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS (April 7 to July 14, 2000), approximately 10,200 comment letters, postcards, e-mails, faxes, comment forms, and public hearing testimonies (see Public Hearings, below) were received. A joint U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service team read and analyzed comments, and then distilled them into 867 distinct public concern statements (see Vol. III, Public Comments and Responses, for a complete description of the comment analysis process). Concern statements with supporting quotes from public comments were grouped into 33 issue areas. These were presented to the park management/planning team for deliberation. Changes to the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS were recommended by this team after careful consideration of each of the issues, the range of public comment, and the result of consultation with federal agencies and American Indian Tribes (see Chapter 5, Consultation and Coordination).

PUBLIC HEARINGS

During the public comment period for the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the National Park Service held 14 public meetings throughout California. These meetings consisted of an open house where the public could view displays and interact with park staff, and a formal public hearing. Approximately 1,500 people attended the public meetings; written comments were received, and 365 people testified at the public hearings where their testimony was recorded by a court reporter. The National Park Service also held public meetings in Seattle, Washington; Denver, Colorado; Chicago, Illinois; and Washington, D.C. Over 100 individuals attended these meetings.

Scoping Issues

The concerns and issues identified during scoping and earlier public comment 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 analysis of environmental impacts for the Draft and Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

Natural Environment

Many commenters believe there is a need for restoration of natural areas within Yosemite Valley and minimization of human encroachment on the parkıs natural resources. Other comments indicate that the ³extremely small percent of restoration would not enhance a visitorıs experience." Some support removing what they feel are unnecessary human-made structures such as bridges, roads, lodging, and other concession facilities. Others believe that restoration of developed areas in the east Valley does not justify the development of new areas in the west Valley. Still others assert that the National Park Service should regulate visitation to restore natural habitat areas, including meadows and riparian areas, for native plants and animals. Restoration of specific areas along the Merced River and in the east Valley, some individuals comment, is necessary to improve the natural environment of Yosemite National Park. Others, however, feel that human use is part of the evolution of Yosemite Valley and that the Valley can never be returned to its natural state.

Cultural Resources

Historical and archeological sites and structures should receive special attention in any park planning effort, many people believe. Clarifying cultural resource protection priorities, some people feel, would allow the park to better determine what course to take regarding historic preservation, restoration of natural ecosystems, and development of new facilities. Against the background of the parkıs efforts to restore natural systems, several commenters worry that important aspects of the Valleyıs history may be damaged or removed. They do not want park activities to unnecessarily ³erase all symbols of those pioneers and residents who added a significant chapter to Yosemiteıs history." In addition to the history of Euro-American settlers, the archeological history of indigenous peoples is important to many commenters. The National Park Service, they feel, should avoid disturbing archeological sites in the Valley.

Visitor Experience

The majority of commenters acknowledge that recreational opportunities should continue to be available to Yosemite Valley visitors. However, people diverge in their opinions as to what sort of activities should be allowed and how recreational activities should be managed. Activities ³not directly related to the experience of Yosemiteıs natural environment or cultural heritage" should be removed from the park, according to some commenters. This sentiment is repeated by many individuals who feel that certain forms of recreation‹such as rock climbing, hang gliding, and rafting‹conflict with the underlying purpose of Yosemite National Park. Similarly, many commented on the appropriateness of resort-type facilities in the Valley. A number of these respondents vehemently oppose any recreational facilities that resemble those found in resorts. Swimming pools, skating rinks, and tennis courts, they contend, are neither natural nor in keeping with the parkıs mission. Still others urge the National Park Service to retain the Ahwahnee tennis courts and Curry Ice Rink on the basis that these are either legitimate outdoor activities or are no more inappropriate than allowing hotels in the Valley.

Transportation

Vehicle access to Yosemite Valley is the source of much disagreement and numerous passionate opinions. Many people feel strongly that automobile access must be limited or even eliminated to reduce traffic congestion, restore the Valleyıs natural setting, and improve visitor experience. In contrast, many other people feel strongly that automobile access must be retained to preserve a convenient, affordable, and individualized visitor experience. Although not everyone is convinced that Yosemite has a traffic congestion problem, many people agree that some restrictions are required during peak periods. Citing examples from Devils Postpile National Monument in California, Zion National Park in Utah, and Maroon Bells (White River National Forest) in Colorado, some people suggest limiting Valley automobile access to the early morning and late evening, while requiring visitors to use public transportation during the busiest hours of the day. Vehicle use also could be reduced, others believe, by offering incentives or disincentives to encourage people to leave their cars at home. Many recommend allowing disabled or elderly visitors vehicle access to the Valley even if others are restricted. Some people think the use of certain perceivably dangerous vehicles should be limited; they believe recreational vehicles, large trucks, and motorcycles pose a hazard on winding mountain roads.

Respondents propose a wide range of ideas for how the National Park Service should manage parking in Yosemite Valley and Yosemite National Park. Some people call for further analysis of parking needs and suggest that the National Park Service either increase or decrease the amount of available parking. Many people feel that the National Park Service should abandon plans to build new parking areas in Yosemite National Park. They believe this action is in conflict with the 1980 General Management Plan. However, if new parking areas are built, many people believe they should be constructed in already-disturbed areas and designed in such a way as to blend with their natural surroundings. Especially troublesome to a number of respondents is the thought of temporary or interim parking, which, in the words of one person, ³could easily become permanent." Several individuals believe the National Park Service should reduce the number of day-visitor parking spaces in the Valley and restore degraded parking areas‹particularly nondesignated, informal parking areas.

Social and Economic Environments

Whether it is increased restrictions on private business, high costs of maintaining community infrastructure, or potential loss of tourist business, many members of the public ask the National Park Service to carefully consider the effects of proposals on social and economic environments, especially those of gateway communities. Many believe these towns have invested their future economic well-being in meeting visitorsı needs. Potential impacts they want the National Park Service to account for and consider include the expenditures needed to implement the action alternative, and loss of revenue resulting from changes in visitor access or transportation options.

Issues Identified During Public Comment on the Draft

Public and agency concerns identified during the public comment period that were within the scope of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS were grouped into 33 issue areas. A brief description of the scope of each of these issues is provided in Volume III, Public Comments and Responses. All issues were considered by the planning team while reviewing the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS and helped determine the need to revise the draft. Those issues receiving the largest proportion of comments or presenting tougher choices are briefly described below; all 33 topical issues are described in Volume III.

Air Quality

Included are concerns about potential increases in diesel emissions; the desire to immediately employ or plan for a transition to clean, alternative fuels or transportation modes; requests for specific goals to reduce use of existing diesel vehicles; the potential adverse effect on air quality of moving employee housing out of Yosemite Valley; and the need to assess the effects of air pollution in Yosemite Valley on vegetation, wildlife, and humans.

Alternative 2

A large number of people commented on Alternative 2, the Preferred Alternative. Many of those comments affirmed two key aspects of the alternative: the importance of restoring riverside areas and hydrological processes, and of improving the visitor experience. Comments in support of further restoration and visitor experience goals included those that advocate reducing the amount of camping, lodging, roads, bridges, and other infrastructure adjacent to the Merced River; removing National Park Service and concessioner administrative buildings and personnel from Yosemite Valley; reducing the number of vehicles and associated parking in Yosemite Valley and placing parking facilities outside the Valley; and converting Northside Drive to a multi-use paved trail. Other commenters suggested changes to Alternative 2 including increasing or further decreasing the number of units to be retained at Housekeeping Camp; a different balance in the proportion of low-, medium-, and high-cost overnight accommodations; devising a transportation plan more suited to the seasonality of park visitation; increasing or reducing the number of campsites; increasing or reducing development at Yosemite Lodge; and increasing or reducing the proportion of day-visitor parking to remain in the Valley. Yet others rejected certain elements of Alternative 2, including proposals to remove historic bridges, close portions of Northside Drive to vehicles, reduce the number camping or lodging facilities, and remove the medical facility or employee housing from Yosemite Valley.

Bridges

The proposed removal of four historic bridges in Yosemite Valley generated many comments. They ranged from support because the action would restore and protect river hydrology, to suggestions for bridge redesign to mitigate effects on the river, to simple rejection of the idea to remove bridges, emphasizing the primacy of their historic value and circulation functions. Most people, regardless of their position, acknowledged the beauty and historic value of Yosemiteıs bridges.

Historic

Comments on the historic value of certain features of Yosemite Valley, apart from historic bridges, included the Superintendentıs House (Residence 1), Tresidder Residence, Mother Curry Bungalow, Huff House, concessioner stable, Cascades residences, and NPS Operations Building (Fort Yosemite). Many comments focused on larger historic elements such as orchards, districts, and landscapes. Specific elements that commenters suggested need greater protection included the Curry Village Historic District, the Yosemite Valley Cultural Landscape District, Lamon and Curry Orchards, historic travel corridors, Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground), stock use as a historically significant activity, and the Curry Village tent cabins. Other commenters called for better assessment of ways to avoid adverse effects on historic properties, an alternative emphasizing historic and cultural preservation, reusing historic structures slated for removal, clarifying what components shape the Yosemite Valley Cultural Landscape District, and identifying and mapping all cultural resources affected by proposals in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

Camping

Specific concerns related to camping included requests in support of or in opposition to actions that would increase the number of campsites to pre-flood levels, maintain the current number, reduce the number of campsites in Yosemite Valley, or eliminate campsites entirely; view camping as an affordable overnight option for all income groups; or expand camping to new areas of Yosemite Valley, including west Valley, and to other areas of the park outside the Valley. Other concerns involved actions that would rebuild or remove campsites within the floodplain; emphasize or reduce overnight accommodations, including camping, relative to day visitation; expand, reduce, or eliminate specific campgrounds, including Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground), Upper River, Lower River, Lower Pines, North Pines, and Group Campgrounds; provide, segregate, or restrict different camping types including walk-in, drive-in tent, group, recreational vehicle (small and large), and low-impact; and provide or not provide recreational vehicle hookups.

Lodging

Comments were received requesting the retention of rustic and economy lodging, especially tent-type accommodations at Curry Village and Housekeeping Camp. This was based on their relative affordability for different socioeconomic groups, their rustic or historic character, and the type of experience they offer. These commenters often referred to the ³mix" of different types of lodging facilities at different locations; other comments suggested that such facilities be removed because they are eyesores, crowded, unpleasant, or unneeded. Others requested a greater emphasis on overnight accommodations (including guest lodging) relative to facilities for day visitors and camping. It was suggested that lodging lost to the 1997 flood not be replaced and that lodging in the Valley should not be increased. Some propose reducing the amount of guest lodging in Yosemite Valley, particularly at Yosemite Lodge, to minimize development and restore areas to natural conditions, and because there is increased availability of similar lodging outside the park. Others request that lodging opportunities not be reduced.

Regional Transportation

Comments were about the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System, other regional transportation services, and commercial tour buses. Specific comments were often contradictory and included both support and rejection of the proposal to construct a transfer facility in Yosemite Valley; requests that public transportation should be low-impact and based on alternative fuels; suggestions to restrict or ban commercial tour bus operations in Yosemite Valley; suggestions for noise-abatement devices on all buses operating in Yosemite; support for and rejection of greater reliance on regional public transportation to bring visitors to Yosemite; suggestions that park planners consider rail as a regional transportation option; and the request to clarify how the availability of regional transportation would enhance the visitor experience in Yosemite.

Development

Because of the effect, or lack of effect, of various actions on natural, cultural, and scenic resources and with views to increase or reduce the level of development and commercialization in Yosemite Valley, commenters offered requests to remove, not build new, not rebuild destroyed, retain, construct replacement, and construct new facilities in Yosemite Valley. Facilities mentioned included campgrounds, guest lodging, employee housing, parking, transfer facilities, a traffic check station, the Wawona Golf Course, dams, human-made obstacles to the river, the ice-skating rink, The Ahwahnee tennis courts, and the medical and dental facilities. Some commenters advocated reducing development in the Valley by moving or constructing various types of facilities in other areas of Yosemite National Park or in gateway communities. These include visitor centers, guest lodging, employee housing, National Park Service and concessioner headquarters, and a natural history museum. Others suggested dispersing visitors more evenly by using currently undeveloped areas of the Valley for parking and campgrounds.

Equity

Two primary concerns were raised related to equity: (1) the affordability of overnight accommodations (camping and lodging, including Housekeeping Camp) and the cost of an overnight visit to Yosemite for all income groups; and (2) the accessibility of Yosemite Valley, its services and facilities, to all people. Specific groups identified as being potentially disadvantaged by proposals included families (especially those with young children), those with low or middle income levels, ethnic or cultural minorities, senior citizens, young people and students, campers (relative to people who typically stay in lodging units), and the mobility impaired. Moving employees out of the Valley was also seen as limiting employment opportunities for people with certain types of impairments.

Merced River Plan/Yosemite Valley Plan Timing

Concerns were expressed about the ability of the National Park Service and the public to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS without a completed Merced River Plan; requests were made to stop work on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS until the Merced River Plan was completed.

Compliance

Compliance issues raised included comments that expressed the need for a comprehensive implementation program that clearly identifies when additional environmental review will be required for specific implementation projects. Other concerns include the need to clarify the scope of the proposed action to identify whether the range of alternatives is sufficient; the suggestion that the General Management Plan be updated to guide planning for Yosemite Valley; the idea that development standards and zoning regulations should be developed; suggestion that the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection study or other resource studies to be completed prior to a Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS rather than within five years of completion; concerns about potential adverse impacts to Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the South Fork of the Merced River and other environmental and social values by placing high-density housing in Wawona; the adequacy of avoidance or mitigation measures, especially relative to historic properties and air quality; and concerns about the potential violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act through the elimination of horseback riding in Yosemite Valley.

Park and Community

Issues important to some commenters, especially park residents, included the retention of the medical and dental facilities in Yosemite Valley; the need to better assess and re-evaluate the natural resource and social impacts of the proposal to build employee housing in El Portal, Wawona, and Foresta; the advisability of more thoroughly exploring options for moving employee housing into communities outside Yosemite National Park; the need to provide multi-use community facilities; and the suggestion that moving employees out of the Valley may not be in the best interests of employees, park visitors, or the environment.

Sequencing

This includes references to the need for a comprehensive implementation program prioritizing implementation based on goals of the plan. Comments also call for establishing assured funding, and identifying which actions will require further compliance and public involvement. Some suggest that an inventory and monitoring program be implemented before beginning other actions.

Stock Use

This includes references to commercial horseback rides, the provision of facilities to support private stock users, and the type, extent, and location of designated stock trails. While some commenters wanted to see the stable and commercial rides remain, others wanted all stock eliminated from the Valley. Those wanting to eliminate stock use expressed concerns about environmental impacts and the desire to improve visitor experience. Those wishing to retain stock use cited its traditional use and role in the history and development of Yosemite; proposed it as an alternative means for the elderly and disabled to enjoy the Valley; and commedted that it was an activity that they considered important and wanted to continue to enjoy. Stock as a means to access Yosemiteıs wilderness, including the need for facilities such as loading and parking areas for stock trailers, corrals with adjacent campsites, and well-maintained stock trails were mentioned as important for private stock users. Clarification of the impacts of relocating the stables to Foresta was requested.

SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

In addition to the public scoping process and public meetings and hearings conducted for the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the National Park Service has continued to facilitate numerous other public involvement activities related to the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. A four-to eight-page Planning Update newsletter is produced in the park and mailed to individuals on the parkıs extensive mailing list. This Planning Update provides status of ongoing planning activities, including information about the Draft and Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. The National Park Service also has conducted numerous informal informational meetings with a wide range of local and regional civic and employee groups, as well as various advocacy groups.

A number of public involvement opportunities were available for visitors to Yosemite National Park throughout the 90-day public comment period on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. About 1,650 people attended 63 open-house sessions held by the National Park Service at the Visitor Center in Yosemite Valley; these provided park visitors with an opportunity to learn about the alternatives being considered and an opportunity to comment. There were also 26 regularly scheduled ranger walks about the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS that were attended by 264 people. A special four-page insert was prepared about the planning process for the Yosemite Guide, the parkıs informational newspaper; over 380,000 were distributed to park visitors. In addition, 10 interpretive wayside exhibits were installed in locations around Yosemite Valley to inform visitors about actions proposed in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. The National Park Service also maintains a web site that contains a wide range of information about planning activities and issues related to the development of the Draft and Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, as well as the full text of the draft document.

As part of the development of the Draft and Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the National Park Service consulted with the U.S. Forest Service, the State Historic Preservation Office, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the following park-associated, federally recognized tribal groups and federally nonrecognized American Indian communities who refer to themselves as tribes: the American Indian Council of Mariposa County, Inc.; the North Fork Mono Rancheria; the Tuolumne Me-Wuk Tribal Council; the Chukchansi Tribal Government; the Mono Lake Indian Community; the Bridgeport Paiute Indian Colony; and the Bishop Paiute Tribal Council. These consultations have been ongoing throughout the planning process for the development of the Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan/SEIS and the Draft Yosemite Valley Implementation Plan/SEIS, and would continue through the design and implementation phases for activities taking place under the Yosemite Valley Plan. All of the activities outlined above are further detailed in Chapter 5, Consultation and Coordination.

ISSUES BEYOND THE SCOPE AND DIRECTION OF THIS PLANNING EFFORT

Preparing a New General Management Plan

While the Yosemite Valley Plan amends the General Management Plan, it is not intended to replace it. The scope of the 1980 General Management Plan is the entire national park, while the objective of the Yosemite Valley Plan is to provide more specific detail in carrying out the goals and actions prescribed in the General Management Plan as they relate to Yosemite Valley. Even though the General Management Plan is 20 years old and some members of the public have asked for a new plan, many others have asked that the existing General Management Plan be implemented. The National Park Service has assessed whether to prepare a new general management plan. It has concluded that the guidance of the 1980 General Management Plan, as synopsized in the five main goals, is still valid today and that the General Management Plan supports the purposes of Yosemite National Park. Furthermore, the National Park Service recognizes that this ³exceedingly special Valley" deserves a long-term perspective with a consistent course and management. As a result, the National Park Service will continue to move forward to implement the broad goals of the General Management Plan and the direction and guidance provided in the Merced River Plan, while updating specific actions through the planning and compliance process (like this Yosemite Valley Plan effort). This approach will allow the National Park Service to continue to build on accumulated knowledge.

Regional Transportation

Decisions on the development of a regional transportation system will not be made through the Yosemite Valley Plan. Those decisions 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. Although the National Park Service does not have the authority to create a regional transportation system (outside park boundaries), 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. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS addresses cumulative impacts that may result from development of a regional transit system, as currently proposed by YARTS. While the alternatives evaluated in this Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS consider the long-term possibility of visitors arriving by regional transit, none of the alternatives is dependent on the implementation of regional transit.

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 Merced River Plan establishes seven specific management elements: (1) river corridor boundaries; (2) classifications; (3) Outstandingly Remarkable Values; (4) Section 7 determination process; (5) River Protection Overlay; (6) management zoning prescriptions; and (7) a Visitor Experience and Resource Protection framework. As a programmatic plan, the Merced River Plan does not provide recommendations or site-specific, detailed actions. Instead, it applies management elements to prescribe desired future conditions, typical visitor activities and experiences, and allows for park facilities and management in the river corridor. 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. Ia, Chapter 3, Affected Environment, Merced Wild and Scenic River; Vol. Ib, Chapter 4; and Vol. Ic, plates G-1 through G-3).

Concession Services Plan

The Concession Services Plan/SEIS, approved in 1992, presented guidance for the management of concession services in Yosemite National Park to meet the goals of the General Management Plan. The Concession Services Plan amends the General Management Plan, and provisions of the Concession Services Plan are incorporated into the action alternatives addressed in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. The Concession Services Plan established levels of visitor services to be provided through concession operations, with a major objective that they be compatible with park purposes and that they preserve ecological processes. The Concession Services Plan called for a greater reduction in the total number of overnight accommodations than did the General Management Plan, and it prescribed the types of lodging facilities that would be provided. The intent of the Yosemite Valley Plan is to implement facility, service level, and activity 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, as a result of one or more of the above factors, would modify the Concession Services Plan.

Resources Management Plan

The Resources Management Plan for the park was updated in 1994. The plan 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. The actions in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS have been developed in harmony with the goals of the Resources Management Plan.

THE JANUARY 1997 FLOOD In early January 1997, just after the 1996 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan was released for public review and as the Draft Yosemite Valley Implementation Plan was being prepared for release, one of the greatest floods in the parkıs history occurred. Coming at such a critical time, this flood increased both the complexity of and opportunities for the planning process. This flood was of a similar magnitude to three others over the last 100 years. It clearly demonstrated the vulnerability of facilities constructed in the floodplain and the ultimate dominance of natural processes. While the Draft Yosemite Valley Implementation Plan was subsequently modified and released, planning for the Yosemite Lodge area was removed from the plan in hopes of expediting the recovery of lodging and employee housing in this heavily damaged area. The Upper River and Lower River Campgrounds, also damaged in the flood, were not rebuilt, since some plan alternatives called for their elimination. The information the flood provided, along with recent information about geologic hazards, has made Valley planning far more challenging ­ the land recognized as suitable for development has decreased dramatically (see Vol. Ic, plate E, Development Considerations). The flood also has allowed visitors to experience Yosemite Valley with reduced development. It has presented opportunities and some funding to relocate damaged facilities and to increase the restoration of riverside environments. It is these post-flood conditions that are being used as a fresh starting point for the Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, as Yosemite Lodge, employee housing, and other Valley planning efforts are integrated into one comprehensive plan.

Flood Recovery Projects

FLOOD RECOVERY

Facilities damaged by the 1997 flood included the four main routes leading into the park; substantial portions of the water, sewer, and power distribution systems; and campsites, lodging units, and employee housing. Although the January 1997 flood was the largest on record for Yosemite Valley, floods of similar or greater magnitude can be expected to occur in Yosemite Valley in the future.

Immediately following the flood, engineers, architects, resource managers, and other technical experts compiled over 350 damage assessments. These assessments captured the extent of damage to park resources and estimated the cost of repair. On June 12, 1997, the emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 105-18) was signed, providing the park with $186 million to fund the flood recovery projects identified in the damage assessments. Senate Report 105-16 requested that the National Park Service prepare a Flood Recovery Action Plan to describe organizational and procedural details of the flood recovery process and estimate costs to accomplish work. This plan was prepared and is being used to direct the flood recovery program. Additionally, quarterly reports are prepared for Congress to provide project status updates and budgetary information, and to list accomplishments to date.

EL PORTAL ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT

The El Portal Road, a main route into Yosemite Valley, was damaged extensively during the 1997 flood. An environmental assessment was prepared in 1997 to propose both repair of the weakened, flood-damaged road and to improve safety. Safety improvements included widening travel lanes by 1.5 feet, improving drainage along the entire roadway, 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 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; however, revegetation and monitoring efforts will continue for several years to ensure that native vegetation is successfully established along the road corridor. The removal of the Cascades Diversion Dam, safety improvements at the intersection of the El Portal and Big Oak Flat Roads, and reconstruction of the final 1.1-mile segment of the road have been delayed until further environmental analysis can be completed.

---

| Table of Contents | Abstract | Executive Summary | Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3 |

Yosemite National Park Home Page http://www.nps.gov File created/updated Yosemite National Park Web Manager