Yosemite Valley Plan: Record of Decision

Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, represents the status quo in Yosemite Valley. The four action alternatives presented in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS are based on a thorough consideration of the best-available information on park resources and the visitor experience. Each of the four action alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS presents a distinct vision for preserving the resources that contribute to Yosemite Valley’s splendor and uniqueness while making the resources available to people for their enjoyment, education, and recreation.

DECISION (SELECTED ACTION)

The National Park Service will implement Alternative 2 as described in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement issued in November 2000 (with some minor clarifications, as listed in Appendix B, Errata Sheet). The selected alternative provides an overall combination of actions to restore natural processes in Yosemite Valley, preserve cultural resource values, reduce harmful environmental impacts (including those related to traffic congestion), and continue to provide opportunities for high quality visitor experiences based on resource values.

This decision implements actions called for in the Merced River Plan to protect Outstandingly Remarkable Values. For example, it restores the free-flowing character of the Merced River by removal of the Cascades Diversion Dam. It removes development along the banks of the Merced River in order to restore previously impacted hydrologic processes, including wetland and meadow communities, thereby increasing habitat connectivity. Camping and lodging at Housekeeping Camp will continue, but only at a level that provides for a high-quality visitor experience and does not impair the resources for the areas in which the facilities are located. Where camping has been determined to have adverse impacts on natural or cultural values, the decision is to let natural processes prevail. Existing campgrounds have been proposed for modest expansion when located where resource values will not be impaired by the placement of additional sites. While the number of campsites will be reduced from pre-1997 flood levels, they have been increased since the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS as a result of public comments.

The opportunity to continue to visit and experience Yosemite Valley is an important one, as evidenced by the high public interest in all aspects of proposed management actions which affect that opportunity. The earliest legislation establishing Yosemite reflects the importance of the public’s ability to visit and experience the park in a manner that does not destroy its nature or its values. The selected action will consolidate visitor services and transit operations (including day-visitor parking) within or adjacent to areas that have been previously developed in the eastern end of Yosemite Valley rather than in previously undeveloped areas near Taft Toe. This decision provides for the removal of visitor services or facilities no longer necessary to provide for a high-quality visitor experience or that have impacts that may be adverse to park values. The location of facilities was established by determining the most appropriate locations that would not adversely impact park values and would allow for park goals to be achieved (such as reducing congestion or providing a high-quality visitor experience). Visitor services and service levels (e.g., number of campsites, overnight accommodations, parking spaces, etc.) have been determined by the number that could fit into these locations and result in a greater appreciation and understanding of park values and goals.

Historically, it was convenient to manage the entire park from Yosemite Valley. Park operations are now more complex and widespread. Many activities necessary to maintain park operations will be relocated from Yosemite Valley. These include services such as stables and horseback riding, vehicle repair and shuttle-bus maintenance, and some administrative activities and employee housing for both the National Park Service and the concessioner. Some facilities have attained such historic values that they will continue to provide service in their current locations although they are sited in areas with increased risk due to natural phenomena (such as rockfall or flooding). Examples include the medical clinic, some Curry Village facilities, roads, trails, and bridges.

Visitors who wish to continue to use private stock for pleasure riding in Yosemite Valley or to access backcountry trailheads as they have in the past will continue to have those opportunities. While commercial trail rides will be discontinued in Yosemite Valley, they will continue to be available at other park stables in Tuolumne Meadows and Wawona. The administrative stables to support National Park Service and concessioner operational use of stock will be moved outside the Valley. With the removal of the concessioner stable, overnight livery of private stock will no longer be available in the Valley. The National Park Service considered the idea of establishing a campground in Yosemite Valley to accommodate campers and their horses (as is provided at several other locations in the park). Space for visitor facilities is limited in Yosemite Valley. The number of campsites for the general public would have to be reduced to accommodate a horse camp, and multiple use of these horse camps would create a conflict with non-stock users. The decision is to not establish a new horse camp in Yosemite Valley. The Valley trail system will continue to offer riders access to traditional backcountry trails, loop rides east of Mirror Lake, and to the western end of Yosemite Valley. Where such use would cause conflict with other users of multi-use trails, separate trails for horse use would be developed.

A major goal of both the Yosemite Valley Plan and the park’s 1980 General Management Plan is how best to reduce traffic congestion. The selected action provides consolidated parking in Yosemite Valley at a level sufficient (550 spaces) to accommodate all day-visitors traveling by private vehicle from late fall through early spring. During the peak season of late spring, summer, and early fall, the additional use of out-of-Valley parking areas along each of the three primary access roads to the Valley will reduce congestion and the direct impacts of visitors’ vehicles in Yosemite Valley. The decision is to reduce the impact of private vehicles in Yosemite Valley through the use of out-of-Valley parking areas and an associated shuttle bus system. The decision to place some out-of-Valley parking areas and other facilities outside park boundaries is consistent with National Park Service policy.

The selected action provides means to preserve and protect the very natural and cultural resource values that make visitors to Yosemite Valley appreciate the reasons for which the Valley was set aside. Past development to provide for visitor services did not always take into account the impacts to the park’s natural processes or natural values. Some aspects of that development are considered traditional and have taken on historic value of their own (such as Curry Village, Housekeeping Camp, or bridges across the Merced River). For example, the selected action will remove Sugar Pine Bridge, which presently causes hydrologic action that may lead to the impairment of the natural values of the Merced Wild and Scenic River through Yosemite Valley. A monitoring program will determine the ecological and hydrological effect on the Merced River downstream and the degree to which the river resumes its natural processes. Only after monitoring the results will it be known whether additional bridges (such as Stoneman Bridge) will need to be removed to further restore natural hydrological processes.

Alternative Description
Alternative 2 will reduce fragmentation between the highly valued natural resource areas from Clark’s Bridge downstream to Swinging Bridge. Areas in the eastern portion of Yosemite Valley that have been degraded or fragmented (such as the Merced River and its tributaries, wetlands, meadows, and California black oak woodlands) will be restored to one large and dynamic river-governed ecosystem. There will be minimal new development west of the Yosemite Lodge area.

Alternative 2 will consolidate parking for 550 day-visitors’ vehicles in the Yosemite Village area and (in peak season) in three out-of-Valley areas (El Portal, Badger Pass, and Hazel Green or Foresta). Shuttle buses will transport visitors to locations throughout Yosemite Valley and also between the Valley and out-of-Valley parking areas. A new visitor center and transit center will be located in Yosemite Village adjacent to day-visitor parking. Actions in this alternative will result in a major reduction of vehicular congestion in the eastern portion of Yosemite Valley during summer months.

There will be more campsites and fewer lodging units than there are today. The area of the former Upper River and Lower River Campgrounds will be restored to a mosaic of meadow, riparian, and California black oak woodland communities. The River Protection Overlay 2 prescribed in the Merced River Plan will be implemented in Yosemite Valley and the El Portal Administrative Site. Southside Drive will be converted to two-way traffic from El Capitan crossover to Curry Village, and Northside Drive will be closed to motor vehicles from El Capitan crossover to Yosemite Lodge and converted to a multi-use (bicycle and pedestrian) paved trail.

Following is a list of many of the actions that will occur under Alternative 2 in relation to existing conditions (see Volume IA, page 2-47, of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS for a complete discussion of the alternative):

Facilities and services that will be removed under Alternative 2 include: roads through Stoneman Meadow and the southern portion of Ahwahnee Meadow (including the road through the former Upper River and Lower River Campgrounds); North Pines Campground; historic Sugar Pine Bridge (to restore the hydrologic system of the Merced River); other historic structures including the concessioner stable, Concession Headquarters, Village Garage, Cascades Diversion Dam, and five Cascades houses; the abandoned wastewater treatment plant in El Portal from a sensitive cultural resource area; most parking (including at Lower Yosemite Fall) in east Valley, other than at lodging, campgrounds, and the Yosemite Village area; five motel buildings from Yosemite Lodge; and commercial trail rides in Yosemite Valley.

Facilities to be constructed under Alternative 2 include: a day-visitor parking area for 550 vehicles at Yosemite Village; a visitor center and transit center near the day-visitor parking area at Yosemite Village; a new shuttle stop, restroom, enlarged viewing area near the base of Yosemite Falls, interpretive exhibits, and an informal gathering/viewing area in the Lower Yosemite Fall area; a vehicle bridge across Yosemite Creek near Yosemite Lodge; a replacement footbridge at Happy Isles near the Nature Center; lodging at Yosemite Lodge and Curry Village; campsites at Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground); campsites east of Curry Village, in the Upper Pines and Lower Pines areas, and along Tenaya Creek; employee housing at Curry Village, Yosemite Village, El Portal, Wawona, and Foresta; and two fire stations, one in the Yosemite Village area (outside of the Yosemite Village Historic District), and one in the Curry Village area.

Alternative 2 will establish and implement: a Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) study and program to monitor existing and desired conditions for natural resources, cultural resources, and visitor experience; a traveler information and traffic management system to provide information to visitors, provide incentives for efficient use of available parking and transportation services, and manage access and parking; seasonal out-of-Valley day-visitor parking areas at Badger Pass, El Portal, and Hazel Green or Foresta; some utility hookups for recreational vehicles and shower facilities in campgrounds; and design guidelines for new construction and for rehabilitating the landscape in historic developed areas.

Alternative 2 will convert: the Yosemite Museum/Valley District Building back to its historic function as a museum; Southside Drive from El Capitan crossover to Curry Village to two-way traffic (road widened where necessary); Northside Drive from El Capitan crossover to Yosemite Lodge from a vehicle road to a multi-use (bicycle and pedestrian) paved trail; and the trail to the base of Yosemite Falls to a route accessible by people with mobility impairments.

Alternative 2 will increase or expand: shuttle bus service west to Bridalveil Fall and out-of-Valley parking areas; interpretive and orientation services, including a new visitor center in Yosemite Valley and visitor contact stations at or near principal park entrances; and multi-use paved trails.

Alternative 2 will reduce: stock trails by approximately 0.5 mile (private stock use will continue on all other designated trails); lodging to approximately 961 units (including approximately 100 units at Housekeeping Camp); and traffic entering the east Valley on a typically busy day by 50 percent.

Alternative 2 will relocate: employee housing to El Portal, Foresta, and Wawona (subject to further site planning, environmental review and public participation), leaving 723 employee beds in Yosemite Valley; National Park Service and concessioner administrative stables operations to McCauley Ranch in Foresta; National Park Service and concessioner headquarters out of Yosemite Valley; the historic Superintendent’s house (Residence 1) and its garage to a site within the Yosemite Village Historic District; and museum collections storage, research library, and archives consolidated in Yosemite Valley.

OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Alternative 1
This alternative maintains the status quo in Yosemite Valley, as described in Volume IA, Chapter 3, Affected Environment. It provides a baseline from which to compare other alternatives, to evaluate the magnitude of proposed changes, and to measure the environmental effects of those changes. This no action concept follows the guidance of the Council on Environmental Quality, which describes the No Action Alternative as no change from the existing management direction or level of management intensity.

Under this alternative, no dramatic or comprehensive changes would take place in the management of Yosemite Valley. The primary modes of transportation into Yosemite Valley would be by private vehicle and bus. Access would continue to be managed by the Restricted Access Plan during periods of high visitation. A combination of scattered parking and formal and informal parking lots would continue. Campsites, lodging, and employee housing units would remain at current conditions and levels. The Valley Visitor Center would remain in its present location in Yosemite Village. A comprehensive approach to restoring highly valued natural communities in Yosemite Valley, such as the Merced River corridor, meadows, and wetlands, would not take place. The western end of Yosemite Valley would remain largely undeveloped. (Alternative 1 is described in detail in Volume IA of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, beginning on page 2-25.)

Alternative 3
This alternative would consolidate parking for day visitors in the Taft Toe area in mid-Yosemite Valley. A new Valley Visitor Center and transit center would also be constructed at Taft Toe. There would be fewer campsites and lodging units than there are now. The area of the former Upper River and Lower River Campgrounds and the Camp 6 parking area near Yosemite Village would be restored to riparian habitat, roads would be removed from the southern portion of Ahwahnee Meadow and Stoneman Meadow, and parking and the historic fruit trees would be removed from Curry Orchard. Northside Drive would be converted to a trail for pedestrians and bicyclists, without the immediate presence of motor vehicles, from Yosemite Lodge to El Capitan crossover. Southside Drive would be converted to two-way traffic from Taft Toe to Curry Village. (Alternative 3 is described in detail in Volume IA of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, beginning on page 2-97.)

Alternative 4
This alternative would consolidate parking for day visitors in the Taft Toe area in mid-Yosemite Valley and in peak season at three out-of-Valley locations (El Portal, Badger Pass, and South Landing). A new Valley Visitor Center and transit center would also be constructed at Taft Toe. There would be fewer campsites and lodging units than there are now. The area of the former Upper River and Lower River Campgrounds and the Camp 6 parking area near Yosemite Village would be restored to riparian communities, roads would be removed from the southern portion of Ahwahnee Meadow and from Stoneman Meadow, and parking would be removed from Curry Orchard. Northside Drive would be converted to a multi-use paved trail for hikers and bicyclists, without the immediate presence of motor vehicles, from Yosemite Lodge to El Capitan crossover. Southside Drive would be converted to two-way traffic from Taft Toe to Curry Village. (Alternative 4 is described in detail in Volume IA of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, beginning on page 2-143.)

Alternative 5
This alternative would consolidate parking for day visitors at Yosemite Village, where a new transit center would be located, and in parking areas outside of Yosemite Valley. The Valley Visitor Center would remain where it is today. There would be more campsites and fewer lodging units than there are now. The area of the former Upper River and Lower River Campgrounds would be restored to a mosaic of meadow, riparian, and oak woodland communities. Traffic circulation would remain the same as at present; however, one lane of Northside and Southside Drives would be converted to a multi-use (bicyclist and pedestrian) paved trail between El Capitan crossover and Yosemite Lodge. There would be minimal new development in the mid-Valley and west Yosemite Valley. (Alternative 5 is described in detail in Volume IA of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, beginning on page 2-189.)

BASIS FOR DECISION

After careful consideration of public comments received throughout the planning process, including comments on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Alternative 2 has been selected for this Record of Decision. This alternative best accomplishes the legislated purposes of Yosemite National Park and the statutory mission of the National Park Service to provide long-term protection of Yosemite National Park’s resources and values while allowing for visitor use and visitor enjoyment. The selected action also best accomplishes the stated purposes of the Yosemite Valley Plan (as described on page 1-5 of Volume IA, Purpose and Need, of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement), and the criteria derived from these purposes (Volume IA, pages 1-12 to 1-14). Consequently, the selected action conserves values embodied in the Organic Act to:

Protect and Enhance Natural and Cultural Resources
Through its combination of restoration of areas to natural conditions, resource protection, and the location of most new facilities in previously disturbed areas, Alternative 2 exceeds the other alternatives in its protection and enhancement of natural resources and removal of facilities from highly valued resource areas. Alternative 2 consolidates development within or adjacent to areas that have been previously developed in the east end of Yosemite Valley (as does Alternative 5), while Alternatives 3 and 4 propose new development in mid Yosemite Valley (Taft Toe). Consequently Alternatives 3 and 4 would result in habitat loss and further fragmentation and disturbance in areas largely undisturbed in the central portion of the Valley. Although Alternatives 2 and 5 continue to utilize the Yosemite Village area to support day-visitor parking, Alternatives 3 and 4 would restore this area to natural conditions, increasing the amount of contiguous restored highly valued natural resource areas. However, this would come at the cost of new development and natural resource disturbance in a previously undeveloped area at Taft Toe.

Alternative 2 protects highly valued natural and cultural resources through the restoration of large tracts of meadow, riparian, and California black oak woodland communities along the river from Clark’s Bridge downstream to Swinging Bridge. These areas currently impacted by development include the North Pines Campground, the concessioner stable, the area of the former Upper River and Lower River Campgrounds, a portion of Lower Pines Campground, and the area of Yosemite Lodge between the bike path and the Merced River. These actions are important in that they further protect highly valued natural resources, restore the Merced River system and its floodplain, and above all provide a contiguous connection of highly valued vegetative communities along the Merced River corridor. Habitat connectivity encourages biodiversity and promotes a more stable biological system.

Alternative 2 reduces the total amount of development in Yosemite Valley by 71 acres, which is more than all other alternatives except Alternative 3, which would reduce development by 1 additional acre (72 acres total). Fewer acres will be restored to natural conditions under Alternative 2 than under Alternatives 3 and 4, but Alternative 2 will also result in fewer acres of new development compared to Alternatives 3 and 4. Although Alternative 2 has more acres of new development than under Alternative 5, it will achieve more acres of restoration to natural conditions in Yosemite Valley than Alternative 5.

Facilities no longer needed or that adversely impact the river system will be removed from highly valued resource areas and new facilities will be located largely outside these areas. They will be placed in such a way as to avoid or minimize disruption of natural processes. Like Alternatives 3 and 4, Alternative 2 will remove North Pines Campground and the area will be restored to natural conditions. Although management zoning of the Merced River Plan would allow for the retention of North Pines Campground, this area, nestled between the confluence of the Merced River and Tenaya Creek, is best suited as a natural area and not a development area. It has a potential for high frequency flooding, it can support a higher degree of ecological diversity than upland areas, and the dynamic hydrology associated with the river and creek will be allowed to change naturally. This decision furthers the protection of highly valued natural resources, the Merced River system and its floodplain, and the contiguous connectivity of natural communities within and along the Merced River corridor. Alternative 5 would not achieve these benefits, as North Pines Campground is retained under this alternative.

Sugar Pine Bridge over the Merced River currently impedes the river’s flow and inhibits the river’s natural meandering. The removal of the Sugar Pine Bridge will help restore the hydrologic system of the Merced River and directly enhance the biological and hydrologic process Outstandingly Remarkable Values (as described in the Merced Wild and Scenic River Plan). The removal of Sugar Pine Bridge (and possibly Stoneman Bridge) will be an adverse impact to a cultural resource. However, the adverse effects of actions on historic bridges will be less under Alternative 2 than under the other action alternatives. The effects of the removal of Sugar Pine Bridge on the Merced River’s ecosystem and river hydrology will be evaluated before determining the need to remove Stoneman Bridge. Therefore, the maximum benefit to the river system will be achieved in conjunction with the least adverse impact to historic bridges.

With the retention of Housekeeping Camp units outside the River Protection Overlay, the Housekeeping footbridge would be retained to facilitate pedestrian circulation and travel between Housekeeping Camp and the north side of the river, including Yosemite Village. Housekeeping Bridge would also be retained in Alternative 5, as would Stoneman Bridge, but Ahwahnee Bridge would be removed. Alternatives 3 and 4 call for the removal of more historic bridges than Alternatives 2 and 5. In Alternatives 3 and 4, historic bridges not necessary to facilitate vehicle and foot travel would be removed to allow natural process to prevail and the Merced River to meander naturally. These include Sugar Pine, Stoneman, Housekeeping, and Superintendent’s Bridges.

In the Camp Curry Historic District, Alternative 2 will better preserve the historic integrity of the area than the other action alternatives by retaining character-defining features. Alternative 2 will retain 174 guest tent cabins (compared to 150 guest tent cabins in all other action alternatives), retain the historic Tresidder and Huff houses (removed in all other action alternatives) and rehabilitate them for lodging, and retain and rehabilitate 80 wood bungalows without bath (removed in all other action alternatives). Also, under Alternative 2, to maintain the integrity of the historic district, some cabins will remain in the rockfall zone. Alternative 2 provides that new employee housing in the Camp Curry area adjacent to the historic district would be designed to be compatible with the historic character of the district.

The historic Superintendent’s house (Residence 1) and garage will be relocated from its current location within the 100-year floodplain to a site within the Yosemite Village Historic District in Alternative 2. Under all other action alternatives this historic property would be demolished. In the Yosemite Village Historic District, the Ahwahnee Row houses, which are important features of the Yosemite Valley cultural landscape, will be retained in Alternative 2, while they would be demolished under all other action alternatives.

Treatment of historic Lamon Orchard is similar under Alternatives 2 and 5 (the trees will be retained and managed to reduce impacts to wildlife), though Alternative 2 additionally provides for interpretation of the site. The trees would be removed under Alternative 3, and neither removed nor managed under Alternative 4. Historic fruit trees will be removed from Curry Orchard in Alternative 2, as they would in Alternatives 3 and 5, but they would be retained in Alternative 4. Alternative 2 provides for the best reduction of impacts to wildlife, while continuing to provide for the appreciation and understanding of the cultural and horticultural values in Yosemite Valley.

Under each of the action alternatives, the character of the historic Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) would be maintained. However, Alternative 2 best protects the cultural values of Camp 4 because it will limit development adjacent to the camp. Under Alternative 2, development adjacent to Camp 4 in the Yosemite Lodge area is less (251 units) than in the other action alternatives (387 units under Alternatives 3 and 4, and 369 units under Alternative 5). Also, Alternative 5 would locate 262 employee beds at Yosemite Lodge. All other action alternatives call for more development around Camp 4 than does Alternative 2.

In summary, Alternative 2 includes actions that are major and beneficial to the natural resources of Yosemite Valley, and generally more beneficial to cultural resources than other alternatives.

Enhance Visitor Experience

The criteria to enhance the visitors’ experience by fostering a diversity of opportunities and by encouraging a high degree of resource stewardship through interpretation, orientation, and education, will be best achieved by implementing Alternative 2.

Day-visitor parking in Alternative 2 provides for 550 day-visitor parking spaces in Yosemite Valley. This is the same number of spaces as provided in Alternatives 4 and 5, and less than provided in Alternative 3 (1,622 in-Valley day-visitor parking spaces). In Alternative 2 and 5, Yosemite Village would become the primary location within Yosemite Valley for visitors to obtain information and orientation. It would also serve as the principal center for learning about Yosemite. The location of day-visitor parking in both Alternatives 2 and 5 is in the Yosemite Village area, a central location that is currently being used for parking. Under Alternative 2, the parking and transit center will be immediately adjacent to the visitor center. This arrangement will make it more convenient to obtain the information, orientation, and educational services generally associated with a high-quality visit.

Alternatives 3 and 4 would require the development of a new parking facility in the mid-Valley at Taft Toe. The establishment of a Taft Toe parking and transit facility and a visitor center, would introduce new development and concentrate visitor use in a previously undisturbed portion of Yosemite Valley. Alternatives 2 and 5 would allow both day and overnight visitors to drive their private vehicles into the eastern end of Yosemite Valley. Many visitors perceive this as an advantage over Alternatives 3 and 4, which intercept day visitors at Taft Toe in mid-Valley. Alternative 2 also includes day-visitor parking in three areas outside the Valley, as do Alternatives 4 and 5 (but in each alternative, out-of-Valley parking would be in different locations or at a different combination of locations). Alternative 3 does not require out-of-Valley parking. It is recognized that Alternative 2 may cause some inconvenience to those park visitors who must park in out-of-Valley parking areas and use shuttle buses to access the Valley. However, under Alternative 2, the location of day-visitor parking in a previously disturbed portion of Yosemite Village and reduction in the number of vehicles entering the Valley during peak season will contribute to a more tranquil Yosemite Valley experience. These features, along with enhanced opportunities for conveniently obtaining orientation, interpretation, and educational services, make Alternative 2 the preferred choice in terms of visitor access.

Alternative 2 will provide a total of approximately 500 campsites, more than would be provided under Alternatives 3 and 4 (approximately 449 and 441 respectively). The principal difference in campsite numbers between Alternatives 2 and 5 is the treatment of North Pines Campground. Under Alternative 2, North Pines will be restored to natural conditions, and under Alternative 5, 70 walk-in campsites would be provided there. Although management zoning of the Merced Wild and Scenic River Plan/FEIS allows for continued use of North Pines as a campground, restoration of this highly valued natural resource area to natural conditions better meets the purpose and criteria of the Yosemite Valley Plan. This was a factor in the selection of Alternative 2 over Alternative 5.

The removal of all Housekeeping Camp units from the River Protection Overlay in Alternative 2, as well as in Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 will benefit biological and hydrologic process Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Alternatives 3 and 4 differ from Alternatives 2 and 5 in that all Housekeeping Units within highly valued resource areas will be removed. Therefore, Alternative 2 will provide less restoration of highly valued resource areas in this localized area, but will increase visitor opportunities to have a traditional, rustic overnight experience.

Alternative 2 is the only action alternative that calls for redesign of Yosemite Lodge to refocus visitors’ lodging experience from a motel-like experience with one more connected to and unique to the national park. Alternative 2 provides 961 lodging units, less than under any other alternative, including the No Action Alternative. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would provide 982, 982 and 1012 units, respectively. Alternative 2 reduces the proportion of higher-cost units in response to widespread public comment received on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan, and has a higher proportion of low-cost accommodations (campsites, Housekeeping Camp, and Curry Village tent cabins and cabins-without-bath) than other action alternatives. The number of lodging units provided in Alternative 2, coupled with its emphasis on a park-oriented visitor experience and low-cost opportunities make Alternative 2 the best choice to achieve the planning goals of ensuring equitable access and bringing visitors into closer contact with the Valley’s resources.

Each of the action alternatives provides increased opportunities for experiencing Yosemite Valley on foot or bicycle by providing additional multi-use paved trails. In Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, Northside Drive from Yosemite Lodge to El Capitan crossover would be closed to motor vehicle traffic. The road would be converted to a multi-use paved trail providing a means to safely explore more of the Valley by bicycle or on foot. In Alternative 5, one lane of Northside Drive would be converted to a multi-use paved trail and the other lane would be used by motor vehicles. Under Alternative 2, because there will not be a visitor/transit center and day-visitor parking area at the El Capitan crossover (as there would under Alternatives 3 and 4), the section of multi-use trail along the former Northside Drive between Yosemite Lodge and mid-Valley will provide visitors with an opportunity to have a more tranquil hiking and bicycling experience in this part of the Valley.

Provide Effective Operations
The management of parkwide operations, including headquarters for the National Park Service and the primary concessioner, will be moved out of Yosemite Valley. Other functions not essential for Yosemite Valley operations will also be relocated under each of the action alternatives. These include National Park Service and concessioner administrative stables operations, which will be moved to McCauley Ranch in Foresta (pending a Wilderness suitability study).

The criteria that special-occupancy facilities and emergency support structures and functions be provided outside of known geologic hazard zones will be met as prescribed by the Yosemite Valley Geologic Hazard Guidelines. Under Alternative 2 only, the existing fire station function will be relocated to two newly constructed fire stations — one in Yosemite Village and one in the Curry Village area. Two locations, one on each side of the river, will assure adequate response for emergency incidents. As Alternative 2 calls for the removal of several road segments and bridges, the siting of a fire station on each side of the Valley will facilitate access for emergency vehicles. Alternatives 3 and 4 relocate consolidated fire station operations to one site at the edge of the Yosemite Village Historic District. This would introduce a non-contributing element to the historic district and require new development in previously undeveloped California black oak woodland. Under Alternative 5, consolidated fire station operations would be relocated to a site near day-visitor parking in Yosemite Village.

Employee housing is necessary in Yosemite Valley to support and sustain visitors if there are road closures or commuting difficulties. The criterion to provide housing for an appropriate number of Yosemite Valley employees would be adequately met under all of the action alternatives and housing would be improved to meet minimum standards. Under Alternatives 2 and 5, housing would be distributed between Yosemite Valley, Foresta, El Portal, and Wawona. Alternatives 3 and 4 would locate housing in Yosemite Valley, Foresta, and El Portal. In all action alternatives, the National Park Service would actively pursue policies, programs, and arrangements encouraging the private acquisition of housing, and to encourage the housing of employees in the region outside the boundaries of Yosemite National Park. Collaborative planning between the National Park Service and local governments and independent actions by local governments will be required to facilitate the housing of park employees in surrounding communities.

Provide Appropriate Land Uses
The criterion articulated in the Purpose and Need of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS to site new facilities so that, in aggregate, they help achieve a benefit for park resources, will be met under Alternative 2. Of the facilities to be removed in Yosemite Valley, most are to be removed from highly valued resource areas. If the function is to be retained in Yosemite Valley, in most cases it will be relocated outside of highly valued resource areas and outside the River Protection Overlay. Facilities to be relocated to Wawona and El Portal will be sited and designed to be in compliance with the provisions and zoning of the Merced River Plan.

One of the most significant land-use decisions addressed by the Yosemite Valley Plan is the location of day-visitor parking. In Yosemite Valley, the location of possible parking sites was circumscribed by the Merced Wild and Scenic River Plan/FEIS. After thorough consideration, the National Park Service has determined that the placement of day-visitor parking is more appropriate in the east Valley. The eastern portion of Yosemite Valley is already established as a focus for visitor services, orientation, and interpretation, has a high concentration of scenic views, and is currently used for visitor parking. In contrast, the Taft Toe facility would introduce a major new development to a section of the Valley where none exists today, thus transforming a relatively quiet part of the Valley into an area of concentrated visitor use. The expansion of concentrated visitor use into the mid-Valley would not occur under Alternatives 2 and 5. As called for in the Merced River Plan, the Taft Toe area would convert to its base zone (Discovery–2B) and would not be used for park operations purposes.

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the Yellow Pine area would be restored to natural conditions. Its zoning as prescribed in the Merced River Plan would change from 3A/3C (Camping/Park Operations and Management) to 2B (Discovery). Alternatives 4 and 5 would retain camping in this area. The volunteer group campground at Yellow Pine will be relocated to the site of the former Foresta campground. This action will remove an administrative use from an active debris flow (Sentinel Creek) and allow for restoration of the Yellow Pine area to natural conditions (potential highly valued natural resource).

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the area between Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) and Yosemite Lodge would support expanded walk-in camping opportunities. Under Alternative 4, the area would be managed under a lesser-intensity day-use zone. Under Alternative 5, employee housing would be constructed in this area, which would cause impacts to the historic character of Camp 4. Alternative 2 allows for desired expansion of campsites into this previously disturbed area.
Alternative 2 also includes out-of-Valley parking at Badger Pass (an existing parking area), at the park’s El Portal Administrative Site, and on privately owned land outside of Yosemite National Park at Hazel Green Ranch (or Foresta, inside the park, if Hazel Green Ranch is not possible). Hazel Green Ranch is located in Mariposa County on privately owned land and is therefore subject to local ordinance and code and to the regulations of the State of California which require environmental review and analysis. For out-of-Valley parking to be located at Hazel Green Ranch, the private land owner will need to pursue an amendment to existing county zoning ordinance and complete an environmental review as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. The placement of parking at Hazel Green Ranch will be consistent with National Park Service policy to place new facilities outside of park boundaries when practical. The arrangement would also be a private/public partnership that would yield benefits to the public, consistent with Yosemite Valley Plan purposes. For example, granting a new 200-yard right-of-way from Hazel Green to the Big Oak Flat Road across park land would occur only with the extinguishing of existing right-of-ways in to the Merced Grove from outside the park. Out-of Valley parking is also proposed under Alternatives 4 and 5, however these alternatives propose areas that are not currently developed such as South Landing and Henness Ridge.

In summary, Alternative 2 through the combination and interplay of the various elements best achieves the purposes of and need for the Yosemite Valley Plan.

FINDINGS ON IMPAIRMENT OF PARK RESOURCES AND VALUES

The National Park Service has determined that implementation of Alternative 2 of the Yosemite Valley Plan will not constitute an impairment 3 to Yosemite National Park’s resources and values. This conclusion is based on a thorough analysis of the environmental impacts described in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the public comments received, relevant scientific studies, and the professional judgement of the decision-maker guided by the direction in Director’s Order 55 (September 8, 2000). While the plan has some negative impacts, in all cases these adverse impacts are the result of actions taken to preserve and restore other park resources and values. Overall, the plan results in major benefits to park resources and values, opportunities for their enjoyment, and it does not result in their impairment.

In determining whether impairment may occur, park managers consider the duration, severity, and magnitude of the impact; the resources and values affected; and direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the action. According to National Park Service Policy, "An impact would be more likely to constitute an impairment to the extent that it affects a resource or value whose conservation is: a) Necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; b) Key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the park; or c) Identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other relevant National Park Service planning documents." (Director’s Order 55)

This policy does not prohibit impacts to park resources and values. The National Park Service has the discretion to allow impacts to park resources and values when necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of a park, so long as the impacts do not constitute impairment. Moreover, an impact is less likely to constitute impairment if it is an unavoidable result of an action necessary to preserve or restore the integrity of park resources or values.

Human activity and past development have resulted in the ongoing disruption of natural systems and processes in Yosemite Valley for generations. The No Action Alternative would result in future unplanned and uncoordinated actions that are merely reactive to immediate concerns. Furthermore, these actions would likely be responsive to immediate, short-term, adverse impacts that demand attention, but may result in long term impairment to park values and resources. For example, the Merced River in Yosemite Valley has undergone substantial change, including adverse impacts to river hydrology, channel morphology, and associated meadows, wetlands, and riparian areas. The Merced River system is an integral component of the Valley’s natural processes and has been specifically cited as an important natural feature in the first legislative action to preserve Yosemite Valley (1864). Should ongoing adverse impacts to the river system continue unchecked without the components of Alternative 2 that implement the Merced River Plan, impairment of this critical system will likely occur at some point in the future. Thus, the ability of the public to experience, understand, appreciate, and enjoy the Merced River in the Valley could also be impaired.

The actions comprising Alternative 2 will achieve the goals of the Yosemite Valley Plan (which include protecting and enhancing the natural and cultural resources of Yosemite Valley and providing opportunities for high-quality, resource-based visitor experiences) in a comprehensive, integrated manner that takes into account the interplay between resource protection and visitor use. Actions implemented under Alternative 2 that will cause overall negligible adverse impacts, minor adverse impacts, short term impacts, and beneficial impacts to park resources and values, as described in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS (see Volume IB), will not constitute impairment. This is because these impacts have limited severity and/or duration and will not result in appreciable irreversible commitments of resources. Beneficial effects identified in the Final SEIS include effects related to restoring and protecting park resources and values.

The impairment standard does not apply to land in El Portal because the Administrative Site is not managed under the Organic Act or the General Authorities Act. (72 Stat. 1772)

This decision is made based on the direction of requirements in Director’s Order 55. For example, the decision to implement Alternative 2 will result in consolidated day-visitor parking and a transit system to reduce traffic congestion and eliminate scattered parking (and its associated adverse impacts to park resources and visitor experience). Over the short term, a transit system will impact air quality emissions by reducing volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter (10 microns in diameter, or less) and by increasing nitrogen oxide, as long as it uses existing diesel technology. This is due to the increased number of buses required to service out-of-Valley parking areas. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS concludes that this would be a short-term adverse impact because the National Park Service has committed to making continuing and progressive use of the best-available transportation technology. Replacement or new buses will meet or exceed newly legislated standards governing vehicle emissions that demand dramatic reductions in emissions over the next decade. Thus, the decision to emphasize public transportation rather than private automobiles will result in continuous improvements to air quality that will become more pronounced over time. Therefore, while one air quality standard (nitrogen oxide) may be adversely impacted in the short term as a result of this decision, it will not cause impairment.

Sugar Pine Bridge, on the National Register of Historic Places, will be removed and the impact to cultural resources will be major and adverse. However, the action taken will be to remove a bridge that interferes with and may lead to impairment of the hydrological processes of the Merced River. The Merced River is cited as a feature in the first legislative action to preserve Yosemite Valley (1864), is a Wild and Scenic River, and is considered central to the Valley’s scenery and ecological processes. The removal of Sugar Pine Bridge will protect and enhance the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Merced Wild and Scenic River by allowing the river to meander more freely. Because the adverse impact of bridge removal is an unavoidable result of an action necessary to preserve and restore the integrity of the Merced River, removal of Sugar Pine Bridge will not constitute impairment.

During the busiest times of the year, travel time to Yosemite Valley for day-visitors using out-of-Valley parking areas will be longer. However, there will be opportunities for improving visitor understanding and appreciation of park resources and values at remote visitor centers, at out-of-Valley parking areas, and on the shuttle buses. By using the shuttle system, visitors will be able to focus their attention on the scenery, trip planning, educational materials, and other information rather than driving their private vehicles and looking for parking places. At present, visitor demand exceeds available parking in Yosemite Valley, which can result in visitors being redirected or turned away when the Restricted Access Plan is implemented. The decision to implement Alternative 2 will result in a coordinated and comprehensive set of actions which will ensure that people can visit and experience the Valley in a manner that prevents impairment of park values and resources. While this would not be as convenient for users of out-of-Valley parking areas, it would prevent impairment to park values and resources that would result from constructing a higher number of day-visitor parking spaces in Yosemite Valley to meet demand.

In conclusion, the National Park Service has determined that the implementation of Alternative 2 will not result in impairment of resources and values in Yosemite National Park.

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE

Environmentally preferable is defined as "the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in the National Environmental Policy Act’s Section 101. Ordinarily, this means the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment; it also means the alternative which best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources" (Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning Council on Environmental Quality’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 1981).

The goals characterizing the environmentally preferable condition are described in Section 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA Section 101 states that "…it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to … (1) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations; (2) assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; (3) attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences; (4) preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity, and variety of individual choice; (5) achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities; and (6) enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources." The environmentally preferable alternative for the Yosemite Valley Plan is based on these national environmental policy goals.

Alternative 1
This alternative represents the current management direction with no dramatic or comprehensive changes taking place in the management of Yosemite Valley. Although Alternative 1 would include the least change to cultural resources, it would not result in the same level of environmental protection and restoration for natural resources, including floodplains and the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Merced Wild and Scenic River and its corridor, as would occur under the various action alternatives. In having lesser protection and restoration of natural resources, including highly valued resources, Alternative 1 would not fully achieve provisions 1, 3, 4, and 5 of Section 101 of NEPA. Although existing patterns of visitor use would continue, traffic congestion and existing impacts upon visitor experience in Yosemite Valley would not be remedied. Compared to the action alternatives, the No Action alternative would be least effective in attaining goal 3 of NEPA, as described in Section 101, in that it would have the narrowest range of beneficial uses that would occur without degradation of natural and cultural resources in Yosemite Valley and without exposure to risks to health and safety, including known rockfall hazards. Because of existing impacts that are not remedied and that relate to provisions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Section 101 (as discussed above), these provisions would not be realized by Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative.

Alternative 2
This alternative will realize each of the provisions of the national environmental policy goals stated in NEPA Section 101. Alternative 2 will protect and enhance Outstandingly Remarkable Values associated with the Merced Wild and Scenic River through implementation of the Merced River Plan, restore of many areas adjacent to the river, and relocate other facilities further away from the Merced River. These actions will further goals 1, 3, and 4 of NEPA Section 101. In addition, Alternative 2 has the highest proportion of lower-cost overnight accommodations of all action alternatives and it consolidates high-intensity visitor activity in presently developed lands in the east Valley (as opposed to focusing these uses in the relatively undisturbed mid-Valley area at Taft Toe under Alternatives 3 and 4). These actions will further goals 3, 4, and 5 of NEPA Section 101 by attaining the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, and by preserving important resources and maintaining a variety of individual choice for visitors to the Valley.
The Yosemite Valley elements and features of Alternative 2 will achieve each of the NEPA goals, but out-of-Valley actions will limit benefits attained under provision 3 (with respect to attaining the widest range of beneficial use without degradation). Specifically, an evaluation of environmental effects of Alternative 2 indicates that provision 3 will not be as fully realized as under Alternative 3 because of the development of housing in previously undeveloped areas of Wawona and El Portal (also in Alternative 5), and lesser air quality benefits (although the park transit system under Alternative 2 will result in reduction of most vehicle emissions, it will likely have a short term increase nitrogen oxide emissions). In aggregate, the environmental restoration and alternative elements and features of Alternative 2 will most fully attain the goals outlined in NEPA Section 101.

Alternative 3
This alternative would be nearly as effective as Alternative 2 in realizing the provisions of the national environmental policy goals in Section 101 of NEPA. Overall, the benefit and effect of the alternative’s environmental restoration and visitor services and facility development activities would be similar to those described under Alternative 2. For example, the elements and features of Alternative 3 would be only slightly less effective in achieving goal 3. The Taft Toe parking area in Alternative 3 would be in an area without existing development, thereby increasing degradation of natural resources in this area to facilitate a beneficial use. However, the Camp 6 parking area would be restored to natural conditions under Alternative 3, thereby reestablishing a highly valued resource area. With respect to provision 4 of NEPA Section 101, day visitors would have to stop at Taft Toe, thus reducing individual choice and limiting auto access to the eastern end of Yosemite Valley.

The air quality effects of transit buses under Alternative 3 would be the best among the alternatives. Beneficial reductions in all indicator emissions, including nitrogen oxide and the greatest reduction in traffic congestion in the eastern portion of Yosemite Valley would make contributions to realizing provision 3 (attaining a wide range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation). Provision 4 (which includes preservation of cultural aspects of our national heritage) would be realized to a lesser degree by Alternative 3 than Alternative 2, because of more adverse impacts on cultural resources, including cultural landscapes.

Alternative 4
This alternative would be less effective than Alternative 2 in achieving national environmental policy goals. For example, certain elements and features of Alternative 4 would be less effective in achieving goal 3. The Taft Toe parking area in Alternative 4 would be in an area with no existing development, thereby increasing degradation of natural resources to facilitate a beneficial use (day-visitor parking and transit/visitor center). In addition, this is the only alternative that includes development of the Taft Toe area as well as previously undeveloped out-of-Valley parking areas. However, the Yosemite Village Camp 6 parking area would be fully restored under this alternative, thereby reestablishing a potential highly valued resource area. Air quality effects of Alternative 4 would be similar to those in Alternative 2.
With respect to provision 4 of NEPA Section 101, day visitors would have to stop at Taft Toe; thus reducing individual choice and limiting auto access to the eastern end of Yosemite Valley. Provision 4 (which also includes preservation of cultural aspects of our national heritage) would be realized to a lesser degree by Alternative 4 than Alternative 2, because of greater effects on cultural resources, including cultural landscapes. Overall, Alternative 4 would be the least effective among the action alternatives at realizing the provisions of the national environmental policy goals in Section 101 of NEPA.

Alternative 5
This alternative would have a similar benefit and effect as Alternative 2 with regard to the alternative’s environmental restoration and visitor services and facility development activities. Both alternatives focus transportation facilities in previously disturbed sites of the Yosemite Village, thereby more fully achieving provision 4 of Section 101. Specifically, individual choice and the opportunity to access the eastern end of Yosemite Valley via private vehicles would not be limited except by available parking. An evaluation of environmental effects indicates that provision 4 (which includes preservation of cultural aspects of our national heritage) would not be fully realized under Alternative 5 because of adverse effects on cultural resources. Provision 2 (which includes assuring a safe and healthful surrounding) would not be fully realized because of the limited number of actions to reduce geologic hazard risks. Provision 3 (which includes attaining a range of beneficial uses without degradation) would not be fully realized because of the development of employee housing near Camp 4, the redevelopment of North Pines Campground as a walk-in camping facility, and retention and/or development of the greatest number of lodging units.

Summary
The National Park Service has determined that the environmentally preferable alternative is Alternative 2. While some specific actions under other alternatives may achieve similar or in some cases greater levels of protection for certain cultural resources, natural resources, and/or visitor experience than under Alternative 2, in aggregate, this alternative best achieves the six conditions prescribed under Section 101 of NEPA. While many of the actions in other alternatives may be similar to Alternative 2 in their effect and consequence, Alternative 2 (1) provides a high level of protection of natural and cultural resources while concurrently attaining the widest range of neutral and beneficial uses of the environment without degradation; (2) maintains an environment that supports diversity and variety of individual choice; and (3) integrates resource protection with opportunities for an appropriate range of visitor uses.

MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM

The National Park Service has investigated all practical means to avoid or minimize environmental impacts that could result from implementation of the selected action. The measures have been incorporated into Alternative 2, and are presented in detail in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.

A consistent set of mitigation measures would be applied to actions that result from this plan (see Appendix A). Monitoring and enforcement programs will oversee the implementation of mitigation measures. These programs will assure compliance monitoring; biological and cultural resource protection; traffic management, noise, and dust abatement; noxious weed control; pollution prevention measures; visitor safety and education; revegetation; architectural character; and other mitigation measures.

Mitigation measures will also be applied to future actions that are guided by this plan. In addition, the National Park Service will prepare appropriate compliance reviews (i.e., National Environmental Policy Act, National Historic Preservation Act [including the Yosemite Programmatic Agreement], and other relevant legislation) for these future actions.

PUBLIC AND INTERAGENCY INVOLVEMENT

On December 16, 1998, the National Park Service published in the Federal Register (V63-N241-P69303) a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement for the Yosemite Valley Plan. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS has been developed pursuant to Sections 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (Public Law 91-190) and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1508.22). Through scoping, a formal public comment process, public meetings and outreach, and meetings with government entities on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the National Park Service conducted this planning process in consultation with affected federal agencies, state and local governments, tribal groups, and interested organizations and individuals.

Scoping
Scoping typically occurs at the beginning of a planning process. However, in the case of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, scoping began in 1991 with planning for the 1992 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan/SEIS and continued through its 1996 Addendum, the 1997 Draft Yosemite Valley Implementation Plan/SEIS, and the 1997 Yosemite Lodge Development Concept Plan/Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and its 1998 modified FONSI. Each of these planning efforts included official scoping and public comment periods.

The formal public scoping period for the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS began with a December 16, 1998 Notice of Intent to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement. That notice described the intent of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS and solicited comments from the public through January 15, 1999. The Federal Register notice stated that all comments associated with previous, related planning efforts would be reconsidered in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS planning process. Based on requests from the public, the scoping period was extended through February 1, 1999.

A total of 598 scoping comment letters were received during the formal scoping period. Park planning staff evaluated the scoping comments and issued a summary report in March 1999. Later, these scoping comments were included in the comprehensive reanalysis of all public comment letters received on the previously mentioned precursor plans.

The public comments from previous plans were originally analyzed in diverse contexts, over several years, using different methods. Therefore, they were reanalyzed from the current perspective of preparing a comprehensive plan for Yosemite Valley, using a common methodology developed by the U.S. Forest Service’s Content Analysis Enterprise Team. In conjunction with those previous comments, the Content Analysis Enterprise Team also analyzed all comments received during the formal scoping period for the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

In the reanalysis of scoping and previous comments, a total of 6,468 letters, emails, and faxes, received between 1992 and 1998, were read, coded, and analyzed by the Content Analysis Enterprise Team, revealing 23,768 discrete comments. This analysis, Summary of Public Comment, Yosemite Valley Planning, 1992-1999, was a key tool used to ensure that all
public comments were addressed in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Concerns raised through the public comment process and the park’s responses to those concerns were included as Volume III of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

Concerns and issues identified during scoping fell into five topic areas: natural environment, cultural resources, visitor experience, transportation, and socioeconomic environment. These five topic areas were the basis for formulating a reasonable range of alternatives and guiding the environmental impact analysis for the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

Public Comment
In a press release dated March 27, 2000, the National Park Service announced the availability of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS for public review. The announced period of public review ran from April 7 through July 5, 2000. By April 4, a total of 1,219 Executive Summaries and 639 full sets of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS had been shipped to individuals, organizations, and agencies that had previously requested copies. Another 1,500 Executive Summaries, 1,000 full sets, and 2,000 CD-ROMs were requested and distributed during the public comment period.

On April 13, 2000, the National Park Service announcement of the public release of the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS was published in the Federal Register (V65-N72-P19923). This notice stated that the public comment period would run from April 7 through July 7, 2000, a period of 92 days. Throughout the public comment period, the National Park Service actively advertised that public comments would be accepted through July 7. This advertising included a notice on the Yosemite National Park web site, statements in press releases for public meetings, information sheets handed out to the public and announcements at all National Park Service public meetings and presentations on the plan.

On Friday, April 14, 2000, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the Federal Register their weekly summary announcement of environmental impact statements officially filed and available for public review (V65-N73-P20155). The official EPA announcement listed the "due" date for comment as July 14, 2000. To alleviate the effect of the discrepancy between the official review period set by the EPA Federal Register notice (April 14 through July 14, 2000) and the National Park Service’s originally advertised comment period (April 7 through July 7, 2000), all comments received or postmarked by July 14, 2000 were analyzed and used in formulating the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

The public comment letters received through July 7 were read and analyzed by the U.S. Forest Service Content Analysis Enterprise Team and National Park Service staff. The results were regularly forwarded to Yosemite National Park in a series of interim reports throughout the comment period and in the final report, Summary of Public Comment, Yosemite Valley Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement. These reports were used to consider public comment while developing the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

The letters received or postmarked from July 8 through July 14, 2000, were read and analyzed by National Park Service and Content Analysis Enterprise Team staff the week of August 14; five new public concerns were identified. The Content Analysis Enterprise Team staff subsequently produced an additional report, Addendum, Summary of Public Comment, Yosemite Valley Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement, that was incorporated into their earlier summary report as Appendix I.

During the period of public comment, 10,240 comment letters, postcards, emails, faxes, comment forms, and public hearing testimonies were received on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS (see Volume III of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS for a complete description of the comment analysis process).

In addition to considering public comments received on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS itself, Yosemite staff requested and received from the Content Analysis Enterprise Team a report of all concerns identified from public comment on the Draft Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan/EIS that related to the Yosemite Valley Plan. The 178 concerns from the Merced River Plan process relating to the Yosemite Valley Plan process were then included in the deliberations leading to development of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS (see Volume III, Chapter 5, Public Concerns from the Draft Merced Wild and Scenic River Plan/EIS Process and Responses Relating to Yosemite Valley Planning).
The content analysis of public comments received on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS identified 871 distinct concerns falling into 33 topical issue areas that were considered while developing the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS (see Volume III, Chapter 1, Public Concerns and Modification of the Draft Plan).

The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS was distributed to the public on November 13, 2000. Over 3,140 copies of the final document were delivered to individuals, organizations, and government agencies. The No Action period officially concluded on December 26, 2000. During the No Action period, 45 presentations on the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS were given to community groups, organizations, government agencies, and park employees. From November 13, 2000 thorough noon, December 29,2000, the National Park Service received 75 letters, faxes, and emails from members of the public, agencies, and organizations on the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Each piece of correspondence was carefully analyzed to determine if new issues were raised that would require additional response in a NEPA context, or would require modification to the document. No new issues were identified nor comments made that would require additional analysis under NEPA, or a change to the selected action.

Public Meetings and Outreach
During the public comment period for the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, the National Park Service held 14 public meetings throughout California; half of these were in major metropolitan areas of the state, and half were in cities, towns, and communities neighboring Yosemite. The date, time, and locations of these meetings were included in the Federal Register announcement of the release of the draft plan. Each meeting consisted of an open house where members of the public could view displays and talk with park staff, and a formal public hearing where oral testimony before several senior park managers was recorded by a court reporter. Approximately 1,500 people attended these public meetings; anyone could submit written comments during the meeting and 365 people testified during the public hearings. The National Park Service also held public meetings on the plan in Seattle, Denver, Chicago, and Washington, DC. Over 100 individuals attended these out-of-state meetings.

In addition to the public meetings, the National Park Service also conducted a variety of other public involvement activities related to the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. These included production and mailing of the Planning Update newsletters; publication of a 4-page insert for the summer issue of the Yosemite Guide park newspaper; regularly scheduled open houses; ranger-led walks in the park; installation of wayside exhibits in Yosemite Valley; and meetings with numerous interested and affected groups.

Agency and American Indian Consultation and Coordination
Comment letters from federal and state agencies and American Indian Tribes are published in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, Volume III, Chapter 9. The history of meetings between the National Park Service and these groups is outlined in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, Volume IB, Part 2, Chapter 5.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, California State Historic Preservation Officer, and Indian Tribes — The National Park Service has developed a Programmatic Agreement in consultation with the California State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, culturally associated American Indian tribes, and the public. This agreement stipulates a process for the treatment of historic properties, including identification, evaluation, and, if necessary, mitigation of adverse effects. Standard mitigation measures may be used in situations where an undertaking would adversely affect a historic property. These include documentation, interpretation, materials salvage, and National Register re-evaluation. The National Park Service has satisfied its Section 106 responsibilities through execution and implementation of the Programmatic Agreement.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service — The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 USC 1531 et seq.) requires all federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency does not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or critical habitat. The National Park Service requested a list of federally listed endangered and threatened species that may be present or affected by actions proposed in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS in March 2000. The species list was received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on March 29, 2000 and is included in the Biological Assessment (Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, Volume II, Appendix K).

A Biological Assessment on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS was submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on May 11, 2000. At this time, the National Park Service requested that formal consultation be initiated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In June of 2000, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requested more information on elderberry plants, which serve as habitat for the Valley elderberry longhorn beetle, a federally listed species. This information was submitted on July 5, 2000, along with a revised Biological Assessment on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

In August of 2000, a Biological Assessment on the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS was submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The National Park Service met with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Yosemite on August 30, 2000. Mitigation and compensation measures for potential impacts on the Valley elderberry longhorn beetle were discussed and potential development and restoration sites were visited.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prepared a Biological Opinion in September 2000 (Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, Volume II, Appendix L). This was based on the Biological Assessment. The Biological Opinion includes non-discretionary "Reasonable and Prudent Measures" to minimize incidental take of the threatened Valley elderberry longhorn beetle. It also includes discretionary "Conservation Recommendations" to help in the protection and recovery of the Valley elderberry longhorn beetle, peregrine falcon, California spotted owl, mountain yellow-legged frog, and Yosemite toad (see Appendix A).

National Park Service Water Resources Division — Executive Orders 11988 Floodplain Management and 11990 Protection of Wetlands direct federal agencies to enhance floodplain and wetland values, to avoid development in wetlands and floodplains whenever there is a practicable alternative, and to avoid impacts associated with the occupancy or modification of floodplains or wetlands to the extent possible. Communication and site visits with the National Park Service Water Resources Division have taken place on a regular basis to ensure that the National Park Service is meeting all obligations under these Executive Orders and to oversee wetland delineation.

A Floodplain Statement of Findings for the Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS has been prepared to provide a description of flood hazards, analyze comparative risks among alternatives, describe potential effects on floodplain values, and describe and evaluate mitigation measures. The Floodplain Statement of Findings has been released for public and agency review as part of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

Analysis has indicated that there would be long-term, major, beneficial impacts to wetlands in Yosemite Valley under Alternative 2. However, to guarantee wetland protection, wetland delineation will be prepared prior to site planning if the site-specific actions could have an adverse effect on wetlands. If it is determined that there are no practicable alternatives to avoid wetlands, a Wetlands Statement of Findings will be made available for broad public review. For actions that are either located in or otherwise have the potential for direct or indirect adverse impacts on wetlands, the National Park Service will employ a sequence of: (a) avoiding adverse wetland impacts to the extent practicable; (b) minimizing impacts that could not be avoided, and; (c) compensating for remaining unavoidable adverse wetland impacts through restoration of degraded wetlands. Furthermore, if site-specific actions have the potential to adversely impact wetlands, additional analysis and review will be completed in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. Actions that may be excepted from the Statement of Findings requirement will be identified in those procedures.

CONCLUSION
Alternative 2 provides the most comprehensive and effective method among the alternatives considered for meeting the National Park Service’s purposes, goals, and criteria for managing Yosemite National Park and Yosemite Valley and for meeting national environmental policy goals. The selection of Alternative 2, as reflected by the analysis contained in the environmental impact statement, would not result in the impairment of park resources and would allow the National Park Service to conserve park resources and provide for their enjoyment by visitors.

Approved:


	December 29, 2000

1 The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does not amend the Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan/FEIS.

2 The River Protection Overlay in areas above 3,800 feet in elevation includes the river channel itself and extends 150 feet on both sides of the river measured from the ordinary high water mark. In areas below 3,800 feet in elevation it includes 100 feet on both sides of the river measured from the ordinary high water mark.

3 The National Park Service may not allow the impairment of park resources and values unless directly and specifically provided for by legislation or by the proclamation establishing the park. Impairment that is prohibited by the National Park Service Organic Act and the General Authorities Act is an impact that, in the professional judgement of the responsible National Park Service manager, would harm the integrity of park resources or values, including the opportunities that otherwise would be present for the enjoyment of those resources or values. (Director’s Order 55, "Interpreting the National Park Service Organic Act," Section 3.5)

United States Department of The Interior

National Park Service

Record of Decision

Final Yosemite Valley Plan
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

United States Department of The Interior

National Park Service

Record of Decision

Final Yosemite Valley Plan Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Final Yosemite Valley Plan
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement