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

---

CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING
THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

INTRODUCTION

This chapter identifies and describes the four action alternatives (including a preferred alternative) proposed in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS as well as a No Action Alternative that represents the status quo. Each of the four action alternatives is a comprehensive proposal for the management and use of Yosemite Valley. These alternatives also propose to meet the goals of restoring, protecting, and enhancing natural and cultural resources, including the Merced Wild and Scenic River's Outstandingly Remarkable Values; providing enhanced, high-quality, resource-based visitor experiences; reducing automobile traffic congestion; and providing more effective park operations. Various actions have been combined to meet these resource preservation and visitor experience goals in the Valley, including natural and cultural resource management and restoration, visitor services and recreational opportunities, park operations, transportation, and employee housing.

Each of these alternatives meets General Management Plan goals to varying degrees. Actions proposed in three previous planning documents — the 1992 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) (and its 1996 supplement), the 1997 Draft Yosemite Lodge Development Concept Plan/Environmental Assessment, and the 1997 Draft Yosemite Valley Implementation Plan/SEIS — have been incorporated in each of the action alternatives to the extent possible. In addition, preliminary design concepts prepared for the Yosemite Falls Project have been incorporated. Each of the action alternatives incorporates information from public comments received during the scoping process, as well as public comments received on the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS during the public review period. The action alternatives were also modified to make them consistent with the guidance and direction provided in the Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement (Merced River Plan/FEIS) and its Record of Decision.

This chapter is organized into the following sections:

CHANGES BETWEEN THE DRAFT AND
FINAL YOSEMITE VALLEY PLAN/SEIS

During the public comment period, the National Park Service held 14 in-state public hearings to gather comments from the general public regarding the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. All public and agency comments were analyzed and substantive concerns identified. Substantive concerns, new analyses, and applicable laws and policies were considered by park management and planners in developing the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. The process of comment analysis, concern screening, and management deliberation is described in Volume III, along with staff responses to all public concerns.

The major changes that have been made as this planning process moved from draft to final are listed below. Table A at the end of this chapter highlights these changes.

All Action Alternatives

MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER
COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN/FEIS

All actions in each of the action alternatives in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan were in compliance with the alternatives in the Draft Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan/EIS. However, the Draft Merced River Plan/EIS was modified in the final document; thus, all actions in each of the action alternatives for this document have been brought into compliance with the Preferred Alternative and the Record of Decision for the Merced River Plan/FEIS.

TRAFFIC CHECK STATION

The National Park Service would actively manage parking and congestion through the proposed traveler information and traffic management system by providing visitors with reliable information and by using incentives and disincentives. In order to meet the goal of reducing traffic congestion in Yosemite Valley, as a last resort, a traffic check station could be constructed to assure that the number of vehicles east of El Capitan crossover did not exceed available parking.

INDIAN CULTURAL CENTER

The Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS included the establishment of an Indian Cultural Center in all the action alternatives (Alternatives 2-5). However, the Indian Cultural Center should not have been included as an action of the Yosemite Valley Plan. The Indian Cultural Center is a distinct project to be undertaken by the American Indian Council of Mariposa County, Inc. (Southern Sierra Miwok), in cooperation with the National Park Service. In keeping with the General Management Plan, the National Park Service entered into a cooperative agreement with the Council to work together to establish an Indian Cultural Center at the site of the last historically occupied Indian village in Yosemite Valley, subject to compliance with applicable laws. Because the cultural center would be established with or without a Yosemite Valley Plan, mention of it has been removed from Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5. A description of the project and its associated compliance requirements is included in Vol. III, Appendix H, Considering Cumulative Effects.

Alternative 1

No changes.

Alternative 2

LODGING

Overall – The total number of lodging units would change from 981 to 961, and the range of cost options would shift toward more lower-cost units.

Housekeeping Camp – The number of Housekeeping Camp units proposed would change from 52 units in the draft to 100 units (all units would be removed from the River Protection Overlay, but some units would still remain in areas identified as highly valued natural resources).

Yosemite Lodge – The experience at Yosemite Lodge would be less of a motel experience and more of a traditional national park lodge experience, designed to enhance connections with the outdoors. New floodplain data (Stantec 2000) have resulted in the recalculation of the River Protection Overlay; Maple, Alder, Juniper, Laurel, and Hemlock motel units would be removed to allow for the realignment of Northside Drive and redesign of Yosemite Lodge. The new road alignment would allow for more restoration in the lodge area to the south of the road (particularly in the area of the Hemlock motel unit). Birch cottage would also be removed to allow for redevelopment/redesign. No new motel buildings would be constructed; five cottages (90 rooms) and 11 cabins (44 rooms) would be built instead. The total number of rooms proposed at Yosemite Lodge would be reduced from 386 in the draft to 251 units.

Curry Village – The historic character of the Camp Curry National Register Historic District would be retained and several individual buildings would be rehabilitated. The number of units proposed at Curry Village would increase from 420 in the draft to 487. The Mother Curry Bungalow, Tresidder Residence, Huff House, Cottage 819, and Cabin 90A/B (all historic structures) would be rehabilitated and used for lodging. An additional 24 tent cabins over the 150 proposed in the draft would remain. Eighty cabins-without-bath would remain and be rehabilitated, and 108 cabins-with-bath would be built.

The Ahwahnee – The single Ahwahnee cottage that is in the River Protection Overlay would be retained, as it is a contributing element to the National Register property.

CAMPING

Overall – The number of campsites proposed would be increased from 465 in the draft to 500.

Lower Pines Campground – The number of drive-in sites proposed would be increased from 40 in the draft to 60.

Upper Pines Campground – The number of drive-in sites proposed would be increased from 255 in the draft to 270 through redesign within the existing area.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Bridges – The National Park Service would take a phased approach to the removal of historic bridges. Sugar Pine Bridge would be removed first, and the existing ecological and hydrologic monitoring program would be re-evaluated. Stoneman Bridge would be removed next, if necessary, based on ecological and hydrologic monitoring findings. Housekeeping Bridge would be retained to provide access across the Merced River to and from Housekeeping Camp.

Orchards – Lamon Orchard: The fruit trees would be retained and managed (though not replaced when they die), and the orchard and historic area would become an interpreted site. Curry Orchard: All fruit trees would be removed and much of the area restored to natural
conditions. Two acres would be redeveloped for overnight parking (wilderness parking).

Superintendentís House (Residence 1) – The house and its associated garage would be
relocated if feasible to a site within the Yosemite Village Historic District. After the house and garage are moved, the original location would be restored to natural conditions.

FIRE STATION

The National Park Service and concessioner structural fire operations would be consolidated. Two new fire stations would be constructed: one in the Yosemite Village area (out of the historic district) and one in the Curry Village area.

CURRRENT VISITOR CENTER

The Yosemite Village area would be the focus of educational and interpretive opportunities for visitors. The current visitor center and the auditoriums would be evaluated to determine if they could be adapted to meet the parkís needs for museum storage and curatorial functions, and to serve as an education/interpretive center with classroom space. If not, they would be removed and the area redeveloped to meet that need. Community space would be included in this complex.

OUT-OF-VALLEY PARKING

Hazel Green would be the preferred out-of-Valley parking location along the Big Oak Flat Road because it would provide the opportunity for a public-private partnership to meet the goals of this planning effort, and it would provide for parking outside of Yosemite National Park, reducing development within the park. However, if negotiations with the private landowner fail to fully address the goals and objectives of this plan and receive approval from Mariposa County, Foresta would become the in-park preferred out-of-Valley parking location for the Big Oak Flat Road corridor. There is no change to out-of-Valley parking proposed for Badger Pass and El Portal. The National Park Service would explore the option of providing limited food service at out-of-Valley parking areas.

MEDICAL CLINIC

The medical clinic function would remain for as long as viable and financially feasible. The historic medical clinic building would continue to serve as the clinic; if the medical function is removed, then the building would be adaptively reused.

CONCESSIONER STABLE

The concessioner stable and 12 associated outbuildings would be removed, but the feasibility of moving the historic concessioner stable buildings to Foresta to serve National Park Service and concessioner administrative stables would be evaluated.

COURTHOUSE

The U.S. District Court Magistrate function and the courthouse would remain in Yosemite Valley for as long as viable and feasible.

EL PORTAL

The commercial bulk fuel facility would be removed from its site in El Portal.

EMPLOYEE HOUSING

Yosemite National Park is committed to reducing the governmentís role in providing employee housing while reserving the ability to provide housing when appropriate and necessary. The National Park Service would facilitate the private acquisition of housing in the region by park employees. There would be a total of 2,084 employee beds located in Yosemite Valley and the El Portal Administrative Site to meet the operational needs of this alternative. Yosemite Valley would support 723 employee beds while 1,037 would be located in El Portal. The number of beds called for in Wawona has not changed.

Alternative 3

No significant changes.

Alternative 4

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Superintendentís House (Residence 1) – The house and garage would be removed, the area within the River Protection Overlay restored, and a picnic area developed at the site.

OUT-OF-VALLEY PARKING

South Landing would be the out-of-Valley parking area for the Big Oak Flat Road (Highway120) corridor.

Alternative 5

CULTURAL RESOUCES

Curry Orchard –The orchard would not be used for day-visitor parking (due to the zoning prescribed in the Merced River Plan/FEIS). Historic fruit trees would be retained and managed (though not replaced when they die); however, the area would be restored to natural conditions over the long term. The adjacent picnic area would be developed as proposed in the draft.

IN-VALLEY PARKING

In-Valley parking would be consolidated at Yosemite Village, with a total of 550 day-visitor parking spaces, since the Merced River Plan/FEIS management zoning does not allow for parking in Curry Orchard.

CAMPING

Upper River and Lower River Campgrounds would be restored to natural conditions. The Merced River Plan/FEIS management zoning does not allow for overnight accommodations in this area. The total number of campsites proposed would be reduced from 713 in the draft to 585.

LODGING

The total number of lodging units in this alternative would be reduced from 1,145 units to 1,012 units.

Housekeeping Camp – The number of units at Housekeeping Camp would be reduced to 100 units (because of new floodplain information and removing all units from the River Protection Overlay, as prescribed by the Merced River Plan/FEIS).

Yosemite Lodge – The total number of units would be reduced from 440 units to 369 units (because of new floodplain data, removing all units from the River Protection Overlay, and to allow for realignment of Northside Drive).

MULTI-USE TRAILS

One lane of Northside Drive would be converted for use as a multi-use paved trail from Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) to El Capitan crossover. On Southside Drive, one lane would be converted for use as a multi-use paved trail from El Capitan crossover to Sentinel Bridge. Analysis of traffic volumes after publication of the draft showed that lanes could not be removed for vehicular traffic west of El Capitan crossover.

EMPLOYEE HOUSING

Yosemite National Park is committed to reducing the government's role in providing employee housing while reserving the ability to provide housing when appropriate and necessary. The National Park Service would facilitate the private acquisition of housing in the region by park employees. There would be a total of 2,118 employee beds located in Yosemite Valley and the El Portal Administrative Site to meet the operational needs of this alternative. Yosemite Valley would support 752 employee beds while 1,042 would be located in El Portal. The number of beds called for in Wawona has not changed.

DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS

Yosemite Valley is only one mile wide. Its walls are steep and several thousand feet high, and the Merced River meanders through its center. Both the cliffs and river present potential hazards to visitors, staff, and development, leaving only small areas of land with a low probability of being affected by falling rocks or rising water. General guidance for the placement and continued use of facilities within areas subject to natural hazards (e.g., rockfall) is provided in the Yosemite Valley Geologic Hazard Guidelines and NPS Management Policies. Furthermore, floodplains are a critical component of the natural ecosystem. As a result, existing policy and guidelines direct the National Park Service to avoid construction of facilities within the 100-year floodplain. Considering these constraints, the National Park Service has endeavored to identify those areas in the Valley better suited for providing the services and facilities necessary to meet the goals of this planning process (see Vol. Ic, plate E).

Rockfall

Rockfall and related movement of rock (i.e., rockslides, debris flows, and rock avalanches) continue to shape Yosemite Valley. More than 400 rockfall incidents have been documented in the Valley since 1850, and many more have likely gone unrecorded. These incidents have taken lives and caused countless injuries. Additionally, trails, roads, and buildings have been severely damaged or destroyed during these events. Thus, from a human perspective, these rockfalls and related events are considered geologic hazards.

The recent identification of geologic hazard zones in Yosemite Valley has allowed the National Park Service and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to develop guidelines to reduce risk to park visitors, staff, and development in the Valley. The National Park Service would strive to avoid placing new facilities in geologically hazardous areas. Existing facilities would be phased out or relocated outside geologic hazard areas, unless no practicable alternative exists and safety and hazard probability factors have been considered. It is not possible to avoid all rockfall-related risks in a narrow valley like Yosemite. This means that some facilities in the Valley will be exposed to risk of damage by rockfall.

The Yosemite Valley Geologic Hazard Guidelines (see Vol. II, Appendix C) recommend that natural processes be allowed to occur unimpeded. They also provide for continued National Park Service and USGS cooperation, in consultation with local, state, and federal disaster management agencies, to devise even more effective geologic hazard identification and management strategies. Although the exact magnitude and timing of future rockfall incidents would remain difficult to forecast, the National Park Service would strive to more clearly understand potential hazards and to minimize their potential consequences for visitors, staff, and developed areas.

Floods

High water, or from a human development perspective, flooding, occurs in Yosemite Valley nearly every year. From an ecological perspective, annual high water and periodic flooding are critical natural processes. As a result, federal policy requires that special consideration be given to areas that are within the regulatory floodplain. Since 1916, four winter floods, including the 1997 flood, have approximated the 100-year flood level in some Valley areas. Because of the dynamics of water movement to and through Yosemite Valley, each of these floods affected areas of Yosemite Valley differently. Requirements for developing facilities within floodplains and wetlands are contained in Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management); Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands); Directorís Orders 77-1 (Wetland Protection) and 77-10 (Floodplain Management); and other National Park Service guidance.

RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP – HIGHLY VALUED RESOURCES

The National Park Service has determined that the following natural and cultural resources in Yosemite Valley are the highest priority for protection and restoration, based on their sensitivity, biological productivity and diversity, or cultural value. Many of these resources are considered to be altered, impaired, or at risk. These highly valued resources, as shown in the Highly Valued Resources plate (Vol. Ic, plate D), guided land-use planning decisions and the development of alternatives in this document.

Highly Valued Natural Resources

MERCED RIVER ECOSYSTEM

Most of the highly valued resource areas in Yosemite Valley are closely linked to the Merced River and hydrologic processes. Processes such as flooding, sedimentation, and erosion are powerful natural forces that shape and maintain the character of plant and wildlife communities in Yosemite Valley. When examining the current condition of the Merced River ecosystem in Yosemite Valley, it is important to distinguish normal river dynamics from processes that have been altered by human land-use practices. It is natural for a river to meander and migrate sideways, while maintaining the same width, when flowing across a gently graded plain with fine-grained soils such as in Yosemite Valley. The diversity of riparian and wetland areas is largely due to dynamic processes such as erosion, sediment deposition, channel migration, and flood regimes (Odum 1978; Gregory et al. 1991). As the Merced River changes course, it erodes portions of its riverbank and deposits new sediments. This provides a constantly changing substrate for vegetation and promotes diverse age classes and types of vegetation, which in turn support a wide variety of wildlife.

In the east end of Yosemite Valley, the Merced River has widened significantly as a result of human-induced alterations of the river corridor. All riparian areas are highly sensitive to human-related disturbance, especially those portions closest to water (UC Davis 1996d). Eroded sediments in a typical river in a floodplain are generally deposited at nearby mid-channel or lateral bars. In areas where the natural flow of the river has been disrupted, much sediment can continue to wash downstream. In Yosemite Valley, this has resulted in widening of the river (see Chapter 3, Affected Environment, Water Resources).

The Merced River ecosystem is made up of the river's channel and tributaries, wetlands, riparian habitat along the riverbank, and meadow communities. The river corridor is a central component of the Yosemite Valley cultural landscape. To restore and maintain the Merced River ecosystem's complex and diverse communities, the aquatic, riparian, and meadow communities must be interlinked by episodes of flooding. Elements needed for the Merced River ecosystem to function naturally include:

WETLANDS

Wetlands are integral to the Merced River ecosystem and are usually found adjacent to the river and its tributaries. Wetland communities include the river channel (riverine wetlands) and riparian and meadow communities (palustrine wetlands). Wetlands are among the most biologically diverse natural communities. Palustrine wetlands, in particular, are some of the most productive of any natural community. Over the past 150 years, wetlands in Yosemite Valley have become smaller and less productive due to the impacts of development and recreation.

RIPARIAN COMMUNITIES

Riparian communities extend outward from the banks of the Merced River and its tributaries. In the Sierra Nevada, more species and greater numbers of wildlife are found in riparian habitats than any other habitat type. Riparian communities are among the most degraded in the park, as well as in the Sierra Nevada, due to development and recreational activities along the riverbanks. Riparian communities have been declining in size since the late 1800s. The riparian corridor is an important component of the Yosemite Valley cultural landscape.

MEADOWS

Meadows in Yosemite Valley alternate between aquatic and terrestrial states. Meadows support unique and specialized plants and wildlife that have adapted to this variable habitat, rather than depending solely on permanent water bodies or dry upland habitats. In the past 150 years, meadow communities have decreased markedly in complexity (habitat and native species diversity) and continuity (i.e., habitat fragmentation has increased). The hydrologic processes that form, maintain, and develop these meadows have also been degraded (see Chapter 3, Affected Environment).

Meadows are an important cultural landscape feature and critical components of the scenic grandeur of Yosemite Valley. Meadows in Yosemite Valley have been mapped regularly since the 1860s, when J. D. Whitney completed the first known map of the Valley.

CALIFORNIA BLACK OAK WOODLANDS

California black oaks are valued because they grow in a unique manner in Yosemite Valley, as a dominant member of an otherwise herbaceous community. California black oaks elsewhere typically occur in dense stands with conifers and other shrubs. California black oak woodlands are also valued because they are an abundant seasonal food source for a variety of animals.

The extent and unique characteristics of California black oak stands in Yosemite Valley are partly a result of pre-contact American Indian land management practices. These stands are an important traditional resource for culturally associated American Indian people and an important component of the Yosemite Valley cultural landscape. California black oaks are at risk in Yosemite Valley because the proportion of younger trees appears to have declined, and many mature stands of black oaks have been encroached upon by conifers.

SENSITIVE WILDLIFE HABITAT

Wildlife habitat that, if changed, has a high potential for affecting the diversity and abundance of species in Yosemite, is defined as sensitive or highly valued. This is habitat that has high numbers of species unique to it, that is used by special-status species (rare, threatened, or endangered), or that is rare relative to other types. These criteria, linked with models and studies of vegetation communities inside and outside the park, indicated that changes to riparian, meadow, and wetland habitats would have the most effect on wildlife. These analyses indicated that changes in ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and live oak habitats would have the least effect.

RICH SOIL AREAS

These areas include soils that either support or have the potential to be restored to highly valued vegetative communities. These soils include loams that are deposited by the Merced River and that generally support exceptional native vegetation communities – particularly wetlands, meadows, and riparian areas. Rich soil areas also include hydric soils that support wetlands, and soils formed from morainal deposits.

Highly Valued Cultural Resources

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

Yosemite Valley is a nationally significant cultural landscape reflecting patterns of human use that have shaped the landscape for thousands of years. The most distinguishing characteristics of this cultural landscape include the Merced River corridor and its relationship with open meadows, oak woodlands, and coniferous forests that define the spatial organization of the Valley floor; the historic circulation system that routes visitors through the Valley and provides open and spectacular views of the natural features; the rustic character of early park development exemplified by The Ahwahnee, Yosemite Village, and Curry Village; the Valley's archeological resources; and the cultural traditions and spiritual associations held by American Indian groups.

NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARKS

There are three National Historic Landmarks in Yosemite Valley: The Ahwahnee, the Rangers' Club, and the LeConte Memorial Lodge. National Historic Landmark structures are nationally significant historic properties that are designated by the Secretary of the Interior as possessing exceptional value that commemorates or illustrates the history of the United States. Federal law requires agencies to protect these to the maximum extent possible. They are also important components of the cultural landscape in Yosemite Valley.

ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES

Yosemite Valley contains over 100 archeological sites, all contributing elements in the Yosemite Valley Archeological District, that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Sites in Yosemite Valley, especially those that are relatively undisturbed, are valuable for their information regarding prehistoric and historic lifeways. Especially important in Yosemite Valley is the link between documented historic American Indian villages and prehistoric and historic archeological sites. This is one of few places in California where so many of these direct links can be made, which makes their information and cultural value extremely important to science and culturally associated American Indian people.

BURIAL SITES

Yosemite Valley contains one documented historic and prehistoric cemetery, as well as several isolated graves and at least one cremation site. El Portal contains at least three historic and prehistoric American Indian cemeteries and many isolated burials. These places are especially important to culturally associated American Indian people; many of the individuals and families currently living in and around Yosemite trace their ancestry to individuals buried here. All known burial areas will be protected from development.

THE PROCESS FOR FORMULATING ALTERNATIVES

The alternatives considered in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS were developed over the last nine years. Issues raised during several public comment periods, beginning with scoping on the 1992 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan/SEIS and including the public comment period on the Draft Yosemite Valley Implementation Plan/SEIS (1997), were carried forward into the scoping for the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. A range of reasonable approaches to address these issues and achieve the goals of this plan was discussed, and four alternative concepts were developed. Through an internal review process, including a Choosing by Advantage workshop, four comprehensive action alternatives (in addition to the No Action Alternative) were refined to form the alternatives considered in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

After the scoping period for the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS closed, comments were analyzed and a scoping comment analysis report was prepared (USFS 1999b). Public concerns from the report were combined with a reanalysis of comments received on the 1992 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan/SEIS (and its 1996 supplement, the 1997 Draft Yosemite Lodge Development Concept Plan/Environmental Assessment) and the 1997 Draft Yosemite Valley Implementation Plan/SEIS. Most of the concerns identified for the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS fell within five main issue categories: natural environment, cultural resources, visitor experience, transportation, and social and economic environment (see Vol. Ia, Chapter 1, Issues and Concerns). These issues, along with other approaches, were evaluated as to whether they were reasonable and/or feasible.

At this point, some actions were considered and dismissed from detailed study. In general, reasons for dismissing these actions included:

National Park Service staff used the project goals and criteria as well as regulations and policies to combine individual actions and thus develop four concepts for action alternatives. Once the alternative concepts had been developed, they were put through a series of evaluations. First, alternative concepts were evaluated within the framework of meeting or, as appropriate, balancing the criteria outlined in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need. This evaluation ascertained whether alternative concepts would need to be modified to better satisfy the guidance criteria for accomplishing the broad goals of the 1980 General Management Plan and the specific purpose and need of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Next, alternative concepts were evaluated against several factors in a process called Choosing by Advantage. Although the Choosing by Advantage factors were similar to the aforementioned guidance criteria, they were used in a different way, that is, to evaluate the relative advantages of the alternative concepts. Together, these two evaluations enabled the National Park Service to determine where the four alternative concepts required strengthening. The evaluations also assisted in identifying which actions provided the greatest advantage, and how best to combine these alternative concepts to optimize achievement of plan goals.

By May 1999, five action alternatives had been developed; these were refined to four action alternatives by November 1999. These proposed alternatives were then used to make a preliminary evaluation of environmental consequences. The consequences were presented at a workshop comprised of the planning team and other members of park staff. During this workshop, the proposed alternatives were modified and refined, and suggestions were made as to how analysis of environmental consequences could be modified to better address effects of changes on park resources and visitor experience. The planning team also met with the Merced River Plan/FEIS team to ensure that the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS was compliant with the direction and guidance provided in the Draft Merced River Plan/EIS with respect to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. A revised version of the proposed action alternatives for the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS was produced as a result of this workshop.

The Preferred Alternative was chosen after evaluating each alternative based on: (1) how well it achieved the goals of the 1980 General Management Plan; (2) how well it protected park resources while providing for a quality visitor experience; and, (3) how well it addressed issues and concerns expressed by the public. The planning team recommended Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative in the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS.

The Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS was released to the public on April 7, 2000, with a 90-day public comment period. Each of the public comment letters and other communications (including emails, faxes, and public hearing transcripts) were read and analyzed. The planning team examined public comments in the context of improving the proposed alternatives to better achieve plan goals and meet project purpose and need.

Reviewing and Modifying the Draft Plan

In July 2000, the planning team held a week-long workshop to review and consider issues raised during the public comment period. Each substantive issue was evaluated in terms of its:

The team recommended changes to the draft alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, and the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS was prepared. A Record of Decision will be completed following the release of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS to the public, and the completion of a 30-day waiting period.

After the Record of Decision for the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS is approved, a separate document, which will be referred to as the Yosemite Valley Plan, will be prepared and made available to the public. It will present the project purpose, provide a detailed description of the alternative selected for implementation, and discuss any recommendations and actions that were recorded as part of the Record of Decision.

Developing a Range of Actions

After a range of actions for each subject area was identified, they were then studied to determine the feasibility of packaging them with other actions and determining if they contributed to the feasibility of an alternative. Although there are numerous options in each subject area, and many potential ways to package these options into alternatives, it is neither necessary nor practicable to analyze every feasible option within the range. The Council on Environmental Quality has indicated that only a "reasonable number of examples covering the full spectrum of alternatives must be analyzed and compared" (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 [1987]). The emphasis in developing alternatives for the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan was to formulate combinations of actions for detailed analysis that represent the full range of possible alternatives.

Alternatives range from providing parking for day visitors at Yosemite Village in the east Valley to parking at Taft Toe in the middle of the Valley. Most alternatives also provide for out-of-Valley parking for day visitors. Other principal differences, and numerous smaller ones, are also present. Lodging and camping numbers differ, as does the amount of highly valued natural resource restoration, cultural resource protection, and new development. While all action alternatives would reduce the amount of vehicle traffic in the Valley, some would also create new areas free of the direct influence of motorized vehicles (e.g., Stoneman Meadow, Ahwahnee Meadow, and sections of Northside Drive closed to traffic). These and other distinctive actions are described in Table A at the end of this chapter and in the summary of major changes at the beginning of each alternative description.

VISITOR USE AND PARKING CONSIDERATIONS

The advantages of locating parking for day visitors in a single lot were considered in developing the action alternatives for the Yosemite Valley Plan. The advantages include a need for fewer parking spaces due to more efficient use, less traffic from visitors traveling to scattered locations, and a better ability to direct visitors to parking. These advantages were considered more important than the advantages of scattered parking, which include potentially less visibility and, for some, the ability to park closer to Valley destinations. As a result, all of the action alternatives provide parking for day visitors in a single lot that can be managed to maximize access for day visitors.

The 1980 General Management Plan prescribed 1,271 parking spaces as the maximum for Yosemite Valley day visitors (10,530 visitors per day). The number of campsites and lodging units has been reduced since 1980, so to reach the daily maximum number of day and overnight visitors prescribed for Yosemite Valley in the General Management Plan (18,241), 1,622 day-visitor parking spaces would be required, if all parking spaces were located in Yosemite Valley.

Since 1980, traffic flow, traffic volume, and the accumulation of vehicles in the Valley during the day have been analyzed to assess congestion, the potential for protecting and restoring highly valued natural and cultural resources, and the potential for reducing the influence of traffic on visitorsí experience. Seasonal variations in visitor use and the need for visitor parking were also analyzed. An analysis of resource values and topography has determined that 1,622 parking spaces (the number of day-visitor parking spaces prescribed in the General Management Plan [1,271] adjusted for higher day and less overnight parking), could be accommodated in mid-Valley, at Taft Toe, without substantially impacting highly valued natural resources (although it would impact a previously undeveloped area). Maintaining day parking in the east Valley would allow the placement of parking in previously developed areas, but it would also limit the ability to protect and restore highly valued natural and cultural resources near Yosemite Village. Further traffic analysis found that a maximum of 800 day-visitor vehicles could be accommodated in the east Valley while allowing for the closure of Northside Drive to vehicles from Yosemite Lodge to El Capitan crossover. Any reduction in the number of day-visitor parking spaces below 800 would provide opportunities to pull parking facilities farther back from the Merced River and out of highly valued resource areas.

The alternatives provide a range of Yosemite Valley parking combinations, from 550 spaces for day visitors to 1,622 spaces for day visitors. For alternatives providing fewer than 1,622 spaces in the Valley, additional out-of-Valley day-visitor parking and shuttle service are proposed. The number of spaces at out-of-Valley parking lots has been determined by calculating the expected number of times that parking spaces would be vacated and refilled, travel time on shuttle buses, and the relative demand for parking along each park entrance corridor. While the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does not propose specific limits on visitation, each combination would support a daily visitation level in the Valley (18,241 visitors) approximating that described in the General Management Plan (see"Visitor Use in Yosemite Valley and Land Management Zoning" in Actions Common to All Action Alternatives toward the end of this section).

An operations analysis was conducted for shuttle bus service to and from out-of-Valley parking locations. This analysis concluded that service from out-of-Valley parking locations between November and March would not be cost-effective, and would be at times infeasible. Snow, particularly along the Big Oak Flat and Wawona Roads, could cause roads to close and keep visitors from their vehicles for extended periods. Thus, some parking would continue to be necessary in Yosemite Valley for day visitors. The present-day peak demand for parking by day visitors on winter weekends has been used to establish the minimum number of day-visitor parking spaces (550) for Yosemite Valley.

REGULATORY COMPLIANCE PROCESS

The National Park Service is committed to continued public involvement as the Yosemite Valley Plan is implemented. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS has been prepared with the best available data, fully describes the affected environment, and analyzes environmental consequences. However, as individual actions or projects from the Yosemite Valley Plan are implemented, it may become necessary to complete additional National Environmental Policy Act compliance tiered from the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. Additional tiered National Environmental Policy Act compliance documents may be prepared if:

The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS is the foundation document for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act for actions proposed for Yosemite Valley. The next step would be to prepare site-specific design plans for these actions. Site designs would be evaluated to determine the need for additional National Environmental Policy Act or other regulatory compliance (e.g., National Historic Preservation Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act). Regardless of the need for additional National Environmental Policy Act compliance, as site designs are prepared, the design alternatives would be made available to the public. It is anticipated that site plans would be developed (or revised) for Yosemite Valley Plan actions in the following areas:

Many Yosemite Valley Plan actions are directly linked to areas outside of Yosemite Valley, such as El Portal, Wawona, and Foresta. Comprehensive site plans would be prepared for these areas in order to develop site-specific alternatives for facility design and placement. Environmental assessments or environmental impact statements would be prepared for these areas in conjunction with comprehensive site plans and would be made available to the public for comment and consideration.

ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

As the action alternatives were developed and refined, some elements became common to all action alternatives. The common actions include the following:

Implementation of the River Protection Overlay

The River Protection Overlay prescribed in the Merced River Plan would be implemented to provide a buffer area for natural flood flows, channel formation, riparian vegetation, and wildlife habitat while protecting riverbanks from human-caused impacts and associated erosion. The River Protection Overlay is intended to be the highest priority location for restoration of hydrologic processes and biotic habitats within the river corridor (see figure 2-1). Development within the River Protection Overlay in Yosemite Valley would be removed, except when it is required for access to or across the river, for health and safety, for the maintenance of historic properties, and where it is impractical to locate facilities outside of the River Protection Overlay. It would allow for recreational access to the river in areas that are most able to withstand heavy use, such as sand and gravel bars. Most areas within the River Protection Overlay where development is removed would be restored to natural conditions.

The River Protection Overlay includes the Merced River channel, areas flooded during ordinary high water events, and a buffer zone that is measured from the ordinary high water mark. The Merced River Plan uses the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers definition of "ordinary high water" as the predicted 2.33-year floodplain. Using this definition, the River Protection Overlay is 150 feet on each side of the Merced River's ordinary high water mark at elevations above 3,800 feet (including Yosemite Valley and Wawona). Below 3,800 feet in elevation (including the El Portal Administrative Site), where the river gradient and hydrologic characteristics change, the River Protection Overlay is 100 feet on each side of the Merced River's ordinary high water mark.

Cascades Diversion Dam Project

As part of implementing the Merced River Plan, all alternatives propose the removal of the historic Cascades Diversion Dam. The Cascades Diversion Dam is an impediment to the free-flowing character of the Merced River. The dam removal would be subject to site-specific environmental compliance, including public involvement.

El Portal Road Project

As part of the road improvements included in each action alternative, El Portal Road between Pohono Bridge and the intersection of the Big Oak Flat Road with the El Portal Road (at the west end of Yosemite Valley) would be improved. This segment of road has two narrow travel lanes, each 9.5 feet wide. Subsequent to the January 1997 flood, this road failed east of the Big Oak Flat/El Portal Road intersection and was repaired temporarily. Road improvements would be designed to improve safety and minimize the chance of roadway failures in the future.

The management zoning and River Protection Overlay of the Merced River Plan allow for the maintenance and improvement of the El Portal Road. Projects that occur within the bed and banks of the river are subject to a Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Section 7 determination to assess "affect[s] to the values for which such river was established." The El Portal Road is an important transportation link to Yosemite Valley and supports the recreation Outstandingly Remarkable Values by providing access.

The project would not be implemented until after the removal of the Cascades Diversion Dam. Road improvements would not be initiated until the river channel had stabilized following dam removal to allow for the creation of a road design that would protect Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Road improvements would be subject to site-specific environmental compliance, including public involvement.

Visitor Use in Yosemite Valley and Land Management Zoning

Yosemite Valley is the most popular destination in Yosemite National Park, attracting about 70% of all summer visitors. This popularity has resulted in recurring problems with traffic congestion and parking during the peak season. In 1980, when visitation was about half its present level, the General Management Plan established maximum overnight and day-use levels for each developed area in the park, including Yosemite Valley. This step was taken to meet several of the planís broad goals: preserving Yosemiteís priceless beauty, markedly reducing traffic congestion, reducing crowding, and allowing natural processes to prevail. The maximum daily use level prescribed for Yosemite Valley by the General Management Plan was 18,241 visitors in a 24-hour period. This number was calculated using the number of campsites, lodging units, and day-visitor parking spaces proposed in the General Management Plan, and the average size of visitor parties.

The action alternatives in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS provide for day-visitor and overnight parking for private vehicles and tour buses sufficient to accommodate this level of visitation. Numbers of parking spaces in each alternative vary to appropriately match the levels of overnight use in that alternative. Table 2-1 shows the expected visitor use based on overnight and day-visitor parking facilities for each alternative.

In addition to parking for Yosemite Valley day visitors, Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 provide facilities for transit buses. These buses could bring additional day visitors to the Valley from locations outside the park and could be operated as part of a regional transit service or by other methods. Because the level of potential use of transit buses is not yet determined, facilities for accommodating transit buses would be designed to accommodate a range of numbers of visitors and buses.

The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS does not propose specific limits on visitation. While the General Management Plan prescribed a maximum daily use (i.e., day and overnight use) level for Yosemite Valley, its analysis was facility- and vehicle-based, with no criteria for protection of resources or visitor experience. The Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS proposes to fully implement a Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) study and program within five years of the Record of Decision for the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS. To identify existing and desired conditions for natural resources, cultural resources, and visitor experience, scientific data would continue to be collected and analyzed. Based on these data, the National Park Service would (1) establish management zoning that complements the management zoning established in the Merced River Plan; (2) develop indicators to measure visitor experience and resource conditions; (3) develop standards that define acceptable measurements for each indicator; (4) develop an assessment program to monitor standards; (5) develop a decision-making process to be used in identifying management actions necessary to maintain or restore desired conditions; and (6) develop visitor-use level recommendations for each zone. If the results of the VERP study indicate the need to establish a maximum visitation level for Yosemite Valley, supplemental environmental compliance and a public involvement process would be conducted prior to establishing Valleywide use levels.

Traveler Information and Traffic Management

To assure that the number of vehicles entering the eastern portion of Yosemite Valley would not exceed the capacity of roadways and parking, each of the action alternatives includes the design and implementation of a traveler information and traffic management system. The traveler information and traffic management system would be designed to improve visitor experience and safety, reduce congestion, and protect natural and cultural resources.

This system would be planned and designed through a process that would include extensive public involvement and appropriate environmental compliance; implementation would likely be phased to ensure each step taken meets park goals. The system could use various techniques to manage vehicle access to Yosemite Valley and, if required, other areas in Yosemite National Park. These may include vehicle reservations, registration of vehicles at the entrance stations, pricing and other incentives to encourage travel by alternative modes, and informing visitors about the most convenient, least expensive, and most environmentally sound ways to travel to and visit Yosemite Valley. All types of vehicle traffic, including visitor and employee vehicles, tour buses, and administrative traffic, would be managed by the system. Among the first components of the system to be developed would be methods to assist visitors in planning their Yosemite vacations, provide current access information, and publicize any proposed changes in access.

The intent of the traveler information and traffic management system would be to provide visitors with information about where to park private vehicles and the availability of overnight accommodations in Yosemite Valley well before they arrive at Yosemite National Park. The system would provide information and incentives to encourage day visitors to use out-of-Valley parking or (if available) use transit buses during times of peak visitation.

Preliminary research has identified several components of traveler information and traffic management systems that are being employed throughout the country. Aspects of some or all of these components may be necessary for a successful traveler information and traffic management system at Yosemite National Park. These include:

If the information, education, and incentives provided by the traveler information and traffic management system are insufficient to assure that visitors do not travel into the Valley when day-visitor parking is not available, and if traffic congestion is not solved by these measures, a traffic check station may be constructed on Southside Drive in the area of the El Capitan crossover. The traffic check station would require up to four lanes approximately 500 feet long.

McCauley Ranch Stable Operations

It is the intent of the National Park Service to remove the National Park Service and concessioner administrative stables operations from Yosemite Valley and relocate them to McCauley Ranch near Foresta. Since the parkwide trails operation is dependent on the use of stock, that program would also be relocated to McCauley Ranch from Yosemite Valley. Although the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS calls for this action and analyzes the consequent environmental impacts, the action cannot be initiated until a Wilderness suitability or nonsuitability assessment has been prepared as called for in the 1984 California Wilderness Act. The relocation of the Valley stables operations would not occur until the Wilderness suitability assessment is completed.

If it is determined that the McCauley Ranch addition is suitable for designation as Wilderness, the stable operations would be relocated within Yosemite Valley to a site in the vicinity of the historic Curry dump (about 3 acres), east of Curry Village. If relocated to this site, the consolidated National Park Service and concessioner administrative stables operations would support only district stock and trails operations.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES

It is difficult to develop a single alternative that takes a maximum-benefit approach to (1) achieving the broad goals established in the General Management Plan; (2) meeting the purpose of this planning process; and (3) meeting the criteria presented in Chapter 1. This is because there are inherent conflicts among the various goals and criteria. For example, achieving the goal of allowing natural processes to prevail, and the criteria set forth in Chapter 1 to preserve historic structures and protect important cultural landscape resources, are in conflict when evaluating the free-flowing nature of the Merced River and retention of historic bridges. In many cases, an alternative that yields a maximum benefit to one project goal or criteria would likely result in reduced benefits in achieving another goal or criteria. In this example, it could mean either eliminating a cultural resource or continuing impacts to natural processes. Thus, the alternative that best meets the various goals, and their criteria, would yield the highest sum of benefits.

Based upon the above, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative of the Yosemite Valley Plan. It provides the best approach to preserving the natural and cultural resources that contribute to Yosemite Valley's splendor and uniqueness, and to making those resources available to present and future generations for their enjoyment, education,
and recreation.

The goals and criteria were applied to all four of the action alternatives, but alternatives emphasized different action items (e.g., all day-visitor parking in the Valley, or in a combination of in-Valley and out-of-Valley parking). It was determined that Alternative 2 would be the most successful at accomplishing the purpose and need for the Yosemite Valley Plan: to restore, protect, and enhance natural and cultural resources, including the Merced River's Outstandingly Remarkable Values; reduce automobile traffic congestion; provide opportunities for enhanced, high-quality, resource-based visitor experiences; and provide effective park operations.

---

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

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