Scenic Vista Management Plan for Yosemite National Park

McCardle, Kevin; Croissant, Tim; Fischer, Joy

Environmental Assessment for scenic vista management program. Yosemite National Park is an icon of scenic grandeur. When set aside in 1864, Yosemite Valley and Mariposa Grove were the first scenic natural areas in the United States protected for public benefit and appreciation of the scenic landscape. In 2009, park staff inventoried 181 scenic vistas in Yosemite (outside of Wilderness) and found that encroaching vegetation completely obscured about one-third ofthe vistas, and partially obscured over half the vistas. Vegetation encroaches on these vistas for a number of reasons, including the exclusion of American Indian traditional burning, the suppression of lightning-ignited fire, and human-initiated changes to hydrologic flows. The purpose of the Scenic Vista Management Plan is to develop a systematic program to document, protect, and reestablish Yosemite’s important viewpoints and vistas, consistent with the natural processes and human influences that created them. This plan considers which vistas the park would treat, how the park would prioritize treatments, and the extent and intensity of treatments. This plan will fulfill the park’s obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act and analyze and define the park’s obligations to cultural resources under the National Historic Preservation Act. The Scenic Vista Management Plan describes and contrasts five alternative approaches to prioritizing and reestablishing scenic vistas. Alternative 1 describes existing conditions where there would be no consistent process to prioritize vistas for management or determine the intensity of treatments. About three vistas would be treated every ten years. The following Action Alternatives would replace this case-by-case approach to vista management. All Action Alternatives in this plan would support a scenic vista management program, rather than an individual project based approach. Additional vista points could be assessed, but the overall number of vista points managed would not change as described under each alternative. Alternative 2 would adapt and use an evaluation tool, the Visual Resource Assessment, to assess the scenic value of each vista and prioritize vistas for treatment. Field crews would apply a standardized prescription for initial clearing. Park staff would clear and maintain about 104 obscured or partially obscured vistas, at a rate of about 30 per year. Alternative 3, the Preferred Alternative, would adapt and use the same tool, the Visual Resource Assessment, to prioritize vista points for treatment. The limits of vegetation clearing would differ from Alternative 2, as ecological conditions at each vista site would determine the intensity of vegetation clearing. Park staff would clear about 93 obscured or partially obscured vistas, at a rate of about 30 per year. Alternatives 4 and 5 provide the most flexibility in prioritizing and managing vistas. A team of park professionals would prioritize vistas for management using factors such as the popularity of a site or the facilities available. Under Alternative 4, park staff would apply a standardized clearing prescription as in Alternative 2. About 180 vistas would be considered for management. Under Alternative 5, park staff would use ecological conditions to determine the limits of vegetation clearing. About 167 vistas would be considered for management.