Volume IA | Table of Contents | Abstract | Executive Summary | Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3 |
| Introduction | Alternative 1 | Alternative 2 | Alternative 3 | Alternative 4 | Alternative 5 | Mitigation |

CHAPTER 2

MITIGATION MEASURES COMMON TO
ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

To ensure that implementation of the action alternatives protects natural and cultural resources and the quality of the visitor experience, a consistent set of mitigation measures would be applied to actions that result from this plan. These mitigation measures would also be applied to future actions that are guided by this plan. The National Park Service would prepare appropriate environmental review (i.e., those required by the National Environmental Policy Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and other relevant legislation) for these future actions. As part of the environmental review, the National Park Service would avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts when practicable.

Best Management Practices During Construction

The following Best Management Practices would be implemented, as appropriate, prior to, during, and/or after specific construction (for the purposes of this discussion, construction includes major repair and/or rehabilitation, demolition, deconstruction, reconstruction, restoration, etc.). Specific tasks would include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • Implement a compliance-monitoring program in order to stay within the parameters of National Environmental Policy Act and National Historic Preservation Act compliance documents, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permits, etc. The compliance-monitoring program would oversee these mitigation measures and would include reporting protocols.
  • Implement a natural resource protection program. Standard measures could include construction scheduling, biological monitoring, erosion and sediment control, use of fencing or other means to protect sensitive resources adjacent to construction, removal of all food-related items or rubbish to bear-proof containers, topsoil salvage, and revegetation. The program could include specific construction monitoring by resource specialists as well as treatment and reporting procedures.
  • Implement a cultural resource protection program. Standard measures could include consideration of adaptive reuse, relocation, and salvage of historic building materials; archeological monitoring during ground-disturbing activities (in keeping with the 1999 Programmatic Agreement); use of fencing or other means to protect sensitive resources adjacent to construction; and preparation of a discovery plan to handle unanticipated exposure of buried human remains. The program could include specific construction monitoring by resource specialists and culturally associated Indian people, as well as treatment and reporting procedures.
  • Implement a traffic control plan, as warranted. Standard measures include strategies to maintain safe and efficient traffic flow during the construction period.
  • Implement a dust abatement program. Standard dust abatement measures could include the following elements: water or otherwise stabilize soils, cover haul trucks, employ speed limits on unpaved roads, minimize vegetation clearing, and revegetate post-construction.
  • Implement standard noise abatement measures during construction. Standard noise abatement measures could include the following elements: a schedule that minimizes impacts to adjacent noise-sensitive uses, use of the best-available noise control techniques wherever feasible, use of hydraulically or electrically powered impact tools when feasible, and location of stationary noise sources as far from sensitive uses as possible.
  • Implement a noxious weed abatement program. Standard measures could include the following elements: ensure construction-related equipment arrives on site free of mud or seed-bearing material, certify all seeds and straw material as weed-free, identify areas of noxious weeds pre-construction, treat noxious weeds or noxious weed topsoil prior to construction (e.g., topsoil segregation, storage, herbicide treatment), and revegetate with appropriate native species.
  • Implement a spill prevention and pollution control program for hazardous materials. Standard measures could include hazardous materials storage and handling procedures; spill containment, cleanup, and reporting procedures; and limitation of refueling and other hazardous activities to upland/nonsensitive sites.
  • Implement measures to reduce adverse effects of construction on visitor safety and experience.
  • Implement a notification program. Standard measures could include notification of sensitive receptors, utilities, and emergency response units prior to construction activities.
  • Implement an interpretation and education program. Continue directional signs and education programs to promote understanding among park visitors.
  • Use silt fences, sedimentation basins, etc. in construction areas to reduce erosion, surface scouring, and discharge to water bodies.
  • Develop revegetation plans for the disturbed area and require the use of native species. Revegetation plans should specify seed/plant source, seed/plant mixes, soil preparation, etc. Salvage vegetation should be used to the extent possible.
  • Delineate wetlands and apply protection measures during construction. Wetlands would be delineated by qualified National Park Service staff or certified wetland specialists and clearly marked prior to construction work. Construction activities should be performed in a cautious manner to prevent damage caused by equipment, erosion, siltation, etc.
  • Develop architectural character guidelines for new construction in or near historic districts. All new development would be designed to be compatible with historic resources in terms of scale, massing, materials, architectural elements, and orientation with designated historic sites, structures, or districts.
Resource-Specific Measures

HYDROLOGY, WATER QUALITY, AND FLOODPLAINS

Mitigation measures would be applied to protect water resources (also see Soils, below). These shall include the following:

  • Take measures to control erosion, sedimentation, and compaction and thereby reduce water pollution.
  • Immediately remove hazardous waste materials from project sites.
  • Place construction debris in refuse containers at least daily.
  • Dispose of refuse at least weekly. No refuse would be burned or buried inside the park.
  • To the extent possible, schedule construction activities during periods of low precipitation and low groundwater to reduce the risk of accidental hydrocarbon leaks or spills reaching surface and/or groundwater, and to reduce the potential for soil contamination and compaction.
  • Dispose of volatile wastes and oils in approved containers for removal from construction sites to avoid contamination of soils, drainages, and watercourses.
  • Inspect equipment for hydraulic and oil leaks prior to use on construction sites, and implement inspection schedules to prevent contamination of soil and water.
  • Keep absorbent pads, booms, and other materials on site, during projects that utilize heavy equipment, to contain oil, hydraulic fluid, solvents, and hazardous material spills.
  • Integrate stormwater pollution controls into design, construction, and operation of new facilities, parking areas, and other paved surfaces that concentrate runoff.

FLOODPLAINS

Actions occurring within the floodplain would be subject to the provisions of the NPS Floodplain Management Guideline 1993 (Special Directive 93-4; Director's Order NPS 77) and Executive Order 11988 (Protection of Floodplains). The following mitigation measures would be applied to protect facilities within the floodplain:

  • An emergency preparedness plan would be developed for any facilities within the floodplain. The National Park Service will continue to maintain and update a flood evacuation plan. The plan details responsibilities of individual park employees for advanced preparedness measures, removing or securing park property, records and utility systems, monitoring communication, and conducting salvage operations.
  • Design or modifications to minimize harm to floodplain values or risks to life and property. The design of all new structures will incorporate methods for minimizing flood damage as contained in the National Flood Insurance Program Floodplain Management Criteria for Flood-Prone Areas (CFR 44:60.3) and in accordance with any local, county, or state requirements for flood-prone areas.
  • Impacts on site resources will be minimized and mitigated. The design for the impermeable areas would provide for appropriate drainage to ensure that the natural resources are not further degraded.
  • Levees may be constructed to divert water flow and remove areas from the 100-year floodplain.
  • Design of parking would allow minimal resistance to flood waters, therefore minimizing impacts on the river, the road, and associated parking.
  • Prepare site-specific mitigation and subsequent Floodplain Statement of Findings during future compliance, as necessary.

Site-Specific Mitigation for Hennessey's Ranch, El Portal

  • As many structures as possible would be built on the high island in the center of the area that is outside the 100-year floodplain.
  • All dwellings would have permanent foundations and finished floor elevations above the present 100-year flood high-water line, and be engineered to withstand inundation.
  • The levee would be rebuilt to withstand a 100-year flood.
  • A community open space or riparian buffer zone would be left adjacent to the river. This would give the Merced River more space to spread out horizontally and the levee would not need to be as high.

WETLANDS

All facilities would be sited to avoid wetlands, or if that were not feasible, to otherwise comply with Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), the Clean Water Act, and Director's Order 77-1 (Wetland Protection).

Increased caution would be exercised to protect these resources from damage caused by construction equipment, erosion, siltation, and other activities with the potential to affect wetlands. Measures would be taken to keep construction materials from escaping work areas, especially near streams or natural drainages.

Wetlands would be delineated by qualified National Park Service staff or certified wetland specialists, and marked prior to construction work.

SOILS

Soil erosion and contamination result in impacts to air and water quality as well as to habitats for plant and wildlife species. Mitigation efforts would focus on minimizing or eliminating these impacts. They would include the following:

  • Use silt fences in construction areas to reduce erosion and surface scouring.
  • Use sedimentation basins and silt fences in grading areas to capture soil erosion before discharge to rivers and other water channels.
  • Use water bars in temporary access roads to control and reduce surface scouring.
  • Use semipermeable materials on temporary access routes to allow for water infiltration through the soil column and aeration of any compacted soils at the completion of construction.
  • Use dust abatement measures to reduce airborne soil erosion, including setting speed limits for construction vehicles in unpaved areas, and cover dirt and debris to be hauled away in trucks.

VEGETATION (INCLUDING SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES)

Mitigation actions would occur prior to, during, and/or after construction to minimize immediate and long-term impacts to vegetation. These actions would vary by specific project, depending upon the extent of construction and the types of species and habitat affected. Mitigation would include the following:

  • Develop revegetation plans for the disturbed area, requiring the use of native species, preferably from the same gene pool. Specify soil preparation, native seed/plant mixes, and mulching for all areas disturbed by construction activities.
  • Develop and implement a monitoring plan to ensure successful revegetation, maintain plantings, and replace unsuccessful plant materials.
  • Salvage vegetation to the extent possible for use in revegetating disturbed areas.
  • Enforce construction specifications regarding soil salvage and reuse, trenching, plant protection, and finished grading.
  • Site buildings and trails to minimize impacts to vegetation and avoid large trees, where possible.
  • Select base course and fill materials for compatibility with native granitic soils to minimize risk of introducing non-native plant seeds. Monitor areas where fill is imported from outside the park, and eradicate non-native plants. Apply standard techniques to prevent non-native plant encroachment.
  • Develop monitoring and mitigation plans for managing non-native plants within and immediately surrounding construction and developed areas.
  • Confine all construction operations to specified project work limits. Install temporary barriers to protect natural surroundings (including trees, plants, and root zones) from damage. Repair or replace damaged trees and plants, and avoid fastening ropes, cables, or fences to trees.
  • Install fencing to minimize use of highly sensitive sites such as river edges and wetlands, and install signs as needed to direct use to more appropriate areas. Placement of fencing and signs would be developed in consultation with cultural resource staff.
  • Use native or seed-free mulch to minimize surface erosion and introduction of non-native plants.
  • Comply with the Vegetation Management Plan (1997) for landscaping and yard care within and around developed areas, including minimization of irrigation systems, planting with native species appropriate to the site, or landscaping (if appropriate) with approved nonspreading, non-native plants. Treatment within historic districts would be in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes.
  • Define trails, pathways, and boundaries of development to reduce radiating impacts.
  • Protect meadows and other sensitive resource areas by defining parking areas.

Special-Status Species

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for administering conservation and recovery measures to protect federally listed species, as directed in the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has prescribed conservation measures specific to the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS as part of the Biological Opinion (see Vol. II, Appendix L). The Biological Opinion contains Terms and Conditions that are non-discretionary. In addition, the National Park Service has developed mitigation measures for all special-status species. These mitigation measures can be found in the Biological Assessment (see Vol. II, Appendix K).

WILDLIFE (INCLUDING SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES

General Wildlife

Mitigation actions would occur prior to, during, and after construction to minimize immediate and long-term impacts to wildlife. These actions would vary by specific project, depending upon the extent of construction, its location, and the types of species and habitat that could be affected. Many of the measures listed above for vegetation would also benefit wildlife by helping to preserve habitat. Mitigation actions specific to wildlife would include the following:

  • Prior to construction, evaluate habitat for species likely to occur and take steps to minimize impact on those species determined to be especially vulnerable.
  • In site design, define trails, pathways, and boundaries of developed areas to confine human use and limit radiating impacts.
  • Limit the effects of light and noise on adjacent habitat through control of sources during construction, and through site design of facilities, to limit long-term effects of resulting development. Limit noise from transit vehicles through application of best-available low-noise technologies and use of operating strategies.
  • Install fencing and signs to direct visitor use away from sensitive habitats.
  • Provide adequate education and enforcement to limit visitor activities that are destructive to wildlife and habitats.
  • When possible, schedule disruptive activities of construction to occur when effects on wildlife would be less (e.g., after nesting season of birds, and when bats are neither hibernating nor have young).
  • Preserve, where possible, natural features with obvious high value to wildlife, such as tree snags.
  • Maintain routes of escape from excavated pits and trenches for animals that might fall in. Cover post holes and other narrow pits with boards. During construction, maintain vigilance for animals caught in excavations and take appropriate actions to free them.
  • Provide structures and procedures to limit the chance of pollution spills, both during construction and during subsequent use of completed facilities. This is especially important where activities are near aquatic or wetland habitats.

Human Wildlife Conflicts

  • Take measures to reduce the potential for human-bear conflicts. Educate visitors on appropriate behavior when recreating in bear habitat. Provide bear-proof garbage containers in all developed areas. Install bear-proof food lockers at all campsites and overnight parking areas. Require construction personnel to adhere to park regulations concerning food storage and refuse management.
  • Provide adequate cleaning of areas and garbage pick-up to limit wildlife access to human food.
  • Develop and implement methods to prevent the fruiting of apple trees that remain, or annually remove fruit from orchards.
  • Prohibit the use of picnic areas after dark, when bears are most active.
  • Enforce regulations that prohibit feeding of wildlife and that require proper food storage.

Non-Native Species

Take action to eradicate non-native bullfrogs from meadow and riparian habitats before restoration occurs, and continue monitoring and eradication, if necessary, after restoration (meadow restoration would increase potential habitat for bullfrogs).

Require the use of processed feeds for stock at National Park Service, concessioner, and public stables and corrals. Such feeds provide less food in droppings for brown-headed cowbirds. Implement trapping programs for cowbirds at corrals and stables to reduce populations.

Special-Status Wildlife Species

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for administering conservation and recovery measures to protect federally listed species, as directed in the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has prescribed conservation measures specific to the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS as part of the Biological Opinion (see Vol. II, Appendix L). The Biological Opinion contains Terms and Conditions that are non-discretionary. In addition, the National Park Service has developed mitigation measures for all special-status species. These mitigation measures can be found in the Biological Assessment (see Vol. II, Appendix K).

AIR QUALITY

  • The National Park Service will seek to perpetuate the best possible air quality by aggressively promoting and pursuing measures to preserve, protect, and enhance air resources. Moreover, actions are subject to the provisions of the Clean Air Act and the forthcoming State of California, State Implementation Plan.
  • Apply best-available clean fuel technology to minimize air quality emissions, considering the need for reliable, cost-effective transit service with adequate vehicle capacity.
  • Dispose of refuse at least weekly. No refuse would be burned inside the park.
  • Employ dust abatement measures.

GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

Mitigation measures are designed to reduce the level of risk associated with rockfall events. These include:

Change the function of existing facilities and buildings to a lesser occupancy category, as prescribed in the Yosemite Valley Geologic Hazard Guidelines (see Vol. II, Appendix C).

Remove facilities and buildings from geologic hazard zones whenever practical.

Avoid placing new facilities and buildings within geologic hazard areas whenever practical.

SCENIC RESOURCES

Mitigation measures are designed to minimize visual intrusions. Many of the mitigation measures identified in the Vegetation section would assist in mitigating potential scenic impacts (see Vegetation section in this chapter). These include:

  • Minimize development footprints.
  • Choose building materials that are visually compatible or do not compete with the landscape.
  • Provide vegetative screening, where applicable.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

  • The National Park Service would preserve and protect, to the greatest extent possible, resources that reflect human occupation of Yosemite. Specific mitigation measures include:
  • The National Park Service has developed a Programmatic Agreement in consultation with the California State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, culturally associated American Indian tribes, and the public. This agreement stipulates a process for the treatment of historic properties, including identification, evaluation, and, if necessary, mitigation of adverse effects. Standard mitigation measures may be used in situations where an undertaking would adversely affect a historic property. These include documentation, interpretation, materials salvage, and National Register re-evaluation.
  • Conduct additional background research, resource inventory, and National Register evaluation where information about the location and significance of cultural resources is lacking. Incorporate the results of these efforts into site-specific planning and compliance documents.
  • Incorporate mitigation measures into site-specific planning and design, including protecting archeological deposits from disturbance, designing new construction in historic settings using compatible architectural style, and screening modern facilities from historic districts and ethnographic use areas. Develop specific design guidelines for all areas.
  • Protect known human burials from disturbance, and prepare emergency discovery plans to deal with any unanticipated discoveries.
  • Mitigate impacts to archeological resources through data recovery excavations and construction monitoring in keeping with the Archeological Synthesis and Research Design, Yosemite National Park (Hull and Moratto 1999), and as specified in the Programmatic Agreement.
  • The park will consult with tribes throughout site-specific design planning and project implementation to avoid or mitigate damage to ethnographic resources.
  • Mitigate impacts to ethnographic resources through actions developed in consultation with culturally associated American Indian tribes. Develop a parkwide gathering plan and continue to consult with Indian people, as specified in the Programmatic Agreement. Mitigation measures could include designating alternative gathering areas, continuing to provide access to traditional and spiritual locations, and screening new development from traditional use areas.
  • In cases where historic structures are proposed for removal, first consider options for rehabilitation and adaptive reuse or for relocation to another area of the park. Prior to any removal, document structure in accordance with stipulations of the Programmatic Agreement and salvage historic building materials for reuse within the park.
  • Design all new construction within historic districts or adjacent to historic structures or sites to be compatible in terms of architectural elements, scale, massing, materials, and orientation.
  • Undertake all treatments to historic structures or within cultural landscapes in keeping with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

VISITOR EXPERIENCE

Accessibility

Conduct an accessibility study to understand barriers to park programs and facilities. Based on this study, implement a strategy to provide the maximum level of accessibility.

Orientation and Interpretation

  • Provide visitor centers at or near each park entrance station to improve orientation.
  • Develop an exhibit plan to redirect exhibits from roadside to trailside interpretation.
  • Increase ranger programs to provide more interpretive opportunities.
  • Initiate a study to develop standards and indicators to improve resource protection and visitor experience.

Night Sky

A draft Yosemite National Park lighting guideline has been developed to prescribe such standards as:

  • Use lighting that is 50% to 100% lower than the lowest lighting standards of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.
  • Design interior and exterior lighting to prevent escaped light. Luminaire lamps would not exceed 100 watts.
  • Use more intense and uniform light to promote security where human activity is high. Use lower light levels to provide wayfinding within developed areas, as needed.
  • Provide lights in developed areas for safety where pedestrians cross busy intersections.
  • Provide no light outside developed areas, with the exception of active bus stops and public telephones.

TRANSPORTATION

  • Define parking area boundaries to prevent damage to meadows and other sensitive resource areas.
  • For the shuttle bus fleet prescribed by the Yosemite Valley Plan, use the best-available fuel and propulsion system technology to minimize noise and air pollution emissions while providing sufficient capacity and cost-effective, reliable service.
  • Limit noise from transit vehicles through application of best-available, low-noise technologies and use of operating strategies.
  • Apply best-available clean fuel technology to minimize air quality emissions, considering the need for reliable, cost-effective transit service with adequate vehicle capacity.
  • Design parking areas to allow minimal resistance for flood waters, thereby minimizing impacts on the river, the road, and associated parking.
  • Integrate stormwater pollution control measures into parking lot design and construction.
  • Require shuttle bus maintenance operations to comply with the Yosemite National Park Pollution Prevention Control Program and the Hazardous Waste Minimization Plan, upon completion of the shuttle bus maintenance facilities prescribed in the Yosemite Valley Plan.
  • Construct shuttle bus maintenance facilities to ensure the use of sustainable maintenance practices, including complying with all applicable executive orders.
  • Implement an employee transportation program to offset the number of commuter employee parking spaces removed from Yosemite Valley, as prescribed by the Yosemite Valley Plan.
  • Conduct a Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) study and implement a VERP program to ensure that transportation infrastructure and services prescribed by the Yosemite Valley Plan effectively meet visitor experience and resource protection goals.
  • Complete the study of the Bridalveil Fall area to analyze parking, traffic flow, pedestrian access, visitor use, and visitor experience to ensure transportation-related actions meet visitor experience and resource protection goals.
  • Continue the traffic management program until the function of this program to actively manage traffic congestion is replaced by Yosemite Valley Plan implementation, including the traveler information and traffic management system.

NOISE

  • Implement standard noise abatement measures during park operations. Standard noise abatement measures could include the following elements: a schedule that minimizes impacts to adjacent noise-sensitive uses, use of best-available noise control techniques wherever feasible, use of hydraulically or electrically powered impact tools when feasible, and location of stationary noise sources as far from sensitive uses as possible.
  • Site and design facilities to minimize objectionable noise.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTS

  • During the future planning and implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan, the National Park Service would work with local communities and county governments to further identify potential impacts and mitigation measures that would best serve the interests and concerns of both the National Park Service and the local communities. Furthermore, the National Park Service would strive to provide mitigation solutions for identifiable adverse impacts to the local communities resulting from the proposed Yosemite Valley Plan development.
  • Employee housing would be provided in accordance with the provisions of the NPS Management Policies.
  • Administrative and employee housing needs and functions would be more clearly defined to better allow public-private sector partnerships.
  • Partnerships would be pursued to improve the quality and diversity of community amenities and services.
  • To provide employee housing, the National Park Service is committed to participating in processes that would encourage and potentially develop joint development authorities, joint housing agreements, and joint public-private sector housing programs.

SUSTAINABLE DESIGN AND ASETHETICS

Projects should avoid or minimize adverse impacts to natural and cultural resources. Development projects (e.g., buildings, facilities, utilities, roads, bridges, trails, etc.) or reconstruction projects (e.g., road reconstruction, building rehabilitation, utility upgrade, etc.) should be designed to work in harmony with the surroundings, particularly in historic districts. Design guidelines would provide for consistency of themes within each district of the Valley. Building styles and detailing should be compatible with their surroundings, both natural and cultural.

Projects should be sustainable whenever practicable by recycling and reusing recycled materials; by using local materials and technologies; by minimizing materials; through minimizing the use of nonrenewable resources; by reducing energy consumption during the project; and by minimizing energy consumption throughout the lifespan of the project. Projects should reduce, minimize, or eliminate air and water non-point source pollution. Wherever possible, these strategies would be interpreted for park visitors to encourage responsible stewardship of the environment.

ENERGY CONSUMPTION

Energy consumption associated with new employee housing in El Portal and Wawona can be minimized through the selection of energy-efficient building materials and components, and energy-efficient appliances. In April 1999, the United States Department of the Interior entered into a formal Memorandum of Understanding with the United States Department of Energy to promote the use of energy-efficient and renewable energy technologies and practices in national parks. While the Memorandum of Understanding does not mandate specific energy-efficient and renewable energy technologies for specific projects, it does provide a framework to promote their implementation and use in projects, such as new employee housing.

Additional Information Needs

As needed, studies on natural and cultural resources and additional environmental compliance (National Environmental Policy Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and other relevant legislation), including public involvement, would be conducted in advance of constructing in-Valley and out-of-Valley parking areas, proposed road realignments, and other new development in Yosemite Valley, El Portal, Wawona, and Foresta. The objectives of these studies would be to provide site-specific information for design and to augment existing information, particularly as it relates to sensitive species, cultural resources, and ecosystem elements. Specific tasks would likely include, but not be limited to, the following:

  • Soil surveys
  • Wetland delineation
  • Wildlife surveys
  • Vegetation surveys
  • Archeological, ethnographic, and historic resource surveys
  • Social science surveys of visitor use patterns and visitor expectations
  • Air quality analyses and inventories

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED

For any project or activity within Yosemite Valley, a diverse range of actions could be considered. While many of these actions are reasonable, others have been eliminated from detailed study. Reasons for dismissing individual actions include:

  • Technical or economic infeasibility
  • Inability to satisfy guidance criteria, meet project goals, or resolve park-planning needs in Yosemite Valley (see Volume Ia, Chapter 1, Purpose and Need)
  • Less environmentally damaging or less expensive options are available
  • Unacceptable environmental, cultural, or scenic impacts would be caused
  • Conflicts with the guidance and direction provided in the Merced River Plan/FEIS for protecting the Merced River's Outstandingly Remarkable Values

Alternatives that were considered but dismissed are described below.

REMOVE ALL PRIVATE VEHICLES FROM YOSEMITE VALLEY

This alternative was dismissed because it is economically infeasible and impractical at this time. Removing all private vehicles from Yosemite Valley was considered, but is infeasible at this time due to: (1) the high cost of providing year-round shuttle service from out-of-Valley parking areas for all day and overnight visitors, and (2) the constraints of winter weather on access to parking areas along the Big Oak Flat and Wawona Roads. This alternative was considered because it is the ultimate goal of the 1980 General Management Plan. However, the General Management Plan also recognized that the goal was infeasible at the time of its initial approval and that a phased, collaborative approach would be required to achieve this goal. Collaboration is ongoing to develop a regional transportation system. It is not possible at this time to project when it would be feasible to remove all private vehicles from Yosemite Valley.

PROVIDE DAY-VISITOR PARKING AT POHONO QUARRY

This alternative was dismissed because of unacceptable environmental impacts resulting from habitat fragmentation, and unacceptable impacts on the cultural landscape and scenery of Yosemite Valley.

The Pohono Quarry site is located at the west end of Yosemite Valley, where the Valley walls create a corridor bottleneck through which wildlife moving to and from lower-elevation areas must pass. This is the only wildlife travel corridor in Yosemite Valley that allows direct access to lower elevations; wildlife using all other routes must climb to at least 6,000 feet elevation before they can descend to lower elevations. Development at Pohono Quarry would affect wildlife movements through this area, thus affecting the abundance and diversity of wildlife in Yosemite Valley.

This action was considered in the Draft Yosemite Valley Implementation Plan and was recommended by some advocacy groups as an appropriate location for transit facilities. However, a transit facility with parking and shuttle bus operations would be visible from Tunnel View, one of the principal scenic vantage points in the park and a contributing element of the Valleywide cultural landscape (which is potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places). Currently, none of the existing development within the Valley can be seen from this vantage point. A transit facility at Pohono Quarry would have unacceptable scenic impacts on the cultural landscape.

Provide Day-Visitor Parking in the Bridalveil Fall Area

This alternative was dismissed because of unacceptable scenic impacts on the cultural landscape from two significant vantage points—Tunnel View and Valley View—and because the Merced River Plan did not zone the Bridalveil Fall area for a day-visitor parking and transit facility.

The Bridalveil Fall site is at the southwest end of Yosemite Valley, west of the Wawona Road and Southside Drive intersection, and east of the Bridalveil moraine. This location for the primary day-visitor parking facility (a parking garage), in the far west end of Yosemite Valley, was considered in the 1980 General Management Plan as an appropriate site for transit facilities and day-visitor parking. However, a transit facility with day-visitor parking and shuttle bus operations would likely be visible from Tunnel View along the Wawona Road, one of the principal scenic vantage points in the park and a culturally significant view. Although the existing dense forest canopy would screen the facility, it cannot be guaranteed that a catastrophic event (e.g., wildfire, insect infestation) would not adversely impact the tree canopy in the future, resulting in the facility being visible from Tunnel View.

The Bridalveil Fall site also would be visible from Valley View, another culturally significant vantage point. Valley View is on Northside Drive and provides visitors with an excellent view up-Valley of Bridalveil Fall, El Capitan, and the Merced River. Currently, only intermittent traffic along Southside Drive is visible from this vantage point when viewing Bridalveil Fall.

PROVIDE PARKING AND TRANSIT FACILITIES AT THE WOOD LOT

This site, which is in the west end of the Valley along Northside Drive just west of El Capitan Meadow, was considered as a potential site for parking and transit facilities. However, on further examination of the site, it was determined that there would not be enough space to accommodate a transit facility and day-visitor parking without going into El Capitan Meadow. The facility would have been visible from Tunnel View and resulted in unacceptable scenic impacts to one of the principal scenic vantage points in the park and a culturally significant view.

PROVIDE DAY-VISITOR PARKING
AT THE FORMER UPPER RIVER AND LOWER RIVER CAMPGROUNDS

This alternative was dismissed because the management zoning prescribed in the Merced River Plan does not allow for day-visitor parking in the former Upper River and Lower River Campgrounds. These areas are zoned Category 2 (Diverse Visitor Experience Zones), and the zone category is 2C (Day-Use). Areas zoned as Category 3 (Developed Zones) in the Merced River Plan are those areas better able to withstand heavy use, such as day-visitor parking. Due to this Merced River Plan zoning, it would be inappropriate to develop a day-visitor parking facility within the Upper River and Lower River Campgrounds area.

DEVELOP OTHER IN-VALLEY SITES FOR PARKING

The public has provided many suggestions for developing other in-Valley sites for parking. The Alternative Transportation Modes Feasibility Study (NPS 1994a) also evaluated many potential parking sites in Yosemite Valley. In addition, reconnaissance of resource conditions has been performed at numerous locations, including Yellow Pine, Valley View, and the old Curry dump site.

These in-Valley parking sites were considered but dismissed because of impacts to scenic views and the cultural landscape, incompatibility with Merced River Plan zoning, or inability to resolve park-planning needs in Yosemite Valley, such as:

  • Lack of adequate land area to accommodate surface or structured parking
  • Requirements for additional visitor services
  • Lack of convenient access to the Yosemite Valley road network
  • Difficulty of managing visitor access
  • Rockfall/debris-flow area

 

PROVIDE PARKING IN ABOVE-GRADE OR BELOW-GRADE PARKING STRUCTURES

The use of multi-story parking structures was considered in each of the action alternatives as a means to reduce the land area that would be affected by day-visitor parking. Some alternatives that were considered and dismissed (e.g., Bridalveil Fall) included multi-story parking structures for day-visitor parking. Multi-story parking structures were dismissed as part of the alternatives for the following reasons:

  • Multi-story structures would cost more than surface parking, ranging from three times as expensive for simple above-ground parking ramps to more than ten times as expensive for underground parking structures.
  • Parking structures would be difficult to convert to other uses or restore to natural conditions should the need for parking be reduced in the future.
  • Above-ground structures could be visually obtrusive and affect the scenic quality of the Valley and the cultural landscape.
  • Below-ground parking structures could have major impacts to soils and groundwater, depending on the site.

DEVELOP OUT-OF-VALLEY PARKING AT WOWONA, THE ROSTRUM, AND HODGDON MEADOW

These alternatives were dismissed because they did not resolve park-planning needs. Potential development of out-of-Valley parking areas was evaluated using transportation, visitor experience, and resource criteria. A geographic information system (GIS) analysis of land areas outside the Valley examined slope conditions and access. Sites were eliminated if they did not provide an adequate area of level land or if they were located more than one mile from a park road. Other factors considered in the evaluation of out-of-Valley parking areas included the suitability for development in the area, the effect of development on park features, and the ability of the area to accommodate forecasted private vehicle and bus traffic. Wawona, the Rostrum, and Hodgdon Meadow did not meet the guidance criteria. Additional factors for dismissing Wawona include: (1) the existing parking areas are fully utilized by visitors to Wawona and users of the shuttle service from Wawona to the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias; (2) the proximity to designated Wilderness in this area constrains development; and (3) there is not an adequate amount of flat and available land outside of meadow communities and other highly valued natural resource areas to accommodate the expected parking demand.

Require All Overnight Visitors to Use Out-of-Valley Parking Areas

Requiring overnight visitors to Yosemite Valley to park at remote sites and travel to the Valley on buses was considered and dismissed for the following reasons:

  • The high cost of providing year-round shuttle service from out-of Valley parking for overnight visitors made this infeasible at the time.
  • Travel to and from the Valley by overnight visitors is a small portion of total traffic.
  • All lodging and camping units currently have sufficient parking associated with them; thus, it would be difficult to accommodate day-visitor parking among overnight accommodations ñ especially campgrounds.
  • Many campers, including those in recreational vehicles, require their vehicles at their campsites.

PROVIDE NO PARKING FOR DAY VISITORS IN YOSEMITE VALLEY

This alternative was dismissed because it was economically infeasible at this time. Providing no parking for day visitors in Yosemite Valley would require all day visitors to park at out-of-Valley locations and take transit to the Valley. The size and cost of the required fleet of transit vehicles and parking facilities was considered infeasible. If no parking areas were located in Yosemite Valley, shuttle service along each of the roads to the Valley would have to be provided year-round. This would further increase annual operating costs. Also, winter weather could disrupt access on the Big Oak Flat and Wawona Roads.

USE OF LIGHT RAIL, MONORAIL, AND OTHER RRAIL TRANSIT MODES

These alternatives were dismissed because of their technical or economic infeasibility and/or unacceptable environmental impacts. These alternatives have been recommended by several members of the public as a means of reducing visitors' dependence on private vehicles in Yosemite National Park and Yosemite Valley. In April 1996, the National Park Service hosted a three-day symposium to discuss current transportation technologies and their applicability to Yosemite National Park. A panel of transportation professionals, as well as regional partners and other interested parties participated. A summary of the proceedings was published (NPS 1996c). In evaluating the various modes of transit, the panel concluded that:

  • Light rail, monorail, and other rail transit modes would be infeasible as regional modes, and the required large capital investment would be economically infeasible.
  • Passenger trains might be appropriate within the region, operating to the park boundary, but rail construction may not be feasible, and the impacts of rail construction within the park would not be appropriate considering the steep grades and winding routes that would be involved.
  • Light rail may be feasible in Yosemite Valley; however, the required overhead lines (for electric power) would create an impact on scenic resources and could affect wildlife.
  • Monorail would create an impact on the scenery and the cultural landscape.

OPERATE A PASSENGER TRAIN BETWEEN MERCED AND EL PORTAL

This alternative was dismissed because it was outside the jurisdiction of the National Park Service and the scope of this planning process. The Yosemite Valley Railroad was a single-track rail line that ran up the Merced Canyon, ending at El Portal. The railroad right-of-way has been abandoned, and the railbed would require extensive reconstruction; all these transportation improvements are outside the boundary of Yosemite National Park. That reconstruction would affect the Merced Wild and Scenic River and have other environmental impacts. In addition, the former rail right-of-way is proposed as a recreational trail, and a portion of the historic rail route is now under Lake McClure Reservoir.

DEVELOP AN AUTO TOURING ALTERNATIVE

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 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 National Park Service 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 goals of the Yosemite Valley Plan, including the five broad goals of the 1980 General Management Plan. 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.

ESTABLISH A MANDATORY PARKWIDE VISITOR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

This alternative was dismissed because it was outside the scope of this planning process; however, a traveler information and traffic management system is proposed in this Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. In the future, the traveler information and traffic management system could be expanded parkwide.

RELOCATE NORTHSIDE DRIVE FROM COOK'S MEADOW TO THE LOCATION OF THE SHUTTLE BUS ROAD BETWEEN THE NPS ADMINISTRATION BUILDING AND THE RANGERS' CLUB

This alternative was dismissed because of its inability to meet project goals or to resolve park-planning needs for Yosemite Valley. This alternative was proposed as a means of restoring surface and groundwater flow into Cook's Meadow. It is not a practical alternative because putting all vehicle traffic onto the road adjacent to the Yosemite Village pedestrian area would not necessarily restore surface and groundwater flow.

REMOVE ALL EAST VALLEY BRIDGES

This alternative was proposed as a means of restoring the Merced River hydrologic processes. It was dismissed because of its inability to satisfy guidance criteria, meet project goals, or resolve park-planning needs in Yosemite Valley. Specifically, it was determined that access across the Merced River in the east Valley was needed to facilitate traffic and visitor flow between developed areas. It was further determined that as river crossings are necessary, historic bridges would be used to the greatest extent possible to provide that access.

RESTORE THE EL CAPITAN MORAINE

This alternative was dismissed because of its inability to meet project goals. A portion of the El Capitan moraine was blasted out of the Merced River channel in the mid-19th century, causing major changes in river and meadow dynamics, primarily in the west end of the Valley. Restoration of the moraine was suggested as a way to restore the river and floodplain processes. Hydrologists continue to study this option. Further studies are needed to ascertain whether restoring the moraine would restore the pre-disturbance system.

Reasons for blasting the moraine included lowering the water table in the meadows of Yosemite Valley to make them less marshy and less likely to support mosquito populations. Since then, the river has become more channelized and meadows have become drier immediately up-river of the moraine, allowing the invasion of upland plant species.

RESTORE CAMPGROUNDS TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS AND POSSIBLY ADD MORE SITES

This alternative was dismissed because it did not meet project goals and conflicts with the guidance and direction provided in the Merced River Plan. Some members of the public have recommended restoring campsite numbers in Yosemite Valley to pre-flood levels or increasing them above pre-flood levels. However, prior to the 1997 flood, biologists and hydrologists attributed deleterious effects along the Merced River to the proximity of campsites, and they recommended establishing a river protection zone. The 1997 flood refined knowledge of hydrologic activity around these campgrounds, and it gave technical specialists a better understanding of the relationships between floodplains and highly valued natural resource areas (see Vol. Ic, plate D). The flood also initiated the process of recovery in many areas. Rebuilding all campgrounds to their pre-flood conditions would continue deleterious effects and prevent the restoration of highly valued natural and cultural resource areas.

REDUCE CAMPSITE NUMBERS BY RELOCATING ALL SITES FROM HIGHLY VALUED RESOURCE AREAS AND THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN

This alternative was dismissed because of the need to meet and provide for visitor experience goals and criteria. This alternative was considered as a means of restoring highly valued resources and floodplains; however, not all areas within the 100-year floodplain contain highly valued natural resources or have the same hydrologic functions (see Vol. Ic, plates D and E). Some areas contain riparian communities that are sustained and maintained by the annual cycles of high and low water, with periodic scouring events; some areas are meadows that are benefited by periodic inundation; other areas are naturally upland in character and are infrequently flooded. Removing campsites from upland areas would yield minimal resource benefits and would further limit the number of facilities available to visitors. Plates C and D, viewed together, demonstrate that there is minimal land available for development of campsites that is outside floodplain, rockfall, and highly valued resource areas.

REMOVE CAMP 4 (SUNNYSIDE CAMPGROUND)

This alternative was dismissed because of its impacts on a unique visitor experience. This alternative was recommended by members of the public to reduce conflicts between campers/climbers and Yosemite Lodge guests. However, this action would impact campers and climbers by reducing camping opportunity. Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) is also eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) have coexisted for more than 50 years; thus, this action was not considered necessary.

IMPLEMENT A RESERVATION SYSTEM AND TAKE NO OTHER ACTIONS

This alternative was dismissed because of its inability to meet project goals and resolve park-planning needs in Yosemite Valley. Members of the public recommended implementing a reservation system as a means of reducing traffic congestion and protecting natural resources (both of which are General Management Plan goals) without making other major changes in Yosemite Valley. However, most natural resource impacts have resulted from the placement of certain facilities, such as vehicle-related infrastructure (e.g., parking lots and road segments), as well as the locations and effects of certain visitor activities. While a reservation system may decrease traffic congestion, it does not solve other resource and infrastructure needs associated with this planning effort.

REMOVE ALL HOUSING FROM YOSEMITE VALLEY

This alternative was dismissed because of its infeasibility and, at this time, inability to meet an agency need and to provide for effective park operations. Removal of all housing from Yosemite Valley was recommended as a means of reducing land use and increasing restoration. However, because of frequent rockslides, snowstorms, high winds, and other access-restriction-causing events, it is not feasible to house all employees outside Yosemite Valley. There are visitors in Yosemite Valley at all times, and during times of emergency operations (e.g., road closures) visitors in the Valley still depend on services. The National Park Service and its concessioners must have an employee presence in the Valley to provide timely response and coverage for emergencies, health and safety, resource protection, and visitor and concession services.

RECONSTRUCT HOUSING TO PRE-FLOOD NUMBERS AND LOCATIONS

The reconstruction of housing to pre-flood numbers and locations was recommended as a means of limiting new disturbance and development in Yosemite Valley. This action would require the National Park Service to place housing back within the 100-year floodplain and in an area not zoned for housing under the provisions of the Merced River Plan. The 1980 General Management Plan called for the reduction of housing in Yosemite Valley, as did the 1992 and 1996 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan processes. Therefore, this alternative was dismissed.

RELOCATE PRINCIPAL HOUSING TO FORESTA

This alternative was dismissed because it conflicts with project goals. In the first draft of the Yosemite Valley Housing Plan (1992), Foresta was proposed as the site for National Park Service and concessioner housing. Foresta was thought to be close enough to Yosemite Valley to support the goal of reducing employee housing in Yosemite Valley, while ensuring that road closures, traffic, and other influences would have a limited effect on visitor service levels.

The 1980 General Management Plan provided direction regarding housing for the Foresta area. It stated that housing in Foresta would be provided for essential employees. The General Management Plan further stated that "based on the determination of a housing study, housing would be retained for a limited number of employees." Given this guidance, the National Park Service focused on placing principal housing within established communities in Wawona and El Portal (within the El Portal Administrative Site).

 

CONVERT THE EL PORTAL TRAILER VILLAGE (HENNESSEY'S RANCH) TO OPEN SPACE

This alternative was dismissed because it is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Yosemite Valley Plan to remove nonessential buildings, services, and facilities from Yosemite Valley. It was proposed to convert the Trailer Village to open space in the 1980 General Management Plan; however, a housing study was also called for in that plan to determine the amount of housing required to support park operations and to identify locations for that housing. El Portal was acquired by the National Park Service in 1958 as an administrative site to support park operations and administration. The Trailer Village and Abbieville (Hennessey's Ranch) area was identified in the housing study and in the subsequent Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan/SEIS as a suitable location for housing.

REMOVE THE ICE SKATING RINK

This alternative was dismissed because it was in conflict with park-planning needs in Yosemite Valley. Removing the skating rink was considered as a means of reducing the amount of development in the Curry Village area and removing an unnatural attraction from Yosemite Valley. However, removing the ice rink would yield minimal benefit toward restoring natural processes, but would adversely affect visitor and community recreational opportunities. Removal of the ice skating rink was proposed in the Draft Concession Services Plan (1992), but was retained in the final plan due to public comment during that planning process.

REMOVE THE ANSEL ADAMS GALLERY (BEST STUDIO) AND POST OFFICE

This alternative was dismissed because of impacts on historic buildings and uses, and because these services were not in conflict with park-planning needs. Removing these facilities was considered as a means of reducing the number of facilities in Yosemite Village. However, these structures are historic, their uses are considered appropriate, and the services they offer benefit visitors and the community.

REMOVE ALL CAMPING, LODGING, AND OTHER COMMERCIAL SERVICES FROM YOSEMITE VALLEY

This alternative was dismissed because it would be in conflict with the goals of this planning effort, and because it would not resolve park-planning needs for Yosemite Valley. This alternative was recommended as a means of reducing impacts of commercial and overnight facilities in Yosemite Valley. While it is true that some of these facilities are located in floodplains and highly valued natural resource areas, most are located in upland areas where the impacts are more easily managed. Removing all camping, lodging, and commercial services would yield increased benefits to natural resources and processes, beyond the benefits of removing and relocating selected facilities to restore floodplains and highly valued natural resources. However, their complete removal would eliminate services, many historic structures, and visitor opportunities in the Valley, thus impacting the visitor experience and the parkís highly valued cultural resources.

REMOVE YOSEMITE LODGE

The removal of Yosemite Lodge as an alternative was dismissed because it was in conflict with the goals of this planning effort. This alternative was recommended as a means to reduce commercialization and development in Yosemite Valley. However, the National Park Service is committed to providing a reasonable range of overnight accommodations for visitors in the Valley. The Yosemite Lodge experience provides a range of economy to mid-scale priced units and a mix of lodging types.

ESTABLISH HORSE CAMP IN YOSEMITE VALLEY

This alternative was dismissed due to its inability to meet the project goals. Outfitting some sites within the proposed Yosemite Valley campgrounds to accommodate people who want to bring horses to Yosemite Valley was considered but dismissed due to concerns that could not be resolved. These include safety issues, potential conflicts between pets, wildlife, and stock, and resource considerations. Sites away from other campgrounds were found to be incompatible with adjacent uses, or were recognized as potentially causing adverse effects on the natural environment. Yosemite Valley is the area of the park with the highest concentration of visitors, and horse camps are currently available in other parts of the park, including Wawona, Bridalveil Creek, Tuolumne Meadows, and Hetch Hetchy.

OPERATE SHUTTLE BUSES AND THE VALLEY FLOOR TOUR ON SECTIONS OF NORTHSIDE DRIVE CLOSED TO MOTOR VEHICLES

This alternative was dismissed due to its inability to meet the project goals of providing diverse recreational experiences in Yosemite Valley. In three alternatives considered in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, part of Northside Drive is closed to all motor vehicles except for emergency and service use, and converted to a multi-use (hiking/biking) trail. It was considered that these sections be opened to shuttle buses and Valley Floor Tours. While this would provide an opportunity for visitors to experience that portion of Northside Drive with ease, it would take away the opportunity for walkers and bicyclists to enjoy a portion of the Valley without the immediate presence of motor vehicles. Allowing shuttle bus and tour traffic on the closed portion of Northside Drive would reduce the potential for diversity of recreational experiences.

REMOVE THE SCHOOL FROM YOSEMITE VALLEY AND USE THE BUILDING FOR OTHER PURPOSES

This alternative was dismissed due to its inability to meet project goals to support Yosemite Valley residents and provide for the educational needs of children in lower grades (kindergarten through eighth grade). The current school facility is operating under a permit to the Mariposa County Unified School District.

CLOSE THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF NORTHSIDE DRIVE TO VEHICLE TRAFFIC

Closing the entire length of Northside Drive to vehicle traffic, from Yosemite Lodge to Pohono Bridge, was considered but dismissed because Northside Drive between El Capitan crossover and Pohono Bridge serves as part of the route for travelers accessing the Wawona Road from the Big Oak Flat Road (and vice versa) to reach other areas of Yosemite National Park. This portion of Northside Drive also would afford the opportunity for auto touring to continue as a recreational activity in Yosemite Valley, as far east as the El Capitan crossover, under all action alternatives. If the portion of Northside Drive west of El Capitan crossover were closed to vehicle traffic, the portion of Southside Drive from Pohono Bridge to Wawona Road would need to carry two-way traffic. The volume of traffic on that section of Southside Drive would be high, because it would carry through traffic as well as traffic entering and leaving Yosemite Valley. Major improvements on Southside Drive would be required, and Pohono Bridge would need to be replaced. Also, if Northside Drive was closed to motor vehicles west of El Capitan crossover, only visitors with assigned parking spaces or overnight accommodations would be able to drive their vehicles into Yosemite Valley east of the Wawona Road intersection.

COMPARISION OF ALTERNATIVES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The following pdf files present Table A, Summary of Alternatives, and Table B, Summary and Comparison of Environmental Consequences.

Table A in pdf format. (file size is 248k)

Table B in pdf format. (file size is 276k)

You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader 4.0 to view these files.

| Table of Contents | Abstract | Executive Summary | Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3 |
| Introduction | Alternative 1 | Alternative 2 | Alternative 3 | Alternative 4 | Alternative 5 | Mitigation |

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