Yosemite Valley Plan SEIS, Volume III, Chapter 3

Chapter 3 ~ Alternatives

This chapter includes analysis of public comment regarding the proposed alternatives in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Section 3.1 includes those concerns addressing the National Park Service’s development of the proposed alternatives. Some respondents offer their own comprehensive alternatives for the Plan, and these are outlined in Section 3.2. Finally, Section 3.3 covers the perceived merits and drawbacks of the proposed alternatives for the Yosemite Valley Plan.

Section 3.1 ~ Development of Alternatives

Many people who comment on the proposed alternatives of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS identify priorities they believe should be considered when making a final selection. The belief that resource preservation should take precedence over other management goals informs the comments of many respondents. "The range of alternatives does not offer one that would be clearly preferable from an environmental point of view," asserts one conservation organization. Another person laments, "There is no one plan that protects the natural resources of the park from decline. I have lost a great deal of faith in the park service."

Agreeing with the aforementioned constituents, another person notes that "the alternatives are prejudiced towards increasing infrastructure and development in Yosemite." This person would like to see a new range of alternatives developed, based on increasing protections for the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Merced River. An Historical Preservation Society believes the current plan is flawed given its lack of an alternative that emphasizes enhanced natural and cultural protection. The society notes that "the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) appears to be the most cultural resource-friendly of all the alternatives."

In addition to management priorities, adequate funding for the Yosemite Valley Plan is a factor some people want the National Park Service to consider when choosing an alternative. One respondent suggests that Yosemite planners take a sequential, cost-based approach to alternative development, "starting with consideration of lower-cost alternatives and requiring higher-cost alternatives to prove their worth based on the added value of the added features that they bring to the plan." Conversely, another individual feels that cost should not factor into the development of alternatives. This person insists that "Yosemite Valley is so unique, so special, and so valuable that choices should be made on the basis of what can be achieved, not on the cost."

Following the intent and letter of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are concerns that many voiced when discussing the development of alternatives for the Yosemite Valley Plan. The California Department of Justice believes that the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS should clarify the scope of the proposed action in order to identify whether the range of alternatives considered is sufficient. "The extent to which the NPS will conduct additional site-specific environmental review is not clear. Similarly, the nature and scope of the decision that the NPS will take on the basis of this plan is also unclear. Accordingly, it is difficult for the public to determine whether the draft plan considers a broad enough range of alternatives to sharply define the issues as required under NEPA."

While some respondents question the adequacy of the range of alternatives, others criticize the depth of analysis conducted. "Despite the Plan’s length, the rationales for many of its underlying premises are left unclear, seemingly fruitful options are neglected, not all the major impacts are analyzed, and some of the analyses are superficial," one respondent decries. Another member of the public seeks clarification on whether the final decision will be based on a combination of alternatives or solely on one proposed alternative.

180. Public Concern: The National Park Service should develop an alternative that protects the natural resources of Yosemite Valley.

"My general conclusion after assessing the Yosemite Valley Plan, as a scientist and as a citizen, is that the pollution-sensitive plants, especially ponderosa pine which is the main forest species which makes up the Valley floor ecosystem, are at great health risk from continued air pollution in all the Alternatives. I believe that not enough Alternatives were envisioned and that the ones that were presented seemed ad hoc combinations of resource protection and ‘unavoidable’ degradation. There is no one plan that protects the natural resources of the Park from decline. I have lost a great deal of faith in the Park Service, and am deeply disappointed in the assessment process after their treatment of the public comment of the MRP and their analysis of the options in the YVP." (University of California, Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, Berkeley, CA - #138)

"The Sierra Club cannot support any of the alternatives proposed in this draft for the future management of Yosemite Valley. The range of alternatives does not offer one that would be clearly preferable from an environmental point of view. In all of the alternatives presented, there are elements that the Club both supports and does not support. The alternatives do not offer enough choice, and include forced combinations of elements. In many respects, the alternatives focus on moving development around the Valley, as well as proposing various transportation options." (Conservation Organization, Fresno, CA - #7881)

Response: The two primary purposes for Yosemite National Park as stated in the 1864 act, as described in Vol. IA, Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, are to preserve the resources that contribute to Yosemite's splendor and uniqueness and make the varied resources of Yosemite available to people for their enjoyment, education, and recreation, now and in the future. The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS achieves a balance between visitor use and enjoyment while protecting and preserving the cultural and natural resources that make up Yosemite National Park. The focus is on protecting and restoring an ecological system that is sustainable over time within the framework of continued visitor use. An emphasis has been placed on removing facilities and restoring areas to reconnect fragmented critical habitats and providing for river protection and the restoration and function of natural processes.

The Merced River Plan/FEIS established management zoning for all areas in the river corridor, a River Protection Overlay for areas immediately adjacent to the river, and an adaptive management approach that includes monitoring for visitor experience and resource degradation over time. These tools will enable the National Park Service to manage the river corridor to prevent degradation of resources and, in many instances, to enhance and facilitate restoration of resources.

The Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS has been prepared in accordance with the Yosemite National Park General Management Plan (1980), the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and other applicable legislation, and planning, and policy documents. Because the National Park Service is required to provide for visitor access and experience, as well as for the protection of cultural values (including historic sites), restoration to a pristine condition (that is, without evidence of human occupation or manipulation) is not within the range of objectives for areas such as Yosemite Valley, Wawona, and El Portal. Furthermore, much of what is today considered to be natural is in fact the result of centuries of human intervention by American Indians. Nevertheless, the goal is that the natural character of the landscape would be the most prominent, even in the more developed areas, and that accommodation of visitors would maximize their experiences while preserving this landscape. What the National Park Service strives to achieve in terms of visitor experience is within the context of leaving the land unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. The description of the methods used to develop a range of alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS is included in Vol. IA, Chapter 2. (Also see response to concern #93 [Air Quality] for discussion of impacts on air quality.)

668. Public Concern: The National Park Service should develop alternatives that offer a range of increasing protections for the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Merced River.

"The DVP’s selection of alternatives is hopelessly narrow. The alternatives are prejudiced towards increasing infrastructure and development in Yosemite. Most or all of these developments have been proposed since the designation of the Merced River as Wild and Scenic, in the absence of a valid River Plan, and with no regard to the protection and enhancement of the river’s values. The DVP alternatives are thus not derived from a range of increasing protections for the ORVs of the Merced River, which would be proper. All of the DVP alternatives would lead directly and cumulatively to new degradation of Yosemite’s natural and human environment and increased development and impact to its protected Merced River Corridor. The DVP’s primary changing element is the location and numbers of proposed parking spaces and roads." (Conservation Organization, Yosemite National Park, CA - #7883)

Response: The Outstanding Remarkable Values of the Merced Wild and Scenic River are considered in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS along with other values associated within Yosemite Valley.

The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS provides a range of alternatives in Chapter 2, Alternatives, that would help achieve the broad goals of the General Management Plan:

Reclaim priceless natural beauty
Allow natural processes to prevail
Promote visitor understanding and enjoyment
Markedly reduce traffic congestion
Reduce crowding

Each of the action alternatives addressed in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS implement the guidance and protection provided by the Merced River Plan/FEIS to protect and enhance the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Merced Wild and Scenic River. As stated in Vol. IA, Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, "Actions must protect and enhance the river’s Outstanding Remarkable Values. When Outstanding Remarkable Values are in conflict with each other, overall detrimental impacts to Outstanding Remarkable Values will be minimized."

Following the guidance and direction provided by the Merced River Plan/FEIS, each of the action alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS removes development from the River Protection Overlay. Any actions that propose new development or redevelopment would comply with the management elements of the Merced River Plan/FEIS, specifically management zoning, River Protection Overlay, and Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

(Also see responses to Concerns #169, #722, and #536.)

527. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should provide an alternative that emphasizes enhanced natural and cultural protection.

"We are extremely disappointed that none of the action alternatives clearly benefit the Valley’s cultural resources. In fact, the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) appears to be the most cultural resource-friendly of all the alternatives. The National Trust recognizes that past planning in Yosemite Valley has at times compromised the integrity of both natural and cultural resources, and the significant steps need to be made to reverse the degradation of resources. We believe that a fundamental shortcoming of the current plan is its failure to offer an alternative that emphasizes enhanced natural and cultural protection." (Non-Governmental Organization, San Francisco, CA - #7885)

Response: Each of the action alternatives considered in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS has been developed, in part, to restore, protect, and enhance the resources (both natural and cultural) to Yosemite Valley (see Vol. IA, Chapter 1, Purpose and Need). Among the primary characteristics that define and contribute to the cultural landscape of Yosemite Valley are spatial organization, historic land-use patterns, and natural systems and features. The restoration of the Merced River corridor and meadows as described in the Preferred Alternative is integral to the overall restoration, protection, and enhancement in Yosemite Valley, and be viewed as beneficial to both natural and cultural resources. The park has also reassessed several actions in the Preferred Alternative of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, and would propose rehabilitation of individual historic structures rather than removal whenever possible. In addition, the park would take a "phased approach" to the removal of historic bridges that impede the free flow of the Merced River. Sugar Pine Bridge and associated riverbank armoring would be removed. The park would holistically monitor the effect of bridge removal on the system prior to determining if additional bridges need to be removed. Finally, the park would undertake rehabilitation of existing historic districts within the context of the Preferred Alternative to ensure cultural resources are protected and enhanced whenever possible.

(Also see responses to Concerns #95, #648, and #225.)

241. Public Concern: The National Park Service should use a sequential, cost-based approach to the development of alternatives for the Yosemite Valley Plan.

"The problem of multiple incommensurate outcomes–environmental, visitor convenience, costs, etc.–is much the same in the Yosemite Valley Plan as in California’s annual State Transportation Plan, which must rank the relative desirability of project alternatives based, in most cases, on multiple outcomes. A sequential approach is highly recommended, starting with consideration of lower-cost alternatives and requiring higher-cost alternatives to prove their worth based on the added value of the added features that they bring to the Plan. The next ideal step, to convert all values to equivalent dollars, is usually impossible or dicey. The fall-back ideal is first to calculate the added equivalent cost of any significant intangible differences between the least-cost alternative and the next most expensive alternative, and second to quantify the most important effects of the chosen vs. the rejected alternative in as meaningful a way as possible." (Individual, Berkeley, CA - #3480)

Response: A cost-based approach to the development of the alternatives was not used as an approach to the development of alternatives for the Draft and Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does present the total estimated capital and operating costs for each of the action alternatives. Understanding the total costs of implementing each of the action alternatives in a holistic manner is important, as it provides the best opportunity to compare the overall costs of each of the alternatives.

In addition, text has been added to Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS to provide a more detailed discussion of the process and rationale for the development of the range of alternatives considered in document.

671. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not consider implementation costs when developing alternatives for the Yosemite Valley Plan.

"Many of the alternatives discussed in the plan seem to have been eliminated on the basis of cost. We think Yosemite Valley is so unique, so special and so valuable that choices should be made on the basis of what can be achieved not on the cost. If the cost of an all electric fleet of buses is twice the cost of a diesel fleet to allow recharging times so be it. The Valley is worth it." (Individual, Berkeley, CA - #9238)

Response: Each of the action alternatives considered in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS were designed to help achieve the broad goals of the 1980 General Management Plan and were evaluated and analyzed on their ability to best achieve these goals.

Implementation and operational costs, among many other factors, are analyzed for each of the alternatives to help identify the alternative that would be most successful in accomplishing Yosemite Valley Plan purposes, and therefore help achieve the broad goals of the General Management Plan.

291. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should clarify the scope of the proposed action in order to identify whether the range of alternatives is sufficient.

"The Yosemite Valley Plan should clarify the scope of the proposed action in order to identify whether the range of alternatives considered is sufficient. As noted, the extent to which the NPS will conduct additional site-specific environmental review is not clear. Similarly, the nature and scope of the decision that the NPS will take on the basis of this Plan is also unclear. Accordingly, it is difficult for the public to determine whether the draft Plan considers a broad enough range of alternatives to sharply define the issues as required under NEPA. The draft Yosemite Valley Plan proposes a limited range of alternative for some projects. Specifically, with respect to the proposal to rebuild the Yosemite Lodge, three of the four action alternatives propose the same thing–rebuilding 141 units destroyed by the 1997 flooding. One alternative calls for more rebuilding (195 units). Only the no action alternative proposes not to rebuild any units. In addition, the Plan never considers alternatives such as removing existing units or using the area proposed for rebuilding the Lodge for lower-cost accommodations or for providing an alternate location for employee housing. Similarly, all the action alternatives–without explanation for the reasons behind this proposal–call for removing the same number (208) of lower-cost units from Curry Village. Only the no action alternative evaluates retaining these lower-cost units, and no alternatives look at relocating the units to other areas proposed to be developed or redeveloped for housing/lodging type uses. On the one hand, the Plan suggests that the narrow range was proposed to achieve consistency between this Plan and the levels of service provided in other park-wide planning documents, including the 1980 GMP and the Concessions Services plan adopted in 1992. YVP Vol. 1A at 2-4. The implication of this suggestion is that the NPS perhaps intends to decide based solely on this plan that (for example) 141 Lodge units will be rebuilt. On the other hand, however, the Plan specifically recognizes that changing circumstances and further study may result in a modification of the levels of service provided in prior planning documents. For example, the Plan expressly acknowledges that the visitor use levels developed in 1980 may be modified after the NOS completes a detailed visitor experience and resource protection study in the next five years. YVP Vol. 1A at 2-11. In addition, the Plan states that the 1997 floods require a decrease in the amount of overnight accommodation from the level anticipated in the 1980 GMP, particularly those accommodations historically located in flood plain areas. 1980 GMP at 15 with YVP Vol. 1A at 2-10. Thus, in acknowledging the potential for change after future study, the NPS suggests that the scope of the decision that levels of service, or general land use allocation, that will be further analyzed and refined as specific development projects are evaluated. As this additional analysis is conducted, a broader range of alternative–such as not rebuilding the Lodge, rebuilding in the form of lower-cost units, rebuilding a smaller number of units, removing some units, using the area for other housing related activities - would be examined, providing a clearer basis for choice among the options. Thus, because it is not clear from the draft Plan whether the NPS intends to conduct additional site-specific analysis of a broader range of alternatives as further information becomes available and as ‘second-tier’ environmental review is conducted for specific projects, it is likewise unclear exactly what decision the NPS believes it can make on the basis of this Plan. This lack of clarity makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the public to determine whether the Plan considers a broad enough range of alternatives under NEPA." (California Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA - #5430)

Response: The range of alternatives presented in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS is based upon the Purpose and Need as presented in Chapter 1 of the document. The Purpose and Need is based upon achieving the five broad goals of the 1980 General Management Plan, and includes a set of criteria for meeting the goals of the GMP. The action alternatives have been developed based upon the extent to which they meet and integrate, as appropriate, these criteria. Consistent with Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA, the alternatives present a reasonable range of distinct choices in how best to meet the plan’s goals. NEPA does not require agencies to present alternatives that are merely permutations of one idea or approach. The discussion of the process utilized by the National Park Service to develop a reasonable range of alternatives has been expanded in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS (see Chapter 2, Alternatives).

The National Park Service disagrees that planning for lodging numbers in the Valley has been based solely on the numbers presented in the General Management Plan and Concession Services Plan. These numbers have been used as overall guidance in developing proposals for numbers and types of lodging under the various alternatives, but have been adjusted based on current conditions, public comment, and the overall goals of this plan. In addition, the National Park Service has made revisions in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS that address the commentor’s concerns regarding the range of alternatives in the plan with respect to lodging. For example, the National Park Service has made minor revisions to the proposed action that include replacing damaged Yosemite Lodge units with lower cost cabin accommodations. In addition, additional tent cabins have been retained at Curry Village relative to the numbers proposed in the draft plan. These modifications expand the range of alternatives relative to future treatment of Yosemite Lodge and Curry Village. Please refer to Chapter 2, Alternatives in the final document for the adjustments made to the project alternatives.

The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS includes additional information regarding phasing and sequencing of the Preferred Alternative (see Appendix M). The Introduction of Chapter 1, Purpose and Need also includes additional discussion and commitments relating to the need for additional site-specific planning, design, and compliance activities. For example, an appropriate level of National Environmental Policy Act compliance would be conducted for future site-specific planning and design activities associated with development at El Portal, including opportunities for public involvement.

The Yosemite Valley Plan is based upon the best available information. At this time, the National Park Service does not anticipate making changes to the actions presented in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS during subsequent site-specific planning, design, and tiered compliance activities. However, should new data become available, the National Park Service would take this information into account in determining whether the project could go forward as per the Yosemite Valley Plan or whether additional compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (e.g., a supplemental environmental impact statement) would be necessary.

345. Public Concern: The National Park Service should improve its analysis of alternatives for the Yosemite Valley Plan.

"Despite the Plan’s length, the rationales for many of its underlying premises are left unclear, seemingly fruitful options are neglected, not all the major impacts are analyzed, and some of the analyses are superficial. Moreover, most alternatives include some odd relicts that seem inconsistent with their dominant theme; a most egregious example is the Camp 6 parking lot, clearly within the floodplain, an eyesore from both rims, and located astride the finest wildlife and pedestrian corridors through the Valley." (Individual, Oakland, CA - #3835)

Response: Although a portion of the Camp 6 (Yosemite Village) day-visitor parking area, as proposed in Alternative 2, would be situated in the floodplain, effects on the floodplain are anticipated to be minor. No overnight parking or accommodations would be present at the site, thereby minimizing the risk to human life and property from the effects of flood events. Day-visitor parking currently occupies a portion of the Camp 6 site.

Both the Draft and Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS have undergone thorough and comprehensive impacts and analysis and disclose the adverse effects to scenic resources associated with implementation of the Camp 6 parking facility. The Camp 6 facility would be visible from some viewpoints in the Valley, including Upper Yosemite Fall and Glacier Point. The current parking facility at Camp 6 is already visible from Glacier Point. Although new development would occur in the Valley, much of this development would be adjacent to existing developed areas already modified by facilities and human activity. Overall, however, there would be a substantial net decrease in acres of development in Yosemite Valley under the Preferred Alternative caused by the restoration of natural areas, thereby improving scenic quality from a number of vantage points. Despite the adverse effects associated with the Camp 6 parking area, the amount of overall visual intrusion into Yosemite Valley scenery would be reduced.

As described in Vol. IB, Chapter 4 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, some adverse impacts to wildlife would occur should a transit facility be implemented at Camp 6. However, the portion of the Camp 6 site located within the River Protection Overlay would be restored, helping to provide improved wildlife diversity and abundance. Overall, impacts to wildlife from implementation of the Preferred Alternative would be beneficial, largely because of the restoration of substantial areas of highly valued resource habitat within the Valley.

As noted in the comment, it is important to recognize and disclose the impacts of individual actions proposed in each of the alternatives, such as the Camp 6 parking area under Alternative 2. However, given the complexity of each alternative, the effect of all actions comprising the alternative must be weighed together in a holistic manner to give an accurate picture of the overall effect of the alternative on a particular resource. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS (Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences) provides impact analyses from both perspectives.

438. Public Concern: The National Park Service should clarify the role of alternatives in the Yosemite Valley Plan decision process.

"When the record of decision is made, will it be one of the alternatives 1-5 as presented in the Draft YVP-SEIS exactly as the alternative is presented or will it possibly be a combination of plan elements chosen from amongst the 5 alternatives?" (Individual, No Address - #3441)

Response: Typically, the decision maker will select one of the alternatives as presented in the final environmental impact statement, with the decision documented in a Record of Decision. However, the decision maker may choose to modify certain elements of the selected alternative or substitute actions from another alternative. In order for this to occur without reanalysis of the alternative and redistribution of the document to the public for comment, the impacts of this "modified" Preferred Alternative must have been addressed in the final environmental impact statement, including any interrelationships between the various elements or actions of the alternative. The National Park Service will ensure that this process is followed consistent with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as amended, Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing NEPA, and National Park Service NEPA Guidance (NPS-12).

Section 3.2 ~ New Alternatives

Rather than suggesting specific changes to the development of alternatives or the alternatives themselves, a few respondents propose completely new alternatives. Four different proposals are offered for consideration: a five-year interim plan, an auto-touring alternative, a "sixth" alternative, and the Operation Traffic Sweep proposal.

349. Public Concern: The National Park Service should adopt a five-year interim plan for Yosemite Valley.

"The Madera County Board of Supervisors suggests a five-year interim plan for Yosemite Valley to address issues of immediate concern. During this interim period, preparation and planning for a well-researched and fully-informed comprehensive Draft Yosemite Valley Plan can be conducted. Such a Plan will encompass broad-based public involvement and will be presented in its entirety with all projects detailed within its context. Recommendations during the interim include: Replace aging in-Valley diesel shuttle fleet with non-diesel vehicles immediately; Expand in-Valley shuttle route to include Bridalveil Fall and Four Mile Trail; Implement aggressive ‘Ride the Shuttle’ campaign; would include restricting overnight visitors to assigned parking, requiring YCS/NPS employees to ‘bus’ to work, informing day visitors to leave vehicle parked until such time as they are ready to leave the Valley; Explore creation of traffic management working group that includes shuttle bus drivers, patrol rangers, gate fee personnel, road maintenance, and other employees who have experience working directly with visitors ‘on the ground’; Resolve deplorable employee housing situation by working directly with employees (e.g., fewer services means need for fewer employees; opportunities for shift consolidation; transportation options, etc.). Remove trailer/cabins from parking areas; Enforce Mariposa Grove recreational vehicle length restrictions of 23 feet park wide (under premise that vehicles must be able to fit into one parking space). No generators to be used in the Valley from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m.; Increase ranger presence (or volunteer host/intern) at areas needing more supervision (e.g., Swinging Bridge, etc.); Retain existing lodging (no new units) during interim period; Retain current mix of campgrounds, striving to increase number to pre-flood levels during interim period. Create ‘Camping Advisory Council’ to include members of the camping public, environmentalists, as well as park personnel to work toward resolution of issues of concern to campers." (Madera County Board of Supervisors, Madera, CA - #4284)

Response: As stated in Vol. IA, Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS consolidates planning efforts initiated to implement aspects of the 1980 General Management Plan into a single, comprehensive approach. This comprehensive approach will ensure that all actions implemented would be consistent with obtaining the five goals of the General Management Plan and are not fragmented. Both short-term and long-term implementation actions are included in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, and the environmental consequences of all the actions have been evaluated comprehensively. Implementation of an interim plan would not offer the advantages of a comprehensive plan completed to achieve the goals of the General Management Plan. The Sequencing Plan presented in Vol. II, Appendix M of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS outlines the sequences of actions to be implemented both short-term and through full implementation.

434. Public Concern: The Yosemite Valley Plan should include an auto-touring alternative.

"The YVP is being guided by five goals contained in the 1980 GMP. Those goals are to reclaim priceless natural beauty, allow natural processes to prevail, promote visitor understanding and enjoyment, markedly reduce traffic congestion and reduce crowding. With the notable exception of the no action alternative, the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan’s preferred and subsequent alternatives contain traffic management conditions designed to limit private automobile accessibility to the Park as a means to achieve two-decade-old goals of the GMP. None of the proposals offered in the YVP indicate a study of auto touring as a viable alternative was considered. Despite concluding that newer automobiles emit substantially less pollutants than their 20 year old predecessors, and acknowledging that if the no action alternative was implemented better air quality would be achieved, any auto touring option has been deemed as inappropriate and nonbeneficial. Modern day traffic management and traffic calming techniques have evolved since the 1980 GMP, which combined with recent and future vehicle emission improvements make the GMP obsolete. An auto touring alternative that embraces the most recent traffic management, traffic calming, Air Resources Board vehicle emissions policies and crowd control techniques is at the very minimum a reasonable alternative to be considered." (Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors, Sonora, CA - #4436)

Response: Although the five broad goals of the 1980 General Management Plan are two decades old, the National Park Service believes these goals to be valid and applicable to the Valley today. Under the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, auto touring would continue to be available as a visitor activity throughout Yosemite National Park, with the exception of the portion of Yosemite Valley east of El Capitan Crossover. Roadside parking areas would be retained throughout the park including areas in the west Valley such as Southside Drive in the Bridalveil Fall area and Valley View to allow visitor access by automobile. There would be no limit placed on the number of visitors who could see Yosemite by auto touring, including the ability to drive through the park from one entrance to another.

An alternative emphasizing auto touring in areas east of El Capitan Crossover was considered but dismissed. Traffic congestion and crowding in the east end of Yosemite Valley would not be markedly reduced merely by implementation of modern traffic management and calming measures. Beginning during the summer of 1999, the National Park Service implemented its Traffic Management Program to help relieve traffic congestion during the peak summer season. Although this program has resulted in substantial improvements to traffic conditions, the parking facilities in the east Valley remain unable to accommodate visitor demand. Comparisons between peak summer season traffic counts and parking inventories (which include turnouts) indicate a shortage of up to 775 parking spaces in the East Valley. To realize the goals of the 1980 General Management Plan the park needs to implement transportation systems that meet visitor needs throughout the year. In order to accommodate auto touring based upon existing peak season visitor demand, the National Park Service would have to construct extensive new parking lots, turnouts, and roads so that vehicles could tour and park without creating traffic congestion. The resource impacts of constructing these new facilities would be unacceptable and inconsistent with the Purpose and Need and goals of the Yosemite Valley Plan, including the five broad goals of the 1980 General Management Plan (see Chapter 1, Purpose and Need in the Final Yosemite Valley/SEIS). The National Park Service is proposing to restore natural conditions rather than develop extensive new facilities for automobiles. Consequently, an auto-touring alternative would not adequately achieve other General Management Plan goals such as reclaiming priceless natural beauty and allowing natural processes to prevail.

329. Public Concern: The National Park Service should consider a sixth alternative for the Yosemite Valley Plan.

"I propose Alternative #6 and ask that you give consideration to the merits of this alternative. Build a parking facility at Taft Toe large enough to accommodate all day-use parked vehicles based on anticipated highest-use level; Expand shuttle bus route to provide frequent service to El Capitan Bridge (or possibly Pohono Bridge) and serve the Taft Toe parking facility. Shuttle buses would need to stop at all tourist spots. Consideration should also be given to optional drop off/pick-up points for hikers; Eliminate all off-road parking throughout the Valley except in designated areas; Eliminate the Village Grocery Store and instead construct mini satellite stores in each of the campgrounds; Leave balance of Village, including Visitor Center, as is; Eliminate all parking at the Village, except for handicapped parking; Retain all bridges; Eliminate Housekeeping Units and revamp to a regular campground; Do not construct additional campgrounds, either car camping, walk-in or walk-to; Retain North Pines Campground; Re-open at least parts of Upper and Lower River Campgrounds for use in summer months only; Eliminate stables and horseback riding, allowing access only for those stock animals needed for the high country; Leave Northside and Southside Drives as they are currently designed; Develop more bicycle and walking paths." (Individual, San Leandro, CA - #3133)

Response: The sixth alternative, proposed in a public comment, includes many actions that are included within the range of alternatives (Alternatives 1 through 5) in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, such as a parking facility at Taft Toe, no parking at Yosemite Village, and retaining all bridges. There are numerous options for each subject area, and many potential ways to package them into alternatives. However, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has indicated that only a "reasonable number of examples covering the full spectrum of alternatives must be analyzed and compared." Please refer to the Introduction to Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS for additional discussion regarding developing a range of alternatives.

756. Public Concern: The National Park Service should consider the Operation Traffic Sweep proposal.

"The cornerstone of this plan focuses on the controlling of traffic, which is probably the single most critical problem facing Yosemite Valley today. This plan meets one of the key goals of the 1980 General Management Plan, ‘to reduce traffic congestion.’ This plan is based on the concept that, often, objectives can be accomplished with highly creative and imaginative, if not unorthodox, yet inexpensive, ideas, such as opening up the Valley west end to RV type ‘campers.’ The first eight chapters of this plan address the ‘traffic congestion’ problem and should be considered as a package. It is possible that if the traffic congestion problems are addressed along the lines outlined in this plan, the resultant improvements might cause some of the other problems and alternatives covered in the draft YVP/SEIS to be viewed in a different light. . . My plan’s ideas for traffic control are simple, logical, cost effective (proposed costs are negligible) and can be implemented immediately with minimum planning and preparation. This proposal can be read in about 30 minutes so I humbly ask that you take the time to read it, and I hope you will be pleasantly surprised." (Individual, American Canyon, CA - #907)

Response: The full range of impacts of the alternatives presented in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS was considered in the selection of the Preferred Alternative. Consequences considered included natural and cultural resources, visitor experience, social and economic impacts, safety, transportation, and park operations. In order to provide a diversity of experiences for visitors, the Preferred Alternative offers a range of accommodations for transportation access, lodging, camping, and recreational activities.

For travel, the Preferred Alternative provides a variety of ways to access each area of the Valley, although not all areas have the same type of access. Southside Drive will be accessible by automobile and shuttle bus, and portions of Northside Drive will only be accessible by nonmotorized means. Under the Preferred Alternative, total vehicle miles of travel would be reduced compared to the No Action Alternative. With the overall reductions in parking and resulting reductions in traffic, Southside Drive will be able to safely accommodate two-way traffic (see Vol. IB, Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences). Additionally, the Preferred Alternative proposes to widen the travel lanes and shoulders on Southside Drive to better accommodate two-way traffic. With the proposed reductions in vehicular traffic, re-establishing the road across Ahwahnee and Sugar Pine Bridges would not be necessary. The Sugar Pine Bridge would be removed under the Preferred Alternative, making such a road connection infeasible.
(For more information on roadways in the Valley, see responses to concerns #29 and #80.)

During the development of the Yosemite Valley Plan, the density of overnight accommodations (including lodging and campground units) was considered in terms of visitor experience and impacts to resources. The Preferred Alternative provides a variety of types of overnight accommodations, each located to minimize impacts to resources while providing a quality experience. This variety of overnight accommodations would provide visitors with a range to choose from to accommodate their needs.
(For more information on the number and design of lodging units in the Valley, see responses to concerns #71, #72, #73, #119, #120, #163, #339, #459, #617, #622, #624, and #691.)

The closure of one lane of traffic to vehicles for pedestrian traffic was evaluated in Alternative 5, but this is not part of the Preferred Alternative. Although the development of the Taft Toe area was evaluated in Alternatives 3 and 4, development at Taft Toe was also not included in the Preferred Alternative. The improvement of Curry Orchard as a day visitor parking area was evaluated under Alternative 5, however, the Merced River Plan/FEIS did not zone this area for day-visitor parking.
(For more information regarding the amount and location of parking in the Valley, see responses to concerns #2, #61, #121, #122, #130, #242, and #334.)

The implementation of a color-coded pass system for vehicles is an operational issue that is beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The Yosemite Valley Plan, however, does propose the implementation of a traveler information and traffic management system that would be developed with extensive public involvement after completion of the Yosemite Valley Plan. This system would manage the number of vehicles in Yosemite Valley and, potentially, the park so as not to exceed the capacity of parking areas and roads. This system may consider ways to manage traffic, including options for better identifying and matching vehicles to parking spaces. The traveler information and traffic management system would also take into consideration the seasonality of visitation. The pass system described in Operation Traffic Sweep would be considered in the planning process for the traveler information and traffic management system. Parking and other traffic management enforcement is also an operational issue that is beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

The Preferred Alternative proposes to extend the Yosemite Valley shuttle system Valley-wide as well as to provide shuttle service from the out-of-Valley parking areas (Badger Pass, El Portal, and Hazel Green or Foresta) to the Valley. The operations of shuttles to Glacier Point, Wawona, and Tuolumne Meadows are beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

The park is in the process of replacing the current shuttle fleet. For this replacement, as well as for vehicles used in the implementing the Yosemite Valley Plan, the park will deploy newer, cleaner bus technologies. Over the long term, even the implementation of diesel technology will result in reduced vehicle emissions (see Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences). Regulating emissions from tour buses and commercial supply trucks is a policy issue that is beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan.
(For more information regarding the selection of buses for operation on shuttle routes and the air quality effects of transportation, see responses to concerns #75, #92, #197, #1042, #1044, #1045, and #1046.)

Outside of the highly valued resource areas, River Protection Overlay, floodplains, and rockfall and debris flow zones, there is a relatively small amount of space in the Valley suitable for development. If most of the employees who worked in the Valley lived in the Valley, there would not be enough space for visitor accommodations. To provide enough space for visitor accommodations, the Yosemite Valley Plan proposes to house most employees outside of the Valley except for those employees necessary to handle emergency functions and to run one shift of visitor services. Employees needed to handle emergency functions do not include the National Park Service and Concessioner headquarters and administrative offices. In the Preferred Alternative, these functions would be relocated out of the Valley to provide space for visitor accommodations and visitor services development.
(For more information regarding employee housing and administrative activities, see responses to concerns #338, #340, #394, #702, #1094, #1163, and #1164.)

Consideration of a daycare camp operated by the concessioner is beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

The Preferred Alternative proposes the relocation of the Superintendent’s House (Residence 1) because of its presence in the floodplain and its impacts on natural resources. The consequences of relocating this structure are described in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences.

Also part of the Yosemite Valley Plan is the development of an employee transportation program that will evaluate safe, efficient, traffic-reducing transportation options for employees commuting to work, especially those employees who reside along the Highway 140 corridor, including El Portal.

Because of Merced River Plan/FEIS management zoning and highly valued resources, the area that contained the former Upper and Lower River Campgrounds is not considered appropriate for development as a day-visitor parking area or as a location for the rafting concession. This area would be restored to its natural condition. (Additional information on rafting can be found in the response to concerns #154 and #520.)

Alternatives 3 and 4 of the Yosemite Valley Plan evaluate development in the west Valley at Taft Toe. The new impacts to ecological and cultural resources in the west Valley are evaluated in Chapter 4 (see Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences).

Under the Preferred Alternative, prior to construction activities, Yosemite Village and Curry Village would undergo site-design processes. Transportation circulation in these areas would be designed to minimize conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. This includes rerouting roadways along the perimeter of pedestrian areas so that pedestrians do not have to cross busy roadways to get to activity areas. The reductions in vehicle traffic proposed by the Yosemite Valley Plan would ensure that traffic volumes are lower than present, making the Valley more pedestrian friendly.

In the Preferred Alternative, several bridges that impede the natural flow of the river would be evaluated and possibly removed. The impacts of these bridges on the natural environment can be found in Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. The National Park Service would complete required historical documentation and follow all compliance regulations prior to removing bridges. (For more information regarding bridges and their effects on the Merced River, see responses to concerns #11, #352, #426, #1124, and #1125.)

In the Preferred Alternative, a grocery store would be developed at Curry Village rather than in the campgrounds themselves in order to consolidate high-use functions. The sale of firewood is beyond the scope of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The management of fires and fuel will be addressed in the update to the Fire Management Plan.

There is no evidence that bears are more prevalent at the former Curry Dump site than elsewhere in the Valley. There is also no evidence that the location of a stable in this site would pose a safety hazard.

Providing a gas station in the Valley was analyzed as part of Alternative 5, but this action was not included in the Preferred Alternative.

Section 3.3 ~ Proposed Alternatives

Public comment regarding the proposed alternatives generally falls into three categories: support for a given alternative, requests for modification of a given alternative, or opposition to a given alternative. Although respondents offer myriad reasons for supporting or opposing specific alternatives, they generally focus on solutions to the challenge of balancing resource protection and visitor experience. Many people’s support of or opposition to a given alternative is largely influenced by the degree to which the alternative promotes resource protection, retains camp sites, and restricts parking and personal vehicle access. The reader should note that public concerns addressing alternatives with respect to specific resource areas are included in the appropriate resource area sections of this analysis document.

Alternative 1

10. Public Concern: The National Park Service should select the No Action Alternative of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

"I have reviewed the draft documents for the Yosemite Valley Plan, and am appalled. I had no idea you folks were contemplating such enormous expenditures, in excess of $300 million for every alternative except the ‘No Action,’ to accomplish very little except to make it harder to visit the park. Yosemite is, in fact, in quite good shape, offers wonderful experiences for its visitors, and needs only reasonable facilities maintenance. The Park Service has consistently exaggerated the congestion problems, and is now proposing to expend an enormous amount of money in pursuit of an abstract idea that natural conditions will somehow be improved thereby. Fewer people will be able to stay in the Valley, and more people will take a bus ride and go away. Perhaps that is the result you seek. I say leave it alone. I prefer Alternative 1, No Action." (Individual, Woodland, CA - #19)

"After spending considerable time reviewing your alternatives, unfortunately I have concluded that I would opt for plan 1, the status quo, because I do not like the draconian removal measures found in the other plans. Specifically I am opposed to the removal of: North Pines Campground, any of the beautiful historic bridges, the historic Superintendent’s house, and the deletion of the commercial trail rides." (Individual, No Address - #378)

"Alternative 1 is the only alternative that leaves access to the park to all Americans. It does not limit access to the wealthy. It grants access to the park on a first come first serve basis." (Individual, No Address - #415)

Response: The National Park Service has thoroughly evaluated and analyzed the No Action Alternative along with the four action alternatives in both the Draft and Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. As a result of this evaluation and analysis, the National Park Service has determined that the No Action Alternative would not implement the guidance and direction provided in the Merced River Plan/FEIS and would not help to achieve the broad goals of the 1980 General Management Plan to reclaim natural beauty, allow natural processes to prevail, promote visitor understanding and enjoyment, markedly reduce traffic congestion, and reduce crowding.

372. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not select the No Action Alternative of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

"Alternative 1 is definitely out. To save this valley we love to death many changes must come about. The preservation of the valley must take precedence over individual wants. Overheard 2 people: One felt she had a right to drive her car into the valley since it was her car and she can’t stand buses. Another person, an employee in the valley, felt it unfair to move residences out of the park, he came to work in the park and live there. Ridiculous: for the health of the valley, we cannot continue to drive so many cars in, nor can we all live there!" (Individual, Cambria, CA - #1482)

Response: Inclusion of a No Action Alternative in an environmental impact statement is a requirement of Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. The No Action Alternative serves as a baseline from which to compare the impacts of the action alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 in the Yosemite Valley Plan).

Although fulfilling the role of comparative baseline, the No Action Alternative is a legitimate alternative that could be selected. However, as discussed in Vol. IB, Chapter 4 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, implementation of the No Action Alternative would allow a number of current adverse impacts such as traffic congestion and resource degradation to continue in the future. For some impacts, such as widening the Merced River channel and the accelerated loss of wet meadow communities, impacts would not only continue but would likely worsen over time.

Alternative 2

2. Public Concern: The National Park Service should implement Alternative 2 of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

"Congratulations on taking a big step forward with Preferred Alternative 2. Among the most appealing features is the transportation and parking area near Yosemite Village. The location will allow day visitors easy access to many of the prime attractions within easy walking distance. Restoration of valley habitats seems to strike a good balance. Moving almost half of employee housing and NPS and concessioner headquarters makes it clear that sacrifices in convenience are being made by all, not only the general public." (Individual, San Francisco, CA - #131)

"Alternative 2 is an inspiration! Thank you for your hopes to restore significant areas of meadowland, remove roads, provide vehicle-free zones, find a balance between environmental protection and all uses, and between scales of lodging, RV camping, and walk-in camping. Thank you for protecting Camp 4 and looking for balanced solutions to parking, transportations, and employee housing issues. I feel Alternative 2 is well done, and I support it. Thanks for the good work you are doing for Yosemite, and all of us." (Individual, Oakdale, CA - #215)

Response: Comments supporting the Preferred Alternative are acknowledged. The National Park Service appreciates commentors’ interest in the future of Yosemite Valley.

61. Public Concern: The National Park Service should modify Alternative 2 of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

"I. . . analyze and evaluate the Yosemite Valley Plan. . . in terms of these five goals and also the following principles, which are at the level of the ‘guidance criteria’. . . No detracting development. To repeat text from Olmsted, we should oppose ‘all constructions markedly inharmonious with the scenery or which would unnecessarily obscure, distort or detract from the dignity of the scenery.’ An undisturbed natural area is preferable to a restored one. Every restoration biologist I know agrees with this principle. . . Restrict development to the eastern Valley. It is a long-established principle that development on the Valley floor should be restricted to the eastern (upper) Valley. . . Wide range of accommodations. According to the November 1999 Yosemite Planning Update, "Visitors believe it is important to be able to spend the night in Yosemite Valley and a range of accommodations is needed." I concur with this as an important principle. The multiplier effect. . . if you can eliminate a feature, then you can also eliminate the infrastructure needed to support that feature, and the infrastructure needed to support that eliminated infrastructure, etc. . . Consistency and Balance. . . Alternative 2 has many attractive features. Although flawed in detail as presented in the YVP, it is the basis for a viable Valley plan. . . but there are additional opportunities for removing development from the Valley that would improve both natural resource protection and the visitor experience." (Individual, Oberlin, OH - # 580)

"My specific recommendations regarding implementation of Alternative 2 are (1) Remove none of the bridges targeted for destruction. (2) Leave 1000 parking spaces in the Valley - divided between the Village area and the Camp Curry area. Limit the out of Valley parking to about 200 at each of the three proposed sites. Turn away all vehicles whenever gridlock is imminent." (Individual, Riverside, CA - #121)

"Overall, the NPS preferred alternative has some good points, but causes year-round problems that it will not be able to resolve. I do not see the preferred bus plan as the best solution for traffic problems. In general, I am leery of the forced diesel busing plans, excessive reduction in parking, and any reduction in campsites. It is quite unfriendly and inflexible. Basically I think the busing plan should be cut in half, so only half as many out of valley parking spaces and bus runs are needed. More day parking and campsites are needed." (Individual, San Diego, CA - #3479)

Response: This concern is acknowledged; however, increasing the parking for day visitors to 1,000 spaces would result in increased congestion on Southside Drive if Northside Drive were closed. If Northside Drive were to remain open to vehicle traffic, the benefits to the visitor experience from creating a multi-use paved path along a significant length of the Merced River free from vehicle traffic would be lost. Leaving all bridges over the Merced River would hamper efforts to restore natural processes and would continue undesirable effects to highly valued resources. Because of these factors, the benefits of the changes proposed in Alternative 2 (the Preferred Alternative) could not be realized.

More out-of-Valley parking would be needed in the Big Oak Flat Road corridor than the Wawona Road or Arch Rock Entrance Road corridors because a higher share of visitors approach the Valley along this route.

Each of the four action alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS propose the implementation of a traveler information and traffic management system that would manage the number of vehicles in Yosemite Valley and, potentially, the rest of the park, to stay within the capacity of the roadways and parking areas. This system would be designed to improve visitor experience and safety, reduce congestion, and protect natural and cultural resources. A discussion of the traveler information and traffic management system is discussed in more detail in Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Actions Common to All Alternatives.

62. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not select Alternative 2 of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

"I am totally opposed to Alternative #2. You label it the Preferred Alternative. Preferred by whom? I am sure it is preferred by bikers, backpackers and government workers." (Individual, Capitola, CA - #165)

"I am frankly baffled that anyone who claims to care about the environment would propose a traffic plan such as Plan 2. If such a plan is instituted I will not hesitate to share my outrage with every politician who might be able to do anything to stop such a plan. Yosemite Valley is a sacred place and it deserves to be treated with more thoughtfulness than was expressed by the creators of Plan 2." (Individual, Santa Rosa, CA - #9014)

Response: At the time of the release of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, Alternative 2 was designated the Preferred Alternative by Yosemite National Park management staff. The selection was made by analyzing which of the various alternatives best met the criteria described in Vol. IA, Chapter 1, Direction for This Planning Effort. This was to be a provisional designation, however, as the Preferred Alternative in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS can only be decided as a result of processing comments received from the public and consultation with other agencies.

Alternative 3

121. Public Concern: The National Park Service should select Alternative 3 of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

"I would like to support Alternative 3 of the Yosemite Valley Plan. I have looked over Taft Toe several times and feel that the reduction of the environmental quality of that area would be minuscule compared to the immense benefit to Upper Yosemite Valley, where almost all Yosemite Visitors spend most of their time in the park." (Individual, San Diego, CA - #488)

Response: The National Park Service has evaluated and analyzed Alternative 3 along with the other three action alternatives and the No Action Alternative in both the Draft and Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. As a result of this thorough evaluation and analysis, Alternative 2, as modified in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for future management and development in Yosemite Valley. Refer to the Introduction in Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, for a discussion of the identification of the Preferred Alternative.

334. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not select Alternative 3 of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

"I believe all the other alternatives are inferior to #2. Of the others, I particularly object to Alternative #3, ‘Taft Toe.’ To construct a huge, 1600 car parking lot at Taft Toe would be a big step in the wrong direction." (Individual, Simi Valley, CA - #1488)

Response: Alternative 3 is a feasible approach for meeting the goals and accomplishing the purpose and need of the Yosemite Valley Plan. After a detailed evaluation of all of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS alternatives, the National Park Service has identified Alternative 2 as the agency’s Preferred Alternative. The National Park Service believes Alternative 2, as modified in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, would provide the best approach to preserving the resources that contribute to the splendor of Yosemite Valley, as well as making those resources available to the public. Refer to the Introduction in Vol. IA, Chapter 2 for additional discussion regarding identification of the Preferred Alternative.

Alternative 4

122. Public Concern: The National Park Service should select Alternative 4 of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

"I have spent several days reviewing the recent Draft Yosemite Valley Plan and would like to reiterate my concerns over your preferred alternative and stress that you reconsider Alternative 4 as the option that better serves the NPS, the Park itself, and the public." (Individual, Eugene, OR - #326)

Response: The National Park Service has evaluated and analyzed Alternative 4 along with the other three action alternatives and the No Action Alternative in both the Draft and Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. As a result of this evaluation and analysis, the National Park Service has identified Alternative 2, as modified in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, as the Preferred Alternative that would best achieve the broad goals of the 1980 General Management Plan to reclaim natural beauty, allow natural processes to prevail, promote visitor understanding and enjoyment, markedly reduce traffic congestion, and reduce crowding. Refer to the Introduction to Vol. IA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, for information regarding identification of the Preferred Alternative.

416. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not select Alternative 4 of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

"I am very much opposed to Alternative Four because I think we destroy the West Valley, and we inconvenience visitors completely. So I don’t think Alternative Four should be considered any further." (Public Hearing, Fresno, CA - #20489)

Response: Alternative 4 is a feasible approach for meeting the goals and accomplishing the purpose and need of the Yosemite Valley Plan. After a detailed evaluation of all of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS alternatives, the National Park Service has identified Alternative 2 as the agency’s Preferred Alternative. The National Park Service believes Alternative 2, as modified in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, would provide the best approach to preserving the resources that contribute to the splendor of Yosemite Valley, as well as making those resources available to the public. Refer to the Introduction in Vol. IA, Chapter 2 for additional discussion regarding identification of the Preferred Alternative.

Alternative 5

720. Public Concern: The National Park Service should select Alternative 5 of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

"We prefer Alternative 5." (Individual, Novato, CA - #2296)

"Please consider how much better Alternative 5 is than 2, for saving campsites and housekeeping cabins, and bridges as well. Let’s keep Yosemite family-friendly and keep crossing the river a viable activity." (Individual, No Address - #1228)

"We evaluated your 5 proposals and #5 would be the best compromise for all involved. Plans 2, 3, & 4 seem to restrict in the extreme. Balance, not limitation should be the goal. Most of the families and individuals that come to the park, park their vehicles and hike, bike, or use valley transportation. The use of huge tour buses, I would wager, pollute far more than the family vehicles. It’s important to keep things in perspective. We hope that plan 5 will be your final choice, it is by far the wisest." (Individual, San Diego, CA - #4345)

Response: Alternative 5 is a feasible approach for meeting the goals and accomplishing the purpose and need of the Yosemite Valley Plan. After a detailed evaluation of all of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS alternatives, the National Park Service has identified Alternative 2 as the agency’s Preferred Alternative. The National Park Service believes Alternative 2, as modified in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, would provide the best approach to preserving the resources that contribute to the splendor of Yosemite Valley, as well as making those resources available to the public. Refer to the Introduction in Vol. IA, Chapter 2 for additional discussion regarding identification of the Preferred Alternative.

63. Public Concern: The National Park Service should modify Alternative 5 of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

"I only support Alternative #5. I urge you to rebuild some campgrounds and rebuild a substantial part of Camp Curry Housekeeping. Keep Northside Drive as it is and keep Southside Drive as it is. Please do not destroy any bridges." (Individual, Capitola, CA - #165)

Response: The National Park Service has evaluated and analyzed Alternative 5 along with the other three action alternatives and the No Action Alternative in both the Draft and Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. As a result of this thorough evaluation and analysis, the National Park Service has identified that Alternative 2, as modified in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, as the Preferred Alternative that would best achieve the broad goals of the 1980 General Management Plan to reclaim natural beauty, allow natural processes to prevail, promote visitor understanding and enjoyment, markedly reduce traffic congestion, and reduce crowding.

However, the National Park Service has revised elements of the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) to address Housekeeping Camp, Curry Village, and removal of bridges. Refer to the description of Alternative 2 in Vol. IA, Chapter 2 of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

390. Public Concern: The National Park Service should not select Alternative 5 of the Yosemite Valley Plan.

"Alternative 5 seems to emphasize the visitor’s experience to the Valley at the expense of the environment. I am opposed to this management approach. This is similar to the approach that has been used until now and has proven itself unsuccessful by the current degraded status of the Valley. This approach will further damage the qualities of the valley that so many people visit Yosemite to experience. I understand that many people who visit the valley don’t want to have to ‘rough it’ (you know, travel more than 200 feet from their car for any length of time), and they don’t want their access to be limited at all, but those are both necessary for a better quality visitor experience and for the health of the Park." (Individual, Columbia, CA - #4235)

Response: Alternative 5 is a feasible approach for meeting the goals and accomplishing the purpose and need of the Yosemite Valley Plan. After a detailed evaluation of all of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS alternatives, the National Park Service has identified Alternative 2 as the agency’s Preferred Alternative. The National Park Service believes Alternative 2, as modified in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, provides the best approach to preserving the resources that contribute to the splendor of Yosemite Valley and making those resources available to the public. Please refer to the Introduction in Vol. IA, Chapter 2 for additional discussion regarding identification of the Preferred Alternative.