Chapter II: User Capacity Management ProgramIntroductionThe National Park Service administers Yosemite National Park under a series of statutory authorities passed in the late 1800s and early 1900s that include the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916. These authorities mandate that the National Park Service protect and preserve the park's natural and cultural resources while providing for the public's enjoyment of the resources "in such a means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." The mission of the National Park Service calls for allowing public use of parks, but not to the detriment of the values that make them unique. Similarly, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Section 10(a) calls for protection and enhancement of river values without limiting other uses to the extent that such uses do not adversely impact the values for which the river was designated. Moreover, since Yosemite National Park is one of the premier outdoor recreation areas in the world, recreation was identified as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value contributing to the 1987 designation of the Merced as a Wild and Scenic River. The Merced River Plan adopted in 2000 identified the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) framework as the National Park Service's preferred method for addressing user capacity. The Merced River Plan did not, however, identify specific measurable indicators and standards, and stated that it would take approximately 5 years for a VERP program to be fully implemented. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals directed the National Park Service to revise the Merced River Plan to address user capacity and to specifically set limits on use that are consistent with protection and enhancement of the river's Outstandingly Remarkable Values. User capacity can be addressed in a number of ways, as noted in many academic studies and by the Court in their October 2003 ruling. The Court specifically noted that user capacity can be addressed "by setting limits on the specific number of visitors, by monitoring and maintaining environmental and experiential criteria under the VERP framework, or through some other method." The Court further stated that it did " not read §1274(d)(1) to require that the administering agency advance one particular approach to visitor capacity in all circumstances (e.g., a head count of all entrants to Yosemite)." This chapter discusses what user capacity is, the history of user capacity management on public lands, and the various ways to address user capacity. It also describes the existing Yosemite National Park User Capacity Management Program, as well as components of the VERP program. VERP was developed by the National Park Service to address visitor capacity[1] for park units in compliance with National Park Service regulations. VERP is becoming the standard planning tool to address user capacity mandates and an effective means for addressing user capacity within the boundaries of Wild and Scenic River corridors. What is User Capacity?User capacity[2] can be defined in a number of ways, as evidenced by the various quotes below: "…Based on the plain meaning, we do not read [the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act] to require that the administering agency advance one particular approach to visitor capacity in all circumstances (e.g., a head count of all entrants to Yosemite)…Thus we interpret [Wild and Scenic Rivers Act's] instruction that a Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) must 'address user capacities' to require only that the CMP contain specific measurable limits on use…" Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion, October 2003 "…kinds and amounts of public use which the river area can sustain without impact to the Outstandingly Remarkable Values…" Secretarial Guidelines for Wild and Scenic Rivers (NPS et al. 1982) "…the quantity and mixture of recreation and other public use which can be permitted without adverse impact on the resource values of the river…" Secretarial Guidelines for Wild and Scenic Rivers (NPS et al. 1982) "…a prescribed number and type of people (demand), that an area will accommodate (supply), given the desired biophysical/cultural resources, visitor experiences, and management program…" Congress on Recreation and Resource Capacity (Lundquist and Haas 1999) "…the supply or prescribed number, of appropriate visitor opportunities that will be accommodated in an area…" Federal Interagency Task Force on Visitor Capacity on Public Lands (Haas 2002) "…the types and levels of visitor use that can be accommodated while sustaining the desired resource and social conditions that complement the purpose of the park units and their management objectives…" Visitor Experience and Resource Protection Handbook (NPS 1997) "…the type and level of visitor use that can be accommodated while sustaining the desired resource and visitor experience conditions in the park…" National Park Service Management Policies and Director's Orders (NPS 2001) Although many may think of a capacity as a number of people in a given area, the concept is much more complex. Research over the years has shown that user capacity cannot be measured simply as a number of people, because the potential for impacts is related not just to the number of people, but to the types of activities people engage in, where they go, what kinds of natural and cultural resources are in the area, and the way the area is managed (Marion 1998, Cole and Stankey 1997). The concept of user capacity relates to the level of use (type and amount) that an area can withstand without having an unacceptable impact on the area's values. These values are not just limited to the cultural and natural resources, but include the quality of the visitor experience and other social factors. In the Merced River corridor, relevant visitor experience and social goals are expressed through the recreational Outstandingly Remarkable Values for the river. The goals of the National Park Service and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act both allow for public use and enjoyment of the Merced River corridor at levels that protect the natural and cultural values for which the river was deemed worthy of protection. These values include the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Merced Wild and Scenic River. Therefore, the VERP Handbook's definition of user capacity (NPS 1997q) is consistent with the direction of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the 1982 Secretarial Guidelines and forms the basis of the user capacity discussion in this document. BackgroundHow much use should be allowed on public lands has been an issue since public lands were first set aside for protection and enjoyment. In the past, the question of how much public use is appropriate in a national park has been framed in terms of what is known as the visitor carrying capacity. The concept originated in the 1930s as a way to measure the amount of livestock grazing possible within a given area of land. This was expressed as a set number of animals that the land could support. In contrast, when the focus is on preserving the integrity of whole ecological systems and providing visitor enjoyment and education--as is the case in national parks--the situation is more complex. In national parks, user capacity is defined as the types and levels of use that can be accommodated while maintaining social and resource conditions consistent with the purposes of the park and its mission. Most forest and park lands were set aside based on a desire to protect nationally significant natural and cultural resources. Federal land management agencies (which include the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) have the responsibility for protecting these resources on public lands, while allowing for the public's use and enjoyment of them. Each agency must find a way to balance public use and resource protection. While this goal and the user capacity management methods in use may be similar, each agency has a different mission and thus each adjusts the user capacity management methods to better reflect that mission. Federal agencies are presented with the challenge of providing for visitor use, which inevitably affects resource conditions at some level, regardless of the intent of the visitors and the management actions taken by the agencies (Marion 1998, Leung and Marion 2000). Since accommodating visitor use is an important component of public land management, some level of impact must be accepted, and the public land management agency must determine what level of impact is acceptable. Public land management agencies are mandated to protect the resources that were recognized for protection and, at the same time, to accommodate the visitor demand generated by those very resources (Marion 1998, McCool and Stankey 1999, Cole and Stankey 1997). Over the last 40 years, substantial research has been conducted on carrying capacity methods (henceforth referred to as user capacity) and their implementation. User capacity on federal lands came to the forefront of public land planning in the 1970s. The 1976 National Forest Management Act and the 1978 National Parks and Recreation Act each called for public land planning efforts to address user capacities in order to ensure adequate protection of the natural and cultural resources and the quality of the visitor experience in these areas. Several user capacity management approaches have been developed that are widely used throughout the United States and Canada, including Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC), Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), and Visitor Impact Management System (VIMS). The National Park Service has adopted a method in many of its park units that best fits the needs of its mission--the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) framework. Although developed specifically to address the mission of the National Park Service, VERP shares a basic framework with these other user capacity management approaches (Nilsen and Taylor 1997). User Capacity AssumptionsDifferent agencies use different means for addressing user capacity, and there are basic assumptions that underlie all of these efforts. These assumptions include the following: · Allowing any amount of use is likely to have some impact on resources (Cole and Stankey 1997, Marion 1998, Stankey 1999, Leung and Marion 2000). · Impacts on resources are not directly related to the number of users in an area. Agency managers must examine the relationship between visitor use patterns and impacts in order to isolate the most significant cause of the problem (Graefe 1990, Leung and Marion 2000). · The impact from use results not just from the number of users, but from the types of uses, the dispersion of users, the season of use, the resource values in the area, and the management framework, including the facilities provided (Marion 1998, Cole et al 2005). · The user capacity of any given area can and will change over time due to natural events, changes in use characteristics (types of activities, size of groups, etc.), changes in managerial factors (development of facilities, restrictions implemented, or other management actions), changes in technology, and new scientific information gathered through monitoring and evaluation of resource conditions (Haas 2002). · There is no way to scientifically determine "the" user capacity for an area; user capacity is determined by an administrative decision based on sound professional judgment supported and informed by scientific studies, management goals and objectives, public preferences, traditional uses, and many other factors (Haas 2001). · Although scientific data on resource conditions and visitor experience can and should inform decisions on user capacity, the determination of user capacity is an administrative decision based on values as much as science. It can only be determined in a context that includes consideration of many factors (Haas 2001). While the assumptions listed above are widely accepted by most recreation management professionals, there are some disagreements. For example, the National Park Service and other organizations believe that managing areas through the use of specific indicators and standards is sufficient to address user capacity and that the focus should not be on capacity as "a number of people."[3] Others believe that a number (or range) of users must be established for each management area in addition to the indicators and standards.[4] This Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS recognizes that there are several methods available to establishing user capacity. Since there are differences in opinion on whether a specific number of users must be identified in a user capacity program, the National Park Service has included alternatives in this document that consider not only specific limits on numbers of people, but other types of methods, including limits on facilities, limits on specific activities and limits based on environmental or experiential conditions. User Capacity MethodsAs previously discussed, there are many ways of addressing user capacity and no one approach is appropriate in all circumstances (Haas 2002). To ensure that the National Park Service is giving full consideration to the various ways of managing user capacity, the planning team evaluated other user capacity management methods that could be added to the existing user capacity program at Yosemite National Park. While investigating different methods for addressing user capacity, the National Park Service researched how other agencies have dealt with user capacity, reviewed academic studies on managing user capacity on public lands, and met with a number of user capacity experts to evaluate a variety of user capacity methods and specific limits (NPS 2004bb). In a park as vast and diverse as Yosemite, one approach is not sufficient to address the complex range of uses and use impacts. It was determined that the alternatives presented in this revised plan should include a variety of methods for addressing user capacity, including those that are currently in use at the park and additional methods that could be added to the existing user capacity program. In general, user capacity methods can be expressed as various types of limits, including: 1) Limits Based on Environmental and Experiential Conditions 2) Limits on Numbers of People 3) Limits on Facilities 4) Limits on Specific Activities 5) Other related user capacity management tools that may or may not include specific measurable limits The various user capacity methods presented in this document are presented below and establish a consistent outline for describing the new user capacity program components proposed in Chapter III, Alternatives. 1) Existing Limits Based on Environmental and Experiential ConditionsWith limits based on environmental and experiential conditions, the overall condition of natural and cultural resources and the quality of visitor experience are monitored and then controlled through management actions. Using this method, the National Park Service sets quantifiable standards for resource and visitor experience conditions; these standards are designed to protect the river's Outstandingly Remarkable Values. If the standards are not being met or conditions are degrading, park managers take action as needed or appropriate to restore the desired conditions. For example, if an area contains wetlands and riverbanks, the conditions of these resources are monitored to ensure that use levels in the area are not adversely affecting these resources. If resource conditions are deteriorating, park managers take steps to change use such as reducing use levels, redirecting use away from sensitive areas, or changing the type or timing of use. So, if a riverbank is eroding because a high number of rafters use the area to launch rafts, park managers might limit the number of people who can use the area to launch rafts or close the area to raft launching and direct these people to an area that is better suited to this use. Visitor experience conditions include factors such as perceived crowding and traffic congestion. Visitor surveys indicate that crowding and traffic are the two factors that most adversely affect visitors' recreation experience (Manning et al. 1999a, ORCA 2000). By setting traffic congestion as a standard for visitor experience, the congestion can serve as a measure to indicate whether or not conditions are acceptable. When traffic conditions deteriorate, park managers would need to reduce the number of vehicles allowed in an area to make sure that traffic congestion standards are not exceeded -- that is, that traffic is not so congested that it exceeds the acceptable limit. This method of managing user capacity is the basis for the VERP program described later in this chapter. 2) Limits on Numbers of PeopleAnother user capacity method is to establish limits on the number of users. This type of limit can be implemented in several ways. For example, it is possible to limit the number of people in the river corridor, in each river segment, or in each management zone. Similarly, these limits can be expressed as the number of people in 1 year, the number of people over 24 hours, or the number of people at any one time. Some of the action alternatives in Chapter III explore these various approaches to managing numbers of people. 3) Limits on FacilitiesFacility limits is one method of managing use and includes restrictions on the amount of overnight lodging and camping, the number of private vehicle parking spaces, the number of bus parking spaces, etc. When facility limits are implemented, the management focus is not on the exact number of people in an area. Hypothetically, in an area with a specific amount of parking capacity, the number of people in the area could be very different on a day with an average of two people per car versus an average of four people per car. In practice, Yosemite has derived an average number of people per car (as well as the average number of people per lodging room and campsite), and these averages are based on park visitation data collected over the years. Although the exact number of people is not being directly controlled through facility limits, the range in the number of people is limited because most people access the park by car and cannot access a developed area if they cannot find a place to park. Thus, use is limited by managing the capacity of various facilities. The effectiveness of this type of user capacity limit is demonstrated in Yosemite Valley each day. Visitors tend to congregate in the east Valley where parking and other visitor facilities are concentrated. On the other hand, visitor use levels in the west Valley, where parking and shuttle access is limited, remains well below east Valley levels. 4) Limits on Specific ActivitiesLimits on specific activities regulate what activities can be done in a certain area or during a certain time period. For example, in Yosemite there are currently regulations on where people can raft in the Merced River, and these regulations restrict rafting during certain time periods based on water levels. Other restrictions apply to where fishing is allowed, the type of fishing lures and hooks that can be used, and limits on the number of fish that can be caught. In addition, there are other regulations that limit various activities to certain areas in order to protect park resources. For example bicycle use is only allowed on paved roads or designated multi-use paved trails in Yosemite Valley. 5) Other Related User Capacity MethodsIn addition to user capacity methods that can be expressed as specific limits, as described previously, other types of methods can affect user capacity. A number of federal laws require the National Park Service to protect resources from use-related impacts, even if they do not require the specific identification of a user capacity. The National Park Service has several ongoing natural and cultural resource protection and enhancement programs that are implemented throughout Yosemite to comply with these federal laws and National Park Service directives. In addition, methods such as management zoning provide guidance for managing user capacity by prescribing the desired types and levels of use and development for various areas within the park and within the river corridor. Yosemite National Park's Existing User Capacity Management ProgramManaging the impacts of visitor use is nothing new in Yosemite. For years, systems have been in place to establish limits on various uses. Although the Merced River Plan adopted in 2000 identified the VERP process as one of the National Park Service's preferred methods for addressing user capacity, a number of other methods have been and are currently being used to manage user capacity in Yosemite National Park. Some of these methods include overnight visitor limits in wilderness, group size limits on trails, facility and utility capacity limits, seasonal and area restrictions on uses such as rafting, and other limits. While all of these measures address user capacity and the potential for user impacts on park resources, the Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS looks at alternatives that would add new and more comprehensive measures to the ongoing user capacity management program at Yosemite National Park. Yosemite National Park published its User Capacity Management Program for the Merced Wild and Scenic River Corridor in 2004 (NPS 2004a). It summarizes the various components that exist in the park today to address user capacity and resource impacts. The primary user capacity components are summarized and described in table III-1 in the discussion of the No Action Alternative. A summary of Yosemite's Existing User Capacity Management Program is presented below. Except where noted in Chapter III, Alternatives, this Yosemite User Capacity Management Program is common to all alternatives. 1) Existing Limits Based on Environmental and Experiential ConditionsWilderness Impacts Monitoring SystemThe Wilderness Impacts Monitoring System (WIMS) began in the 1970s. Under WIMS, the National Park Service conducts wilderness-wide inventory and monitoring studies focused on campsite and trail impacts. Data gathered from these studies are used to determine when, where, and why significant change occurs, and to provide a system for tracking those changes. It provides wilderness managers a system to help understand the relationship of natural conditions, visitor experience, and wilderness resource management. WIMS is also used to track the effectiveness of the Wilderness Trailhead Quota System in preventing unacceptable human-caused changes. Information from WIMS has been used over the years to adjust the trailhead quotas as needed to protect wilderness resources. Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) FrameworkThe VERP framework is a tool developed by the National Park Service to address user capacities and ensure the protection of natural and cultural resources and the visitor experience (Hof and Lime 1997). From Arches to Acadia National Parks, VERP programs have been helping park managers address the impacts of visitor use since the 1990s (NPS 1997x, NPS 1995e). In Yosemite, the VERP program being implemented will monitor of the overall health of park resources and the Outstandingly Remarkable Values. It will implement management actions to protect and enhance the Outstandingly Remarkable Values. The VERP process will serve as a regular report card, informing the public on a quarterly basis of the status of Outstandingly Remarkable Values, as well as the management actions being taken to protect and enhance them. In the VERP framework, user capacity is defined as "the types and levels of visitor use that can be accommodated while sustaining the desired resource and social conditions that sustain the purpose of the park units and their management objectives" (NPS 2001). The VERP framework is an iterative, ongoing process that: · Prescribes what are known as the desired conditions[5] for resources and visitor experiences for a given area (not just prescribing a maximum number of visitors). · Selects specific indicators (i.e., qualities that reflect the overall condition of park resources and visitor experience). · Sets quantifiable standards, against which the indicator is measured. · Monitors conditions on the ground. · Takes responsive and informed management actions as required when standards are not being met. · Provides regular updates to the public, including an annual report summarizing results of monitoring. · Continually improves and adjusts the program based on the knowledge gained over time. These components provide a comprehensive process for taking informed actions to manage all of the elements of visitor use that may influence desired conditions and the Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Figure II-1 illustrates the VERP process. Figure II-1
VERP is a decision-making framework , enhancing and informing the park manager's role in decision making. In fact, managers must make crucial decisions to determine desired conditions, choose appropriate management actions, and assess occasional overlap between protecting park resources and providing for visitor experience opportunities. The VERP framework is used as a form of adaptive management.[6] Where uncertainty exists about impacts associated with visitor use, knowledge and understanding of visitor use issues improves and evolves over time, and management actions are adapted accordingly (Haas 2002). Continual hypothesis testing, data collection, and data analysis will result in the refinement of indicators and standards to better inform management decisions. The VERP framework is based on the understanding that there are many aspects of visitor use that must be managed to protect desired conditions, including the number of people in an area, their behavior, when use occurs (timing), and how much use occurs within a specific area (distribution). All of these elements can affect desired resource and visitor experience conditions (Leung and Marion 2000). The VERP framework includes indicators and standards that set limits on the amount of change allowed to desired resource and visitor experience conditions that are affected by the various elements of visitor use. In summary, the VERP framework establishes quantitative measures of visitor capacity by setting specific measurable limits (standards) that allow for existing conditions to be compared to desired conditions. This process ultimately results in better information from which park managers can address the various aspects of visitor use. VERP Framework Elements. Nine steps are integral to the development of the VERP framework. While the scope of the elements, the order in which they are undertaken, and the specific methods used to complete the elements may vary in different situations, all of the elements are necessary to implement a VERP program. Although the elements are numbered and may appear in a linear process, it is important to remember that the VERP framework is iterative, with feedback and "feed-forward" occurring throughout the elements. The nine VERP elements are as follows: Element 1 Assemble an interdisciplinary project team Element 2 Develop a public involvement strategy Element 3 Develop statements of park purpose, significance, and primary interpretive themes; identifying planning constraints Element 4 Analyze park resources and existing conditions Element 5 Describe a potential range of visitor experiences and resource conditions (potential descriptive zones) Element 6 Allocate the potential zones to specific locations in the park (prescriptive management zoning) Element 7 Select indicators and specify standards for each zone; develop a monitoring plan Element 8 Monitor resource and social indicators (analyze and evaluate indicator performance, continue monitoring with finalized indicators) Element 9 Take management action What VERP Is Not. It is worth noting what VERP will not do: · VERP does not specify the total number of visitors that the river corridor, as a whole, can accommodate at one time. Such an aggregate figure would mask problems at "hot spots" and would not provide managers with useful guidance for addressing use-related problems. · As a framework for addressing user capacity, VERP is not driven by the capacity of existing infrastructure. Expanding or constructing facilities does not necessarily mitigate visitor use impacts to visitor experience or resources. · VERP, as applied in the Merced Wild and Scenic River corridor, may not directly transfer to other areas of Yosemite National Park. It may be implemented elsewhere in the park at some future date; desired conditions, indicators, and standards are being developed with this possible expansion in mind. However, due to an emphasis on protecting Outstandingly Remarkable Values and other factors, it is possible that future implementation of VERP outside of the Merced Wild and Scenic River corridor will not dovetail perfectly. · VERP does not address impacts that do not result directly from visitor use. Impacts from park operations and management activities (e.g., fire management), natural variability (e.g., high water), development (e.g., construction, demolition), and other causes not directly associated with visitor activities are managed through other methods. · VERP is not static. Visitor use patterns, desired visitor experiences, and resource conditions change with time. VERP is an iterative process of monitoring, evaluation, and adjustment. Although the VERP framework was identified as the National Park Service's primary user capacity management tool in the 2000 Merced River Plan, the remaining steps in the process had not been completed at the time of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' October 2003 decision. This Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS proposes a fully developed VERP program for Yosemite National Park, including the development of specific indicators and standards. A complete description of Yosemite's VERP program is presented later in this chapter; standards and indicators are summarized in table II-5. 2) Existing Limits on Numbers of PeopleWilderness Trailhead Quota SystemThe Wilderness Management Program regulates wilderness use in Yosemite National Park, primarily through the Wilderness Trailhead Quota System. The daily quota for each wilderness trailhead is listed in table II-1. As shown, this system allows for a maximum of 1,280 overnight visitors to enter the wilderness each day.
The Wilderness Trailhead Quota System was established in the 1970s to protect wilderness areas within Yosemite National Park. This system assigns a daily quota for each wilderness trailhead in the park. The trailhead quota system protects both the visitor experience and the park's natural and cultural resources by limiting and dispersing visitor use, which results in a quality visit while not causing unacceptable impacts to wilderness resources. It also enables agency personnel to contact all overnight visitors to educate them about wilderness regulations and each user's responsibilities for protecting Yosemite's wilderness. The Wilderness Trailhead Quota System was adopted as part of the Merced River Plan. Together with the Wilderness Impact Monitoring System (WIMS), it allows park managers to regulate the type and amount of use in the wilderness segments of the river. Over time, this system has proven to be an effective way to achieve the desired visitor experience conditions while protecting Outstandingly Remarkable Values in these areas. The Wilderness Trailhead Quota System regulates use in 51 miles of the 81-mile Merced River corridor. Superintendent's CompendiumThe Superintendent's Compendium[7] (NPS 1999b) establishes specific regulations and policies for Yosemite National Park, including specific limits on use based on numbers. The Superintendent has the authority to manage visitor use to protect the park's natural and cultural resources, and the Compendium documents the reasoning behind the use limits established under this authority (e.g., public use limits, rafting and fishing restrictions) Although these use limits and restrictions apply to various areas of the park, including some outside the Merced River corridor, those that specifically address uses within the Merced River corridor are described below: · Trailhead quota system limits total overnight entries into wilderness to 1,280 per day[8]. · Overnight visitors in wilderness areas may travel in groups of up to 15 if using established trails. On cross-country routes (off trail), overnight visitors may travel in groups of up to 8. · Day visitors in wilderness areas may travel in groups of up to a maximum of 35 people on established trails. Day visitors may travel off trail in groups of up to 8. · Stock use is limited to 25 head on existing trails. Stock are not allowed off trail except to feed and water. · The maximum number of bicyclists allowed in any one group is 30. Bicyclists are limited to paved roads and paved trails. · Park management may implement temporary access restrictions in Yosemite Valley when westbound traffic is backed up from Lower Yosemite Fall to the Curry Village four-way intersection or all day-visitor parking spaces have been filled. · Park management may implement temporary access restrictions in Wawona when all day use parking spaces have been filled. General Management Plan Visitor Capacity GoalsThe Yosemite National Park General Management Plan was adopted in 1980. In that era, visitor carrying capacity for national park plans was based on the capacity of facilities and infrastructure. Changes to existing facilities and infrastructure were recommended to fulfill and support management objectives. In this method, facility capacity defined the visitor carrying capacity. The General Management Plan visitor capacity "goals" were established based on facility capacities that were well below the actual level of facilities in 1980. That is, the existing facility capacities were greater than the capacities deemed optimum by the plan. Thus the General Management Plan called, not only for a reduction in facility capacity, but relocation of many existing facilities out of Yosemite Valley. These goals to remove and relocate facilities out of the Valley have guided all park planning efforts subsequent to the General Management Plan, including this plan. (For a comparison of facility capacities, see tables III-5 and III-6). In the 1990s, national scientific and scholarly research, as well as National Park Service policy discussions, resulted in the adoption a new methodology for determining visitor carrying capacity. This methodology--the VERP framework--is described in Management Polices 2001 and in new Park Planning Program Standards signed in August 2004. While the land use management zones and general management direction of the 1980 General Management Plan still largely meet the 2004 Park Planning Program Standards, the 1980 approach to visitor carrying capacities do not. In order to meet the new policy standards, Yosemite National Park will amend that element of the General Management Plan by translating the former carrying capacity approach to the more responsive VERP process through each new planning effort undertaken within the river corridor. The visitor carrying capacity approach proposed in Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, for the Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS would therefore amend the subject corridor portion of the General Management Plan with regard to carrying capacity. In the future, overall visitation could increase or decrease under Alternative 2 as compared with General Management Plan levels. The overall level of park visitation, including the types and levels of use, would be informed by the results of monitoring as a component of the VERP program, which is designed to ensure visitor levels do not degrade Outstandingly Remarkable Values. 3) Existing Limits on FacilitiesAs noted in the General Management Plan and the User Capacity Management Program for the Merced Wild and Scenic River Corridor (NPS 1980, NPS 2004a), facility capacities are also used as specific measurable limits on park use. The General Management Plan called for the amounts and types of visitor use in the Merced River corridor to be managed through limiting the available facilities and then restricting access when these facilities were at capacity. Overnight capacity is largely controlled by the number of campsites and lodging units, along with the numbers of parking spaces provided for people using the Valley and Wawona to reach backcountry camping areas.[9] Day visitor use is limited by the numbers of parking spaces and the capacity of the road system in the developed areas of the river corridor. In addition to limits set by the capacity of the park's facilities, use within the Merced River corridor is also limited by the capacity of the park's utility systems - the ability of park infrastructure to collect and treat wastewater. The capacity of the Yosemite Valley and Wawona wastewater systems is limited by the permitted capacity of the wastewater treatment facilities in each area. Yosemite Valley and all of El Portal (along the main stem of the Merced River) are served by the El Portal Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Wawona area (along the South Fork of the Merced River) is served by the Wawona Wastewater Treatment Plant. The standards for wastewater collection and treatment are established through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The state of California sets the capacity for each facility, mandating the overall capacity through an issued permit (on file at each facility). In accordance with this permit, the National Park Service cannot design or build any facilities that will exceed the permitted capacity established for wastewater treatment. At the El Portal Wastewater Treatment Plant, the permit establishes a treatment capacity of 1 million gallons per day. At the Wawona Wastewater Treatment Plant, the capacity has been set at 0.105 million gallons per day. 4) Existing Limits on Specific ActivitiesIn addition to providing limits on the number of people as discussed previously, the Superintendent's Compendium[10] (NPS 1999b) establishes limits on specific activities. These limits and restrictions apply to various areas of the park, including the areas within the Merced River corridor: · The portion of the main stem of the Merced River between Stoneman Bridge and Sentinel Beach Picnic Area is open to all nonmotorized vessels designed specifically for carrying passengers within their structure on water between 10:00 a.m. Standard or Daylight Time and 6:00 p.m. Standard or Daylight Time. · The entire length of open water on the main stem of the Merced River is closed to all floatation devices whenever the river gauge at Sentinel Bridge reads 6.5 feet or higher and the combination of air and water temperature is less than 100 degrees Fahrenheit. · Fishing is prohibited at designated swimming beaches and from road bridges. · Off-trail stock use is prohibited except for the purpose of watering, rest stops, or overnight camping. · Bicycles are only permitted on roads and paved trails. · The following limits apply to fishing in the Merced River from the Happy Isles footbridge downstream to Foresta Road bridge in El Portal: - Rainbow trout: catch and release only - Brown trout: a limit of 5 per day or a total of 10 in possession - Artificial lures or flies with barbless hooks only In addition to placing limits on specific activities through the Superintendent's Compendium, park managers could limit specific activities by other means. There are several activities regulated through the provisions of Special Use Permits. These include commercial bus use, filming, weddings, and other activities. Additionally, research permits are issued through the Division of Resources Management and Science for any academic or scientific study in the park. 5) Other Existing Related User Capacity MethodsGoverning MandatesThe basis for managing user capacity in Yosemite National Park comes from the governing mandates that direct management of the park. These governing mandates direct the National Park Service to protect the natural and cultural resources that exist in Yosemite, while allowing for the public enjoyment of these resources. Specific mandates, such as the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the 1982 Secretarial Guidelines for Wild and Scenic Rivers, and the National Park Service Management Policies 2001 (NPS 2000f), direct the National Park Service to specifically address user capacity to ensure that use levels do not result in unacceptable impacts to park natural and cultural resources, and to the visitor experience. Although these governing mandates do not themselves set specific measurable limits for visitor use, they establish the authority and responsibility upon which Yosemite's user capacity program is established. Additional information on these and other governing mandates is provided in Appendix A. Management Zoning: Merced River CorridorManagement zoning is a technique required by National Park Service policy to classify park areas and prescribe future desired resource conditions, as well as the desired type and level of visitor activities and facilities for each area. Management zoning for the Merced River corridor was adopted by the 2000 Merced River Plan (see pages 57-101 of the summary document completed in February 2001). The zones were developed to protect and enhance the Outstandingly Remarkable Values within each segment of the river. Specifically, the zones place an emphasis on integrating protection and enhancement of natural and cultural resources identified as Outstandingly Remarkable Values along with the protection and enhancement of the diverse recreation opportunities also identified as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value. Since the management zones adopted in the Merced River Plan present the desired conditions for each zone, they are the basis for development of some of the user capacity alternatives discussed later in Chapter III. The management zones in the river corridor fall into three general categories: (1) Wilderness zones, (2) Diverse Visitor Experience zones, and (3) Developed zones. Within each of these three categories, individual subzones provide for certain levels and types of visitor experience opportunities, resource conditions, facilities, and uses. The management zones are organized along a continuum of allowed impact intensity. For example, Wilderness zones generally prescribe the least amount and intensity of visitor use and facility development, leaving the landscape mostly natural and protecting Wilderness segment Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Diverse Visitor Experience zones allow for a low-to-high range of visitor use and low-to-moderate range of facility development. While emphasizing protection and enhancement of natural and cultural resource-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values, they provide the diverse recreational opportunities also identified as Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Developed zones also occur in Scenic and Recreational segments. These zones allow for the most intensive visitor use and/or more developed facilities. The developed areas encourage concentration of higher-impact activities in areas better able to withstand heavy use or at locations that are already developed, thus enabling better protection of Outstandingly Remarkable Values in other areas. Each management zone prescribes the maximum level of activities and facilities allowed. In practice, lower levels of visitor use and facilities may be provided than are described in the zoning prescriptions. For example, areas zoned for overnight lodging may be used for less-developed activities such as walk-in camping or could include protected natural areas. The management zones delineated on the zoning maps allow park managers to direct activities, facilities, or development within the management zone. Within a given management zone, some areas may be used for higher-intensity facilities or activities, while other areas within the same management zone are left natural and open. Management zoning provides overall guidance for decision-making over the long term. Zoning does not attempt to predict or prescribe every conceivable use or facility decision. In addition, standards and indicators developed for Yosemite's VERP program are based on the desired conditions established for each management zone, such as a range in the number of people for social indicators across zones where visitation levels and activities would be expected to vary. Management zones for the river corridor are illustrated in figures II-2, II-3, II-4 and II-5 and a summary of the desired conditions for visitor use levels, facilities levels, and types of activities and facilities are described in table II-2. The river boundary and management zones for the El Portal Administrative Site are being re-evaluated in this Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS. Alternative boundaries and management zoning schemes being evaluated for El Portal are presented in Chapter III.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
