Draft Yosemite Valley implementation plan supplemental environmental impact statement

310 Pages·1997·18.2 MB·English

by  National Park Service

]ST7^
Printed on recycled paper
Draft
Yosemite Valley Implementation Plan
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
YOSEMITE
National Park
Mariposa, Madera, and Tuolumne Counties
California
This Draft Yosemite ValleyImplementation Plan/SupplementalEnvironmentalImpactStatementpresents four
alternatives forcarrying out the provisions ofthe 1980 GeneralManagementPlan (GMP). Those provisions call
forthe removal ofunnecessary structures, restoration and protection ofrecovered land, relocation offacilities out
ofsensitive or hazardous areas, and reduction oftraffic congestion in Yosemite Valley. This document incor-
porates the subsequent 1992 ConcessionServices Plan and 1996 Draft Yosemite ValleyHousingPlanwith the
GeneralManagementPlan into a comprehensive implementation plan. Each alternative describes a proposal for
the management and use ofYosemite Valley and discusses changes in the valley's developed areas, natural
resource management, cultural resource management, interpretation and visitorservices, and parkoperations.
Alternative 2 (the proposed action) would emphasize acomprehensive approach. Implementation ofthe proposed
action would allow forapproximately 147 acres in the east end ofthe valleyto be restoredto natural conditions,
82 acres redesigned, and 38 acres developedto accommodate relocated facilities orfunctions. An orientation/
transfer facility would be located inthe west end ofthe valley atTaft Toe. Dayuse visitors and out-of-park
transit bus riders wouldbe interceptedthere and would usethe valley shuttle bus system to access otherdestin-
ations in Yosemite Valley. Changes to circulation and campgrounds are also proposed. Alternative 2 proposes an
increase in interpretive and educational programs through partnerships with supporting organizations. Some
cultural resources would be affected bythe proposed actions.
—
Otheralternatives include alternative 1 no action, which continues implementation ofthe GeneralManage-
mentPlan but withouta comprehensive approach. Implementation ofalternative 1 would allow forapprox-
imately 41 acres to be restoredto natural conditions and 15 acresredesigned to accommodate relocated facilities
or functions. Alternative 3 is similartothe proposed action but provides an orientation/transfer facility inthe
west end ofthe valley at Pohono Quarry. Implementation ofalternative 3 would allow forapproximately 143
acres to be reclaimed and restored to natural conditions, 93 acres redesigned, and 57 acres developed to accom-
modate relocated facilities orfunctions. Alternative4 (minimumrequirements) wouldprovide for implement-
ation ofthe GeneralManagementPlan in amannermore comprehensive than the no-action alternative butwith
less habitat restoration and fewer improvements than alternatives2 and 3. Implementation ofalternative 4 would
allow for approximately 1 18 acres to be reclaimed and restoredto natural conditions, 95 acres redesigned, and 36
acres developed to accommodate relocated facilities orfunctions.
The public review period forthis documentwill end 60 days after publication ofa notice ofavailability in the
FederalRegister. Comments orrequests formore information should be addressed to:
—
Superintendent Attn: VIP Planning
YosemiteNational Park
P.O. Box 577
YosemiteNational Park, CA 95389
[phone]
This document is available on the Internetathttp://www.nps.gov/planning. Comments mayalso be submitted
through theNational Park Service planning page.
United States Departmentofthe Interior•National Park Service
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2012 with funding from
LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation
http://archive.org/details/draftyosemitevalOOnati
SUMMARY
This Draft Yosemite ValleyImplementationPlan/ reconstructed as prescribed in previous plans.
SupplementalEnvironmentalImpactStatement Implementation ofalternative 1 would allow for
presents and analyzes four alternatives for approximately 41 acres to be restored to natural
carrying out the provisions ofthe 1980 General conditions and 15 acres redesigned to
ManagementPlan. Those provisions called for accommodate relocated facilities or functions.
the removal ofunnecessary structures, restora-
tion and protection ofrecovered land, relocation Vehicle circulation in the valley would continue
offacilities out ofsensitive or hazardous areas, with use ofthe Northside and Southside Drive
and reduction oftraffic congestion in Yosemite one-way loop and all valley roads and bridges.
Valley. Each alternative describes a proposal for Both day users and overnight guests would
the management and use ofYosemite Valley and continue to access the valley in their own
discusses changes in the valley's developed vehicles, by tour bus, or by out-of-park transit
areas, natural resource management, cultural vehicles. Parking for 1,271 day use vehicles
resource management, interpretation and visitor would be retained in the valley, primarily at the
services, and park operations. The document Curry orchard parking area, Village Store
also presents a full discussion ofthe environ- parking lot, Camp Six, and alongthe circulation
mental impacts associated with implementing routes in the east end ofthe valley. Parking for
the alternatives. 1,487 overnight guest vehicles would remain at
lodging and campground areas.
Alternative 1, the no-action alternative, de-
scribes the conditions that would exist ifactions A total of32 acres ofaquatic, riparian, and
recommended in the 1980 GeneralManagement meadow communities would remain com-
Plan, the 1992 Concession Services Plan, and promised by the impacts ofdevelopment. An
the 1996 Draft Yosemite ValleyHousingPlan additional 153 acres would remain compromised
would continue to be implemented on a project- as a result offlood-damaged infrastructure that
by-project basis without a comprehensive precludes the restoration ofnatural communities.
implementation program. Individual actions Four acres would be restored. Impacts on the
would be implemented as funding permitted. river from inadequately designed bridges and
Interpretive and educational programs, visitor other development would continue. Automobiles
services, and new facilities would be provided as and buses would continue to have a serious
prescribed in these plans but without further negative effect on Yosemite Valley. Implemen-
coordination. Because implementation ofcurrent tation would result in irretrievable loss ofhis-
approved plans would be done on a piecemeal toric property (as called for in the GeneralMan-
basis and without a comprehensive plan, the agementPlan and Concession Services Plan).
acreages to be developed cannot be reliably
estimated. Alternative 2, the proposed action, is the NPS
preferred alternative and draft plan. It would
Developed areas and facilities in Yosemite emphasize a comprehensive approach for
Valley would be retained as prescribed under carrying out the provisions ofthe General
previous plans. NPS and concessioner adminis- ManagementPlan, the Concession Services
trative facilities, major maintenance functions, Plan, and the Draft Yosemite ValleyHousing
and noncritical employee housing would even- Plan. Specifically, this alternative calls for
tually be removed from the valley. The valley removal ofunnecessary structures and
campgrounds and the nature centerat Happy circulation features, restoration and protection of
Isles would be retained as visitor destination recovered land, relocation offacilities out of
areas, and campsites and facilities damaged or sensitive or hazardous areas, and reduction of
destroyed by the January 1997 flood would be traffic congestion.
in
SUMMARY
Alternative 2 proposes an increase in interpre- would be removed from valley developed areas
tive and educational programs through partner- and roads. Parking for 1,440 overnight guest
ships with supporting organizations and through vehicles would remain at lodging and
new facilities that would provide improved campground areas.
information, orientation, and wayfinding ser-
vices. Implementation ofthe proposed action A total of21 acres ofaquatic, riparian, and
would allow for approximately 147 acres in the meadow communities would be restored; six
east end ofYosemite Valley to be reclaimed and acres would be developed. Removal ofthree
restored to natural conditions, 82 acres rede- historic bridges would improve river hydrology
signed, and 38 acres developed to accommodate more than any other alternative. Parking day use
relocated facilities or functions; 21 acres in the visitor automobiles in the west end ofthe valley
west end ofthe valley would be developed. and overnight visitor vehicles near lodgings
would reduce congestion, air pollution, and
The presentvisitor centerwould be removed, noise and would improve the visitor experience.
and the two auditoriums would be redesigned Implementation would result in an irretrievable
and remodeled to accommodate continued loss ofhistoric property throughout Yosemite
interpretive and educational uses. The village Valley as called for in the GeneralManagement
interpretive center/transit station in the former Plan and Concession Services Plan. Removal of
Village Store would serve as an information and three bridges and Curry orchard to remedy
interpretive center. Shuttle bus stops would be natural resource problems would result in an
clearly identified throughoutthe valley. irretrievable loss ofhistoric property. Natural
resource impacts would increase in the west end
Campground facilities damaged ordestroyed in ofthe valley because ofdevelopment ofthe
the January 1997 flood would be relocated to orientation/transfer facility at Taft Toe. Ofthe
areas less prone to flooding; however, due to $75.4 million thattheNational Park Service
habitat constraints, the total number ofavailable would be expected to spend over five years,
campsites would be 675 instead of756 as $63.3 million would directly impactthe regional
prescribed in the GeneralManagementPlan. economy by creating 261 newjobs. The
reduction in the number ofcampsites by 81 to
Visitors would arrive at an orientation/transfer 675 could result in lost visitor spending
facility in the west end ofthe valley, at their associated with excluded campers. These
lodging or campground, or in a gateway impacts would be somewhat offset by the greater
community and then move between destinations construt tion expenditures associated with the
in the valley by shuttle bus, bicycle, or on foot. reconfiguration ofall valley camping.
Day use visitor and out-of-park bus traffic
would be intercepted at an orientation/transfer Alternative 3 proposes actions similartothose
facility at Taft Toe. It is anticipated that a described in alternative 2. This alternative calls
regional transportation system would eliminate forthe removal ofunnecessary structures and
the need for day use visitor parking at Taft Toe. circulation features, restoration and protection of
If, by the summer of2001, it does not, then a recovered land, relocation ofother facilities out
parking areawould be created that would ofsensitive or hazardous areas, and reduction of
accommodate up to 1,800 spaces for day use traffic congestion in the valley. It proposes an
vehicles. The size ofthe facility would be set by increase in interpretive and educational
the capacity ofthe regional system. It could also programs through partnerships with supporting
provide parking for up to 120 backcountry organizations. There would be some new
vehicles and 20 tour buses. Ifparking were facilities that would provide improved
constructed theNPS would reevaluate the need information, orientation, and wayfinding
forthe spaces every two years and promptly services.
remove unneeded spaces as the regional system
matures. Parking for2,300 day use vehicles
IV
Summary
Alternative 3 proposes a lower level ofredesign vehicles would be removed from valley
in Yosemite Village than alternative 2 and developed areas and roads. Parking for
approximately the same level ofredesign for approximately 1,440 overnight guest vehicles
campground areas, the Ahwahnee Hotel, and would remain at lodging and campground areas.
Curry Village. Implementation ofalternative 3
would allow for approximately 143 acres in the A regional transportation system would
east end ofthe valley to be reclaimed and eliminate the need forvisitor parking at Pohono
restored to natural conditions, 93 acres rede- Quarry. If, by the summer of2001, it does not, a
signed, and 38 acres developed to accommodate parking structure sized by the capacity ofthe
new and relocated facilities or functions; 19 regional system would be constructed but would
acres in the west end ofthe valley would be not exceed 1,800 day use visitor spaces and 120
developed. backcountry vehicle spaces. Due to limited
available land and steep terrain, a multilevel
All ofthe campsites severely damaged in the parking structure would be required. This
January 1997 flood and in the river management facility would be terraced into the hillside and
zone would be removed and the areas restored to designed to accommodate interpretive functions
mixed conifer and riparian habitat. Due to relocated from the visitor center. Ifconstructed,
habitat constraints, the total number ofavailable this facility would probably be permanent. Day
campsites would be 675 instead of756 as tour bus parking would be located nearCamp
prescribed in the GeneralManagementPlan. Six, south ofYosemite Village.
There would be two new visitor facilities: an A total of22 acres ofaquatic, riparian, and
orientation and transfer facility at the west end meadow communities would be restored; six
ofthe valley and a primary information center acres would be redesigned, and five acres would
and shuttle bus transit station in Yosemite be developed. Removal oftwo bridges would
Village. The village information center/transit improve river hydrology more than alternatives
station in the former Village Store would pro- 1 and 4 but less than alternative 2. Parking day
vide park information and orientation programs. use visitor automobiles in the west end ofthe
Two new amphitheaters in UpperandNorth valley and overnight visitorvehicles near
Pines Campgrounds would be provided. The lodgings would reduce congestion, air pollution,
new amphitheaters would have a large enough and noise and would improve the visitor
capacity to accommodate visitors from all ofthe experience. Implementation would result in
nearby campgrounds. irretrievable loss ofhistoric property throughout
Yosemite Valley as called for in the General
Auto touring in the valley would be replaced by ManagementPlan and Concession Services
guided tours, shuttle bus riding, valley floor Plan. Removal oftwo bridges and the Curry
tour, bicycle touring, and walking. Day use orchard to remedy natural resource problems
visitorand out-of-park bus traffic would be would result in an additional irretrievable loss of
intercepted at an orientation/transfer facility on historic property. Natural resource impacts
the north side ofthe valley nearthe former would increase in the west end ofthe valley
Pohono Quarry. All day use visitors would because ofthe development ofthe orientation/
arrive by regional transit bus or leave their transfer facility at Pohono Quarry. Ofthe $204.9
vehicles in a staging (parking) area and use the million thatthe National Park Service would be
valley connector shuttle, a bicycle path, or foot expected to spend over five years, $172.1
trails to access Yosemite Village and other million would directly impactthe regional
valley destinations. Vehicle access to the east economy by creating 710 newjobs. The
end ofthe valley would be restricted to reduction in the number ofcampsites by 81 to
overnight lodging and campground guests (with 675 could result in regional impacts from lost
reservations), and vehicles would be parked visitor spending associated with excluded
until departure. Parking for 2,300 day use
SUMMARY
campers. These impacts would be somewhat All automobiles would be parked forthe
offset by construction expenditures. duration ofany day visit. There would be
pedestrian access to nearby destinations, but use
In alternative 4 actions recommended in the ofthe shuttle system would be necessary to
GeneralManagementPlan, the Concession travel further. Automobiles belongingto
Services Plan, and the Draft Yosemite Valley campers and lodging guests would remain in
HousingPlan would continue to be campgrounds and lodging lots. Auto touring
implemented on a project-by-project basis. would be replaced by guided tours, shuttle bus
However, some comprehensive approaches riding, valley floortour, bicycle touring, and
would be implemented as funding permitted. walking.
Interpretive and educational programs, visitor
services, and new facilities would be provided as Day visitors and out-of-park transit bus riders
prescribed in the previously approved plans. would park vehicles at one ofseveral redesigned
Alternative 4 proposes a lower level ofredesign parking areas in the east end ofthe valley.
and change than alternatives 2 and 3. Parking for 1,800 day use vehicles, 120
Implementation ofalternative 4 would allow for backpacker permit vehicles, and 20 day tour
approximately 1 18 acres to be reclaimed and buses would be provided in the valley, primarily
restored to natural conditions, 95 acres at Curry orchard, the Village Store, and Camp
redesigned, and 36 acres developed to Six. Parking for 1,440 overnight guest vehicles
accommodate new and relocated facilities or would remain at lodging and campground areas.
functions.
A total of 17 acres ofaquatic, riparian, and
The intent ofthis alternative would be to meadow communities would be restored; four
improve the visitorexperience in the valley acres would be redesigned, and five acres would
while undertaking the fewest changes possible at be developed. Modification oftwo bridges
the least cost. It emphasizes facility remodeling would reduce a major constriction ofthe Merced
and renovation coupled with new and upgraded River but would not substantially improve river
interpretation. No major new visitor or hydrology. Continuing to park day use visitors'
interpretive facilities would be planned in the automobiles at three sites in the east end ofthe
valley, but at South, Arch Rock, and Big Oak valley and overnight visitor vehicles near
Flat entrances, new facilities would be lodgings would reduce congestion, airpollution,
constructed to provide visit planning and and noise and would improve the visitor
information. experience more than alternative 1 but less than
alternatives 2 and 3. Implementation would
All ofthe campsites severely damaged in the result in irretrievable loss ofhistoric property
January 1997 flood and in the river management throughout Yosemite Valley as called for in the
zone would be removed and the areas restored to GeneralManagementPlan and Concession
mixed conifer and riparian habitat. Campground Services Plan. Activity and natural resource
facilities damaged or destroyed in the January impacts would continue to be focused only in
1997 flood would be relocated to areas less the east end ofthe valley because ofretention of
prone to flooding; however, due to habitat day use parkingthere. TheNational Park
constraints, the total number ofavailable Service would be expected to spend $25.5
campsites would be 662 instead of756 as million more over its 10-year implementation
prescribed in the GeneralManagementPlan. period than in alternative 1 and would create 105
more newjobs than alternative 1. The reduction
All employee parking and housing at Camp Six in the number ofcampsites by 94 to 662 could
would be removed and the area restored to cause reduced visitor spending associated with
mixed coniferand riparian habitat. excluded campers. These impacts would be
somewhat offset by construction expenditures.
VI
8869 1 555 5 3 1
CONTENTS
Purpose ofand Need forthe Action
1
Introduction 3 1980 GeneralManagementPlan/Envi-
Park Purpose 3 ronmentalImpactStatement 1
Purpose ofthe Draft ValleyImplementation Yosemite Valley Housing Plan 9
Plan 4 Alternative Transportation Modes,
Planning Issues 4 Feasibility Study 10
Issues Beyond the Scope ofthe Draft Yosemite Area Regional Transportation
ValleyImplementation Plan 6 Strategy 1
Plans, Studies, and Analyses 7 Transportation Symposium 1
Relationship to Other Planning and Concession Services Plan 12
Projects 7 Flood Recovery Planning 12
Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 1
—
Actions Common to All Alternatives 1 Alternative 1 No Action 25
Specific Valley Management Plans 1 Overview 25
Natural Resource Management Natural Resource Management 25
1
Cultural Resource Management 1 Cultural Resource Management 25
Historic Structures and Cultural Interpretation and Visitor Services 25
Landscapes 1 Information /Orientation 26
Archeology and Historic Sites 16 Interpretation / Education 26
Ethnographic Sites and Resources 16 Recreation 26
Collections 16 Valley General 26
Interpretation and Visitor Services 17 Yosemite Village 27
Visitor Use and Development 17 Implementation Concept 27
Yosemite Lodge 18 Food and Retail Services 27
VisitorTransportation / Circulation and Parking 27
Orientation 1 Ahwahnee Hotel 27
Guest Lodging Implementation Concept 27
1
Food and Retail Services 19 Circulation and Parking 28
Sustainable Development 19 Valley Campgrounds 28
Interpretation and Visitor Implementation Concept 28
Management 1 Campsites and Facilities 28
Site Design 20 Food and Retail Services 28
Building Design 20 Circulation and Parking 28
Energy Management 2 Curry Village 28
Access forVisitors with Disabilities 21 Implementation Concept 28
Access for American Indians for Traditional Lodging and Facilities 29
and Ceremonial Use 21 Food and Retail Services 29
Park Operations 22 Circulation and Parking 29
Employee Housing Summary 22 Park Operations 29
Administration and Maintenance 22 Development Costs 29
Recommended Staffing 24
vn
CONTENTS
—
Alternative 2 Proposed Action 30 Yosemite Village 58
Overview 30 Implementation Concept 58
Natural Resource Management 30 Food and Retail Services 58
Cultural Resource Management 37 Circulation and Parking 59
Interpretation, Visitor Services, and Ahwahnee Hotel 59
Transportation 37 Implementation Concept 59
Information / Orientation 38 Circulation and Parking 59
Interpretation / Education 40 Campgrounds 59
Recreation 40 Implementation Concept 59
Development 41 Campground Unit Summary 60
Valley General 41 Food and Retail Services 61
VisitorOrientation /Transfer Circulation and Parking 61
Facility 43 Curry Village 61
Yosemite Village 44 Implementation Concept 61
Implementation Concept 44 Lodging Area 61
Food and Retail Services 44 Food and Retail Services 61
Circulation and Parking 44 Circulation and Parking 61
Ahwahnee Hotel 44 Park Operations 62
Implementation Concept 44 Development Costs 62
Circulation and Parking 45 —
Campgrounds 45 Alternative 4 Minimum Requirements 63
Implementation Concept 45 Overview 63
Campground Unit Summary 45 Natural Resources 63
Food and Retail Services 46 Cultural Resource Management 64
Circulation and Parking 46 Interpretation and Visitor Services 64
Curry Village 46 Information /Orientation 64
Implementation Concept 46 Interpretation / Education 64
Lodging Area 47 Development 65
Food and Retail Services 47 Yosemite Village 65
Circulation and Parking 47 Implementation Concept 65
Park Operations 48 Food and Retail Services 66
Development Costs and Phasing 48 Circulation and Parking 66
Ahwahnee Hotel 66
Alternative 3 52 Implementation Concept 66
Overview 52 Circulation and Parking 66
Natural Resource Management 52 Valley Campgrounds 66
Cultural Resource Management 53 Implementation Concept 66
Interpretation, Visitor Services, and Campsites and Facilities 66
Transportation 53 Food and Retail Services 67
Information /Orientation 54 Circulation and Paridng 67
Interpretation / Education 54 Curry Village 67
Recreation 55 Implementation Concept 67
Development 55 Lodging and Facilities 67
Valley General 55 Food and Retail Services 67
VisitorOrientation / Transfer Circulation and Parking 67
Facility 56 Park Operations 68
Development Costs 68
vni