Chapter III: AlternativesIntroductionIn October 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan (Merced River Plan) (NPS 2000h), adopted by Yosemite National Park in 2000, was deficient in two areas: (1) it did not fully address the issue of user capacities in accordance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; and (2) it did not draw the corridor boundary in the El Portal Administrative Site to account for the location of the river's Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Other elements of the Merced River Plan (e.g., the River Protection Overlay, management zoning, Outstandingly Remarkable Values, river classifications, and river boundaries outside of El Portal) had been challenged and upheld in an earlier phase of litigation. The National Park Service considers those remaining elements of the Merced River Plan to be appropriate tools that can be used with the elements proposed in this Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS (e.g., revised User Capacity Program and revised El Portal boundary) to further the mandates of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Together, they form a comprehensive framework for managing the Merced Wild and Scenic River. Following the direction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, each action alternative consists of a user capacity component and an El Portal boundary component. The three action alternatives described in this chapter present a range of methods and approaches for developing and implementing a user capacity management program. Their distinct components would be added to the existing user capacity framework (including the VERP program) outlined in Chapter II. Each of these alternatives establishes what the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals calls "specific measurable limits on use" in the river corridor. As described in Chapter I, the purpose of this planning effort is to develop a user capacity management program that protects and enhances the Merced River's Outstandingly Remarkable Values in accordance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. At the same time, the program must allow for a spectrum of appropriate recreation opportunities that is consistent with the National Park Service's mission of resource protection. The user capacity component of each action alternative includes: · Implementation of Yosemite's Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) program (as outlined in Chapter II) with specific measurable standards and indicators. · Other specific measurable limits on use within the Merced River corridor. · These components work in concert with existing user capacity management tools presented in Chapter II, including the Wilderness Trailhead Quota System. This chapter also presents a range of options for defining a river corridor boundary in the El Portal Administrative Site that would protect and enhance the Outstandingly Remarkable Values identified for that segment of the Merced River. Consequently, each El Portal river corridor boundary option also includes a revised management zoning configuration within this river segment. In keeping with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' direction, the El Portal boundary component of each action alternative was developed based on the location of Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the El Portal Administrative Site. A range of boundary configurations was developed to protect and enhance the river's Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the El Portal segment. These boundaries were drawn based on the type and location of various Outstandingly Remarkable Values, and are consistent with the legal requirement of no more than 320 acres per linear river mile prescribed by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The boundary alternatives for the El Portal segment of the river range from those based on 320 acres per linear mile of the river which is equal to a quarter-mile boundary (similar to all other segments of the river corridor) to more narrow boundaries drawn to encompass only identified locations of Outstandingly Remarkable Values. The action alternatives also present a range of management zoning configurations within the revised boundary in El Portal. Relationship between the User Capacity and El Portal Boundary ElementsThe National Park Service considered development of separate alternatives for user capacity and the El Portal boundary. However, since each El Portal alternative includes different lands and management zoning prescriptions, separating the components of the alternatives would have resulted in a more lengthy and complicated analysis. This would also result in requiring multiple user capacity alternatives to be analyzed for each boundary/zoning alternative and vice versa. It was determined that the analysis could be simplified by combining the alternatives. The pairing of user capacity and El Portal boundary alternatives was accomplished by combining more flexible user capacity components with more flexible El Portal boundary components, and more restrictive user capacity components with more restrictive El Portal boundary components. This allowed the National Park Service to evaluate a range of options for both components without overly complicating the analysis. In this Final Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS, some boundary and management zone changes have been proposed in the preferred alternative for El Portal in response to public comment. The impact of these changes has been identified in the analysis of the El Portal segment in Chapter V. Organization of this ChapterThis chapter presents detailed descriptions of each of the alternatives considered to address the two deficiencies noted by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' October 2003 opinion. The information presented in this chapter is organized as follows: · Elements common to all alternatives · Descriptions of each of the alternatives, beginning with the No Action Alternative · Alternatives considered but dismissed from further analysis · A table comparing and summarizing the environmental consequences of all the alternatives · Discussion of the environmentally preferable alternative The description of each action alternative is organized as follows: (1) the management approach to user capacity for the alternative; (2) a description of the proposed boundary for the El Portal segment; and (3) a map displaying the proposed boundary for the El Portal segment. Elements Common to All AlternativesMerced River Plan Management ElementsExcept as noted in the requirements established by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the management elements adopted in the Merced River Plan Record of Decision (as revised in November 2000), will continue to be applied to management decisions within the river corridor. The Merced River Plan management elements were discussed in Chapter I and include (1) the river boundaries within Yosemite National Park; (2) classifications of all river segments; (3) Outstandingly Remarkable Values in all segments; (4) management zoning within Yosemite National Park; (5) the River Protection Overlay in all segments; (6) the Section 7 determination process in all segments; and (7) application of the VERP framework in all segments. Although the National Park Service adopted VERP as its primary user capacity management tool in the 2000 Merced River Plan, no specific indicators and standards were identified in that plan. Therefore, the No Action Alternative in this document does not include a specific VERP program as outlined in Chapter II. The Court directed the National Park Service to revise the Merced River Plan to address user capacity for the river corridor. This document evaluates action alternatives that would implement the VERP framework identified in the Merced River Plan through the adoption of specific indicators and standards. The alternatives also include other limits on use that would be added to the existing user capacity program for the Merced River corridor. Within the El Portal Administrative Site outside Yosemite National Park, this document evaluates alternative boundaries for the El Portal segment of the river. In developing this document, the National Park Service reaffirmed the Outstandingly Remarkable Values for the segment, completed additional studies to more precisely locate specific El Portal segment Outstandingly Remarkable Values identified in the Merced River Plan, developed a range of boundary alternatives, and proposed management zoning for areas within the boundary alternatives. Wilderness ManagementThe National Park Service manages the designated Wilderness areas within the corridor under the direction of the Wilderness Act of 1964. The Wilderness Act provides a high level of resource protection for those river segments within wilderness areas, which is generally a comparable or more restrictive level of protection than the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The Wilderness Management Branch within the Division of Visitor Protection manages wilderness use in Yosemite National Park. The two primary tools used in wilderness management include the Wilderness Trailhead Quota System and the Wilderness Impact Monitoring System (WIMS). These tools were described further in Chapter II. The Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS retains the existing Wilderness Trailhead Quota System and WIMS in all alternatives. Private Land and Public Agency EasementsPrivate property within the Merced River corridor is not under the management control of the National Park Service. The user capacity program cannot, therefore, manage the use that occurs on private land within the river corridor. Similarly, although the National Park Service may draw the river boundary to include private property, the National Park Service is limited in its ability to protect those Outstandingly Remarkable Values located on private lands. However, it is the intent of the National Park Service to work cooperatively with private landowners within the corridor whenever possible to ensure that the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the river segment are protected and enhanced. The graphics presented in the alternatives discussion show the general area of private lands in the river corridor but do not delineate precise parcel boundaries. In addition to the private lands within the park boundaries, privately owned residences are located on National Park Service owned lands in El Portal and Wawona. The National Park Service issues special use permits to these homeowners for the purpose of maintaining their private residences. In the 2000 Merced River Plan/FEIS, these private residences in El Portal were outside of the Merced River corridor as presented in the No Action alternative. However, in the Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS, the privately owned residences located in the El Portal Administrative Site are now included within each of the proposed El Portal boundary alternatives. Therefore, in the future, privately owned residences on National Park Service land in El Portal would be subject to the elements of the 2000 Merced River Plan, as revised in this document. All action alternatives propose to zone these residential areas for administrative use. The use and maintenance of existing residences would remain subject to the terms of special use permits issued by the National Park Service. The National Park Service shares jurisdiction with other local, state, and federal agencies regarding transportation and utility service within the Merced River corridor. The National Park Service works with the California Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration on state highways that cross park lands, including Highway 140/El Portal Road, which crosses through both the El Portal Administrative Site and part of Yosemite Valley. The National Park Service also cooperates with Mariposa County regarding maintenance of roads within the residential area of the El Portal Administrative Site. Various utility providers also have easements through National Park Service lands to provide electric, telephone, Internet, and cable television service to residential areas located on National Park Service lands. This revised plan does not affect any existing utility or road rights-of-way or maintenance agreements. Any expansions, relocations, or new utility or road corridors or agreements would be subject to the elements of the Merced River Plan, as revised in this document. Administrative UsesThe user capacity alternatives evaluated in this document address visitor and employee use for areas within the Merced River corridor. The employee use component described in the alternatives includes employees who are housed within the corridor or who commute to a work station within the corridor. The user capacity program does not attempt to enumerate or control administrative activities that result in park employees temporarily traveling into or through the corridor for specific meetings or field work. These administrative activities comprise a very small portion of overall use of the river corridor, are subject to all of the other elements of the Merced River Plan, and are conducted in a manner which is protective of the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Merced River. Traditional Uses by American Indian TribesThe user capacity program does not restrict American Indians who are culturally associated with the lands in Yosemite National Park or the El Portal Administrative Site and who access park lands to gather traditional resources and conduct traditional cultural practices for the purpose of retaining their cultural heritage. These activities are guided by federal regulations, park policies, the other elements of the Merced River Plan, and agreements between the National Park Service and the tribes. A study of traditional uses in the park is currently underway and could result in additional revisions to existing agreements. Traditional uses comprise a very small portion of overall use of the corridor and are conducted in a manner that is protective of the Outstandingly Remarkable Values; therefore, these uses are not counted as part of the use limits identified in the user capacity program alternatives. Mitigation Measures Common to All Construction Projects within the CorridorThe National Park Service places a strong emphasis on avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of impacts during development projects in the park. To help ensure that design and implementation of any future development projects protect natural, cultural, and social resources and the quality of the visitor experience, parkwide mitigation measures have been developed. Appendix B discusses mitigation measures that would occur prior to, during, and after construction of any proposed improvements within the river corridor. Descriptions of the AlternativesAlternative 1: No ActionSummary of the AlternativeThe No Action Alternative represents a baseline for comparison with the other alternatives. It represents conditions as of October 2003 when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the National Park Service needed to further address the El Portal boundary and user capacity for the Merced River corridor. The management direction under Alternative 1 would continue to be based on the 1980 General Management Plan and other applicable park management plans and guidelines that address wilderness, fire management, vegetation management, resource management, geologic hazards, floodplains, and cultural resource management. Requirements of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, such as the protection and enhancement of Outstandingly Remarkable Values and compliance with Section 7 of the act for water resources projects, would continue to be followed. Under this alternative, the elements of the Merced River Plan adopted in 2000 would continue to be applied and would govern management of the lands within the established river boundary. This alternative would include the elements of the National Park Service's existing user capacity program as described in Chapter II. However, it would not include implementation of specific VERP indicators and standards, since these had not been developed at the time of the Court's ruling in 2003. The El Portal Boundary component of the No Action Alternative would consist of the narrow boundary for the El Portal segment adopted in the 2000 Merced River Plan. Decisions regarding the potential construction, renovation, repair, and removal of facilities in the corridor would be subject to a uniform and comprehensive set of criteria, considerations, and management zoning prescriptions as described in the Merced River Plan. User Capacity ProgramThe following constitute the User Capacity Program methods proposed under Alternative 1. Each component was described in detail in Chapter II under "Yosemite's User Capacity Management Program." 1) Limits on Environmental and Experiential Conditions 2) Limits on Numbers of People 3) Limits on Facilities 4) Limits on Specific Activities 5) Continuation of Existing User Capacity Management Programs without Full VERP Implementation (as described in Chapter II) Concept: The National Park Service would continue to use a variety of measures to manage visitor use, including limits based on environmental and experiential conditions (i.e., Wilderness Impacts Monitoring System), limits on the number of people (Wilderness Trailhead Quota System, group size limits on trails), limits on facilities (overnight accommodations, day use parking, utility capacities), limits on specific activities listed in the Superintendent's Compendium, and other measures that address visitor use and protection of the Outstandingly Remarkable Values. User capacity for the river corridor under this alternative would be managed through the use of existing methods, such as management of facility and utility capacities, use of the Wilderness Trailhead Quota System, limits on party size for humans and stock in the Wilderness areas, use of access restrictions when required, and restrictions on other specific activities (such as rafting, fishing, or boating). An overview of the user capacity program for this alternative and existing limits are presented in tables III-1 and III-2 respectively. Under this alternative, park managers would not directly limit total visitor levels within the river corridor. However, visitor use and use levels would be controlled through the provision of infrastructure and the specific use restrictions. Because the VERP program was not ready for full implementation when the 2000 Merced River Plan was adopted or when the Court issued its decision in October 2003, the user capacity program for this baseline alternative does not include a VERP element. Since the Merced River Plan's 2000 Record of Decision (NPS 2000d), the National Park Service has begun implementation of the VERP framework and is in the process of pilot-testing indicators and standards and gathering baseline data. Therefore, the absence of the VERP program in this No Action Alternative is only assumed for the purposes of providing a basis for comparison.
Relationship of Alternative 1 to the General Management PlanThe General Management Plan identified maximum daily visitor limits for major developed areas of the park, based on the future facility levels envisioned for these areas. When the General Management Plan was completed in 1980, future visitor limits or visitor capacity goals were well below the actual capacities. (In other words, in 1980 there were more facilities than the General Management Plan projected for the future.) To reach these goals, the General Management Plan called for a reduction and reallocation of visitor facilities. Since 1980, the National Park Service has based all subsequent planning efforts--including the Yosemite Valley Plan--on these visitor capacity goals. The National Park Service has initiated several recent planning efforts intended to move toward the goals of the General Management Plan, and to fulfill the requirements of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, which include protecting and enhancing Outstandingly Remarkable Values and natural river processes. These supplemental planning efforts approved facility changes, primarily to reduce development in sensitive areas in Yosemite Valley, to relocate facilities outside of sensitive areas in Yosemite Valley, and to restore sensitive habitats, such as meadows and heavily used portions of the banks of the Merced River. These plans have enabled the park to achieve portions of the greater vision established in the General Management Plan. Other planning efforts cannot be initiated until the Merced River Plan is completed. As a result, the visitor capacity goals presented in the General Management Plan have not yet been fully achieved. Under Alternative 1, park managers would use General Management Plan visitor capacity goals and facility levels as guidance in all planning and management efforts. However, it is anticipated that visitor use of the park could increase over time under this alternative. This increase could primarily result from additional day use visitation, as this alternative does not include a VERP program that would provide a comprehensive framework for regulating visitor use levels. Therefore, visitor use levels in Alternative 1 could exceed visitor use levels identified in the General Management Plan, particularly in areas such as Yosemite Valley. Based on an average facility and vehicle occupancy rate, it is projected that use levels could equal or exceed the average visitor use of 21,229 visitors per day in Yosemite Valley. Relationship of Alternative 1 to the Outstandingly Remarkable ValuesAs discussed previously, the National Park Service has implemented a number of user capacity tools in Yosemite for years. Current park policies and existing use levels are considered to be protective of the Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Although many park resources, particularly in Yosemite Valley, have been affected by increased use and development since the establishment of the park in the late 1800s, the majority of impacts to park resources occurred prior the designation of the river as Wild and Scenic in 1987. Since then, park managers have actively taken measures to reduce resource impacts and to protect and enhance natural and cultural resources and visitor experience throughout the park and in the river corridor. Work continues on a daily basis to improve conditions in the park--specifically in the Merced River corridor. Over the last 10 years, restoration efforts have begun to restore natural processes in Yosemite Valley. For example, meadow vegetation once trampled in a web of informal trails is now able to thrive due to the construction of boardwalks, which allow users to enjoy the meadow while protecting its sensitive wetlands. Riverbank areas denuded by concentrated use at Devil's Elbow and near Eagle Creek are now being restored to natural conditions. The number of facilities in the floodplain has been reduced. Impediments to water flows in meadows have been removed and some of the structures that restricted the free flow of the Merced River are now gone, such as the Cascades Diversion Dam. These actions (and other park restoration efforts that continue today) have been successful in ensuring the protection and enhancement of the Merced River's Outstandingly Remarkable Values. The Wilderness Trailhead Quota System and the Wilderness Impacts Monitoring System (WIMS), provide additional protection of Outstandingly Remarkable Values in wilderness segments through limitations in the number of people entering the wilderness and dispersion of use, as well as limits on specific activities as described in table III-1. Likewise, the Superintendent's Compendium provides protection of Outstandingly Remarkable Values in scenic and recreational segments through limits on specific activities such as restrictions in certain areas on climbing during nesting seasons, and restrictions on fishing in the Valley and El Portal segments. Existing overnight lodging and camping, day-visitor parking and utility system capacities provide protection of Outstandingly Remarkable Values through their placement in specific designated areas as described under Merced River Plan management zoning. Taken together, the user capacity measures and specific measurable limits summarized in table III-1 and discussed further in Chapter II comprise the existing user capacity program for the Merced River corridor under Alternative 1. Although each of these methods furthers the protection and enhancement of Outstandingly Remarkable Values, this alternative lacks a comprehensive VERP program. El Portal BoundaryThe El Portal boundary for the No Action Alternative is the boundary that was described in the selected alternative of the Merced River Plan/FEIS. This boundary is described as the 100-year floodplain or the River Protection Overlay, whichever is greater, along with adjacent wetlands. The total acreage included within the El Portal segment boundary under this alternative is 193 acres. The zoning for this alternative includes primarily Park Operations and Administration (3C) zoning within existing developed areas and Day Use (2C) zoning primarily within undeveloped areas adjacent to the river. Of the 193 acres within the boundary, 137 acres are zoned Day Use (2C) and 56 acres are zoned for Park Operations and Administration (3C). The El Portal boundary and management zoning for the No Action Alternative are shown in figure III-1. This alternative takes into consideration the legislative intent for the El Portal Administrative Site and the goal in the General Management Plan of moving park administrative facilities out of Yosemite Valley to the El Portal Administrative Site. Regardless of the zoning category, site design for this area would recognize the fact that the Outstandingly Remarkable Values in the El Portal segment must be protected, whether they are inside or outside of the corridor boundary. The National Park Service has committed to preparing a Concept Plan for the El Portal area when this Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS is complete. The El Portal Concept Plan will address the potential development of facilities in El Portal given park administrative needs and the need to protect and enhance the Outstandingly Remarkable Values associated with the river. The Outstandingly Remarkable Values identified within the El Portal segment of the river corridor include: scientific, geologic process/conditions, recreation, biological, cultural, hydrologic processes. The scientific Outstandingly Remarkable Values are not directly affected by the boundary and management zoning prescriptions under Alternative 1, nor would they be enhanced by information gained through the VERP program, as a comprehensive monitoring program of indicators and standards is not a component of this alternative. Both the geologic process/conditions and the hydrologic processes Outstandingly Remarkable Values are not sensitive to the boundary and management zones prescriptions proposed in Alternative 1.The recreation Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the El Portal segment are protected under Alternative 1, as the location of these Outstandingly Remarkable Values are found within the River Protection Overlay, which is zoned Day Use (2C). Additional data gathered as part of this planning effort determined that Outstandingly Remarkable Values existed outside of the narrow boundary established in the 2000 Merced River Plan. Therefore, only portions of both the biological and cultural Outstandingly Remarkable Values are protected under Alternative 1 through Day Use (2C) and Park Operations and Administration (3C) zoning. Alternative 2: VERP program with Interim Limits (Preferred)Summary of the AlternativeAlternative 2--the National Park Service's preferred alternative--takes the VERP framework provided in the 2000 Merced River Plan and implements a VERP program with specific indicators and standards, along with a commitment to take management action as needed to keep conditions within the established standards. The VERP program is described as an action common to all action alternatives in Chapter II. The standards, which are set at levels designed to protect and enhance the Outstandingly Remarkable Values, would provide a quantifiable and documented trigger for when action must be taken. If monitoring were to determine that conditions were approaching or exceeding a given standard, action would be taken to return conditions to the established standard. The documentation of these standards and the open public reporting process on the progress of the VERP program would provide public accountability on actions taken to protect and enhance river values. In response to the direction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Alternative 2 also proposes interim facility limits. These limits would remain in place until the VERP program is documented to be providing an effective management program and protecting the Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Finally, other existing methods and restrictions on visitor use described under the No Action Alternative (such as the Wilderness Trailhead Quota System and the limits established in the Superintendent's Compendium) would continue to be implemented under this alternative. Alternative 2 proposes a quarter-mile river corridor boundary in the El Portal Administrative Site. User Capacity ProgramThe following constitute the User Capacity Program methods proposed under Alternative 2. Each component is described in detail in the sections that follow. 1) Limits Based on Environmental and Experiential Conditions through VERP 2) Interim Limits on Facilities 3) Interim Limits on Specific Activities: Numbers of buses 4) Continuation of Existing User Capacity Methods Concept: The National Park Service would implement a VERP program that would result in direct action informed by monitoring and based on meeting the measurable quantifiable, standards for the desired conditions. Until the VERP program is fully operational, interim limits on facilities and select specific activities would be put in place to ensure protection of the river's Outstandingly Remarkable Values. These interim limits on facilities would constrain the level of park facilities and require the National Park Service to manage specific limits on use accordingly. For Wild segments of the Merced Wild and Scenic River, which comprise 51 of the 81 total miles within the river corridor, Alternative 2 would continue the implementation of the Wilderness Trailhead Quota System that has been in place since the 1970s. Other existing wilderness management programs (such as WIMS, camping restrictions, and group size restrictions on trails) would continue to be applied as documented in the Superintendent's Compendium and the Yosemite Wilderness Management Plan (NPS 1989b). The VERP program in this alternative would also be used to monitor and maintain resource and visitor experience conditions in Wild river segments. For the Recreational and Scenic segments, which make up 30 miles of the 81 total miles of the river corridor, Alternative 2 would implement the VERP program and set interim limits on visitor use through specific facility and activity limitations. The interim limits would remain in place for approximately 5 years while the park continues to field test and improve VERP indicators and standards. It is expected that sufficient documentation would be compiled through the VERP program to support an effective river management program that ensures the protection and enhancement of Outstandingly Remarkable Values during the approximate 5 year interim period. At the end of the 5 year interim period, the National Park Service would evaluate the VERP program's effectiveness in providing park managers with the information needed to manage visitor use in a manner that protects and enhances the river's Outstandingly Remarkable Values. At that time, the park would also present a report to the public addressing whether the VERP program has provided the required guidance on visitor use levels and whether facility limits should be continued, modified, or eliminated. If the VERP program is providing sufficient data, interim limits would most likely be eliminated. However, if the VERP program is not providing sufficient data, interim limits would continue until VERP is functioning as intended. Revisions to the interim limits could be considered and any revisions considered would have to be protective of Outstandingly Remarkable Values. If changes proposed at this time would result in substantially different environmental consequences than were identified in this document, an appropriate level of NEPA compliance would be completed. In addition to the VERP program and the interim facility limits, Alternative 2 would also include the other existing user capacity measures described in Chapter II and listed in table III-1. These existing measures address types and levels of use in all segments of the river corridor. Table III-3 provides an overview of the user capacity management program under Alternative 2. 1) Limits Based on Environmental and Experiential Conditions through VERPThe following sections describe Yosemite National Park's VERP program, which would consist of (1) establishing desired conditions (defined through management zoning), (2) establishing specific indicators with measurable standards based on desired conditions, (3) establishing a monitoring program, and (4) a commitment to taking effective management actions when conditions do not meet adopted standards. A detailed explanation of the VERP program was provided in Chapter II. The VERP program is a form of adaptive management, in that it is an iterative process that continues to monitor, evaluate, and adapt, resulting in actions while continually being revised and improved based on the knowledge gained through implementation. Desired Conditions and Management Zones. As discussed in Chapter II, the VERP program relies on the concept of desired conditions. Desired conditions are defined in management zone prescriptions (summarized in Chapter II), which identify how different areas in the river corridor would be managed. The 2000 Merced River Plan established the current management zones in the Merced River corridor to protect and enhance the Outstandingly Remarkable Values and the free-flowing condition of the Merced River. A set of desired resource conditions, desired visitor experience opportunities, and types and levels of appropriate uses are prescribed for each management zone. Indicators and standards (described in Chapter II) were developed to provide information on whether those desired resource conditions and visitor experience opportunities were being met. Measurable Indicators and Standards. Chapter II explains the process used to establish indicators and standards. Table II-5 presents the specific indicators and standards for each management zone within the Merced River corridor. These numeric standards are based on protection and enhancement of the Outstandingly Remarkable Values, and will provide park managers with the information needed to manage visitor use appropriately. The Outstandingly Remarkable Values that are related to each indicator are listed on the table. The scientific Outstandingly Remarkable Values are further enhanced to each of the indicators and standards as the data gathered during the VERP process will be available to scientists interested in studying the river and its environment, and will help guide management direction in the river corridor. These indicators and standards constitute specific measurable limits as required by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The National Park Service has begun field testing eleven indicators and standards. As park managers gain knowledge from field-testing, the indicators and standards may be further refined. This iterative learning and refining process is a strength of the VERP program, in that the program can be adapted and improved as knowledge grows. The National Park Service will inform the public of progress (including proposed revisions to indicators and standards) through regular updates, as described below. Monitoring. Monitoring is a key element in the VERP framework. Chapter II explains the importance of monitoring and its role in VERP. The National Park Service initiated VERP monitoring in 2004, based on the indicators that were listed in the User Capacity Management Program for the Merced Wild and Scenic River Corridor (NPS 2004a). As previously described in Chapter II, VERP is an iterative process that is refined as new information is gathered. Based on preliminary data gathered in 2004, some of the indicators first presented in 2004 were eliminated or revised, resulting in the proposed suite of indicators listed in table II-5. The field methods used in 2004 are documented in the 2004 VERP Field Guide available for review at www.nps.gov/yose/planning/ucmp.htm. The field methods will be updated and refined based on the knowledge gained during the 2004 field season and the new indicators proposed in table II-5. Establishing Limits through Management Actions. After information is gathered through on-the-ground monitoring, it may be necessary to take action to protect and enhance Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Chapter II describes the range of potential management actions that could be used to address visitor use and the conditions of the Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Under Alternative 2, park managers would be required to take responsive action whenever conditions are not within the established standards. As noted in Chapter II, the appropriate management action would be determined based on an analysis of the situation and determination of what measures would most effectively address the impacts. In the event where conditions are deteriorating but are not below standards (referred to as yellow light conditions in Chapter II), park managers may decide to take actions, such as increased education or temporary restrictions, which are considered to be less intensive management actions. In the event that standards have been exceeded (referred to as red light conditions in Chapter II), park managers may be more likely to implement more intensive or restrictive measures to address the condition and ensure protection of the Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Park managers would inform the public of proposed management actions designed to address conditions identified through VERP monitoring. Federal regulations require that any proposed management action that has the potential to have a significant effect on the environment must comply with NEPA. All proposed management actions will be reviewed for appropriate NEPA compliance, and if needed, additional NEPA compliance studies would be completed prior to implementation of the management action. Some of the potential management actions are expected to be allowable as categorical exclusions under NEPA and National Park Service NEPA guidelines (e.g., closing a portion of a riverbank or a meadow temporarily). Information on management actions found to require only a categorical exclusion will be provided in the VERP annual report. Information on management actions requiring a NEPA environmental assessment or environmental impact statement would be made available to the public in accordance with the National Park Service's NEPA requirements. Reporting to the Public. The National Park Service is committed to maintaining the transparency of the VERP program, in order to provide for greater accountability and opportunities for public involvement. The first public meeting on VERP was held in October 2004 and a second meeting was held in April 2005. The results from the first year of VERP monitoring are available for public review at www.nps.gov/yose/planning/ucmp.htm. Under Alternative 2, the park would adopt specific interim limits on facilities for each non-wilderness segment of the river. Facilities identified in the limits include overnight accommodations, day use parking, bus parking, and corridorwide employee housing (table III-4). The interim limits would last for approximately 5 years, while the VERP indicators and standards continue to be field tested and improved. The National Park Service would evaluate the VERP program's effectiveness in providing management with the information needed to manage visitor use in a manner that protects and enhances the Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Based on this evaluation, park managers would present a report to the public addressing whether the VERP program has provided the required guidance on visitor use levels and whether facility limits should be continued, modified or eliminated. If the VERP program is providing sufficient data on visitor use to guide the protection of Outstandingly Remarkable Values, interim limits would most likely be eliminated. If, however, the VERP program is not providing sufficient data, the National Park Service would continue interim limits until VERP is functioning as intended. In this situation, interim limits would not be eliminated; however, the National Park Service could consider revisions to the interim limits (e.g., adding new limits, revising limits). Revisions to the interim limits would be required to protect Outstandingly Remarkable Values until VERP was fully functioning. If changes proposed at this time would result in substantially different environmental consequences than were identified in this document, an appropriate level of NEPA compliance would be completed. 2) Interim Limits on Facilities". . . the NPS is [not] precluded from using VERP to fulfill the user capacities requirement [of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA)]. However, the WSRA does require that VERP be implemented through the adoption of quantitative measures sufficient to ensure its effectiveness as a current measure of user capacities. If the NPS is correct in projecting that it will need five years to fully implement the VERP, it may be able to comply with the user capacity mandate in the interim by implementing preliminary or temporary limits of some kind." --Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, October 2003 Alternative 2 responds directly to the direction of the October 2003 ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Under this alternative, the park would adopt specific interim limits on facilities for each non-wilderness segment of the river. (Wilderness segments are covered under existing specific use limits through the Wilderness Trailhead Quota System.) The interim facility limits would apply to overnight accommodations, day use parking, bus parking, and corridorwide employee housing. The interim limits on facilities included within this alternative are summarized in table III-4. Limits on facilities were chosen as the interim use limits in Alternative 2 because managing use according to facility capacities is considered one of the best tools park managers have to address some of the most immediate concerns in the park and to protect the river's Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Some of these concerns include traffic congestion, overflow parking onto sensitive vegetation, long waits at visitor services, and lack of parking. The interim facility limits would restrict any changes to the current facility footprint and would require the National Park Service to manage use accordingly. The interim limits on facilities under Alternative 2 would affect both visitors and employees. Limits on facilities in the Valley segment include limits on campground and lodging accommodations, and limits on day-visitor vehicle parking and bus parking. Each of these limits is specific and measurable and will directly relate to the number of people allowed in the Valley segment. Campground Capacity. Limits on campground facilities in Yosemite Valley include an allowable increase of 163 sites for an interim limit of 638 sites[1]. This level of campground facilities would be well below the number of campsites that existed in the Valley prior to the Merced River's Wild and Scenic designation. Campground facilities in Wawona would be limited to existing facilities of 99 sites. Campground facilities would be monitored using the campground reservation system and daily campsite occupancy registers. For Wilderness segments, no new campgrounds or trails would be allowed during this interim period. Lodging Capacity. Limits on overnight lodging facilities in the Valley would be limited to their existing levels of 1,262 units[2] and 104 units in Wawona. Overnight lodging would be monitored using the lodging reservation system. Day-Visitor Parking Capacity. Limits on day-visitor parking for the Valley would be limited to the existing capacity of 2,197[3] spaces. Day-visitor parking in the Gorge and El Portal segments would also be limited during the interim to existing parking capacities of 244 spaces and 360 spaces respectively. Similarly, day use parking in the Wawona area would be limited to existing parking capacity of 213 spaces. The adoption and enforcement of the interim limits on parking facilities for Yosemite Valley would likely result in the need to implement restricted access policies several times each year during the peak season to maintain visitation within this limit. Under these policies, park managers may temporarily redirect vehicles away from Yosemite Valley when traffic congestion reaches pre-determined levels. Traffic would be allowed to enter the Valley when congestion has decreased. Day-visitor parking would be monitored during peak season by traffic management staff located throughout the developed areas. Additional information from in-ground traffic counters would also be used to monitor Yosemite Valley traffic. Bus Parking Capacity. Limits on bus parking in the Valley would be limited to the existing capacity of 38 parking spaces the east Valley. This limit does not apply to in-Valley shuttle buses which serve to reduce traffic congestion and do not add visitors to the Valley. Bus parking in Wawona would be limited to the existing capacity of 14. Bus use is allowed under the provision of Special Use Permits. Parking would be monitored by traffic management staff, in coordination with entrance station personnel who record information on each bus entering the park. Employee Housing Capacity. Employee housing would be limited to housing for 1,969 employee bed spaces within the corridor. (Employees are managed at the corridor level to allow flexibility in reassigning employees among various duty stations.) Employee housing facilities would be monitored by National Park Service and concessioner housing management staff. 3) Interim Limits on Specific Activities: Number of BusesUnder Alternative 2, a limit on specific activities includes an interim limit on the number of buses allowed in the Valley and Wawona segments of the river corridor. The number of buses allowed in the Valley segment would be limited to 92 buses per day which is what the Valley has accommodated during peak periods in the past. Buses would be limited to 28 per day in Wawona. Limits on buses would be monitored through information collected by entrance stations each bus enters the park, and by traffic management staff who are responsible for directing parking and staging of buses. 4) Continuation of Existing User Capacity MethodsThe National Park Service would continue to use a variety of measures to manage visitor use, including limits on the number of people (Wilderness Trailhead Quota System, group size limits on trails), limits on facilities (overnight accommodations, day use parking, utility capacities), limits on specific activities listed in the Superintendent's Compendium, limits based on environmental and experiential conditions (i.e., Wilderness Impacts Monitoring System), and other measures that address visitor use and protection of the Outstandingly Remarkable Values as described in detail in Chapter II. Relationship of Alternative 2 to the General Management Plan Visitor CapacitiesThe 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. In the Yosemite 1980 General Management Plan, the total visitor capacity "goals" it established were well below the actual level of facilities. 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 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, and 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 (NPS 2004dd). 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 does 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. The visitor carrying capacity approach proposed herein 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. Relationship of Alternative 2 to Protection and Enhancement of the Outstandingly Remarkable ValuesUnder Alternative 2, park managers would implement the VERP program and would establish interim limits on facilities and specific activities. These measures would be added to the existing user capacity management measures discussed in Chapter II. Current park policies and existing use levels are considered to be protective of the Outstandingly Remarkable Values, as discussed under Alternative 1. The addition of the interim limits on facilities and specific activities and the implementation of a VERP program with detailed standards and indicators will provide park managers with on-the-ground information on the condition of Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Thus, managers will make more informed decisions to further protect and enhance the Outstandingly Remarkable Values and natural river processes. The interim facility limits established in Alternative 2 would remain in place for approximately 5 years, while the VERP program is being refined. As described previously in the VERP discussion, while some aspects of the VERP program may take several cycles of field testing, some aspects could be operational within a short time. The interim limits would not be eliminated, unless park managers were confident that the VERP program was providing sound guidance on appropriate types and levels of visitor use and adequate protection of the Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the river corridor. If changes proposed at this time would result in substantially different environmental consequences than were identified in this document, an appropriate level of NEPA compliance would be completed. Since VERP serves as a type of report card on the condition of various Outstandingly Remarkable Values, the National Park Service has committed to providing the public with regular updates on the status of the VERP user capacity component. In the long-term, the use of existing user capacity methods and the VERP program will allow the park to protect and enhance the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Merced River. El Portal BoundaryThe Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals directed the National Park Service to reassess the river boundary in El Portal based on the location of Outstandingly Remarkable Values. As a result of public comments received on the Draft Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS, Alternative 2 expands the corridor boundary to a quarter-mile on each side of the river. The boundary encompasses a total of 853 acres, which is equal to the maximum allowable acreage of 320 acres per linear mile of river under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This boundary would include portions of the El Portal Administrative Site that do not contain Outstandingly Remarkable Values, however, the extent of this boundary would be the same as all other river segments within Yosemite National Park. As specified in the 2000 Merced River Plan, the National Park Service will protect Outstandingly Remarkable Values wherever they exist, regardless of the corridor boundary. Future development could occur within the boundaries, provided that it would not adversely affect Outstandingly Remarkable Values. The El Portal boundary and management zoning for Alternative 2 are shown in figure III-2. The proposed management zoning for the El Portal segment consists of Park Operations and Administration (3C) zoning for most areas north of the river and for existing developed areas south of the river (Murchison structures, Trailer Village/Abbieville). Areas north of the river that are not considered to be suitable for high density visitor use have been zoned for Day Use (2C). The majority of the Sand Pit south of the river would be protected and zoned Day Use (2C), except for an access route to the Murchison structures. The area south of the river and east of the Highway 140 bridge would be zoned Open Space (2A). Alternative 2 provides for park administrative uses on 411 acres of the 853 acres within the corridor. Day-use facilities and uses would be allowed on 192 acres in 2C areas. The 250 acres zoned Open Space (2A) would be managed as a relatively undisturbed natural area with only incidental or casual use. It should be noted that not all areas zoned for development would be developed. In addition, any development proposed would also have to be consistent with all of the management elements, criteria and considerations adopted in the 2000 Merced River Plan. The Outstandingly Remarkable Values identified within the El Portal segment of the river corridor include: scientific, geologic process/conditions, recreation, biological, cultural, hydrologic processes. The scientific Outstandingly Remarkable Values, though not directly affected by the boundary and management zoning prescriptions under Alternative 2, would be enhanced by information gained through the VERP program, as a comprehensive monitoring program of indicators and standards is a component of this alternative. As mentioned in Alternative 1, both the geologic process/conditions and the hydrologic processes Outstandingly Remarkable Values are not sensitive to the boundary and management zones prescriptions proposed in Alternative 2. The recreation Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the El Portal segment are protected under Alternative 2, as the location of these Outstandingly Remarkable Values are primarily found within the River Protection Overlay and contains both Open Space (2A) and Day Use (2C) zoning. The extent of the biological Outstandingly Remarkable Values found within a quarter-mile of the river corridor are protected under Alternative 2 through Open Space (2A), Day Use (2C), and Park Operations and Administration (3C) zoning. Similarly, the extent of cultural Outstandingly Remarkable Values within a quarter-mile of the river corridor are protected primarily through Open Space (2A) and Park Operations and Administration (3C) zoning, and most notably through Day Use (2C) zoning. The proposed management zoning scheme fulfills the legislative intent of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. A subsidiary consideration is the legislative intent for the El Portal Administrative Site, which was transferred to the National Park Service to be used for operational purposes and to allow for the relocation of many park administrative and support facilities from Yosemite Valley to El Portal. Outstandingly Remarkable Values would be protected and enhanced during site planning and development within all management zones. Protection of the Outstandingly Remarkable Values would be further evaluated and documented in the El Portal Concept Plan, which will be initiated following completion of this Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS. The El Portal Concept Plan would re-evaluate the development proposed in the Yosemite Valley Plan for El Portal, in light of the revised river corridor boundary and management zoning in the El Portal area. Alternative 3: VERP program with Segment LimitsSummary of the AlternativeAlternative 3 would consist of additional limits on the number of people within the river corridor, a new facility limit on employee housing within the river corridor, and implementation of the VERP program (as presented in Chapter II) to manage visitor use and protect the Merced River's Outstandingly Remarkable Values. The additional limits on people would be expressed as a daily visitor limit f | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
