Construction Mitigation Measures

The following Best Management Practices and mitigation measures would be implemented as appropriate, prior to, during, and/or after construction.

• Preconstruction briefings will be required to educate construction crews on the measures required to protect natural and cultural resources.
• Construction area boundaries, including staging areas, will be clearly marked to ensure that construction activities do not affect resources outside of the construction areas. All construction activity and storage of construction materials will occur within these marked areas. Construction and staging areas will be confined to the smallest area necessary.
• Natural resources will be protected through biological monitoring, erosion and sediment control, use of fencing or other means to protect sensitive resources adjacent to construction, removal of all food-related items or rubbish to bear-proof containers, topsoil salvage, and revegetation. Fencing will be used to mark the limits of allowed construction disturbance and to mark specific high-value vegetation to be salvaged or preserved. Food shall be stored in accordance with park regulations.
• Cultural resources will be protected by minimizing the areas to be disturbed, using fencing to protect sensitive resources adjacent to construction areas, and performing construction monitoring in appropriate areas.
• The requirements of the 1999 Programmatic Agreement between the National Park Service, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation will be implemented for the "Resolution of Adverse Effects" associated with planning construction, operations, and maintenance activities within Yosemite National Park (i.e., review of project, design, avoidance of sensitive cultural resource areas, monitoring of project activities as appropriate, ongoing tribal consultation).
• The requirements of the 1999 Agreement between the National Park Service and the American Indian Council of Mariposa County, Inc. for conducting traditional activities will be implemented.
• Compliance monitoring will be implemented to ensure the project remains within the parameters of the National Environmental Policy Act and National Historic Preservation Act compliance documents, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permits, and other permits and regulations. Compliance monitoring will ensure adherence to mitigation measures and will include reporting protocols.
• Water quality will be protected through the use of silt fences, sedimentation basins, and other control measures to reduce erosion, surface scouring, and discharge to water bodies. Excavated material will be stored in upland areas and stabilized to prevent discharge into water bodies or wetlands.
• Wetland areas will be delineated and marked. Adjacent or nearby wetland areas not in the construction area will be fenced to reduce potential impacts from construction activities.
• A noxious weed abatement program will be implemented. Construction equipment will be steam-cleaned and inspected to ensure that it arrives on site free of mud and seed-bearing material; seeds and straw material shall be certified as weed-free; and areas of noxious weeds will be identified and treated prior to construction. Areas treated to remove noxious weeds will be revegetated with appropriate native species.
• A dust abatement program will be implemented during construction. Clearing of vegetation will be minimized to the greatest extent possible. Water will be applied to reduce dust during construction; trucks hauling soil will be required to cover the soils during transport; and disturbed areas will be revegetated with native species after construction. Excavated soils will be stockpiled and covered.
• Construction noise will be minimized through the use of best-available noise control techniques wherever feasible. Standard noise abatement measures could include the following elements: a schedule that minimizes impacts to adjacent noise-sensitive uses, use of the best-available noise control techniques wherever feasible, use of hydraulically or electrically powered impact tools when feasible, and location of stationary noise sources as far from sensitive uses as possible.
• A spill prevention and pollution control program for hazardous materials will be implemented. The program will emphasize proper hazardous materials storage and handling procedures; will outline spill containment, cleanup, and reporting procedures; and will limit refueling and other hazardous activities to designated upland areas. Signs prohibiting refueling will be posted in sensitive areas. Equipment will be inspected prior to use each day to ensure that hydraulic hoses are tight and in good condition.
• When applicable, a traffic control plan will be implemented to ensure that safe and efficient traffic and pedestrian flow is maintained during construction.
• Signage will be provided at the entrance kiosks, along the roadways, and at critical intersections noting where construction activities are taking place.
• A visitor communication and protection plan will be developed to ensure that visitors are safely and efficiently routed around construction in the project area. This plan will include means for communicating construction and closure schedules to the public, adequate barriers to keep visitors clear of active construction areas, and clear signage to direct visitors to open park destinations during construction. Interpretation for visitors of the activities, the value and effects of ongoing construction projects shall be included.
• A revegetation plan will be developed to ensure that salvage vegetation is used where possible and that native species are used. Monitoring will occur during the revegetation period to ensure the success of the revegetation plan.
• All tools, equipment, barricades, signs, surplus materials, and rubbish will be removed from the project area upon project completion and revegetation of disturbed areas. The National Park Service project manager will make inspections to ensure that impacts remain within the parameters of the project and do not escalate beyond the scope of the environmental assessment, as well as to ensure that the project conforms to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permits. The National Park Service project manager will assure that mitigation measures are followed.
• The National Park Service project manager will approve the construction schedule and working hours for individual projects. Construction activities will occur only during standard daylight working hours, and shall be planned to avoid impacting highly used areas of Curry Village during peak visitor seasons.
• Final construction planning and scheduling will address the level of activity and required detour of visitor access to reduce the creation of conflicts associated with construction in close proximity to areas of high levels of visitor use, and will reduce the duration of impact in any one area by avoiding schedules that require extended continuous construction periods or sequential major construction activities that include major construction in one local use area over two successive peak visitor use periods. This will be accomplished by coordination of project funding and construction planning for all projects to be developed to reduce cumulative construction impacts, as well as reducing the effect of multiple elements of the same project, such as the Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley Campground Improvements Project. Where appropriate, construction activities that are likely to have a major effect on nearby visitor uses will be scheduled in the off-season to allow the closure of the adjacent use areas to reduce potential impacts while still accommodating the level of total visitor use demand expected during these periods.
• Unnecessary emissions will be avoided (e.g., engines of trucks and vehicles in loading and unloading areas would be turned off when not in use).
• Disturbed or developed areas will be used for staging whenever possible. Staging areas for individual projects will be identified during final design and will require approval by the National Park Service project manager.
• An emergency notification program will be established. Standard measures include notification of utilities and emergency response units prior to construction activities. Locations of existing utilities will be identified prior to construction activity to prevent damage to utilities, particularly the water supply lines that pass through the work limits. The contractor will call Underground Services Alert and National Park Service maintenance staff 72 hours prior to any ground disturbance. Construction will not proceed until the process of locating existing utilities is completed.
• Damage to natural surroundings in and around the work limits will be avoided. Temporary barriers to protect existing trees, plants, and root zone will be provided, if necessary. Trees and other vegetation will not be removed, injured, or destroyed without prior written approval. Ropes, cables, or fencing will not be fastened to trees. All existing resource protection fencing (post and rope) will be left in place and protected from heavy equipment.

Resource-Specific Mitigation Measures
Geologic Hazards

• During preliminary site design, demark earthquake-triggered and other rockfall hazard zones on plans to show limits of the following: (1) talus zone; (2) rockfall zone; and (3) rockfall avalanche zone. Incorporate latest study of rockfall potential in the demarcation of the talus and rockfall hazard zones.
• Perform site-specific geologic and geotechnical analyses and investigations, including field exploration, as a part of final site design, to verify and modify, if necessary, the talus line and/or the rockfall zone lines, in order to determine where new facilities may be located. Published literature on rockfall hazard zones provides an overview of the hazard zones and does not provide site-specific details of the potential rockfall hazards as it relates to new development.
• Perform site-specific geologic investigation as a part of final site design in areas adjacent to rockfall zones where increased public usage would occur.

Soils

• Perform site-specific geologic and geotechnical investigations of proposed buildings, facilities, and infrastructure requiring foundation design criteria to assess local liquefaction and cyclic densification potential, surficial expansive soil, and strength of soil. Perform investigations during final design phase.
• Incorporate appropriate engineering design for areas comprised of liquefiable soils, weak or expansive soils, or soils above the base of frost zone.
• Incorporate appropriate landscape design for areas with the potential for erosion.
• If on-site soil meets criteria for engineered fill, use soil from foundation excavations (drilled pier and/or shallow spread footing) to reduce the need to transport material off site or import material for fill. Any imported fill must be certified weed-seed-free and approved by the resources management division prior to bringing material into the park.
• Have foundation installation equipment available during construction to allow for excavation or drilling through the large-diameter boulders anticipated to be scattered throughout the proposed development area.
• Use semipermeable materials on temporary access routes to allow for water infiltration through the soil column and aeration of any compacted soils at the completion of construction.

Floodplains
Actions occurring within the floodplain would be subject to the provisions of the National Park Service Floodplain Management Guideline (NPS 1993a) and Executive Order 11988 (Protection of Floodplains). The following mitigation measures would be applied to protect facilities within the floodplain:

• Incorporate methods for minimizing flood damage into the design of all new structures, as contained in the National Flood Insurance Program Floodplain Management Criteria for Flood-Prone Areas (Code of Federal Regulations 44:60.3) and in accordance with any local, county, or state requirements for flood-prone areas.

Hydrology and Water Quality

• Develop and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan to control erosion and sedimentation, both during and after construction, thereby reducing water pollution.
• Place construction debris in refuse containers at least daily.
• Dispose of refuse at least weekly. Do not burn or bury refuse inside the park.
• Schedule construction activities, particularly those resulting in substantial soil disturbance, during periods of low precipitation and low groundwater, when feasible, to reduce the risk of accidental hydrocarbon leaks or spills reaching surface and/or groundwater, to reduce the potential for soil contamination, and to minimize erosion of loose materials in construction areas.
• Dispose of volatile wastes and oils in approved containers for removal from construction sites to avoid contamination of soils, drainages, and watercourses.
• Inspect equipment for hydraulic and oil leaks prior to use on construction sites, and implement inspection schedules to prevent contamination of soil and water.
• When using heavy equipment, keep absorbent pads, booms, and other materials on-site, so as to contain oil, hydraulic fluid, and solvents.

Wetlands

• Site new facilities to avoid wetlands whenever practicable.
• Use fencing to delineate wetlands within and adjacent to construction areas that would not be directly filled and mark the areas as sensitive habitat prior to the start of construction to prevent unintended trampling of wetland vegetation by construction personnel and equipment.
• Water pumped out of excavation areas should be released at least 100 feet from wetland areas and allowed to flow over vegetated areas to filter runoff.
• Plant native shrubs and groundcover along the drainages to reduce sedimentation.
• Construct bridges and install culverts when there is no water in the watercourses. Revegetate disturbed areas, as appropriate, and minimize erosion.
• A biologist shall review the final wetland delineation to assist the design team in avoiding impacts to wetland to the extent feasible. Any unavoidable impacts will be mitigated by replacement of the wetlands through restoration.

Special-Status Species
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for administering conservation and recovery measures to protect federally listed species, as directed in the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has prescribed conservation measures specific to the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) as part of the Biological Opinion. The Biological Opinion contains terms and conditions that are nondiscretionary. In addition, the National Park Service has developed mitigation measures for all special-status species. Measures outlined in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS that are pertinent to this project are outlined below.

• A qualified biologist will be available to inspect all excavations before refilling occurs, ensuring that special-status species are passively relocated to avoid incidental take.
• Birds - Trees, structures, and understory that contain unoccupied nests must be removed prior to March 1, or after the nesting season is over. If project activities occur during the breeding season, preconstruction surveys will be conducted for special-status birds within 500 feet of new development. If construction could affect an active nest, construction will be delayed until a qualified biologist determines that adults are no longer caring for young and that juvenile birds are no longer roosting at the nest. Surveys for special-status birds will likely occur prior to initiating most project activities, given the prevalence of trees and buildings that have the potential to support nesting activities.
• Amphibians - Work within suitable aquatic habitat will be completed between July 1 and November 1 or during low-flow conditions. A qualified biologist will survey the site two weeks prior to the onset of activities to determine if any lifestage of special-status amphibians is present. The appropriate agency would be contacted if any lifestage is found and may need to be relocated. Preconstruction surveys for special-status amphibians should be conducted within upland and wetland habitat, 500 feet from suitable aquatic breeding sites.
• Plants - Preconstruction surveys will be conducted for special-status plants by a qualified botanist in areas of suitable habitat within 300 feet of construction areas. If special-status species are identified in areas not directly affected by construction, those populations will be fenced and marked to protect them from trampling by construction equipment or personnel.
• Bats - A qualified biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys one year prior to construction, when feasible, and three days prior to construction, to determine whether affected structures or trees provide hibernacula, nursery colony, or roosting habitat. If bats are not detected during preconstruction surveys, work must be initiated within three days of the final survey. If it is found that the site is used as a winter roost, then the action will occur between April 15 and May 15 or from August 15 through the end of October. These dates should be adjusted for seasonal variation (i.e., late spring, early winter, etc.).

Vegetation

• Develop revegetation plans for any disturbed area, requiring the use of native species from the same gene pool. Specify soil preparation, native seed/plant mixes, and mulching for all areas disturbed by construction activities.
• Develop and implement a monitoring plan to ensure successful revegetation, maintain plantings, and replace unsuccessful plant materials.
• Salvage vegetation to the extent possible for use in revegetating disturbed areas.
• Enforce construction specifications regarding soil salvage and reuse, trenching, plant protection, and finished grading.
• Site buildings, trails, and campsites to minimize impacts to vegetation, and avoid large trees, including Black Oaks to the extent feasible.
• Select base course and fill materials for compatibility with native granitic soils to minimize the risk of introducing non-native plant seeds. Monitor areas where fill is imported from outside the park, and eradicate non-native plants. Apply standard techniques to prevent non-native plant encroachment.
• Develop monitoring and mitigation plans for managing non-native plants within and immediately surrounding construction and developed areas.
• Confine all construction operations to specified project work limits. Install temporary barriers to protect natural surroundings (including trees, plants, and root zones) from damage. Repair or replace damaged trees and plants.
• Install fencing to minimize use of highly sensitive sites such as riparian and wetland habitat, and install signs as needed to direct use to more appropriate areas. Placement of fencing and signs would be developed in consultation with cultural resources and natural resources staff.
• Use native or seed-free mulch to minimize surface erosion and introduction of non-native plants.
• Comply with the Vegetation Management Plan (NPS 1997b), including minimization of irrigation systems, planting with native plant species appropriate to the site, or landscaping (if appropriate) with approved nonspreading, non-native plants for restoration of disturbed areas. Treatment within historic districts would be in accordance with The Secretary's Standards for Historic Buildings and The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes (USDOI 1996).
• When approval is granted for removal of trees, measures to protect park resources may include, but are not limited to, site avoidance, the establishment of an equipment exclusion zone, directional falling of adjacent trees away from the site area, use of rubber-tired equipment only, or restrictions on piling and burning of slash on site.
• As part of final design, National Park Service will review existing root rot survey data and conduct on-site surveys so as to locate facilities in areas affected by root rot and to avoid development in areas not affected by root rot to the extent feasible.

Wildlife

• Prior to construction, evaluate habitat for species and take steps to minimize impacts on those species determined to be especially vulnerable.
• Limit the effects of light and noise on adjacent habitat through control of sources during construction, and through site design of facilities, to limit long-term effects of development.
• Install fencing and signs to direct visitor use away from sensitive habitats.
• Provide adequate education and enforcement to limit visitor activities that are destructive to wildlife and habitats.
• Maintain routes of escape from excavated pits and trenches for animals that might fall in. Cover post holes and other narrow pits and trenches with boards. During construction, maintain vigilance for animals caught in excavations and take appropriate actions to free them.
• Provide procedures to limit the chance of pollution spills, both during construction and during subsequent use of completed facilities. This is especially important where activities are near aquatic or wetland habitats.
• To the extent practicable, site and design facilities to minimize objectionable noise.
• Remove any trees or structures containing unoccupied nests (stick nests or tree cavities) prior to March 1, or after the nesting season is over. Also remove unoccupied nests where they occur in trees that are not to be removed, but that are within areas expected to be subjected to disturbance during the breeding season.
• Should construction activities take place during the breeding season, a qualified biologist would conduct a preconstruction survey no more than one week prior to construction in March through August. If it is determined that construction, would affect an active nest or disrupt reproductive behavior, then avoidance strategies would be implemented. Construction could be delayed within 500 feet of such a nest, until a qualified biologist determines that the subject birds are no longer nesting or until any juvenile birds are no longer using the nest as their primary day and night roost. These measures should apply to all species of birds that are afforded protection from take, as defined by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Human/Wildlife Conflicts

• Take measures to reduce the potential for human/bear conflicts. Provide bear-proof garbage containers in all developed areas. Install bear-proof food lockers at all campsites and overnight parking areas. Require construction personnel to adhere to park regulations concerning food storage and refuse management.

Air Quality

• Design site layout and development so as to minimize the number of vehicle trips in the project area, thereby reducing vehicle-related emissions. In addition, minimize construction-related vehicle trips through carpooling and elimination of unnecessary trips during project construction.
• Use best-available technology in all furnaces, boilers, engines, and other lodging- and visitor-related air pollutant sources associated with new buildings and facilities.

Noise

• Implement standard noise abatement measures, such as developing a construction schedule that minimizes impacts to adjacent noise-sensitive uses; using best-available noise control techniques wherever feasible; using hydraulically or electrically powered impact tools when feasible; locating stationary noise sources as far from sensitive uses as possible; erecting temporary noise barriers between construction areas and lodging units, or temporarily vacating lodging units located adjacent to construction areas.
• Consider privacy and noise screening in the design and layout of new and relocated campsites and lodging.
• Apply noise-reducing technology to vehicles and equipment associated with the project and construction activities where possible.

Cultural Resources

• Implement the 1999 Programmatic Agreement, developed in consultation with the California State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, culturally associated American Indian tribes, and the public, which stipulates a process for the treatment of historic properties, including identification, evaluation, and, if necessary, mitigation of adverse effects. Implement standard mitigation measures in situations where an undertaking would adversely affect a historic property; these include documentation, interpretation, materials salvage, and National Register re-evaluation.
• Protect known human burials from disturbance, and prepare emergency discovery plans to deal with any unanticipated discoveries.
• Mitigate impacts to archeological resources through data-recovery excavations and construction monitoring, in keeping with the Archeological Synthesis and Research Design, Yosemite National Park (Hull and Moratto 1999) and as specified in the Programmatic Agreement.
• Mitigate impacts to ethnographic resources through actions developed in consultation with culturally associated American Indian tribes. Mitigation measures could include designating alternative gathering areas, constructing during time periods when gathering does not occur, maintaining access to traditional and spiritual locations, and screening new development from traditional use areas.
• In cases where historic structures are proposed for removal, first consider options for rehabilitation and adaptive reuse or for relocation to another area of the park. Prior to any removal, document the structures in accordance with stipulations of the Programmatic Agreement, and salvage historic building materials for reuse within the park.
• Design all new construction within historic districts or adjacent to historic structures or sites to be compatible in terms of architectural elements, scale, massing, materials, and orientation, and to be in compliance with the Architectural Guidelines.
• Undertake all treatments to historic structures or within cultural landscapes in keeping with The Secretary of Interior's Standards for Historic Buildings and The Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes.

Scenic Resources

• Develop buildings and landscaping in the project area in accordance with the Architectural Guidelines for Yosemite Valley and the Landscape Guidelines for the Curry Village Historic District (ARG 2003), so as to ensure compatibility with the existing built and natural environment. Utilize the Vegetation Management Plan guidelines for landscaping and yard care within and around developed areas in Yosemite Valley.
• Dispose of wood in accordance with strategies defined in the Yosemite Valley Plan. Whenever possible, the preferred method is decomposition on site to allow cut vegetation to cycle through the ecosystem. Fire hazard fuels must be considered in certain plant communities where fire has not been allowed.
• Ensure that new signage accompanying any campground design is consistent in size, shape, and format with existing signage, and is designed in conformity with the Design Guidelines.

Park Operations and Facilities

• Verify existing utility locations through field survey (potholing) and/or use the Underground Services Alert services prior to the start of construction.
• Observe California Department of Health Services standards that require: (1) a 10-foot horizontal separation between parallel sewer and water mains; (2) 1-foot vertical separation between perpendicular water and sewer line crossings; and (3) encasement of water mains in protective sleeves where a new sewer force main crosses under or over an existing sewer main.
• Observe guidelines specified in the International Plumbing Code, Building Officials and Code Administration National Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and the National Fire Protection Code regarding utilities installation and/or abandonment of pipelines.
• Maintain and use existing utilities infrastructure and facilities, where possible, in order to minimize impacts from construction of additional facilities.
• Avoid trees and existing buildings and facilities that would be impacted during construction of additional utilities infrastructure and facilities, to the degree possible.
• Promptly reconnect utility services that are unexpectedly interrupted due to construction activities. In addition, provide advanced notification to residents, concessioners, and others in the event that utility services will be disrupted.
• Verify the location of the South Camp campsites relative to the waste accumulation. Close any campsites found to be within the waste accumulation area until remediation has been completed.

Transportation Planning

• As part of the construction management plan, develop a traffic and pathways diversion and circulation plan to reduce disruption to traffic flow and to protect sensitive resources. This plan will be reviewed by park resources, operations, and visitor safety staff prior to park approval.
• Define parking area boundaries to prevent damage to meadows and other sensitive resource areas.
• Design parking areas to allow minimal resistance for flood waters, thereby minimizing impacts on the river, the road, and associated parking.
• Integrate stormwater pollution control measures into parking lot design and construction.
• Provide signage that informs drivers about the removal of Southside Drive through Stoneman Meadow and directs them to the new route.

Visitor Experience

• Use lighting that is 50 to 100% lower than the lowest lighting standards of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.
• Design interior and exterior lighting to prevent escaped light. Luminaire lamps would not exceed 100 watts.
• Use more intense and uniform light to promote security where human activity is high. Use lower light levels to provide wayfinding within developed areas, as needed.
• Provide lights in developed areas for safety where pedestrians cross busy intersections. Provide no light outside of developed areas, except at active bus stops and public telephones.
• Provide appropriate signage to notify visitors of access road changes to Curry Village, campgrounds, and Happy Isles Loop Road.
• Install appropriate, effective road signage to help visitors locate the new amphitheater facilities.
• Post directions to and a schedule of interpretive activities for the new amphitheater at each campground, the campground check station, and the Curry Village registration building.
• Provide clear and effective signage to relocated swimming access areas, along with appropriate signs explaining why campsites and swimming access areas have been relocated out of the River Protection Overlay.
• Use appropriate new technology and fixtures to light new cabins and campground restroom and shower buildings.

Comparison of Alternatives
Table II 5 on the following pages lists the key features of the project alternatives. The three alternatives represent a reasonable range of options for the Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley Campground Improvements Project. Under the No Action Alternative, existing conditions and management practices would continue for the project area.

	Table II-5 Comparison of the Key Features of the Project Alternatives
	Alternative Component	Alternative 1: No Action	Alternative 2	Alternative 3 (Preferred)
	CURRY VILLAGE
	Lodging
	Cabins-with-bath	§     44 duplex and 3 fourplex cabins	§     44 new cabins north of parking and 10 new cabins east of existing cabins plus 47 existing cabins to remain, for a total of 101 cabins	§     49 new cabins north of parking and 5 new cabins east of existing cabins plus 47 existing cabins to remain, for a total of 101 cabins
	Tent cabins	§     427 cabins	§     Removal of 253 cabins, for a total of 174 cabins remaining on the east side, retaining historic groupings and alignments; cabins on the west side are removed	§     Removal of 253 cabins for a total of 174 cabins; 45 cabins remain on the west side and 129 remain on the east side retaining historic groupings and alignments
	Cabins-without-bath	§     80 cabins	§     80 cabins to remain	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Stoneman Lodge	§     18 lodging units	§     18 lodging units to remain	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Historic cottage rooms	§     Mother Curry Bungalow, Cabin 819, Tresidder Residence, Huff House (4 units) remains as employee housing	§     Historic cottages remain in current location and are converted to visitor lodging facilities for a total of 25 rooms	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Common Gathering Areas
	Grocery store	§     Remains in Curry Pavilion building at existing square footage	§     Grocery store expanded to approximately 8,000 square feet in the Curry Pavilion building	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Ice rink	§     Remains on the west side of Curry Village as a permanent structure; rental facility remains as permanent structure	§     Relocated to the first two bays on the west side of the historic Curry Orchard parking area as a seasonal portable, temporary facility. Seasonal, temporary, portable, rental facility adjacent to ice rink.	§     Relocated to the front of the Meadow Deck, near the entrance to the expanded grocery store, as a seasonal, portable, temporary facility. Seasonal, temporary, portable, 1,500- to 1,800-square-foot rental facility adjacent to ice rink.
	Cafeteria	§     Remains in the Curry Pavilion building	§     New employee cafeteria constructed on the east side of Curry Pavilion building	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Swimming pool	§     Remains at its current location	§     Remains at current location with upgraded bath houses	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Mountain Shop	§     Remains in the Curry Pavilion building	§     Relocated as 3,000 to 4,000 square feet of retail space adjacent to recreational retail buildings near historic restrooms along Curry Village entrance loop road	§     Relocated as 3,000 to 4,000 square feet of retail space northeast of housekeeping and maintenance area
	Bicycle, ski, raft rental	§     Temporary structures remain adjacent to ice rink	§     Relocated close to historic restrooms along Curry Village entrance loop road; 1,600 to 2,000 square feet with seasonal outdoor storage for rafts and bikes	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Curry Village registration	§     Remains at its current location	§     Remains at its current location with 1,500 to 1,800-square-foot enlargement	§     New 1,500- to 1,800-square-foot registration building adjacent to Curry Pavilion; existing building rehabilitated for public use
	Parking Accommodations
	Parking numbers	§     47 day-visitor spaces §     628 overnight spaces §     120 wilderness spaces	§     172 tent cabin user spaces §     90 tent and other user spaces §     225 cabin user spaces §     15 short-term arriving guest spaces §     150 wilderness spaces	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Parking location	§     Day-visitor spaces at Curry Orchard §     Overnight parking in Curry Village	§     Tent cabin parking immediately adjacent and north of tent cabins §     Tent cabin and other user parking in southern portion of the historic orchard §     Cabin parking on west side of Curry Village §     Short-term arriving guest parking near registration §     Wilderness parking in northern part of the historic orchard	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Parking roadways	§     Parking accessed from Southside Drive to Curry Village Road	§     Parking to be accessed along central roadway passing through Curry Village	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Bus parking	§     Parking in front of registration building	§     No bus parking; drop-off only	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Access and Circulation
	Roadway alignment	§     Current alignment remains	§     Closes Southside Drive, realigns and extends Curry Village entrance loop road to create a continuous moving lane, taking visitors through Curry Village to the campground check station and on to the campgrounds	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Entrance configuration	§     Current entrance configuration remains	§     Visitors intending to stay in Curry Village arrive along a triangular entry sequence, with registration parking 120 feet away	§     Visitors intending to stay in Curry Village arrive along a circular entry drive, with registration parking bays within the circular entry drive
	Shuttle bus stops	§     Existing shuttle bus stop remains across from ice rink at Village entrance	§     A new shuttle bus stop located across from the Curry Pavilion between the triangular entry and the historic orchard parking area	§     A new shuttle bus stop located across from the relocated ice rink between the circular entry and the historic orchard parking area
	Pedestrian/bicycle/stock trails	§     Existing pedestrian and bicycle trails in the village will remain	§     Pedestrian trails extended into the new cabin-with-bath, entry sequence, and tent cabin areas	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Storage and Maintenance
	Employee lounge/cafeteria	§     None	§     3,000- to 4,000-square-foot new employee lounge/cafeteria to be added to Curry Pavilion	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Housekeeping/maintenance	§     To remain adjacent to the Curry Pavilion building	§     6,000- to 8,000-square-foot new housekeeping and maintenance building to be constructed east of Curry Pavilion	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Loading dock/storage	§     To remain adjacent to the Curry Pavilion building in current configuration	§     Improved access drive and loading dock	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Utilities and Services
	Electrical	§     Service currently exists	§     54 new connections to new cabins-with-bath §     Connections to new and relocated facilities including ice rink, employee cafeteria, Mountain Shop, recreational retail facility, campground check station, recreational vehicle dump station, and other major facilities, as necessary	§     Same as Alternative 2, with the addition of connections to the central shower facility
	Sewer	§     Service currently exists	§     54 new connections to new cabins-with-bath §     Connections to new and relocated facilities including ice rink, employee cafeteria, Mountain Shop, recreational retail facility, campground check station, recreational vehicle dump station, and other major facilities, as necessary	§     Same as Alternative 2, with the addition of connections to the central shower facility
	Water supply	§     Water obtained from wells in Valley; service currently exists	§     54 new connections to new cabins-with-bath §     Connections to new and relocated facilities including ice rink, employee cafeteria, Mountain Shop, recreational retail facility, campground check station, recreational vehicle dump station, and other major facilities, as necessary §     Water obtained from wells in Valley	§     Same as Alternative 2, with the addition of connections to the central shower facility
	Fire station	§     No fire station currently exists	§     1,500- to 1,800-square-foot single-truck fire station with security office and backup space at the west end of Curry Village	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Planning Constraints
	Yosemite Valley Plan development zones	§     Curry Village is within natural resources protection, redevelopment, new development, and existing development zones	§     All new development occurs in redevelopment and new development zones	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Historic District	§     Portions of Curry Village are a historic district	§     New development within the district complies with Architectural Guidelines	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Wetlands	§     Wetlands exist in Curry Village	§     Minimal wetland fill associated with new parking	§     Wetland fill associated with new parking and Mountain Shop
	Special-status species	§     All special-status species were covered in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS	§     Primarily habitat for raptors and bats	§     Same as Alternative 1
	Floodplain	§     No	§     Same as Alternative 1	§     Same as Alternative 1
	Cultural	§     Archeological sites and villages exist in Curry Village	§     New development occurs in two archeological sites	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Talus zone	§     The majority of existing development is within the talus zone	§     All new development occurs outside the talus zone	§     All new development except for the Mountain Shop occurs outside the talus zone
	Scenic quality	§     Curry Village is within scenic zone A (areas most commonly selected) and B (areas less commonly selected)	§     New development occurs in scenic zone B	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Site Development
	New construction	§     0	§     Cabins-with-bath, employee cafeteria, Mountain Shop, campground check station, parking, entrance roadway reconfiguration, recreational vehicle dump station, employee lounge, and housekeeping maintenance building	§     Same as Alternative 2, with the addition of Curry Village registration building and central shower facility
	Demolition	§     0	§     Existing ice rink, all nonhistoric employee housing, 253 tent cabins, approximately 1,800 feet of Southside Drive, portions of the Curry Pavilion to accommodate new construction, comfort station at pool, existing recreational vehicle dump station	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Tree removal	§     0	§     Approximately 200 to 300 trees plus 40 to 100 orchard trees (not including the road relocation)	§     Approximately 150 to 225 trees plus 40 to 100 orchard trees (not including the road relocation)
	CAMPGROUND SERVING USES
	Campground check station	§     Currently at northwest corner of Curry Orchard	§     New 2,000- to 4,000-square-foot campground check station at east end of Curry Village	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Recreational vehicle dump station	§     Currently in Upper Pines Campground in River Protection Overlay	§     Dump station with two bays located at the east end of Curry Village in the same area as the campground check station	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Campground central showers with laundry, ice machine, and dishwashing	§     0	§     Shower facilities are provided at individual campgrounds	§     Central facility located southeast of campground check station
AMPHITHEATER
Parking
Vehicle		§     0	§     0	§     0
Shuttle bus		§     0	§     0	§     0
Restrooms		§     0	§     1	§     Same as Alternative 2
Showers		§     0	§     Same as Alternative 1	§     Same as Alternative 1
Trails		§     Existing trail going through the site to remain	§     Proposed development may realign and maintain existing trail	§     Same as Alternative 2
Planning Constraints
Yosemite Valley Plan  development zones		§     Amphitheater is proposed at Clark’s Bridge	§     Amphitheater developed north of Clark’s Bridge; all new development within existing development zone	§     Same as Alternative 2
Wetlands		§     No	§     Same as Alternative 1	§     Same as Alternative 1
Special-Status Species		§     No	§     Same as Alternative 1	§     Same as Alternative 1
Floodplain		§     A portion of the amphitheatre site within the 1997 flood extent	§     Same as Alternative 1	§     Same as Alternative 1
Cultural		§     No	§     Loss of historic structures	§     Same as Alternative 2
Talus Zone		§     No	§     Same as Alternative 1	§     Same as Alternative 1
Scenic Quality		§     The site is within scenic zone B (areas less commonly selected)	§     Development occurs in scenic zone B	§     Same as Alternative 2
Utilities + Services
Electrical		§     Service exists at north edge of site	§     Transformer and electrical hookups installed to serve development	§     Same as Alternative 2
Sewer		§     No sewer main exists	§     Pumped vault with small lift station would discharge to Upper Pines Campground collector §     Service needs to be provided for upgraded restroom	§     Same as Alternative 2
Water  supply		§     Service exists south and west of site	§     Replacement of existing water line crossing; service needs to be provided for upgraded restroom	§     Same as Alternative 2
Site Development
New construction		§     0	§     460 seat amphitheater	§     Same as Alternative 2
Tree removal		§     0	§     5 to 10	§     5 to 10
	SOUTH CAMP
	Campsites	§     0	§     10 group  §     30 walk-in	§     10 group  §     16 walk-in
	Parking
	Vehicle	§     Gravel, unmarked wilderness parking area for approximately 75 cars to remain	§     Paved, marked parking area for 60 cars (30 for group and 30 for walk-in)	§     Paved parking area for 46 cars (30 for group and 16 for walk-in)
	Shuttle bus	§     0	§     1 shuttle bus stop	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Restrooms	§     0	§     1 restroom building	§     3 restroom buildings
	Showers	§     0	§     2 restroom/shower buildings	§     Provided in central shower building
	Trails	§     Trail along Happy Isles Road to remain	§     Requires new alignment of existing trail and new trails and service road to accommodate campsites	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Planning/Environmental Factors
	Yosemite Valley Plan development zones	§     The South Camp area is zoned for new development	§     All proposed activities within new development zone	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Wetlands	§     Yes	§     Campsites affect wetland, parking lot is in wetland, and access path crosses existing wetland	§     Major wetland area avoided, access path crosses wetland
	Special-status species	§     All special-status species are covered in the Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS	§     Primarily habitat for raptors, bats, plants, and amphibians	§     Same as Alternative 1
	Floodplain	§     No	§     No	§     No
	Cultural	§     Sensitive cultural areas are located around the existing parking area.	§     Campsites and associated facilities avoid sensitive area	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Talus zone	§     The wilderness parking is within the talus zone	§     Some parking and part of one shower/restroom building in the talus zone	§     One restroom building in the talus zone.
	Scenic quality	§     South Camp is in scenic zone B (areas less commonly selected) and C (areas of minor scenic quality)	§     Development occur in both scenic zones B and C §     Clearing of natural vegetation and grading for campsites may alter existing scenic quality	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Utilities and Services
	Electrical	§     Existing service along Happy Isles Loop Road to remain	§     New connections are necessary for trails, parking areas and new buildings, including three restroom or shower/restroom buildings	§     New connections are necessary for trails, parking areas, and new buildings, including four restroom or shower/restroom buildings
	Sewer	§     Existing service along Happy Isles Road to remain	§     New connections are necessary for three restroom or shower/restroom buildings	§     New connections are necessary for four restroom or shower/restroom buildings
	Water supply	§     Existing service along Happy Isles Road to remain	§     New connections are necessary for three restroom or shower/restroom buildings	§     New connections are necessary for four restroom or shower/restroom buildings
	Site Development
	New construction	§     0	§     New campsites, trails, restroom/shower facilities, and parking	§     New campsites, trails, restrooms, and parking
	Tree removal	§     0	§     300 to 500	§     300 to 400
	Demolition	§     0	§     Clearing and grading for new facilities	§     Same as Alternative 2
	UPPER PINES CAMPGROUND
	Campsites	§     240 drive-in	§     270 drive-in (30 new sites) §     45 new walk-in sites	§     270 drive-in (30 new recreational vehicle sites) §     59 new walk-in sites
	Parking
	Vehicle	§     0	§     45 new spaces	§     59 new spaces
	Shuttle bus	§     0	§     0	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Restrooms	§     10 buildings	§     13 buildings (10 existing, 3 new)	§     15 buildings (14 new buildings, remove 9 existing restrooms, upgrade 1 existing building)
	Showers	§     0	§     1 new building with restrooms	§     Provided in central shower building
	Trails	§     Existing trails along river, north of camp access road, to remain.	§     Trail realignment required to accommodate new development	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Planning Constraints
	Yosemite Valley Plan development zones	§     Upper Pines is within redevelopment and new development zones	§     All proposed construction in the new development zone	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Wetlands	§     Existing drive-in sites within wetlands remain	§     New development avoids wetlands, except trail/service road crossing for walk-in sites in one location	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Special-status species	§     All special status-species are covered in Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS	§     Primarily habitat for raptors, bats, plants, and amphibians	§     Same as Alternative 1
	Floodplain	§     Existing drive-in sites remain within 1997 flood extent	§     Existing drive-in sites in the 1997 flood extent to remain; new walk-in sites within 1997 flood extent	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Cultural	§     Existing drive-in sites remain within archeological site and gathering area	§     New development avoids villages and gathering sites, but some development occurs in an archeological area	§     New walk-in sites within sensitive cultural resource area
	Talus zone	§     Existing drive-in sites remain within the talus zone	§     New development avoids the talus zone	§     New restroom building located in talus zone
	Scenic quality	§     Upper Pines in scenic zone B (areas less commonly selected) and scenic zone C (areas of minor scenic quality)	§     New development in scenic zone B §     Views to river may be altered with development of walk-in sites	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Utilities and Services
	Electrical	§     Service along Happy Isles Loop Road remains	§     New service provided to 10 existing restrooms, 3 new restrooms, and 1 new combined shower/restroom building	§     New service provided to 13 new restrooms, 1 new combined shower/restroom building, and 30 recreational vehicle campsites
	Sewer	§     Existing sewer main through central part of site remains	§     New service provided to 10 existing restrooms, 3 new restrooms, and 1 new combined shower/restroom building	§     New service provided to 13 new restrooms and 1 new combined shower/restroom building
	Water supply	§     Existing water main through central part of site remains	§     New service provided to 10 existing restrooms, 3 new restrooms, and 1 new combined shower/restroom building	§     New service provided to 13 new restrooms and 1 new combined shower/restroom building
	Site Development
	New construction	§     0	§     New campsites, roadways, and restrooms	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Tree removal	§     0	§     225 to 400	§     275 to 500
	Demolition	§     Existing dump station and access road to be removed	§     Clearing and grading for new development, as noted above	§     Clearing and grading for new development, as noted above §     Demolish 9 existing restroom buildings and upgrade 1 restroom
	LOWER PINES CAMPGROUND
	Campsites	§     78 campsites	§     60 drive-in sites to remain	§     60 total sites to remain (42 drive-in, 18 recreational vehicle sites)
	Parking
	Vehicle	§     0	§     0	§     7
	Shuttle bus	§     0	§     1	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Restrooms	§     3 restroom buildings to remain	§     2 restrooms (1 new; upgrade 1 existing)	§     3 new restroom buildings
	Showers	§     0	§     1 new shower/restroom building	§     Provided in central shower building
	Trails	§     Existing trail along river and along edge of access road to remain	§     Existing trails to remain	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Planning Constraints
	Yosemite Valley Plan development zones	§     Lower Pines is within existing redevelopment zone and restoration zone	§     New development is within redevelopment zone	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Wetlands	§     Existing campsites remain within wetlands	§     New development avoids wetlands	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Special-status species	§     All special-status species are covered in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS	§     Primarily habitat for raptors, bats, plants, and amphibians	§     Same as Alternative 1
	Floodplain	§     Existing campsites remain within 1997 flood extent	§     Some new development within the 1997 flood extent	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Cultural	§     Existing campsites remain within gathering area	§     New development avoids archeological site but occurs within gathering area	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Talus zone	§     No	§     No	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Scenic quality	§     Lower Pines is in scenic zones A (areas most commonly selected) and B (areas less commonly selected)	§     New development in scenic zones A and B	§     Same as Alternative 2
	Utilities and Services
	Electrical	§     Service currently exists	§     New service provided to 1 new restroom and 1 new combined shower/restroom building	§     New service provided to three new restrooms and 18 recreational vehicle campsites
	Sewer	§     Sewer mains exist along northwest side of site	§     New service provided to 1 new restroom and 1 new shower/restroom building	§     New service provided to three new restrooms
	Water supply	§     Water mains exist along northwest side of site	§     New service provided to 1 new restroom and 1 new shower/restroom building	§     New service provided to three new restrooms
	Site Development
	New construction	§     0	§     New campsites, roadways, restrooms, and showers	§     New campsites, roadways, and restrooms
	Tree removal	§     0	§     20 to 40	§     75 to 100
	Demolition	§     0	§     Remove existing campsites and road areas within River Protection Overlay and removes existing amphitheater; removes 2 restroom buildings	§     Removes existing campsites and road areas within River Protection Overlay and remove existing amphitheater; removes three restroom buildings
Sources: ARG and EDAW 2003

Environmentally Preferable Alternative
The Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (CEQ 1998) and the National Park Service NEPA guidelines (NPS 2001d) require the identification of the alternative or alternatives considered to be environmentally preferable. This means the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment and best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources. It is often difficult to develop a single alternative that can maximize benefits to all resources. In many cases, an alternative that maximizes benefits to some resources may in fact make it less possible to maximize benefits to other resources. In this case, the alternative selected was determined to best achieve the overall goals of the General Management Plan and the Yosemite Valley Plan, while minimizing adverse effects to any resources.

Section 101 of NEPA states that:

… it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to … (1) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations; (2) assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; (3) attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences; (4) preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity, and variety of individual choice; (5) achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and (6) enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.

Alternative 3 is the environmentally preferable alternative for the Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley Campground Improvements Project, based on its furtherance of the following national environmental policy goals.

Section 101 Requirement 1. "Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations."

Conformance: Alternative 3 would best fulfill the responsibilities of the National Park Service as a trustee of the environment for succeeding generations by implementing measures that would manage human impacts to the east Yosemite Valley, thereby preserving the natural environment and minimizing effects on the environment. Alternative 3 would improve water quality by removing campsites from the River Protection Overlay, parking spaces from Curry Orchard, and the road through Stoneman Meadow. Alternative 3 would avoid wetlands in South Camp and avoid some areas of wetlands in Curry Village. Alternative 3 would conduct all activities in compliance with the 1999 Programmatic Agreement, thereby minimizing effects to archeological, ethnographic and historic resources and properties. Alternative 1 would not remove campsites from the River Protection Overlay, remove day-visitor parking from Curry Village, or remove Southside Drive from Stoneman Meadow. Alternative 2 would result in greater impacts to wetlands in South Camp and Curry Village than under Alternative 3 and would therefore not be as effective in meeting requirement 1.

Section 101 Requirement 2. "Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings."

Conformance: Alternative 3 would increase safety by relocating some standard and miscellaneous occupancy structures from the talus zone. Alternative 2 would improve air quality and reduce noise, creating more aesthetically pleasing surroundings. Development would be consolidated within Curry Village, which would increase access to scenic resources. Alternative 3 would improve visitor programs and enhance the natural environment experience for visitors. Alternative 1 would maintain occupied structures in the talus zone and would not improve air quality, the noise environment, or scenic resources. Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 3, but would result in more impacts to natural resources.

Section 101 Requirement 3. "Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences."

Conformance: Alternative 3 would attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment by improving the environmental conditions in the east Yosemite Valley while allowing continued use of the area for recreation. Environmental improvement would result from removal of campsites from the River Protection Overlay; avoidance of wetlands in the siting of campsites; and removal of Southside Drive from Stoneman Meadow. Alternative 3 would reduce risks to health and safety from rockfall hazards by removing tent cabins from this area. Alternative 1 would result in continued degradation of the environment and risk to health and safety due to the location of occupied structures in rockfall hazard areas. Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 3, but would affect more wetlands than Alternative 3.

Section 101 Requirement 4. "Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity, and variety of individual choice."

Conformance: Alternative 3 would preserve existing historic resources in the project area. New uses and buildings would be developed in accordance with the 1999 Programmatic Agreement and incorporate materials and design consistent with existing structures. Removal of Southside Drive from Stoneman Meadow would open the historic vista in that area. Removal of campsites from the River Protection Overlay would allow restoration of the historic habitat. Archeological and ethnographic resources would be avoided as much as possible and protected through consultation with the American Indian tribes and in accordance with the 1999 Programmatic Agreement. Improved visitor programs and improvements to multi-use paved trails would allow park visitors to experience the east Valley in a variety of ways. Alternative 1 retains existing uses in the historic district and retains campsites in the River Protection Overlay, resulting in continued adverse effects due to high-intensity uses. Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 3 and would have the same effect on historic resources and visitor choice.

Section 101 Requirement 5. "Achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities."

Conformance: Alternative 3 would eliminate day-visitor parking, which would reduce the number of vehicles traveling through the east Valley. This would balance impacts due to high visitation, including impacts to air quality, transportation, and the noise environment, while allowing visitors access to the natural resources in the park. Alternative 3 would provide additional camping facilities, allowing more people to enjoy the experience of camping within the east Valley. Alternative 3 would enhance the visitor experience by increasing access to park facilities for disabled visitors. Alternative 1 would continue to affect the air and noise environment and result in traffic congestion and would not provide increased access to park visitors. Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 3 and would create the same benefits.

Section 101 Requirement 6. "Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources."

Conformance: Alternative 3 would enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources by improving traffic flow and congestion and reducing single-occupancy vehicle use in the project area, therefore decreasing the amount of petroleum resources used within the park. In addition, Alternative 3 would slightly decrease the overall amount of solid waste generated at lodging facilities in Curry Village. Alternative 1 would continue congested conditions and would not change the amount of solid waste generated. Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 3 and would create the same benefits.

In conclusion, upon full consideration of the elements of Section 101 of NEPA, Alternative 3 represents the environmentally preferable alternative for the Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley Campground Improvements Project.

Summary of Environmental Consequences
Table II 6 summarizes the key impacts that could result from each of the alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. Detailed descriptions of these impacts are provided in Chapter IV, Environmental Consequences.

Table II-6 Summary of Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1 – No Project	Alternative 2	Alternative 3 – Preferred
NATURAL RESOURCES GEOLOGIC RESOURCES
The potential for seismic events under Alternative 1 would result in a local, short-term (frequent, small seismic events), minor, adverse impact and a local, long-term (infrequent, moderate to large seismic events), moderate, adverse impact on public health and safety. The potential for rockfall events, including seismically triggered rockfall impacts, would result in a local, short- and long-term, moderate, adverse impact on public health and safety.   Alternative 1 would result in a local, long-term, negligible, adverse impact to geologic resources. The retention of facilities in the talus and rockfall zones would continue to expose structures and people to rockfall events. However, no change to existing conditions would occur that would affect geologic resources in the area. Rockfalls and seismic events would continue to occur throughout the Valley. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not impair geologic resources in the Valley.	Under Alternative 2, the level of risk to life and property would be reduced from existing conditions because of the overall decrease in the number of standard and miscellaneous occupancy structures in the talus and rockfall zones, resulting in a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact to public health and safety. Remaining structures in Curry Village, South Camp, and Upper Pines Campground (with the exception of Curry Pavilion) and all above-ground utility infrastructure would be in conformance with the Yosemite Valley Geologic Hazard Guidelines. Essential facilities, such as the Curry Village fire station, would be located out of the talus and rockfall zones, in accordance with Yosemite Valley Geologic Hazard Guidelines.   The facilities that remain in the talus and rockfall zones would result in a local, long-term, moderate, adverse effect on public health and safety. The risks increase from moderate to major as the period of time from the last rockfall event approaches or exceeds the recurrence interval for future rockfall events. Unmitigated seismic hazards consisting of frequent, small seismic events would result in a local, short-term, minor, adverse impact to people and property. Infrequent, moderate to large seismic events would result in a local, long-term, moderate, adverse impact to people and property.	Under Alternative 3, the level of risk to life and property would be reduced from existing conditions because of the overall decrease in the number of standard and miscellaneous occupancy structures in the talus and rockfall zone, resulting in a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact to public health and safety. Remaining structures in Curry Village, South Camp, and Upper Pines Campground (with the exception of Curry Pavilion) and all above-ground utility infrastructure would be in conformance with the Yosemite Valley Geologic Hazard Guidelines. Essential facilities, such as the Curry Village fire station, would be located out of the talus and rockfall zones, in accordance with Yosemite Valley Geologic Hazard Guidelines.   The facilities that remain in the talus and rockfall zones would result in a local, long-term, moderate, adverse effect on public health and safety. The risks increase from moderate to major as the period of time from the last rockfall event approaches or exceeds the recurrence interval for future rockfall events. Unmitigated seismic hazards consisting of frequent, small seismic events would result in a local, short-term, minor, adverse impact to people and property. Infrequent, moderate to large seismic events would result in a local, long-term, moderate, adverse impact to people and property.
GEOLOGIC RESOURCES (CONTINUED)
	Construction activities associated with maintenance of existing utility infrastructure and construction of new facilities and campsites would not be expected to trigger rockfalls. These activities would have a local, short-term, negligible, adverse impact on public health and safety.   Alternative 2 would result in a local, long-term, negligible, adverse impact to geologic resources. The removal of 253 tent cabins from the talus and rockfall zones would move many visitors and park employees away from the steep granite cliffs, providing a beneficial impact to public safety. Construction activities under Alternative 2 would not induce geologic hazards in the project area. Rockfalls and seismic events would continue to occur throughout the Valley as they have in the past. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not impair geologic resources for future generations.	Construction activities associated with maintenance of existing utility infrastructure and construction of new facilities and campsites would not be expected to trigger rockfalls. These activities would have a local, short-term, negligible, adverse impact on public health and safety.   Alternative 3 would result in a local, long-term, negligible, adverse impact to geologic resources.. The removal of 253 tent cabins from the talus and rockfall zones would move many visitors and park employees away from the steep granite cliffs, providing a beneficial impact to public safety. Construction activities under Alternative 3 would not induce geologic hazards in the project area. Rockfalls and seismic events would continue to occur throughout the Valley as they have in the past. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not impair geologic resources for future generations.
Cumulative impacts to geologic processes could occur from the use of explosives for trail maintenance or road work which could potentially trigger rockfall events, resulting in an adverse impact. The consistent use of park explosive guidelines and the monitoring of blasting activities would maintain the current level of risk at facilities in the Valley. Cumulative trail maintenance and road work activities would result in a local, short-term, moderate, adverse impact on public health and safety.	Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. Alternative 2 would result in slightly improved impacts to public safety from the removal of 253 tent cabins from the talus and rockfall zone, when compared to Alternative 1, which would affect the magnitude of the cumulative impact. Alternative 2, in combination with the cumulative projects would result in a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact to public safety due to an overall reduction in the density of people and facilities in the talus and rockfall zones.	Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. Alternative 3 would slightly improve public safety compared to Alternative 1 by removing 253 tent cabins from the talus and rockfall zones, which would affect the magnitude of the cumulative impact. Alternative 3, in combination with the cumulative projects, would result in a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact with respect to public safety due to an overall reduction in the density of people and facilities in the talus and rockfall zones.
GEOLOGIC RESOURCES (CONTINUED)
Alternative 1 would contribute to this cumulative impact because of the limited reduction of facilities in the talus and rockfall zones, but this contribution would not affect the magnitude of the cumulative impacts. Therefore, Alternative 1, in conjunction with projects planned for the area, would result in a local, long-term, moderate, adverse impact to public health and safety in Yosemite Valley.
Under Alternative 1, unprotected stream and river banks would continue to destabilize and erode as the Merced River and its tributaries meander throughout the Valley, resulting in a local, long-term, minor, adverse impact to soil resources. Unpaved areas, including campsites, trails, and parking areas, would experience further degradation of soil resources due to continued visitor use. Soil loss and degradation of soil resources through foot and vehicular traffic would result in a local, long-term, minor, adverse impact on existing soil resources.   Alternative 1 would result in a local, long-term, minor, adverse impact to soil resources through continued bank destabilization, erosion, and soil loss. These impacts would be localized within the project area and would not be considered severe. The extent and quality of soil resources throughout the remainder of the Yosemite Valley would not be affected by this alternative. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not be expected to impair the soil resources of Yosemite Valley for future generations.	Construction, demolition, and vegetation removal activities would temporarily disturb soils within the designated development and redevelopment areas, resulting in a local, short-term, moderate, adverse impact to soil resources. However, removal of campsites from the River Protection Overlay, consolidation of development in already disturbed areas, and employment of Best Management Practices would result in a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact to soils. The construction of new roads and trails would have a local, short-term, minor, adverse effect on soil resources.   With the application of Best Management Practices and the restoration of wetlands, Alternative 2 would result in beneficial impacts on soil resources. Alternative 2 would not impair the soil resources of the park for future generations.	Construction, demolition, and vegetation removal activities would temporarily disturb soils within the designated development and redevelopment areas, resulting in a local, short-term, moderate, adverse impact to soil resources. However, removal of campsites from the River Protection Overlay, consolidation of development in already disturbed areas, and employment of Best Management Practices would result in a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact to soils. The construction of new roads and trails would have a local, short-term, minor, adverse effect on soil resources.   With the application of Best Management Practices and the restoration of wetlands, Alternative 3 would result in beneficial impacts on soil resources. Alternative 3 would not impair the soil resources of the park for future generations.
GEOLOGIC RESOURCES (CONTINUED)
Cumulative impacts to soil resources from past facility development has contributed to the overall degradation of soil resources in the park (i.e., soil erosion on unpaved trails and campsites from foot traffic). Future construction projects related to lodging, employee housing, and other facilities, as identified in the Yosemite Valley Plan and Yosemite Motels Expansion could adversely impact soil resources. However, full implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan would restore approximately 177 acres of soil, of which approximately 136 acres would be high-value resource soils. The cumulative projects would result in a local, long-term, minor, beneficial cumulative impact on soil resources.	Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. Alternative 2 would enhance the cumulative impacts to soil resources by removing campsites from the River Protection Overlay.   Although Alternative 2 would avoid the more extensive effects of soil erosion and bank destabilization compared to Alternative 1, it would not affect the magnitude of the cumulative impact. Alternative 2, in combination with the cumulative projects, would result in a local, long-term, minor, beneficial, cumulative impact on soil resources.	Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. The cumulative projects would result in a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact to soils. Alternative 3 would enhance the cumulative impact to soil resources by removing campsites from the River Protection Overlay.   Although Alternative 3 would avoid the more extensive effects of soil erosion and bank destabilization compared to Alternative 1, it would not affect the magnitude of the cumulative impact. Alternative 3, in combination with the cumulative projects, would result in a local, long-term, minor, beneficial, cumulative impact on soil resources.
Alternative 1 would result in a local, long-term, minor, adverse impact to soil resources through continued bank destabilization, erosion, and soil loss. These impacts would be offset by the beneficial impacts of the cumulative projects. Alternative 1 would not affect the magnitude of the cumulative impacts. Alternative 1, in combination with the cumulative projects, would result in a local, long-term, minor, beneficial cumulative impact on soil resources.
HYDROLOGY, FLOODPLAINS, AND WATER QUALITY
Alternative 1 would result in a local, long-term, moderate, adverse impact to water quality due to the continued operation of campground facilities and the recreational vehicle dump station in the floodplain, close to the river. The ongoing maintenance of existing utility facilities would be expected to result in a short-term, minor to	Alternative 2 would remove campsites from the River Protection Overlay, resulting in a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact on hydrology and floodplain values. The removal of parking spaces from Curry Orchard and the road through Stoneman Meadow would also reduce the potential sources of nonpoint pollution that occur in areas with concentrated	Alternative 3 would remove campsites from the River Protection Overlay, resulting in a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact on hydrology and floodplain values. The removal of parking spaces from Curry Orchard and the road through Stoneman Meadow would also reduce the potential sources of nonpoint pollution that occur in areas with concentrated
HYDROLOGY, FLOODPLAINS, AND WATER QUALITY (CONTINUED)
moderate, adverse effect on surface water hydrology and water quality in the project area. The unmitigated flood hazard could result in damage to facilities, such as that sustained during the 1997 flood, and would be considered a local, long-term, moderate, adverse impact.   Alternative 1 would result in a local, long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impact to hydrology, flooding, and water quality due to the continued operation of campgrounds and the recreational vehicle dump station within the floodplain and repairs to existing utility systems. Because these impacts are expected to be minor to moderate and localized, Alternative 1 would not impair the hydrologic resources of Yosemite Valley for future generations.	vehicle use, which would have a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on water quality. Development of campsites and restrooms in the floodplain would result in a local, long-term, minor, adverse impact to floodplain values. Construction of facilities in the floodplain could increase erosion and sedimentation, but would be mitigated by the use of Best Management Practices. Alternative 2 would increase the amount of impervious surface throughout the project area, increasing the potential sources of nonpoint pollution, which would result in a local, long-term, minor, adverse impact to water quality.   Alternative 2, with the application of Best Management Practices, would have a local, short-and long-term, minor, beneficial impact on hydrologic processes and water quality. Alternative 2 would not impair the hydrologic processes or the water quality of the park for future generations.	vehicle use, which would have a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on water quality. Development of campsites and restrooms in the floodplain would result in a local, long-term, minor, adverse impact to floodplain values. Construction of facilities in the floodplain could increase erosion and sedimentation, but would be mitigated by the use of Best Management Practices. Alternative 3 would increase the amount of impervious surface throughout the project area, increasing the potential sources of nonpoint pollution, which would result in a local, long-term, minor, adverse impact to water quality.   Alternative 3, with the application of Best Management Practices, would have a local, short-and long-term, negligible beneficial impact on hydrologic processes and water quality. Alternative 3 would not impair hydrologic processes or the water quality of the park for future generations.
Restoration actions identified in the Yosemite Valley Plan would have beneficial impacts on hydrologic processes and water quality of the Merced River. Alternatively, construction of additional lodging and a visitor transit center in Yosemite Valley could adversely impact hydrologic processes and water quality. Overall, implementing projects identified in the Yosemite Valley Plan and Merced River Plan would have a long-term, minor, beneficial effect on river hydrologic processes, floodplains, and water quality.   Alternative 1 would reduce this beneficial impact to some degree by retaining the existing facilities in the	Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. Alternative 2 would enhance the cumulative beneficial impacts by removing campsites from the River Protection Overlay, but would reduce the cumulative beneficial impact with respect to water resources and flood hazards by developing campsites and the amphitheater within the floodplain. The removal of the parking spaces from Curry Orchard, Stoneman Meadow, and roadside areas throughout the Yosemite Valley would reduce a source of nutrients, coliform, turbidity, and other water pollutants to the Merced River.	Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. Alternative 3 would have a moderate impact on water resources from development within the floodplain, while removal of the parking spaces from Curry Orchard, Stoneman Meadow, and roadside areas throughout the Yosemite Valley would reduce a source of nutrients, coliform, turbidity, and other water pollutants to the Merced River.   Alternative 3 would enhance the cumulative beneficial impact by removing campsites from the River Protection Overlay, but would reduce the cumulative impact with respect to water resources
HYDROLOGY, FLOODPLAINS, AND WATER QUALITY (CONTINUED)
floodplain, including the utility infrastructure, which would affect the magnitude of the cumulative impacts. The past, present, and future projects in Yosemite Valley, considered cumulatively with Alternative 1, would have a local, long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on hydrologic processes, flood hazards and water quality.	The net effect of these actions would not change the magnitude of the cumulative impact. Alternative 2, in combination with the cumulative projects would result in a regional, long-term, minor, beneficial impact on hydrologic processes and water quality.	and flood hazards by developing campsites and the amphitheater within the floodplain. The removal of the parking spaces from Curry Orchard, Stoneman Meadow, and roadside areas throughout the Yosemite Valley would reduce a source of nutrients, coliform, turbidity, and other water pollutants to the Merced River. The net effect of these impacts would not change the magnitude of the cumulative impact. Alternative 3, in combination with the cumulative projects, would result in a regional, long-term, minor, beneficial impact on hydrologic processes and water quality.
WETLANDS
Alternative 1 would result in an overall local, long-term, moderate, adverse impact to existing wetlands due to pedestrian foot traffic that results in trampling of vegetation, erosion of streambanks, and increases in sedimentation into waterways.   Alternative 1 would result in a local, long-term, negligible, adverse impact to existing wetlands at South Camp and Upper Pines Campground; a local, long-term, minor, adverse impact to existing wetlands at Lower Pines Campground; and a local, long-term, moderate, adverse impact to existing wetlands at Curry Village. Although the Merced River system and its related wetlands are key resources within Yosemite Valley, the effect of this alternative on wetland resources would be primarily localized and would not diminish the overall value of this resource. The extent and quality of wetland and associated riparian habitats throughout Yosemite	Alternative 2 would result in local, short-term, minor, adverse construction impacts to wetlands. Removal of campsites in Lower Pines would somewhat offset wetland loss and degradation at Curry Village, South Camp, and Upper Pines Campground. Therefore, the long-term impacts would be local, moderate, and adverse.   Development under Alternative 2 would not impair overall aquatic resources in Yosemite Valley. Minimal loss would occur, and these losses or other alterations to wetlands would not affect the larger aquatic systems in the local or regional setting. Alternative 2 would not impair wetland resources of the park for future generations.	Alternative 3 would result in local, short-term, minor, adverse construction impacts to wetlands. Removal of campsites in Lower Pines would somewhat offset wetland loss and degradation at Curry Village and Upper Pines. Additional wetland fill to accommodate the Mountain Shop would likewise be essentially offset by the preservation of similar wetland types in South Camp. Therefore, the long-term impacts to wetlands would be local, moderate, and adverse.   Development under Alternative 3 would not result in impairment to the overall aquatic resources in Yosemite Valley. Minimal loss would occur, and these losses or other alterations to wetlands would not affect the larger aquatic systems in the local or regional setting. Alternative 3 would not impair wetland resources.
WETLANDS (CONTINUED)
Valley would remain largely unaffected, and wetland resources would not be impaired for future generations.
Cumulative actions would have a local, long-term, major, beneficial cumulative effect on wetlands within Yosemite Valley due to wetland restoration efforts.   Alternative 1 would have a local, long-term, moderate, adverse impact to existing wetlands at Curry Village, and a local, long-term, minor, adverse impact to wetlands in Lower Pines Campground, because of the continued trampling from park visitors. The beneficial impacts associated with the cumulative projects would overshadow these effects and Alternative 1 would not affect the magnitude of the cumulative impacts. Alternative 1, in combination with the cumulative projects, would result in a net long-term, major, beneficial effect on wetland patterns.	Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. Cumulative actions would have a local, long-term, major, beneficial cumulative effect on wetlands within Yosemite Valley due to wetland restoration efforts.   The adverse effects to wetlands under Alternative 2 would be overshadowed by the beneficial effects of the cumulative projects, and thus the magnitude of the cumulative impact would not change. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in combination with Alternative 2 would have a net long-term, major, beneficial effect on wetlands in Yosemite Valley due to wetland restoration efforts.	Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. Cumulative actions would have a local, long-term, major, beneficial cumulative effect on wetlands within Yosemite Valley due to wetland restoration efforts.   Under Alternative 3, the adverse effects to wetlands would be overshadowed by the beneficial effects of the cumulative projects, and thus the magnitude of the cumulative impacts would not change. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, in combination with Alternative 3, would have a net long-term, major, beneficial effect on wetlands in Yosemite Valley due to wetland restoration efforts.
VEGETATION
Under Alternative 1, existing impacts to vegetation in Curry Village and the Upper and Lower Pines Campgrounds would continue. Continued camping activity, including vegetation trampling and disruption of normal ecological processes such as fire, would result in a local, long-term, adverse impact to vegetation. The majority of habitat disturbance occurs in natural communities that are widespread in Yosemite Valley and the region; therefore, overall impacts would be moderate in intensity.	Alternative 2 would result in a local, short-term, moderate, adverse impact to vegetation due to construction-related activities. Implementation of Alternative 2 would require the removal of approximately 800 to 1,350 trees, mostly ponderosa pine. Although ponderosa pine and montane hardwood are not considered a limited resource in Yosemite Valley, the number of trees removed represents a large amount of vegetative biomass, reducing nutrient input into the local environment,	Alternative 3 would result in a local, short-term, moderate, adverse impact to vegetation due to construction-related activities. Implementation of Alternative 3 would require the removal of approximately 850 to 1,300 trees, mostly ponderosa pine. Although ponderosa pine and montane hardwood are not considered a limited resource in Yosemite Valley, the number of trees to be removed represents a large amount of vegetative biomass and would reduce nutrient input into the local
VEGETATION
Alternative 1 would result in a local, long-term, moderate, adverse impact to vegetation in the immediate vicinity of the project sites. The effect of this alternative on vegetation would be localized and would not be considered severe. The extent and quality of vegetation throughout the remainder of Yosemite Valley would remain unaffected by this alternative. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not impair vegetation resources in Yosemite Valley for future generations.	the local seed bank, and canopy cover for understory vegetation. Furthermore vegetation removal and disturbance would occur throughout South Camp and adjacent to high value wetland and riparian habitats in Upper Pines where vegetation is relatively undisturbed. Although removal of the road from Stoneman Meadow and campsites from Lower Pines would somewhat offset the intensity of these impacts, they would be local, long term, moderate, and adverse with mitigation.   Alternative 2 would not impair vegetation resources or values, as vegetation removal would be performed selectively to preserve the character of the habitats impacted, and these vegetation resources would continue to be widespread and abundant in Yosemite Valley.	environment, the local seed bank, and the canopy cover for understory vegetation. Furthermore, vegetation removal and disturbance would occur throughout South Camp and adjacent to high-value wetland and riparian habitats in Upper Pines, where vegetation is relatively undisturbed. Although removal of the road from Stoneman Meadow and campsites from Lower Pines would somewhat offset the intensity of these impacts, they would be local, long term, moderate, and adverse with mitigation.   Alternative 3 would not impair vegetation resources or values, as vegetation removal would be performed selectively to preserve the character of the habitats impacted, and these vegetation resources would continue to be widespread and abundant in Yosemite Valley.
Reasonably foreseeable future actions within Yosemite Valley are considered to have an overall net benefit to vegetation. For example, the Merced River Plan protects river-related natural resources through the application of management elements, including the River Protection Overlay, management zoning, protection and enhancement of Outstandingly Remarkable Values, and implementation of a Visitor Experience and Resource Protection framework. Full implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan would restore over 100 acres, of which a substantial amount would be high-value resource vegetation in Yosemite Valley. Such proposed actions include removal of roads through Ahwahnee Meadow and natural vegetation restoration actions in several areas. Although certain Yosemite Valley Plan projects	Cumulative Impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. Although Alternative 2 would have a local, long-term, moderate, adverse effect on vegetation, the cumulative projects would overshadow the effects of Alternative 2 due to a substantial net gain of high-value riparian, California black oak, and meadow habitat resulting in a net long-term, major, beneficial effect on vegetation patterns.   Alternative 2 would not affect the magnitude of the cumulative impact. Alternative 2, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would have a long-term, major, beneficial effect on vegetation patterns in Yosemite Valley.	Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. Although Alternative 3 would have a local, long-term, moderate, adverse effect on vegetation, the cumulative projects would overshadow the effects of Alternative 3 due to a substantial net gain of high value riparian, California black oak, and meadow habitat resulting in a net long-term, major, beneficial effect on vegetation patterns.   Alternative 3 would not affect the magnitude of the cumulative impact. Alternative 3, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would have a long-term, major, beneficial effect on vegetation patterns in Yosemite Valley.
VEGETATION (CONTINUED)
have the potential to adversely affect local vegetation (such as the Curry Village Employee Housing, Lower Yosemite Fall, and Yosemite Lodge Area Redevelopment projects) the cumulative projects would increase the overall size, connectivity, and integrity of vegetation within the watershed, resulting in a long-term, major, beneficial cumulative effect on vegetation.   Alternative 1 would have a local, long-term, moderate, adverse effect on vegetation from the continued trampling of vegetation in the project area. The beneficial impacts of the cumulative projects would, however, overshadow these impacts and Alternative 1 would not alter the magnitude of the cumulative impacts. Alternative 1, in combination with the cumulative projects, would result in a net long-term, major, beneficial effect on vegetation patterns.
WILDLIFE
Wildlife would continue to be affected by the constant presence of people and trampling of vegetation in the project area. These impacts reduce the amount and quality of areas available to sensitive species that require undisturbed habitat for essential activities such as nesting, roosting/resting, and foraging,. resulting in an overall local, long-term, moderate, adverse impact to wildlife.   Alternative 1 would result in a local, long-term, moderate, adverse impact to wildlife. The extent and quality of wildlife habitat throughout the remainder	Development of new cabins, campsites, parking lots, new roads, and buildings would affect wildlife during construction, primarily due to noise and sight disturbance. Permanent loss of habitat from new development would affect wildlife by reducing the amount of foraging, breeding, and resting areas available, as well as by conditioning wildlife to human food sources. Development would also fragment habitats, increase sight and noise disturbance, and impede wildlife movement. However, removal of campsites in Lower Pines and tent cabins in Curry Village, as well as road	Development of new cabins, campsites, parking lots, roads, and buildings would affect wildlife during construction, primarily due to noise and sight disturbance. Permanent loss of habitat due to new development would affect wildlife by reducing the amount of foraging, breeding, and resting areas available, as well as by conditioning wildlife to human food sources. Development would also fragment habitats and increase habitat disturbance, which would result in sight and noise disturbance as well as impede wildlife movement. However, removal of campsites in Lower Pines and tent cabins
WILDLIFE (CONTINUED)
of Yosemite Valley would remain unaffected by this alternative. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not impair wildlife within Yosemite Valley for future generations.	realignment, would improve habitats, thus reducing the level of effect. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in an overall local, long-term, moderate, adverse impact to wildlife.   The extent of habitat loss and disturbance to wildlife is not expected to change the diversity or abundance of wildlife in the project area. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not impair wildlife resources or values within Yosemite Valley for future generations.	in Curry Village, as well as road realignment, would improve habitats, thus reducing the level of effect. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in an overall local, long-term, moderate, adverse impact to wildlife.   The extent of habitat loss and disturbance to wildlife is not expected to change the diversity or abundance of wildlife in the project area. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not impair wildlife resources or values within Yosemite Valley for future generations.
Cumulative actions would have a local, long-term, moderate to major, beneficial effect on wildlife within Yosemite Valley because of the habitat restoration provisions of the Yosemite Valley Plan and Merced River Plan. Thus, past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would have a net local, long-term, moderate to major, beneficial effect on wildlife patterns. Alternative 1 would have a local, long-term, moderate, adverse effect on wildlife, because of loss of forest understory due to human access and fire suppression, removal of dead tree or snag habitat, availability of human food and trash, and noise and visual disturbance associated with human activities and vehicles.   However, because the cumulative projects would overshadow the localized effects Alternative 1 would not affect the magnitude of the cumulative impacts. Alternative 1, and the cumulative projects would result in a net long-term, major, beneficial effect on wildlife patterns.	Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. Alternative 2 would improve habitat within the River Protection Overlay and Stoneman Meadow, while reducing habitat at South Camp and in parts of Curry Village, which would affect the magnitude of the cumulative impact. Alternative 2, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would have a net long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial effect on wildlife patterns within Yosemite Valley.	Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. Alternative 3 would improve habitat within the River Protection Overlay and Stoneman Meadow, while reducing habitat at South Camp and in parts of Curry Village, which would affect the magnitude of the cumulative impact. Alternative 3, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would have a net long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial effect on wildlife patterns within Yosemite Valley.
SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
Alternative 1 would continue to contribute to habitat degradation from human use and habitat fragmentation. These impacts likely exclude or restrict use of the project area by certain species, such as Mariposa sideband snail, spotted owl, Cooper’s hawk, peregrine falcon, special-status bats, western pond turtle, Mt. Lyell salamander, and special-status plants known to occur in the project vicinity. Therefore, Alternative 1 would result in an overall local, long-term, moderate, adverse impact to special-status species.   Alternative 1 would continue to result in a local, long-term, minor, adverse impact to special-status species due to habitat degradation from human use and habitat fragmentation. For the abandoned portion of the Lower Pines Campground, there may be a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact from the implementation of the Merced River Plan. The extent and quality of habitat for the special-status species throughout the rest of Yosemite Valley would remain unaffected. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not impair special-status species or their habitats in Yosemite Valley for future generations.	Alternative 2 would result in construction impacts that would be local, short term, moderate, and not likely to adversely affect special-status species. Permanent impacts would have the greatest potential effect on spotted owl, Cooper’s hawk, peregrine falcon, western pond turtle, and special-status bats, since these species are expected to occur. Although Alternative 2 would remove supporting habitat for special-status species, most of these species do not likely make more than occasional use of the project area, or are most likely to occur in small numbers. Additionally, in accordance with the Yosemite Valley Plan, implementation of the alternative requires conformance with avoidance and protection measures, which would reduce the potential to harm or disturb special-status species or their habitat. Furthermore, habitat restoration in Curry Village and Lower Pines Campground would offset some loss of habitat making impacts local, long term, and minor.   Limited special-status species have been observed in the project area. Alternative 2 would not impair special-status species or their habitats for future generations.	Alternative 3 would result in construction impacts that would be local, short term, moderate, and not likely to adversely affect special-status species. Permanent impacts would have the greatest potential effect on spotted owl, Cooper’s hawk, peregrine falcon, western pond turtle, and special-status bats, since these species are expected to occur. Although Alternative 3 would remove supporting habitat for special-status species, most of these species do not likely make more than occasional use of the project area, or are most likely to occur in small numbers. Additionally, in accordance with the Yosemite Valley Plan, implementation of the alternative requires conformance with avoidance and protection measures, which would reduce the potential to harm or disturb special-status species or their habitat. Furthermore, habitat restoration in Curry Village and Lower Pines Campground would offset some loss of habitat, making impacts local, long term, and minor.   Limited special-status species have been observed in the project area. Alternative 3 would not impair special-status species or their habitats for future generations.
The cumulative projects would have a long-term, moderate, beneficial effect on habitat for special-status species by enhancing habitat connectivity, size, and structure within Yosemite Valley. Thus, past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, in combination with Alternative 1, would have a net local, long-term, moderate, beneficial effect on special-status species.	Cumulative Impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. Alternative 2 would adversely affect some habitat for special-status species, while enhancing habitat through the removal of roads, campsites, and other facilities in the project area.	Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. Alternative 3 would adversely affect some habitat for special-status species while also enhancing habitat by removing roads, campsites, and other facilities in the project area.
SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES (CONTINUED)
Although Alternative 1 would continue to contribute to habitat degradation from human use and habitat fragmentation, this impact would be overshadowed by the improvements to habitat connectivity, size and structure from the cumulative projects. Alternative 1 would not affect the magnitude of the cumulative impacts. Thus, past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, in combination with Alternative 1, would have a net local, long-term, moderate, beneficial effect on special-status species.	These localized effects would not change the magnitude of the cumulative impact. Alternative 2, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would have a net long-term, moderate, beneficial effect on habitat for special-status species.	These localized effects would not affect the magnitude of the cumulative impact. Alternative 3, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would have a net long-term, moderate, beneficial effect on habitat for special-status species.
AIR QUALITY
Alternative 1 would result in a local, short-term, minor, adverse effect to air quality from construction activities, which could be mitigated by the use of Best Management Practices, as described above. Alternative 1 would result in a local and regional, long-term, minor, adverse impact to air quality associated with continued levels of vehicle traffic and visitor use. Alternative 1 would result in a local and regional, long-term, negligible, adverse impact as private and fleet vehicles are replaced over time with lower-emission vehicles. Overall, this alternative would have a local, long-term, negligible, adverse impact to air quality.	Alternative 2 would result in a local, short-term, moderate, adverse impact associated with construction, demolition, and renovation activities, but a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact associated primarily with the reduction in vehicle traffic and related emissions from the reduced lodging parking, as well as the overall reduction in lodging facilities.   Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in a local, long-term, minor, adverse impact to air quality from construction activities and a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact to air quality. The short-term impacts would be outweighed by the long-term improvement to air quality, and Alternative 2 would not impair park resources for future generations.	Alternative 3 would result in a local, short-term, moderate, adverse impact associated with construction, demolition, and renovation activities, but a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact associated primarily with the reduction in vehicle traffic and associated emissions due to the reduced parking, as well as the overall reduction in lodging facilities.   Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in a local, long-term, minor, adverse impact to air quality from construction activities and a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact to air quality. The short-term impact would be outweighed by the long-term improvement to air quality, and Alternative 3 would not impair park resources for future generations.
AIR QUALITY (CONTINUED)
Implementation of Alternative 1 would be expected to result in a local, long-term, minor, adverse impact from construction activities and continued vehicular emissions from visitors accessing Curry Village and the campgrounds. Construction impacts could be mitigated by use of Best Management Practices, and vehicular emissions would be reduced over time through the introduction of lower-emission vehicles. These impacts would not impair park resources for future generations.
The local and regional, long-term, minor, adverse impact to air quality associated with continued levels of vehicle traffic and visitor use in the project area under Alternative 1 would not affect the magnitude of the cumulative impacts. The regional programs and other valleywide programs to reduce vehicular emissions would overshadow the localized adverse impacts from Alternative 1. Alternative 1, in combination with other reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in a local, long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on air quality in Yosemite Valley.	Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. Alternative 2 would enhance the beneficial impact by reducing the overall number of parking spaces throughout the project area, which would in turn reduce vehicle emissions.   The minor benefits associated with Alternative 2 would not affect the magnitude of the cumulative impact. Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects would result in a local, long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on air quality. The local, short-term, moderate, adverse impacts associated with construction activities would not offset the long-term beneficial impacts of the cumulative projects.	Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. Alternative 3 would enhance the beneficial impact by decreasing the overall number of parking spaces throughout the project area and thus reducing vehicle emissions.   The minor benefits associated with Alternative 3 would not affect the magnitude of the cumulative impact. Alternative 3 and the cumulative projects would result in a local, long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on air quality. The local, short-term, moderate, adverse impacts associated with construction activities would not offset the long-term beneficial impacts of the cumulative projects.
NOISE
Noise generated by routine maintenance and debris removal activities under Alternative 1 would result in a local, short-term, moderate to major, adverse impact to park visitors, residents, and contractors in the vicinity of repair projects. Alternative 1 would not be expected to have a long-term impact on ambient noise levels in Yosemite Valley.	Alternative 2 would result in a local, short-term, minor, adverse impact on the project area’s noise environment associated with construction, demolition, and renovation activities. Limiting visitor use of the immediately adjacent campsites would reduce noise impacts during construction. The campground improvements, new amphitheater, and	Although Alternative 3 would result in a local, short-term, minor, adverse impact on the project area’s noise environment associated with construction, demolition, and renovation activities. Limiting visitor use of the immediately adjacent campsites would reduce noise impacts during construction. The campground improvements, new amphitheater, and
NOISE (CONTINUED)
	expanded visitor services in Curry Village would result in a local, long-term, minor to negligible adverse impact to the noise environment.	expanded visitor services in Curry Village would result in a local, long-term, minor to negligible adverse impact to the noise environment.
Alternative 1 would result in a local, short-term, moderate, adverse impact on noise in Yosemite Valley during construction activities associated with repairs to existing utility facilities. Alternative 1 would not have any long-term, adverse noise impacts and thus would not impair park resources for future generations.	Alternative 2 would result in a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact to the noise environment, which would not impair park resources for future generations.	Alternative 3 would result in a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact to the noise environment, which would not impair park resources for future generations.
Cumulative projects would generally improve noise levels near and within the project area. The programs provided in the Yosemite Valley Plan would reduce the overall sound levels associated with traffic along most roadways in Yosemite Valley, resulting in a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact. Protecting natural resources and maintaining visitor-intensive uses in the appropriate management zones under the Merced River Plan would have additional local, long-term, minor, beneficial impacts on noise levels. The National Park Service’s Shuttle Bus Replacement Project would have a local, long-term, minor, beneficial effect on noise.   The introduction of some construction noise, associated with maintenance and repair to existing utility infrastructure, and continuance of current operational noise levels in the project area would not alter the magnitude of the cumulative impacts. Alternative 1 in combination with the cumulative projects, would result in a local, long-term, negligible, beneficial impact to the noise environment	Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. The negligible to minor adverse impact to the noise environment under Alternative 2 would be offset by the overall beneficial impact of the cumulative projects.   Alternative 2 would not affect the magnitude of the cumulative impact. Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects would result in a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact on the noise environment.	Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. The negligible to minor adverse impact to the noise environment under Alternative 3 would be offset by the overall beneficial impact of the cumulative projects.   Alternative 3 would not affect the magnitude of the cumulative impact. Alternative 3 and the cumulative projects would result in a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact on the noise environment.
CULTURAL RESOURCES ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Alternative 1 would not change the treatment or management of archeological resources in the project area. Because Alternative 1 consists exclusively of maintenance to the existing utility infrastructure, the number of archeological resources that could sustain adverse impacts is limited. Any site-specific planning and compliance actions would be performed in accordance with stipulations in the park’s 1999 Programmatic Agreement, which mandate data recovery excavation to retrieve important information, thus reducing the intensity of the local, permanent adverse impact to minor under the National Environmental Policy Act.   Although several sites, including high-value cultural resources, are located within the area of potential effect, the impact of this alternative on archeological resources would be minimized through avoidance where possible and monitoring of ground-disturbing activities. For those impacts that could not be avoided, recordation and/or data recovery would be conducted, as outlined in the 1999 Programmatic Agreement. Any adverse impacts would be primarily localized and would not be considered severe. In addition, Alternative 1 would not change the treatment or management of archeological resources. With implementation of the mitigation measures outlined above, Alternative 1 would result in a local, permanent, negligible to minor, adverse impact and would not impair archeological resources for future generations.	Proposed development, redevelopment, and relocation of park facilities in Curry Village would involve ground-disturbing activities that have the potential to directly impact two known archeological resources, and two sites for which archeological deposits are suspected, but have yet to be located. Two of the sites possess limited data potential; therefore, the adverse impact would be local, permanent, and minor to moderate. Other ground-disturbing activities associated with redevelopment and development within Upper and Lower Pines Campgrounds, relocation of the amphitheater, and extension of utilities would directly impact three sites with limited data potential, and possibly another for which archeological deposits have yet to be located. Increased visitor use associated with campground development/redevelopment and relocation of the amphitheater would increase pedestrian traffic and the potential for unauthorized collection, increasing the potential for indirect impacts to two additional sites. Because the five identified sites possess limited data potential, these actions would result in a local, permanent, negligible to moderate, adverse impact to archeological resources. Mitigation involving  the use of barriers or fencing to protect sensitive areas adjacent to staging areas, avoidance through project redesign and planning, and monitoring of ground-disturbing activities would minimize these impacts. Where necessary, recordation and data recovery consistent with the 1999 Programmatic Agreement would reduce these impacts to negligible. Regarding potential subsurface deposits associated with the	With the exception of additional walk-in campsites and the redistribution of restrooms at Upper Pines, the impacts on archeological resources due to implementing the Yosemite Valley Plan actions at Curry Village, the campground-serving facilities, South Camp, and Lower Pines Campground would be the same as described for Alternative 2. The development of 14 additional walk-in campsites at Upper Pines Campground would locate campsites within an existing archeological site, in contrast to Alternative 2, which would locate campsites adjacent to an archeological site. The redistribution of restrooms under Alternative 3 (not proposed under Alternative 2) would affect a recorded archeological site.   Under Alternative 3, proposed development, redevelopment, and relocation of park facilities in Curry Village would involve ground-disturbing activities that have the potential to directly impact two known archeological resources, and two sites for which archeological deposits are suspected, but have yet to be located. The two recorded sites possess limited data potential, and therefore the impact would be local, permanent, and minor to moderate. Other ground-disturbing activities associated with redevelopment and development within Upper and Lower Pines Campgrounds, relocation of the amphitheater, and extension of utilities would directly impact three sites with limited data potential, and possibly another for which
ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES (CONTINUED)
	three unidentified resources, testing prior to project implementation coupled with monitoring during ground-disturbing activities would minimize the impacts.	archeological deposits have yet to be located. Increased visitor usage associated with campground development/redevelopment and relocation of the amphitheater would increase pedestrian traffic and the potential for unauthorized collection, increasing the potential for indirect impacts to two additional sites. Because the five identified sites possess limited data potential, these actions would result in a local, permanent, negligible to moderate, adverse impact to archeological resources. Mitigation involving the use of barriers or fencing to protect sensitive areas adjacent to staging areas, avoidance through project redesign and planning, and monitoring of ground-disturbing activities would minimize these impacts.
	Although cultural resources would be impacted within the project area, by avoiding and reducing the affected area, coupled with collecting data through implementation of Stipulations in the 1999 Programmatic Agreement, the local impact of this alternative on archeological deposits would be minimized. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not change the treatment and management of archeological resources, thereby resulting in a local, permanent, negligible to minor, adverse impact, and thus would not impair archeological resources for future generations.	Where necessary, recordation, and data recovery consistent with the 1999 Programmatic Agreement would reduce these impacts to negligible. Regarding potential subsurface deposits associated with the three unidentified resources, testing prior to project implementation coupled with monitoring during ground-disturbing activities would minimize the impacts.   Although cultural resources would be impacted within the project area, the local impact of this alternative on archaeological deposits would be minimized by avoiding and reducing the affected area, coupled with collecting data through implementation of the stipulations in the 1999 Programmatic Agreement. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not change the treatment and management of archeological resources, thereby resulting in a local, permanent, negligible to minor, adverse
ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES (CONTINUED)
		impact, and thus would not impair archeological resources for future generations.
The National Park Service would follow guidelines of the 1999 Programmatic Agreement, avoiding adverse effects to archeological resources to the greatest extent possible through the use of barriers or fencing, monitoring excavation in sensitive areas, and project redesign. Where not possible, data involving prehistoric and historic lifeways would be recovered through recordation and data recovery according to provisions in the Programmatic Agreement. It is anticipated that these actions would result in a local, permanent, negligible to minor, adverse cumulative impact to archeological resources.   Alternative 1 would continue the existing management and treatment of archeological resources, with limited potential for impacting archeological resources. Alternative 1 would not change the magnitude of the cumulative impacts and, in combination with the cumulative projects, would result in a local, permanent, negligible to minor, adverse cumulative impact to archeological resources.	Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. Alternative 2 could adversely impact identified and unidentified archeological resources by disturbing intact deposits, many of which possess unknown data potential. To mitigate these impacts, the park would either avoid known archeological resources, or implement data recovery to retrieve important information in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement, avoiding adverse effects to archeological resources to the greatest extent possible through the use of barriers or fencing, monitoring of excavations in sensitive areas, and project redesign. Where avoidance is not possible, data involving prehistoric and historic lifeways would be recovered through recordation and data recovery. It is anticipated that these actions would result in a local, permanent, negligible to minor, adverse cumulative impact to archeological resources. Because of the implementation of these mitigation measures, Alternative 2, in combination with the cumulative projects, would result in a local, permanent, negligible to minor, adverse cumulative impact to archeological resources.   Alternative 2 would not change the management of archeological resources in Yosemite Valley and would continue to mitigate any localized adverse impacts in accordance with the 1999 Programmatic Agreement. Alternative 2 would affect the magnitude of the cumulative impact. Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects would result in a local,	Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. Alternative 3 could adversely impact identified and unidentified archeological resources by disturbing intact deposits, many of which possess unknown data potential. To mitigate these impacts, the park would either avoid known archeological resources or implement data recovery to retrieve important information, in accordance with the 1999 Programmatic Agreement, avoiding adverse effects to archeological resources to the greatest extent possible through the use of barriers or fencing, monitoring of excavations in sensitive areas, and project redesign. Where avoidance is not possible, data involving prehistoric and historic lifeways would be recovered through recordation and data recovery. It is anticipated that these actions would result in a local, permanent, negligible to minor, adverse cumulative impact to archeological resources.   Alternative 3 would not change the management of archeological resources in Yosemite Valley and would continue to mitigate any localized adverse impacts in accordance with the 1999 Programmatic Agreement. Alternative 3 would affect the magnitude of the cumulative impact. Alternative 3 and the cumulative projects would result in a local, permanent, negligible to minor, adverse cumulative impact on archeological resources.
ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES (CONTINUED)
	permanent, negligible to minor, adverse cumulative impact on archeological resources.
ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES
Ethnographic resources would continue to be treated and managed as they are at present. Maintenance activities could adversely affect ethnographic resources. Because construction activities would be short term and localized, it is expected that consultation would produce treatment solutions to mitigate any impacts considered adverse under the National Historic Preservation Act, resulting in a local, short-term, negligible to minor, adverse impact under the National Environmental Policy Act.	Adverse impacts to an ethnographic gathering area associated with the renovation of Lower Pines Campground and removal of the amphitheater would be mitigated in consultation with American Indian groups. Any site-specific planning and compliance actions would be conducted, in accordance with stipulations in the park’s 1997 agreement between the National Park Service and the American Indian Council of Mariposa County, Inc. for conducting traditional activities, to develop appropriate mitigating strategies for effects to ethnographic resources. As part of mitigation, a tribal representative would participate in the site-staking and design phase of the project to identify particular sensitive areas. If avoidance of these areas is not prudent or feasible, the topsoil would be set aside and restored at the end of the project, thereby minimizing adverse impacts to sensitive ethnographic resources. Therefore, no measurable impacts to ethnographic resources would occur as a result of this alternative. In conjunction with future consultation with American Indian groups, the action has the potential to enhance the growth and diversity of native species, resulting in a negligible to minor beneficial impact to one ethnographic gathering area. In the absence of an identified archeological component, the ethnographic villages of Toolahkahmah and Ummataw would not be affected by these actions.	Adverse impacts to an ethnographic gathering area associated with the renovation of Lower Pines Campground and removal of the amphitheater would be mitigated in consultation with American Indian groups. Any site-specific planning and compliance actions would be conducted in accordance with stipulations in the park’s 1997 agreement between the National Park Service and the American Indian Council of Mariposa County, Inc. for conducting traditional activities, to develop appropriate mitigating strategies for effects to ethnographic resources. As part of mitigation, a tribal representative would participate in the site- staking and design phase of the project to identify particular sensitive areas. If avoidance of these areas is not prudent or feasible, the topsoil would be set aside and restored at the end of the project, thereby minimizing adverse impacts to sensitive ethnographic resources. Therefore, no measurable impacts to ethnographic resources would occur as a result of this alternative. In conjunction with future consultation with American Indian groups, the action has the potential to enhance the growth and diversity of native species, possibly resulting in a negligible to minor beneficial impact to one ethnographic gathering area. In the absence of an identified archeological component, the ethnographic villages of Toolahkahmah and Ummataw would not be affected by these actions.
ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES (CONTINUED)
Alternative 1 would have a minor adverse impact on ethnographic resources, but not with respect to their treatment and management. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not impair ethnographic resources for future generations.	Alternative 2 would have a minor adverse impact on ethnographic resources. The treatment and management of these resources and the development of strategies in consultation with Native American groups to mitigate these impacts would continue. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not be of sufficient magnitude to impair ethnographic resources for future generations.	Alternative 3 would have a minor adverse impact on ethnographic resources. The treatment and management of these resources and the development of strategies in consultation with Native American groups to mitigate these impacts would continue. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not be of sufficient magnitude to impair ethnographic resources for future generations.
The National Park Service would continue to consult with culturally associated American Indian tribes according to stipulations of the Programmatic Agreement and specific agreements – such as the October 17, 1999 Agreement Between the National Park Service, Yosemite National Park, and the American Indian Council of Mariposa County, Inc. for Conducting Traditional Activities – to develop appropriate mitigation strategies for impacts to ethnographic resources. Such strategies could include identifying and assisting in providing access to alternative resource gathering areas, continuing to provide access to traditional use or spiritual areas, and screening new development from traditional use areas. Therefore, the cumulative projects in Yosemite Valley would result in a local, permanent, minor, adverse impact on ethnographic resources due to the disturbance of the remaining resources.   The short-term, localized construction impacts identified for Alternative 1 associated with maintenance of existing utility infrastructure would not change the magnitude of the cumulative impacts. Alternative 1, in combination with the cumulative projects, would result in a local,	Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. The National Park Service would continue to consult with culturally associated American Indian tribes according to stipulations of the Programmatic Agreement and specific agreements, as described under Alternative 1, to develop appropriate mitigation strategies for impacts to ethnographic resources. The cumulative projects in Yosemite Valley would result in a local, permanent, minor, adverse impact on ethnographic resources due to the disturbance of the remaining resources. Alternative 2 would not change the management of ethnographic resources, and in combination with the cumulative projects, would result in a local, permanent, minor, adverse impact on ethnographic resources. Alternative 2 would not change the management of ethnographic resources, and would not affect the magnitude of the cumulative impact.	Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. The National Park Service would continue to consult with culturally associated American Indian tribes according to stipulations of the Programmatic Agreement and specific agreements, as described under Alternative 1, to develop appropriate mitigation strategies for impacts to ethnographic resources. The cumulative projects in Yosemite Valley would result in a local, permanent, minor, adverse impact on ethnographic resources due to the disturbance of the remaining resources. Alternative 3 would not change the management of ethnographic resources, and in combination with the cumulative projects, would result in a local, permanent, minor, adverse impact on ethnographic resources.
ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES (CONTINUED)
permanent, minor, adverse impact on ethnographic resources.
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE RESOURCES, HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES
Under the No Action Alternative, historic properties and contributing cultural resources would be managed and protected under current policies. General deterioration would be expected to continue, resulting in a long-term adverse impact on the historic district. The existing ice rink complex would continue to be an intrusive visual element in the village. The transformer in the bungalow area would also be visually intrusive. Occupancy of historic buildings by employees and the presence of temporary employee housing within the historic district would continue to have an adverse impact on the district as a whole. The lack of separation between housekeeping and maintenance areas and guest accommodations would also continue to adversely impact the historic district. Finally, the eventual loss of Curry Orchard would have an adverse impact on the village. Impacts to individual features would result in a local, long-term, moderate, adverse impact to the overall character of the Camp Curry Historic District and the entire project area. The intensity of the adverse impact would be reduced by documenting resources as stipulated in the 1999 Programmatic Agreement.   There would be no change in the general management and maintenance of historic resources under Alternative 1. Projects would be developed in	Under Alternative 2, removal of elements in the project area from the River Protection Overlay and restoration of Stoneman Meadow would have a permanent, minor to moderate, beneficial impact on the natural systems of the Valley. The expansion of campgrounds would have a negligible impact on historic land-use patterns. Changes to historic circulation systems would create a long-term, minor, adverse impact, although removal of Southside Drive from Stoneman Meadow would have a beneficial impact. The loss of Curry Orchard and the 253 tent cabins under Alternative 2 would result in a local, permanent, moderate, adverse impact. Rehabilitation of historic buildings and structures in Curry Village and construction of new buildings, as described in table IV‑4, would result in a permanent, minor to moderate, adverse impact on the historic district, when mitigated in accordance with the 1999 Programmatic Agreement.   All actions under Alternative 2 would be undertaken in accordance with the 1999 Programmatic Agreement and the applicable guidelines and standards cited above to enhance and avoid damage to historic resources. Thus, with mitigation in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement, adverse impacts to historic resources under Alternative 2 would be insufficient to impair these	Under Alternative 3, removal of elements in the project area from the Merced River Protection Overlay and restoration of Stoneman Meadow would have a permanent, minor to moderate, beneficial impact on the natural systems of the Valley. The expansion of campgrounds would have a negligible impact on historic land-use patterns. Changes to historic circulation systems would create a long-term, minor, adverse impact, although removal of Southside Drive from Stoneman Meadow would have a beneficial impact. The loss of Curry Orchard and the 253 tent cabins under Alternative 3 would result in a local, permanent, moderate, adverse impact. Rehabilitation of historic buildings and structures in Curry Village and construction of new buildings, as described in table IV‑9, would result in a permanent, minor to moderate, adverse impact on the historic district, when mitigated in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement.   All actions under Alternative 3 would be undertaken in accordance with the 1999 Programmatic Agreement and the applicable guidelines and standards cited above to enhance and avoid damage to historic resources. Thus, with mitigation in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement, adverse impacts to historic resources under Alternative 3 would be insufficient to impair these
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE RESOURCES, HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES (CONTINUED)
accordance with established programs intended to preserve sensitive historic resources. The mitigation’s provided in these programs would ensure that historic resources would not be impaired for future generations.	resources for future generations (16 United States Code Part 1).	resources for future generations (16 United States Code Part 1).
With the continuation of current park management policies, and with mitigation as stipulated in the 1999 Programmatic Agreement, cumulative, long-term, minor, adverse impacts on historic resources would be expected to occur, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future undertakings. Alternative 1 and the cumulative projects would result in a local, long-term, minor, adverse impact on historic resources. The continued maintenance of historic resources, absent the rehabilitation measures proposed by the Yosemite Valley Plan, while adversely impacting the historic district, would not change the magnitude of the cumulative impacts. Alternative 1, in combination with the cumulative projects, would result in a long-term, minor, adverse impact on historic resources.	Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. Alternative 2 would not change the management of historic resources and would mitigate adverse impacts in accordance with the 1999 Programmatic Agreement. Alternative 2 would not change the magnitude of the cumulative impact. Alternative 2, in combination with other cumulative projects, would result in a local, long-term, minor, adverse impact to historic resources.	Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. The previous designation of the Camp Curry Historic District, implementation of the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System and the Yosemite Valley Shuttle Stop Improvements, and the potential establishment of the Yosemite Valley Cultural Landscape Historic District are actions that would cumulatively affect the historic resources within the project area. Adverse impacts would be reduced with mitigation stipulated in the 1999 Programmatic Agreement and the application of The Secretary’s Standards and the Architectural Character and Site Design Guidelines. Alternative 3 in combination with other cumulative projects would result in a local, long-term, minor, adverse impact to historic resources.
SOCIAL RESOURCES SCENIC RESOURCES
Under the No Action Alternative, the amount of intrusion into Yosemite Valley views would remain as it is today. Some scenic features would continue to be obstructed by the intrusion of vegetation into the viewshed, resulting in a local, long-term, minor, adverse impact to scenic resources. The degree of obstruction or impact would continue to depend upon the vantage point of the visitor. Under the No	Under Alternative 2, changes to scenic resources in the project area are generally improved through the consolidation of development within the core Curry Village and campground area and removal of the road through Stoneman Meadow. The reduction in tent cabins in Curry Village would lessen the amount of development that could be seen from above the project area, and the redeveloped parking lot in	Under Alternative 3, changes to scenic resources in the project area are generally improved through the consolidation of development within the core Curry Village and campground area and removal of the road through Stoneman Meadow. The reduction in tent cabins in Curry Village would lessen the amount of development that could be seen from above the project area, and the redeveloped parking lot in
SCENIC RESOURCES (CONTINUED)
Action Alternative, campsites abandoned after the 1997 flood would continue to degrade, resulting in a local, long-term, minor, adverse impact on scenic resources. Utility maintenance activities would result in a local, short-term, negligible to minor, adverse impact on scenic resources.   Alternative 1 would result in a local, long-term, minor, adverse effect on scenic resources due to the retention of degraded campsites and continued obstruction of high-quality views from Curry Village. The short-term adverse effect of this alternative on scenic resources would be primarily localized and would not be considered severe. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not impair scenic resources for future generations.	Curry Orchard would provide screening, using an “orchard grid” of trees to block views of the parking lot from visitors looking into Yosemite Valley from Glacier Point. The amount of intrusion into Yosemite Valley scenery would be reduced, which would enhance the National Park Service A-scenic designation.   Alternative 2 would result in a local, short-term, minor, adverse impact to scenic resources during construction, demolition, and tree removal activities in Curry Village and the campgrounds. The substantial tree removal that would occur in South Camp and Upper Pines Campground was anticipated by the Yosemite Valley Plan and would result in a local, long-term, minor, adverse impact to the immediate viewshed. However, the impact would not be considered adverse in the context of the Yosemite Valley Plan, because the removal of other campground sites in more highly valued scenic areas within Yosemite Valley outside the project area would balance the campground development impacts of the project.   Alternative 2 would result in short-term, adverse but long-term, beneficial impacts to scenic resources within the project area. The increased development envisioned for Curry Village and the campgrounds would be localized and balanced. The beneficial effects associated with improved ecosystem health would outweigh the impacts of increased development in Curry Village and the campgrounds.	Curry Orchard would provide screening, using an “orchard grid” of trees to block views of the parking lot from visitors looking into Yosemite Valley from Glacier Point. The amount of intrusion into Yosemite Valley scenery would be reduced, which would enhance the National Park Service A-scenic designation.   Alternative 3 would result in a local, short-term, minor, adverse impact to scenic resources during construction, demolition, and tree removal activities in Curry Village and the campgrounds. The substantial tree removal that would occur in South Camp and Upper Pines Campground was anticipated by the Yosemite Valley Plan and would result in a local, long-term, minor, adverse impact to the immediate viewshed. However, the impact would not be considered adverse in the context of the Yosemite Valley Plan, because the removal of other campground sites in more highly valued scenic areas within Yosemite Valley outside the project area would balance the campground development impacts of the project.   Alternative 3 would result in short-term, adverse but long-term, beneficial impacts to scenic resources within the project area. The increased development envisioned for Curry Village and the campgrounds would be localized and balanced. The beneficial effects associated with improved ecosystem health would outweigh the impacts of increased development in Curry Village and the campgrounds.
SCENIC RESOURCES (CONTINUED)
	Therefore, Alternative 2 would not impair scenic resources for future generations.	Therefore, Alternative 3 would not impair scenic resources for future generations.
The cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of the Merced River corridor would result in a local, long-term, major, beneficial cumulative impact on scenic resources in Yosemite Valley because of the overall emphasis on restoring disturbed or developed land to natural conditions and improving the health of ecosystems within Yosemite Valley. The long-term, minor, adverse impact from the continued degradation of campsites abandoned after the 1997 flood under Alternative 1 would be overshadowed by the improvements to scenic resources throughout the Valley, and would not change the magnitude of the cumulative impacts. Alternative 1 and the cumulative projects would result in a local, long-term, major, beneficial impact on scenic resources in Yosemite Valley, due to the overall emphasis on restoring disturbed or developed land to natural conditions and improving the health of ecosystems within Yosemite Valley.	Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. The cumulative projects within Yosemite Valley would result in a local, long-term, major, beneficial impact on scenic resources because of the overall emphasis on restoring disturbed or development land to natural conditions.  In combination these actions under Alternative 2 would not affect the magnitude of the cumulative impacts. Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects within Yosemite Valley would result in a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact on scenic resources in Yosemite Valley. The beneficial effects on scenic resources associated with restoring disturbed land and improving ecosystem health would outweigh the impacts associated with the increased development in Curry Village and the East Yosemite Valley Campground area.	Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. Alternative 3 would contribute to the cumulative beneficial impact by restoring disturbed land and improving ecosystem health. These contributions would outweigh the impacts associated with the increased development in Curry Village and the east Yosemite Valley campground area. In combination, these actions under Alternative 3 would not affect the magnitude of the cumulative impact. Alternative 3 and the cumulative projects within Yosemite Valley would result in a local, long- term, minor, beneficial impact on scenic resources in Yosemite Valley.
PARK OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES
Alternative 1 would not change the demand and maintenance of utilities, solid waste, and recycling in the project area. The performance of required maintenance activities would result in a local, short-term, minor, adverse impact to utility services. The resulting improvements to service would be a local, long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on park utilities.	Alternative 2 would result in a local, short-term, moderate, adverse impact on utilities associated with installation of new connections and possible relocation of existing lines, and a regional, long-term, moderate, adverse impact associated with increased water and sewer demand. Alternative 2 would also result in a regional, long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on solid waste and recycling services associated with the decrease in overnight accommodations in Curry Village.	Alternative 3 would result in a local, short-term, moderate, adverse impact on utilities associated with installation of new connections and possible relocation of existing lines, and a regional, long-term, moderate, adverse impact associated with increased water and sewer demand. Alternative 3 would also result in a regional, long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on solid waste and recycling services associated with the decrease in overnight accommodations in Curry Village.
PARK OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES (CONTINUED)
Alternative 1 would result in a short-term, minor, adverse impact to utilities in the project area and a long-term, negligible, adverse impact on the maintenance and operation of the utility infrastructure. However, these impacts would not impair park resources for future generations.	Alternative 2 would not affect utilities, solid waste, or recycling services in a manner that would impair park operations or facilities.	Alternative 3 would not affect utilities, solid waste, or recycling services in a manner that would impair park operations or facilities.
Overall, the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would have a local, short- and long-term, moderate, adverse cumulative impact because of the increased demand on utilities. Overall, the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would have a local, long-term, moderate, beneficial cumulative impact because of the utility infrastructure improvements throughout the Valley. Alternative 1 would continue to maintain existing utility infrastructure, while not increasing utility services, which while adverse, would not impact the magnitude of the cumulative impacts. The cumulative impacts, in combination with Alternative 1, would result in a local, long-term, moderate beneficial impact on utilities.	Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. Overall, the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would have local, long-term, minor, beneficial, cumulative impact because the new infrastructure would meet any increased demand. Alternative 2 would include improvements to utilities that would improve, but would not change the magnitude of the cumulative impact. The cumulative projects, in combination with Alternative 2, would result in a local, short- and long-term, minor beneficial impact on utilities due to the improvements to the utility infrastructure.	Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. Overall, the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would have a local, long-term, minor, beneficial cumulative impact because the new infrastructure would meet any increased demand. Alternative 3 would include improvements to utilities that would enhance, but would not change the magnitude of the cumulative impact. The cumulative impacts, in combination with Alternative 3, would result in local, short- and long-term, minor beneficial impacts on utilities because of the improvements to the utility infrastructure.
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
Under Alternative 1, existing roadway network and parking opportunities would remain unchanged. Visitors would continue to drive to the project area for overnight and day-use activities, increasing traffic congestion. Congestion and crowded parking conditions throughout the project area would continue and probably worsen under the No Action Alternative. The continued congestion and shortage of parking supply throughout the project area would result in a local, long-term, moderate, adverse	Reconfiguration of existing roadways, circulation patterns, and parking spaces would have a local, long-term, moderate, beneficial impact to traffic flow and congestion. Providing shuttle bus stops at Curry Village and the campgrounds would encourage a reduction in automobile use, which would result in a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact to traffic circulation and safety. Development of South Camp would increase vehicle trips to the area, resulting in a local, long-term, minor, adverse	Reconfiguration of existing roadways, circulation patterns, and parking spaces would have a local, long-term, moderate, beneficial impact to traffic flow and congestion. Providing shuttle bus stops at Curry Village and the campgrounds would encourage a reduction in automobile use, which would result in a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact to traffic circulation and safety. Development of South Camp would increase vehicle trips to the area, resulting in a local, long-term, minor, adverse
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING (CONTINUED)
impact. Utility maintenance activities would temporarily increase construction traffic on access roadways related to worker and material transport to construction sites, resulting in a local, short-term, minor, adverse impact to traffic circulation.	effect on traffic flow and congestion. Construction activities would result in a local, short-term, minor to moderate, adverse impact on traffic circulation in the project area.	effect on traffic flow and congestion. Construction activities would result in a local, short-term, minor to moderate, adverse impact on traffic circulation in the project area.
Alternative 1 would not have a long-term impact on traffic circulation or safety and thus would not impair park resources for future generations.	Alternative 2 would generally improve circulation and safety through the project area by reconfiguring the roadway system and eliminating day-visitor parking, which would not impair park resources for future generations.	Alternative 3 would generally improve circulation and safety through the project area by reconfiguring the roadway system and eliminating day-visitor parking, which would not impair park resources for future generations.
The cumulative projects would have a local, long-term, major, beneficial impact on transportation conditions in Yosemite Valley. Construction activities associated with the cumulative projects, however, would reduce the intensity of the beneficial impact to a minor or moderate level in the short term.   The adverse impacts associated with the continuance of the existing congestion through Curry Village under Alternative 1 would be overshadowed by the other improvements to traffic and pedestrian circulation throughout the Valley and therefore not impact the magnitude of the cumulative impacts. Alternative 1 and the cumulative projects would result in a local, long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on transportation conditions in Yosemite Valley.	Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. Alternative 2 would enhance the beneficial impact of the cumulative projects by eliminating the day-visitor parking and improving the roadway configurations to improve traffic flow. These improvements would not, however, affect the magnitude of the cumulative impact. Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects would result in a local, long-term, major, beneficial impact on transportation conditions in Yosemite Valley. Under Alternative 2, additional transportation improvements would be implemented to realize the substantial reduction in vehicle miles projected by the Yosemite Valley Plan.	Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. Alternative 3 would enhance the beneficial impact of the cumulative projects by eliminating the day-visitor parking and improving the roadway configurations to improve traffic flow. These improvements would not, however, affect the magnitude of the cumulative impact. Alternative 3 and the cumulative projects would result in a local, long-term, major, beneficial impact on transportation conditions in Yosemite Valley. Under Alternative 3, additional transportation improvements would be implemented to realize the substantial reduction in vehicle miles projected by the Yosemite Valley Plan.
VISITOR EXPERIENCE
Inadequate service for the visitor population would continue under Alternative 1. Access and navigation in Curry Village would remain confusing to visitors,	The increase in cabins-with-bath and campsites and the introduction of recreational vehicle campsites would improve the quality of the visitor experience in	The increase in cabins-with-bath and provision of group campsites,  recreational vehicle campsites and walk-in campsites would improve the quality of the
VISITOR EXPERIENCE (CONTINUED)
due to multiple access roads. Visitation levels would likely increase, compounding problems with congestion and parking. Due to congestion and lack of available parking, many visitors would be forced to spend extra time circulating to find parking, instead of enjoying the area’s features. The continuance of these conditions would result in a local, long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impact to the visitor experience.   Impacts of Alternative 1 to the visitor experience include occasional heavy traffic congestion; lack of visitor parking, especially for visitors with disabilities; difficulty in navigating through the development areas; low reliability of the transportation system; light pollution; and traffic impacts on recreation areas. These conditions would contribute to erosion of the visitor experience and opportunities for enjoyment of the park. As such, Alternative 1 would impair park resources for future generations.	the project area, resulting in a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact. The new amphitheater would provide a larger facility for visitor participation in park programs and would be located in an area with dramatic views of Half Dome and other scenic features, resulting in a local, long-term, major, beneficial impact to the visitor experience. Improved visitor programs, including multi-user trail facilities and an enhanced natural environment experience for visitors, would result in a local, long-term, moderate, beneficial impact to the visitor experience.   Construction activities would result in a local, short-term, minor, adverse impact to the visitor experience.   Alternative 2 would increase the natural and cultural integrity of the park and expand opportunities for enjoyment, and thus would not impair the park’s resources for future generations.	visitor experience in the project area, resulting in a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact. The new amphitheater would provide a larger facility for visitor participation in park programs and would be located in an area with dramatic views of Half Dome and other scenic features, resulting in a local, long- term, major, beneficial impact to the visitor experience. Improved visitor programs, including multi-user trail facilities and an enhanced natural environment experience for visitors, would result in a local, long-term, moderate, beneficial impact to the visitor experience.   Construction activities would result in a local, short-term, minor, adverse impact to the visitor experience.   Alternative 3 would increase the natural and cultural integrity of the park and expand opportunities for enjoyment, and thus would not impair the park’s resources for future generations.
The cumulative projects would have a local, long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on the visitor experience due to expanded recreational opportunities in Yosemite Valley and improved transit service that would distribute visitors to more park destinations. Alternative 1 would allow continued congestion and inadequate visitor services in Curry Village and the campgrounds. Because of the high level of visitation to this area, the continuance of these adverse conditions would impact the magnitude of the cumulative impacts.	Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. The cumulative projects would have a local, long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on the visitor experience due to expanded recreational opportunities in Yosemite Valley and improved transit service distributing visitors to more park destinations. Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects would result in a local, long-term, major, beneficial impact on the visitor experience. Cumulative effects would be somewhat more beneficial than Alternative 1 because of the	Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. Alternative 3 would enhance the beneficial impact to the visitor experience because of the improved facilities and services that would be provided. These improvements would affect the magnitude of the cumulative impact. Alternative 3 and the cumulative projects would result in a local, long-term, major, beneficial impact on the visitor experience. Cumulative effects would be somewhat more beneficial than Alternative 1 because of the additional improvements to visitor services and
VISITOR EXPERIENCE (CONTINUED)
Alternative 1 and the cumulative projects in Yosemite Valley would result in a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact on the visitor experience because of the expanded recreational opportunities in Yosemite Valley and improved transit service.	additional improvements to visitor services and replacement of campgrounds damaged during the 1997 flood.	replacement of campgrounds damaged during the 1997 flood.
SOCIOECONOMICS
Alternative 1 would not change the visitor population and regional economics of the area. The No Action Alternative would have a regional, long-term, negligible, adverse impact on local communities, visitor population, and regional economies.	Alternative 2 would change the visitor population and regional economics of the area. Alternative 2 would have a regional, long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on the regional economy and a local, short-term, major, beneficial impact on the regional economy during construction.	Alternative 3 would change the visitor population and regional economics of the area. Alternative 3 would have a regional, long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on the regional economy and a local, short-term, major, beneficial impact on the regional economy during construction.
Alternative 1 would have a short-term, negligible, beneficial impact on the regional economy and thus would not impair park resources for future generations.	Alternative 2 would have a local, short-term, major, beneficial impact on the regional economy during construction, and thus not impair park resources for future generations.	Alternative 3 would have a local, short-term, major, beneficial impact on the regional economy during construction, and thus not impair park resources for future generations.
The total construction-related spending in the affected region associated with the cumulative projects would have a short-term, major, beneficial impact on the regional economy. Some projects would increase the amount of visitor overnight accommodations in or near the park, which would result in a beneficial impact to employment, output, and taxable retail sales in the long term. The effect of this increase would be negligible, because the total increase in overnight accommodations would not be substantial in comparison to existing conditions. Therefore, cumulative actions would result in a local, long-term, negligible, beneficial impact to the regional economy.	Cumulative impacts would be the same as described under Alternative 1. Alternative 2 would contribute to this local, short-term, beneficial impact due to the temporary spending on the Curry Village and campground improvement projects.   This contribution would not, however, affect the magnitude of the cumulative impact. Alternative 2, in combination with the cumulative projects, would result in a local, long-term, negligible, beneficial impact to the regional economy, and a local, short-term, major, beneficial impact during construction.	Cumulative impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1. Alternative 3 would contribute to this local, short-term, beneficial impact due to the temporary spending on the Curry Village and campground improvement projects.   This contribution would not, however, affect the magnitude of the cumulative impact. Alternative 3, in combination with the cumulative project, would result in a local, long-term, negligible, beneficial impact to the regional economy and a local, short-term, major, beneficial impact during construction.
SOCIOECONOMICS (CONTINUED)
Alternative 1 would not change the visitor population or economics of the project area and therefore not change the magnitude of the cumulative impacts. Alternative 1 and the cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of Yosemite National Park would result in a local, long-term, negligible, beneficial impact to the regional economy because of the increase in overnight accommodations, and a local, short-term, major, beneficial impact during construction because of increased construction spending in the region.

Yosemite Home . Yosemite Planning Page