[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 21, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69956-69958]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29670]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Yosemite
Valley Plan, Yosemite National Park Madera, Mono, Tuolumne, and
Mariposa Counties, California; Notice of Availability
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Sec. 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (Pub L.91-190, as amended), and the Council on
Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR Part 1500-1508), the National
Park Service, Department of the Interior, has prepared a Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement identifying and evaluating
five alternatives for a Yosemite Valley Plan within Yosemite National
Park. The foreseeable potential for environmental impacts, and
appropriate mitigation, are identified and assessed for each
alternative. When approved, the plan is intended to guide management
actions during the next 15-20 years.
Proposal
The proposed Yosemite Valley Plan (Alternative 2--Preferred) would
restore approximately 176 disturbed or developed acres in Yosemite
Valley to natural conditions. In addition, 173 acres of developed land
would be redeveloped and 73 acres of undeveloped land would be
developed to accommodate visitor and employee services, such as
campgrounds, day-visitor parking, and employee housing. The net effect
of this proposal would be to reduce development in Yosemite Valley by
approximately 71 acres. This
[[Page 69957]]
proposal would locate a new Valley Visitor Center and consolidate
parking for day-visitors at Yosemite Village, and also consolidate
parking in three areas outside Yosemite Valley. There would be more
campsites and fewer lodging units than there are now. Vehicle travel in
the eastern portion of Yosemite Valley during summer months would be
greatly reduced. The area of the former Upper and Lower River
Campgrounds would be restored to a mosaic of meadow, riparian, and oak
woodland communities, roads would be removed from Ahwahnee and Stoneman
Meadows, and much of Curry Orchard would be restored to natural
conditions. Southside Drive would be converted to two-way traffic from
El Capitan crossover to Curry Village, and Northside Drive would be
converted to a paved bicycle and pedestrian trail from El Capitan
crossover to Yosemite Lodge. There would be minimal new development
west of Yosemite Lodge.
Alternatives
Alternative 1 maintains the status quo in Yosemite Valley, as
described in 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 new actions'' concept follows the guidance of the
Council on Environmental Quality, which defines such base-line
alternatives as no change from the current management direction or
level of management intensity.
Alternative 3 would restore approximately 209 disturbed or
developed acres in Yosemite Valley to natural conditions; and 148 acres
of developed land would be redeveloped and 99 acres of undeveloped land
would be developed to accommodate visitor and employee services. The
net effect would be to reduce development in Yosemite Valley by
approximately 72 acres. This alternative consolidates parking for day-
visitors in the Taft Toe area; a Valley Visitor Center would also be
constructed there. There would be fewer campsites and lodging units
than there are now. The area of the former Upper and Lower River
Campgrounds and the Camp 6 parking area near Yosemite Village would be
restored to riparian habitat, roads would be removed from Ahwahnee and
Stoneman Meadows, 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 from Yosemite Lodge to El Capitan
Crossover, and Southside Drive would be converted to two-way traffic
from Taft Toe to Curry Village.
Alternative 4 would restore approximately 194 disturbed or
developed acres in Yosemite Valley to natural conditions. In addition,
154 acres of developed land would be redeveloped and 99 acres of
undeveloped land would be developed to accommodate visitor and employee
services. The net effect would be to reduce development in Yosemite
Valley by approximately 66 acres. This alternative would consolidate
parking for day-visitors in the Taft Toe area in mid Yosemite Valley
and in three parking areas outside the Valley. A Valley Visitor Center
would be constructed at Taft Toe. There would be fewer campsites and
lodging units than there are now. The area of former Upper and Lower
River Campgrounds and the Camp 6 parking area near Yosemite Village
would be restored to riparian communities; roads would be removed from
Ahwahnee and Stoneman Meadows; and parking would be removed from Curry
Orchard. Northside Drive would be converted to a multi-use-paved trail
for hikers and bicyclists, from Yosemite Lodge to El Capitan crossover.
Southside Drive would be converted to two-way traffic from Taft Toe to
Curry Village.
Alternative 5 would restore approximately 157 disturbed or
developed acres in Yosemite Valley to natural conditions. In addition,
181 acres of developed land would be redeveloped and 54 acres of
undeveloped land would be developed to accommodate employee and visitor
services. The net effect would be to reduce development in Yosemite
Valley by approximately 63 acres. This alternative consolidates parking
for day-visitors at Yosemite Village and selected areas outside of
Yosemite Valley. A new transit center would be located at Yosemite
Village. Traffic circulation would remain similar to the present;
however, one lane of Northside and Southside Drives would be converted
to multi-use paved trails between El Capitan Crossover and Yosemite
Lodge. There would be more campsites and fewer lodging units than now,
and area of the former Lower and Upper River Campgrounds would be
restored to a mosaic of riparian and oak woodland communities. There
would be minimal new development in mid and west Yosemite Valley.
Planning Background
The draft Yosemite Valley Plan and Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement (SEIS) were prepared by the National Park Service
(NPS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. A Scoping
Notice was published in the Federal Register on December 16, 1998.
General issues and specific concerns already raised during previous
relevant planning processes were provided to the public. Scoping
comments were received through February 1, 1999. During this scoping
period, the NPS facilitated over 100 discussions and briefings to
interested members of the public, congressional delegations, Indian
Tribes, elected officials, other agencies, public service
organizations, educational institutions, and other entities. Nearly 600
letters were received concerning the announced conservation planning
and environmental impact analysis process.
The draft Yosemite Valley Plan\SEIS--formally announced for public
review per Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register on
April 13, 2000--was sent directly to all individuals, organizations,
and agencies which had previously contacted the park; copies could also
be obtained in the park, by mail, at public meetings, and were
available for review at local and regional libraries (i.e., San
Francisco and Los Angeles). Finally, the complete document was posted
on the Yosemite National Park WebPage (http://www.nps.gov/yose/planning). Written comments were accepted through July 14, 2000.
Approximately 10,200 responses were received; all were duly considered
and adjustments were made to the draft plan. All written comments have
been archived and are available for public review in the park's
research library.
In order to further foster public review and comment, 14 public
meetings were held throughout California--half of these were conducted
in major metropolitan areas of the State, and half in cities and towns
neighboring Yosemite National Park. All meetings consisted of a
combined open house (where participants could view displays and talk
with park management and planning staff) and formal hearings where oral
testimony before park officials was documented by a court reporter.
Approximately 1,500 persons attended these meetings, and 365
individuals and organization representatives testified during the
hearings. In addition, public meetings were conducted in Seattle,
Washington, Denver, Colorado, Chicago, Illinois, and Washington D.C.
Over 100 individuals attended these out-of-state meetings.
Decision Process
Subsequent to release of the final Yosemite Valley Plan\SEIS,
notice of an approved Record of Decision shall be
[[Page 69958]]
published in the Federal Register not sooner than thirty (30) days
after the final document has been distributed. This is expected to
occur by the end of December 2000. The official responsible for the
decision is the Regional Director, Pacific West Region, National Park
Service; the official responsible for implementation is the
Superintendent, Yosemite National Park.
Dated: November 13, 2000.
Patricia L. Neubacher,
Acting Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. 00-29670 Filed 11-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P