Alternative 2: Visitor Use/Resource Protection

Alternative 2 protects and enhances Outstandingly Remarkable Values and preserves the free-flowing condition of the river while providing for a range of visitor experiences and access to the river corridor.

For the duration of the Merced River Plan, Alternative 2 would provide a framework for decision-making on future management actions within the Merced River corridor. This would be accomplished through the application of a consistent set of decision-making criteria and considerations composed of seven management elements: boundaries, classifications, updated Outstandingly Remarkable Values, the Section 7 determination process, management zoning, the River Protection Overlay, and the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) framework. Compared to Alternative 1, which has no such management framework, this is considered to be a minor, beneficial impact for visitor experience, natural resources, cultural resources, social resources, and associated Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

Boundaries. The following analysis applies a quarter-mile boundary, except at the El Portal Administrative Site where the boundary is defined by the 100-year floodplain (see figures II-11 through II-14 in Chapter II, Alternatives). Changes to the boundaries proposed under this alternative would expand the area for which management zoning is applied compared to Alternative 1. Changes to the boundaries in and of themselves would have no effect on visitor experience, natural, cultural, and social resources, and Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Rather, it is the application of management zoning that has the potential to affect visitor experience, natural, cultural, and social resources, and Outstandingly Remarkable Values. The change to the boundaries is not discussed further in this alternative.

Classifications. Changes to the classifications (shown in figure II-3) proposed under this alternative would have no effect on visitor experience, natural, cultural, and social resources, and associated Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Changes to classifications proposed under Alternative 2 (east Yosemite Valley and Wawona are reclassified from scenic to recreational) are technical corrections made when the boundary was extended to the full quarter-mile and reflect existing access to the Merced River, shoreline development, and watershed development within these segments. Change in the classifications would not alter management or protection of the east Yosemite Valley or Wawona river segments. The change to the classifications is not discussed further in this alternative.

Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Outstandingly Remarkable Values listed in the 1996 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan have been revised in this alternative based on the application of new scientific information, changed conditions in the river corridor, and to accurately reflect Outstandingly Remarkable Value criteria included in the Interagency Coordinating Council guidelines for implementation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (refer to Appendix E for a history of the Outstandingly Remarkable Values). Specifically, those resources that are not directly related to the Merced River (e.g., western juniper, air quality, skiing, rock climbing) or are not unique to the region or nation (e.g., rainbow trout) have been removed. Removal of these resources from the list of Outstandingly Remarkable Values would not alter their management or protection. These resources would continue to be managed and protected by existing park policy and guidelines (e.g., General Management Plan, Yosemite Resources Management Plan, Yosemite Vegetation Management Plan), as well as by federal law (e.g., 1916 Organic Act, Federal Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act). The revised Outstandingly Remarkable Values provide greater focus on the Merced River than those presented in the 1996 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan. The change in Outstandingly Remarkable Values is discussed as appropriate under specific resource topics addressed for this alternative.

Section 7 Determination Process. The application of the consistent Section 7 determination process for water resources projects would provide a negligible, beneficial impact on visitor experience, natural, cultural, and social resources, and associated Outstandingly Remarkable Values compared to Alternative 1 because management direction for future water resources would be provided. Application of the consistent Section 7 determination process is discussed as appropriate under specific resource topics addressed for this alternative.

Management Zoning. Management zoning could have long-term, beneficial and adverse effects on visitor experience, natural, cultural, and social resources, and associated Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the Merced River corridor. This management element would limit the type of new facilities that could be built, would encourage the removal of inconsistent facilities, and would allow new development or redevelopment as appropriate. Management zoning is discussed as appropriate under specific resource topics addressed for this alternative.

River Protection Overlay. The River Protection Overlay could have long-term, beneficial and adverse effects on visitor experience, natural, cultural, and social resources, and associated Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the Merced River corridor. This management element would limit the type of new facilities that could be built, would minimize adverse effects of new facilities (e.g., bridges, roads) to Outstandingly Remarkable Values and the free-flowing condition of the Merced River, and would encourage the removal of inconsistent facilities. The River Protection Overlay is discussed as appropriate under specific resource topics addressed for this alternative.

Visitor Experience and Resource Protection. Implementation of the VERP framework would have beneficial and adverse impacts on visitor experience, natural, cultural, and social resources, and associated Outstandingly Remarkable Values. The VERP framework protects both park resources and visitor experience, with particular focus on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values, from impacts associated with visitor use, and helps managers address issues associated with visitor use. The VERP framework is discussed as appropriate under specific resource topics addressed for this alternative.

Natural Resources

Geology, Geohazards, and Soils

Analysis

General Impacts. Geologic resource Outstandingly Remarkable Values listed in the 1996 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan have been revised based on the application of new scientific information, changed ecological and hydrologic conditions in the river corridor, and to accurately reflect Outstandingly Remarkable Value criteria included in the Interagency Coordinating Council guidelines for implementation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Specifically, those resources that are not related to the Merced River (e.g., cirques, paternoster lakes) or not unique to the region or nation have been removed. Removal of these resources from the list of Outstandingly Remarkable Values would not alter their management or protection. These resources would continue to be managed and protected by existing park policy and guidelines (e.g., Yosemite General Management Plan, Yosemite Resources Management Plan), as well as by federal law (the Organic Act, Wilderness Act). Geologic-process Outstandingly Remarkable Values include the mature, meandering nature of the Merced River through Yosemite Valley, a classic V-shaped river through the gorge, evidence of ice-age glaciation (U-shaped and hanging valleys), and extraordinary granite features (i.e., exfoliation domes). The revised Outstandingly Remarkable Values provide greater focus on the Merced River than those presented in the 1996 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan.

Rockfall Hazards. Under application of management zones for Alternative 2, facilities could be relocated from ecologically vulnerable areas along the Merced River to areas susceptible to rockfall risks. Most rockfalls are associated with triggering events such as earthquakes, climatic changes such as rainfall events, or gradual stress release and exfoliation of the granite. Relocation of facilities into rockfall-susceptible areas would be expected to occur primarily in Developed zones (3A-3C) such as Yosemite Valley, the Merced River gorge, and possibly along the South Fork in the Wawona area. For instance, if a Yosemite Valley transit center and parking facility were constructed at Taft Toe (zoned 3C), it would lie partially within the base of talus and rockfall shadow zone and could expose the structure and visitors to risk of rockfalls and rock avalanches. Rockfall hazard potential in the upper wilderness reaches of the Merced River and South Fork, zoned as Wilderness (Zone 1), would not change from Alternative 1, and the potential for impacts to visitors and facilities would be lower than would be expected in areas zoned for more intense visitor use. Under Alternative 2, the National Park Service could retain and revise current management guidelines pertaining to geologic hazards (e.g., those policies implemented to protect visitors and reduce damage to park infrastructure). For example, if a Taft Toe transit center and parking facility were developed, the National Park Service would conduct appropriate studies to determine proximity of the facility to the talus zone and the stability of the adjacent rock cliffs. Considering the unpredictable and unavoidable nature of rockfalls and the potential for them to occur throughout Yosemite National Park, Alternative 2 would result in a long-term, moderate, adverse impact on public safety from hazards associated with rockfall events.

Seismic Hazards. Historically, seismic events in the Sierra Nevada and Yosemite National Park have been relatively infrequent; however, when they do occur, the resultant groundshaking is capable of triggering rockfalls and producing ground accelerations that are higher than some older, less structurally stable buildings can tolerate. Typically, the seismic risks of injury to visitors and damage to facilities would occur in the developed portions of Yosemite National Park, such as Yosemite Valley, El Portal, and Wawona. In these areas, buildings and other facilities placed within saturated alluvial soil (for instance, within the floodplain of the Merced River) could also be susceptible to secondary hazards from seismic groundshaking, including liquefaction and seismically induced settlement. For example, within Yosemite Valley, any potential facility development at Camp 6 (zone 3C) would require construction within alluvial sediments that could be susceptible to effects of unstable soils (such as settlement) and, in the event of significant groundshaking, the effects of liquefaction.

In undeveloped areas where visitor use is relatively low (for instance, in the upper wilderness reaches of the Merced River and the South Fork), groundshaking effects from seismic events would result in a lower potential for injury and structural damage. Under Alternative 2, the National Park Service could retain and revise current management guidelines pertaining to geologic hazards and resources, such as those policies implemented to protect visitors and reduce damage to park infrastructure. If relocation of existing facilities out of the floodplain were to occur, the National Park Service could conduct appropriate studies to determine proximity of the facility to the high-risk rockfall zones and the stability of the adjacent rock cliffs.

Under Alternative 2, as in Alternative 1, earthquakes in the Sierra Nevada region would continue to expose visitors in developed areas to potential injury in unstable buildings and to hazards from seismically triggered mass movement of rock slopes. Considering the potential for earthquake events in the Sierra Nevada, their unpredictable nature and unavoidable effects, Alternative 2 would have no impact on public safety related to seismic hazards compared to Alternative 1.

Impacts to Soils. Possible projects to accommodate increased visitor use in development zones could result in increased soil compaction, soil loss, and erosion. Compaction of native soils can occur through construction activity, concentrated visitor use in localized areas, or excessive vehicular traffic in unpaved areas. Construction excavation and replacement of native soils with engineered fills contribute to the reduction of local native soil. Excessive surface water runoff or loss of protective vegetation cover can cause erosion. Under management zoning for Alternative 2, it is possible that specific segments of the Merced River, especially those zoned as Developed (3A-3C), would be subjected to concentrated visitor use and could result in a long-term, moderate, adverse impact to soil resources. The effects of concentrated visitor use and additional facilities in zones supporting development would not intensify impacts to soil resources in the upper wilderness reaches and undeveloped areas adjacent to the main stem and south fork of the Merced River.

As a result of efforts to manage visitor use to protect natural and cultural resources within the Merced River corridor, including management zoning, the VERP framework, and the River Protection Overlay, soil erosion impacts due to visitor use and development projects would be less severe than under Alternative 1. The implementation of the VERP framework would have a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on soil resources. For instance, if soil compaction were selected as an indicator of desired conditions under the VERP framework, violations of the standard associated with this indicator would result in management action to manage or limit visitor use in a particular area. The management action could be to install signs or fences directing visitor use toward resilient areas and away from sensitive resources.

Under Alternative 2, the potential for increased facility development and concentrated visitor use could result in further compaction, soil removal, and erosion. Considering management efforts to protect natural and cultural resources through the VERP framework, the River Protection Overlay, and other site-specific geotechnical studies performed prior to the design and construction of any proposed facility, potential development under Alternative 2 would result in a long-term, minor, adverse impact on soil resources.

Summary of Alternative 2 Impacts. Compared to the Alternative 1, rockfall hazards under Alternative 2 would result in a long-term, moderate, adverse impact especially considering that under Alternative 2, facilities could be relocated to areas susceptible to hazards or rockfalls. Earthquakes and associated hazards are unavoidable and their effects unpredictable; therefore, when compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would have no impact on public safety associated with seismic hazards. The addition of new facilities and concentrated visitor use under Alternative 2 could result in a long-term, moderate, adverse impact to soil resources. Conversely, efforts to protect natural and cultural resources through implementation of the VERP framework and the River Protection Overlay would have a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on soil resources, especially in zones supporting additional development. The combined effects of adverse and beneficial impacts would result in a long-term, minor, adverse impact to soil resources.

Considering the collective risks associated with rockfalls, seismic hazards, and impacts to soil resources, and the implementation of potential future actions in accordance with the management zones of Alternative 2, would result in a long-term, moderate, adverse impact.

Cumulative impacts to geological resources discussed herein are based on analysis of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the Yosemite region in combination with potential effects of this alternative. The projects identified below include only those projects that could affect geological resources within the river corridor or in the park vicinity.

Various reasonably foreseeable future actions could eventually result in construction of additional structures and facilities within zones susceptible to adverse impacts from earthquakes and rockfalls. These facilities would likely be located in developed areas, including Yosemite Valley, the El Portal Administrative Site, and Wawona.

Past Actions. Development projects intended to serve park visitors in Yosemite National Park have included hotels, visitor centers, campgrounds, and bridges with associated roads and parking lots. In addition, facilities required for park infrastructure support, including employee housing, utility facilities, maintenance yards, and supply storage areas, have been developed throughout the park. As popularity of Yosemite attracted a greater number of visitors, the number and magnitude of these projects increased to meet visitor demand. Past actions have resulted in adverse impacts because projects were developed in areas that could be susceptible to damage from geohazards (rockfalls and seismic events), and facility development has contributed to the overall degradation of soil resources in the park.

In 1991, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management developed a joint South Fork and Merced Wild and Scenic River Implementation Plan for the segments of the main stem and South Fork of the Merced River that are under their jurisdiction. The plan is also a general management plan with many prescriptive goals and few actions. The plan endeavors to limit or end consumptive uses such as grazing within the river corridor and calls for the formalization of camping and launch facilities for non-motorized watercraft. Implementation of these actions has a beneficial effect by eliminating impacts where feasible (grazing does not currently occur within the river corridor), concentrating impacts in areas able to withstand visitor use, and providing facilities that mitigate adverse effects associated with visitor use (e.g., restrooms).

Present Actions. The El Portal Road Reconstruction Project (NPS) is currently underway and affects geology, geohazards, and soils. The reconstruction requires steepening the sheer rock slopes along the north side of the roadway, which increases the potential for rockfalls over the short term (by decreasing stability of the rock slopes). However, under the direction of engineers, design features for rock cuts along the El Portal Road (e.g., rock-bolting using 30-foot-long dowells) serve to increase the long-term stability of the rock slopes. These design features are also used to stabilize colluvial soil cuts, thereby reducing erosion. On the south side of the El Portal Road, shoulder widening requires construction of a fill slope that, in certain areas, encroaches into the Merced River. These effects are partially mitigated by implementation of standard design and construction-related best management practices. The project also involves rehabilitation of the sewerline, which reduces potential soil contamination, and the improvement of roadway drainage, thereby reducing erosion. The encroachment of the fill slope into the Merced River would cause minor obstruction to the free-flowing condition of the river. Overall, the El Portal Road Reconstruction (Segment D) Project would have a beneficial impact by reducing rockfall and soil erosion potential.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Reasonably foreseeable future actions proposed in the region are separated below into three general categories: (1) projects anticipated to have a net beneficial effect; (2) projects anticipated to have both beneficial and adverse effects; and (3) projects anticipated to have a net adverse effect.

Examples of projects that could have a cumulative, beneficial effect on geohazards and soil resources include:

• Several campground rehabilitation projects, such as at Bridalveil Horse Camp, Yosemite Creek Campground, and Hodgdon Meadow Campground (NPS)
• The Merced River at Eagle Creek Ecological Restoration Project (NPS)
• Update to the Yosemite Fire Management Plan (NPS), which has a goal of improving ecosystem health and meadow restoration
• Update to the Yosemite Wilderness Management Plan (NPS), which will address land management issues within the wilderness
• Fire Management Action Plan for Wilderness (USFS, Stanislaus)
• Service, the Sierra Nevada Framework for Conservation and Collaboration, and the Management Direction for the John Muir, Ansel Adams and Dinkey Lakes, and Monarch Wildernesses (USFS), both of which will address ecosystem management issues of Forest Service lands adjacent to Yosemite National Park
• The Pinecrest Basin Forest Plan Amendment (USFS, Stanislaus)
• Transportation-related projects (e.g., Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System [YARTS]), which have the general goals of increasing transportation options and reducing reliance on automobiles in the area

Although each of the aforementioned projects may have slight site-specific and short-term adverse effects (e.g., potential short-term construction erosion and soil loss), an objective of each of these projects is to restore and manage natural resources and reduce soil degradation. Therefore, these projects could have a net long-term, beneficial, cumulative impact on soil resources.

Reasonably foreseeable projects that could have both adverse and beneficial effects on regional geology, geohazards, and soils include:

• The Tuolumne Meadows Development Concept Plan, and Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (NPS)
• The Tuolumne Meadows Water and Wastewater Improvements, Hodgdon Meadow Water and Wastewater Treatment Improvements, and White Wolf Water System Improvements (NPS)
• The Orange Crush Fuels Treatment Projects (USFS, Stanislaus)
• A-Rock Reforestation (USFS, Stanislaus) and the Rogge-Ackerson Fire Reforestation (Tuolumne Co.)
• The Yosemite Valley Plan (NPS), which would implement the goals and actions of the 1980 General Management Plan (NPS)
• South Entrance/Mariposa Grove Site Planning (NPS)
• Wawona Campground Improvement (NPS)
• Wilderness Boundary Protection Land Exchange, Seventh Day Adventist Camp, Wawona (NPS)
• Several water improvement projects, such as the Replacement/Rehabilitation of Yosemite Valley Sewer Line (NPS); Cherry Dam Fuse Gate, O’Shaughnessy Dam Well, and O’Shaughnessy Compound Water System Improvements (City and Co. of San Francisco)

Cumulative effects of the above-referenced projects could be a combination of adverse and beneficial effects. For example, implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan is expected to have a long-term benefit on soil resources by increasing coordinated management of natural resources. However, short-term adverse effects of this plan may include temporary construction impacts (e.g., potential reconstruction of Segment D of the El Portal Road Reconstruction Project above Cascades Diversion Dam). The current approach for the Segment D widening would require redesign. Segment D reconstruction could cause similar types of impacts to those occurring during reconstruction of Segments A, B, and C of El Portal Road (e.g., steepening of sheer rock slopes, potentially leading to short-term, slope instability, and traffic circulation, safety, and noise impacts). The net effect of these projects is difficult to anticipate, but would likely result in an overall balance between beneficial and adverse effects Reasonably foreseeable projects that could have an adverse effect on regional geology, increase the potential for impacts related to geologic hazards, and increase soil degradation include:

• Merced River Canyon Trail Acquisition (BLM)
• Various development-related projects, such as the Yosemite View parcel land exchange, El Portal (NPS); Rio Mesa Area Plan (Madera Co.); Yosemite Motels, El Portal (Mariposa Co.); Silvertip Resort Village Project (Mariposa Co.); University of California, Merced Campus (Merced Co.); Build Out of City of Merced, General Plan; Double Eagle Resort, June Lake (Mono Co.); Tioga Inn, Lee Vining (Mono Co.); June Lake Highlands (Mono Co.); Evergreen Lodge Expansion (Tuolumne Co.); Hardin Flat Lodging and Conference Facility (Tuolumne Co.); Motel and Restaurant, Second Garrotte Basin (Tuolumne Co.); Resources Management Building (NPS); Crane Flat Campus Redevelopment (NPS,YNI); Hazel Green Ranch (Mariposa Co.)
• Transportation projects, such as the Highway 41 Extension (Madera Co.); Yosemite Valley Shuttle Bus Stop Improvements (NPS); South Fork Merced River Bridge Replacement (NPS); Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement of Highway 49 and Old Highway (Mariposa Co.); Expansion of Mariposa County Transit System; Mariposa Creek Pedestrian/Bike Path (Mariposa Co.); Evergreen Road Improvements (multi-agency, see Appendix G); San Joaquin Corridor Rail Projects (DOT, Amtrak)

Certain development projects, as listed above, could expose additional visitors to risk of rockfall and seismic hazards and result in increased degradation of soil resources. Examples of projects that would result in a cumulative increase in park development include the construction of South Entrance/Mariposa Grove Site Planning (NPS), the new Resources Management Building (NPS), Yosemite West Rezoning Application (NPS), Yosemite Motels, El Portal (Mariposa Co.), Crane Flat Campus Redevelopment (NPS, YNI); Hazel Green Ranch (Mariposa Co.), and the El Portal Road Reconstruction Project (NPS).

Considering that hazards from geological processes such as rockfalls and earthquakes are unavoidable and unpredictable, park visitors would continue to be exposed to injury and damage from these hazards, thus resulting in a cumulative, long-term, adverse impact. The cumulative effect of future development actions would increase the overall depletion of soil resources by increasing soil removal, compaction, and erosion. Restoration projects may offset the rate of overall soil resource depletion, but not to the extent of providing a cumulative benefit. Future development projects would result in a cumulative, long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impact to soil resources. The impact intensity of any planning projects would depend upon the extent to which the plan’s recommendations were implemented.

Rockfall hazards under Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects would result in a long-term, moderate, adverse impact to public safety throughout Yosemite National Park because, although some localized projects may reduce these risks, Alternative 2 could relocate facilities away from the floodplain and into areas susceptible to rockfalls. Earthquakes are unavoidable and unpredictable, and park visitors would continue to be exposed to potential injury; therefore, Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects would have no impact in public safety associated with seismic hazards. Impacts to soil resources under the cumulative projects could be reduced by Alternative 2 management zoning, VERP, and the River Protection Overlay, and thus would result in a long-term, minor, adverse impact. Overall, Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects would have a long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impact on public safety from rockfalls and earthquakes and a long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impact on soil resources.

Compared to Alternative 1, rockfall hazards under Alternative 2 would result in a long-term, moderate, adverse impact, especially considering that under Alternative 2, facilities could be relocated to areas susceptible to seismic hazards or rockfalls. Earthquakes and associated hazards are unavoidable and their effects unpredictable; therefore, when compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would have no impact on public safety associated with seismic hazards. The addition of new facilities and concentrated visitor use under Alternative 2 would result in a long-term, moderate, adverse impact on soil resources. Conversely, efforts to protect natural and cultural resources through implementation of the VERP framework and the River Protection Overlay would have a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on soil resources, especially in zones supporting additional development. The combined effects of adverse and beneficial impacts would result in a long-term, minor, adverse impact to soil resources. Considered collectively the risks associated with rockfalls, seismic hazards, and impacts on soil resources, and the implementation of potential future actions in accordance with the management zones of Alternative 2 would result in a long-term, moderate, adverse impact.

Rockfall hazards under Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects would result in a long-term, moderate, adverse impact to public safety throughout Yosemite National Park because, although some localized projects may reduce these risks, Alternative 2 could relocate facilities away from the floodplain and into areas susceptible to rockfalls. Earthquakes are unavoidable and unpredictable, and park visitors would continue to be exposed to potential injury; therefore, Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects would have no impact in public safety associated with seismic hazards. Impacts to soil resources under the cumulative projects could be reduced by Alternative 2 management zoning, VERP, and the River Protection Overlay, and thus would result in a long-term, minor, adverse impact. Overall, Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects would have a long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impact on public safety from rockfalls and earthquakes and a long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impact on soil resources.

Hydrology, Floodplains, and Water Quality

Analysis

General Impacts. Hydrologic-process Outstandingly Remarkable Values listed in the 1996 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan have been revised based on the application of new scientific information, changed ecological and hydrologic conditions in the river corridor, and to accurately reflect Outstandingly Remarkable Value criteria included in the Interagency Coordinating Council guidelines for implementation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Specifically, those resources that do not accurately reflect site conditions (e.g., excellent water quality in Wawona and below Wawona) have been removed. Removal of these resources from the list of Outstandingly Remarkable Values would not alter their management or protection. These resources would continue to be managed and protected by existing park policy and guidelines (e.g., General Management Plan, Yosemite Resources Management Plan, Yosemite Vegetation Management Plan), as well as by federal law (e.g., the Clean Water Act, 1916 Organic Act). Hydrologic-process Outstandingly Remarkable Values common to the entire Merced River (main stem and South Fork) now generally include excellent water quality, exceptionally steep gradients, extraordinary examples of cascades, and examples of unique hydrologic conditions. The revised Outstandingly Remarkable Values provide greater focus on the Merced River and values unique to the region or nation than those presented in the 1996 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan.

The following discussion provides an overview of the types of impacts to hydrologic processes that could occur within each segment of the Merced River corridor from application of management elements proposed in Alternative 2.

Impacts in Wilderness. Examples of hydrologic-process Outstandingly Remarkable Values of wilderness segments of the main stem and South Fork of the Merced River include glacial remnants, a logjam in Little Yosemite Valley that is hundreds of years old, and numerous cascades, steep gradients, and excellent water quality. The wilderness reaches of the Merced River would be zoned consistent with existing conditions and use (1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D); management practices and use levels would continue to be based on the Wilderness Act and federal and Yosemite National Park wilderness policies and guidelines. Although the proposed zoning and River Protection Overlay are not anticipated to alter visitor use patterns or facilities within wilderness reaches of the Merced River (main stem and South Fork) compared to the No Action Alternative, these management elements would limit the type of new facilities that could be built (e.g., large campsites with facilities are prohibited in the 1B zone), which could adversely affect hydrology, floodplains, and water quality under the No Action Alternative. Although actions such as trail rehabilitation could occur under the proposed zoning, these actions would be subject to the consistent set of criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process), which would guide how the action could be implemented. The application of zoning in combination with the consistent set of criteria and considerations within wilderness segments would have a short- and long-term, negligible, beneficial effect on hydrology, floodplains, and water quality and associated Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

Implementation of the VERP framework and VERP management actions could have long-term, negligible to minor, beneficial impacts on general hydrology, floodplains, and water quality and hydrologic-process Outstandingly Remarkable Values within wilderness segments of the Merced River (main stem and South Fork) by reducing visitor effects. For example, if VERP monitoring revealed elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria in the Merced River due to visitor use (e.g., camping or hiking near the Merced River), VERP management actions (e.g., educational signs, limits on visitor use) could be implemented to achieve the desired condition for water quality in the management zone.

Impacts in Yosemite Valley. Hydrologic-process Outstandingly Remarkable Values within Yosemite Valley include the meandering river, world-renowned waterfalls, an active flood regime, oxbows, unique wetlands, and fluvial processes. Yosemite Valley would be zoned to protect natural resources while providing a diverse visitor experience. Although large portions of the east Valley would remain developed or could be further developed, the proposed zoning together with the River Protection Overlay in Yosemite Valley is more restrictive than the absence of zoning in the No Action Alternative. The proposed zoning would preclude several types of new development (e.g., new campsites would be precluded in the River Protection Overlay) that have the potential to adversely affect hydrology, floodplains, and water quality. In addition, possible future actions (e.g., bridge removal, bridge or road reconstruction, construction of new campsites) that could occur under the proposed zoning would be subject to the consistent set of criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process), which would guide how the action could be implemented. The application of zoning in combination with the consistent set of criteria and considerations would have a short- and long-term, negligible, beneficial effect on hydrology, floodplains, and water quality and associated Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

Examples of how proposed management zoning, the River Protection Overlay, the VERP framework, and the criteria and considerations would protect and enhance hydrology, floodplains, and water quality and hydrologic-process Outstandingly Remarkable Values in Yosemite Valley include the following:

• Implementation of the River Protection Overlay could restore the river to more natural geomorphologic conditions through restoration of streambanks and the floodplain. The River Protection Overlay would promote natural processes in the river and floodplain and minimize the alterations of the floodplain due to existing and future facilities. An example of the potential benefit of the River Protection Overlay on the river’s hydrologic process would be the potential removal or restriction of facilities near the banks of the river. Several existing facilities immediately adjacent to the Merced River would be inconsistent with the River Protection Overlay and could be removed (e.g., portions of Housekeeping Camp, several bridges, portions of Lower Pines Campground). Removal of facilities from the River Protection Overlay would allow natural floodplain alterations and lateral movement of the river channel. It also would remove sources of pollutants (e.g., oil), reduce erosion and sedimentation (associated with facility use and maintenance), and increase opportunities for revegetation and restoration of riparian vegetation (streambank stabilization). The River Protection Overlay would have the potential to reduce visitor degradation of streambanks and the river channel by limiting the number of locations where human-induced erosion could occur. Additionally, the introduction of refuse and bacteria by visitors could be reduced by the possible realignment or relocation of roads, trails, and visitor facilities. The magnitude of the effect of the River Protection Overlay on hydrologic processes is correlated to the degree to which facilities are removed in the future. For example, removal of one bridge would likely have only a negligible, beneficial effect, whereas removal of several facilities would have a moderate to major, long-term, beneficial effect on the hydrologic processes in Yosemite Valley, an Outstandingly Remarkable Value.
• The potential changes to existing and future structures and visitor use in the 100-year floodplain under Alternative 2 could provide a long-term, minor, beneficial impact in terms of flood protection for park personnel, visitors, and park structures. Flood frequency and hazards are issues in developed areas, such as east Yosemite Valley, where existing structures and visitor-use areas are subject to high water inundation. Alternative 2 would restrict the future placement of nonessential buildings, roadways, and visitor areas and potentially remove structures in the high-frequency flood areas of the River Protection Overlay. The River Protection Overlay provides a buffer area for natural flood flows and channel formation. Additionally, zones 2B and 2C in the larger floodplain would restrict the placement of park facilities in flood-prone areas. In addition, certain areas are designated as 3A, 3B, and 3C zones, which would lessen potential future flood protection by removing facilities in these flood hazard areas. Overall, flood frequency would be unaffected, but implementation of the criteria for existing and future structures could reduce flood hazards in developed areas and return the flood regime to a more natural state.
• An example of the potential benefit to water quality would be the concentration of visitors and vehicles in the western portion of Yosemite Valley at Cathedral Beach (zoned 2C) and Sentinel Beach (zoned 2C). The designation of much of the river corridor in this area as Discovery (zone 2B) would focus visitor use to the 2C zones listed above. By limiting the currently dispersed use of the Merced River through this portion of Yosemite Valley to concentrated locations, nonpoint sources of pollution, such as refuse, bacteria, and petroleum and metal products associated with vehicles, would become more manageable.
• A majority of the 100-year floodplain in west Yosemite Valley would be zoned 2B and receive increased protection compared to the No Action Alternative. The zoning precludes a variety of new facilities (e.g., paved roads or trails, bicycle paths, day-visitor parking, food service, lodging) that have the potential to adversely affect floodplain characteristics (e.g., water recharge rates, flood dissipation), hydrologic processes of the Merced River (e.g., new facilities could constrict the channel of the Merced River), and water quality (e.g., short-term impacts during construction). Under the VERP framework, this zone would be managed (over the long-term) with a very low tolerance for resource degradation from visitor use. Limits on the effects of visitor use (VERP framework) and facilities (management zoning) would allow existing natural areas to be managed to their desired condition with continued protection, restoration, and enhancement of hydrologic processes, resulting in a long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial impact.
• El Capitan Meadow is a river-related meadow within the 100-year floodplain of the Merced River. The 2B zoning would shift emphasis from unconfined and undirected, large-group and socially oriented recreational activities (No Action Alternative) to small-group and individually oriented activities. El Capitan Meadow is used as an informal viewing location of climbers of El Capitan. A high level of visitor use has compacted meadow soils, altering the natural water recharge capabilities of the floodplain at this location. The current level of use of El Capitan Meadow would be inconsistent with the 2B zoning. Under the 2B zoning and the VERP framework, management actions—including restoration of El Capitan Meadow—could be implemented. Visitors could be directed to the proposed 2C picnic area (a more resilient location outside the floodplain of the Merced River) at the base of El Capitan. This could increase opportunities for restoration of natural floodplain characteristics, resulting in a minor, site-specific, long-term, beneficial effect.

Examples of how management elements proposed under this alternative could have negative effects on hydrology, floodplains, and water quality and hydrologic-process Outstandingly Remarkable Values in Yosemite Valley include the following:

• A long-term, minor, adverse impact to water quality could occur as a result of the continued and likely increase of nonpoint-source pollution discharge to stormwater runoff from roads, parking lots, and other impervious surfaces introduced into the area to accommodate visitor use. If parking lots, roads, and other impervious surfaces were established where none currently exist, then vehicle-related pollutants and refuse would accumulate. This long-term, minor, adverse impact could be mitigated to a negligible level through the use of permeable surfaces and vegetated or natural filters or traps for filtering stormwater runoff. Other best management practices (Chapter II) for polluted runoff control include oil/sediment separators, street sweeping, and infiltration beds (soil capture of surface pollutants).
• Localized, short-term, minor, adverse impacts on water quality could occur from construction and demolition involving river impoundments, obstructions, or work within the river corridor. The addition of silt, the resuspension of sediment, or the introduction of construction-related pollutants (fuels, lubricants, cement) could degrade water quality. The application of construction/demolition best management practices (Chapter II) could lessen the potential for impacts to water quality. Implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, as prescribed for all construction activities affecting over five acres (to be reduced to one acre in 2003) by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, would help to reduce potential short-term impacts on water quality due to construction activities. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans include best management practices for erosion control and containment of potential water quality pollutants. Such measures could reduce the potential adverse impacts to a negligible intensity.
• Relocation of facilities to other locations within the park (outside the river corridor) could have site-specific, long-term, negligible to major, adverse effects on hydrology, floodplains, and water quality, depending on site-specific conditions and project design. If actions resulted in relocation outside the river corridor, adverse effects could be reduced to a negligible to minor intensity by implementation of standard park policy and federal regulations (e.g., the Clean Water Act, Executive Order 11988 on floodplain management and the Floodplain Management Guidelines.
• Relocation of facilities to other locations within the river corridor could have site-specific, long-term, negligible to major, adverse effects on hydrology, floodplains, and water quality, depending on site-specific conditions and project design. If actions resulted in relocation within the river corridor, adverse effects could be mitigated to a negligible to minor intensity by implementation of mitigation measures described in Chapter II (e.g., siting to avoid effects to sensitive habitats, habitat compensation, best management practices, oil and sediment separators, visitor education) in combination with the implementation of VERP management actions.
• Localized, long-term, adverse impacts to the floodplain of the Merced River could occur from construction of new facilitates. For example, zones 3B and 3C at Camp 6, Housekeeping Camp, and a portion of Yosemite Lodge could allow new construction or reconstruction of facilities within the floodplain of the Merced River. New or reconstructed facilities could permanently alter the floodplain and floodplain characteristics (e.g., water recharge rates, floodwater dissipation) at these locations. Potential adverse effects associated with these zones could be mitigated to a negligible to minor intensity by implementation of mitigation measures described in Chapter II (e.g., siting to avoid effects to floodplains) in combination with the implementation of Executive Order 11988 on floodplain management and the Floodplain Management Guidelines.

Although site-specific, short- and long-term, adverse effects to hydrology, floodplains, and water quality could occur as the result of future actions that could be implemented under the proposed zoning (e.g., new campsites, parking facilities, road repair), the overall design of Alternative 2 would provide increased protection for these river processes and associated Outstandingly Remarkable Values compared to Alternative 1, resulting in a net long-term, moderate, beneficial effect.

Impacts in the Merced River Gorge and El Portal. Examples of hydrologic-process Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the gorge and El Portal include exceptionally steep gradients (2,000-foot elevation drop in approximately six miles) and continuous rapids. The majority of the Merced River gorge would be zoned 2A+, 2B, 2C, and 2D. El Portal would have a base zone of 2C, with large tracts zoned 3C. Examples of how the management elements of Alternative 2 would affect hydrology, floodplains, and water quality and hydrologic-process Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Merced River Gorge and El Portal are provided below.

• Existing facilities, such as Cascades Diversion Dam, would be inconsistent with the River Protection Overlay and could be removed. Potential removal of this and other facilities would increase the free-flowing condition of the Merced River and return this portion of the river to a more natural condition, thereby enhancing the hydrologic processes of this river segment and resulting in minor to moderate, site-specific, long-term, beneficial effect. Minor, short-term, adverse effects to water quality (e.g., sedimentation, oil, grease) could occur during facility removal and could be mitigated to a negligible to minor intensity by implementation of mitigation measures described in Chapter II (e.g., siting to avoid effects to sensitive habitats, habitat compensation, best management practices, oil and sediment separators, visitor education).
• New or expanded facilities (e.g., parking) could be built within the 2D zone below the Cascades. As an Attraction zone, visitors would be actively directed to this area; therefore, visitor-induced impacts to water quality (e.g., human-induced erosion, the introduction of refuse and bacteria) could occur. New or expanded facilities and increased visitor use could have long-term, site-specific, negligible to minor, adverse impacts on hydrology, floodplains, and water quality. Adverse effects could be mitigated to a negligible intensity by implementation of mitigation measures described in Chapter II in combination with the implementation of VERP management actions.
• With the exception of the Cascades, the majority of the gorge is relatively inaccessible, and visitor use and facilities are unlikely to increase. Consequently, there would be no impact on hydrology, floodplains, or water quality for the large portions of the gorge compared to the No Action Alternative.
• The sand pit in El Portal was once used to mine sand from the Merced River and is currently used for construction staging and other administrative purposes. This use may interfere with the natural hydrologic processes of the Merced River at the site. The current use of the sand pit would be inconsistent with the proposed 2C zoning and could be removed. This would allow for natural processes to prevail at this location, resulting in a site-specific, minor, beneficial effect.
• Large portions of El Portal within the floodplain of the Merced River would be zoned 3C (e.g., the Trailer Village, Old El Portal), which could allow additional development (e.g., employee residences in Yosemite Valley could be relocated to the El Portal Administrative Site). Potential development could have both short-term (e.g., construction-related) and long-term (e.g., alteration of floodplain characteristics, alteration of hydrologic processes), minor to moderate, adverse effects on hydrology, floodplains, and water quality. Adverse impacts on water quality (e.g., sedimentation, oil, grease, fuels) would be related to construction (short-term) and use (long-term) of facilities. Adverse effects to the floodplain would be long term (i.e., building new facilities within the floodplain of the Merced River could alter water recharge rates or floodwater dissipation, or increase flood hazard on structures or individuals). Potential adverse impacts on hydrology and hydrologic processes could result from streambank stabilization (e.g., riprap) or channel modifications (e.g., rerouting the flow of the Merced River). These adverse effects to hydrology, floodplains, and water quality would be reduced to no impact or to a negligible to minor intensity by application of the criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process), mitigation measures described in Chapter II (e.g., siting to avoid effects to floodplains, best management practices, oil and sediment separators), implementation of Executive Order 11988 on floodplain management and the Floodplain Management Guidelines, and implementation of VERP management actions.

Repair or redevelopment of existing facilities (e.g., El Portal Road) would not be precluded by the proposed zoning and could occur. For example, in the future, the National Park Service could propose to reconstruct the El Portal Road. Impacts of the proposed design on hydrology, floodplains, and water quality and hydrologic-process Outstandingly Remarkable Values could include direct and permanent alteration of the floodplain, installation of fill or riprap within the Merced River, erosion and the long-term discharge of pollutants associated with use of the road (e.g., oil, grease, litter). These types of impacts would be long term, moderate to major, and adverse. The National Park Service would first subject the proposed action to the decision-making criteria and considerations. If the proposed action would affect the bed or banks of the Merced River (i.e., a water resources project), the National Park Service then would complete a Section 7 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act determination, as well as other appropriate documentation (e.g., National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act). Through these processes, project designs that avoid and minimize adverse effects to the Outstandingly Remarkable Values (including hydrologic processes) and resources in general would be identified. Projects that cannot be redesigned would either be abandoned or could proceed following notification, in writing, of the Secretary of the Interior and the United States Congress, in accordance with Section 7(a) of the act. During reconstruction, mitigation measures described in Chapter II would be applied. Road maintenance and its associated temporary impacts would decrease, because the road would be more stable and require less intensive and less frequent maintenance. Over the long term, the roadway (and the surrounding 2B and 2D management zones) would be managed through the VERP framework to the desired conditions. In total, the application of management elements included in this alternative would reduce the negative effects of the original project design to a negligible intensity.

The application of management elements under this alternative would increase protection and enhancement of hydrology, floodplains, and water quality and associated Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the gorge. The proposed zoning in El Portal could allow additional development of park administration facilities within the floodplain of the Merced River that could have short- and long-term negative effects on hydrology, floodplains, and water quality, These impacts could be reduced to a negligible to minor intensity through the application of mitigation measures described in Chapter II, the criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination), and implementation of Executive Order 11988 on floodplain management and the Floodplain Management Guidelines.

Impacts in Wawona. Excellent water quality is listed as a hydrologic-process Outstandingly Remarkable Value of the impoundment above Wawona. No specific hydrologic-process Outstandingly Remarkable Values are listed for Wawona. Although the South Fork through Wawona would have a variety of zones, ranging from 1A (designated Wilderness) to 3C (Park Operations and Administration), the base zones would be 1A, 2A, and 2B. The 1A, 2A, and 2B zones would preclude new development such as interpretive centers, food services, campgrounds and lodging, and day-visitor parking that have the potential to adversely affect hydrology, floodplains, and water quality. Wawona Golf Course and Wawona Picnic Area (zoned 2C), Wawona Campground (zoned 3A), Wawona Hotel (zoned 3B), and the Wawona maintenance facility (zoned 3C) could continue to function consistent with existing conditions. In general, these facilities are located above the floodplain of the South Fork. The proposed zoning and continued use of these sites are not expected to adversely affect hydrologic processes compared to the No Action Alternative.

Portions of facilities within the River Protection Overlay and floodplain of the South Fork, such as portions of Wawona Campground and a portion of the Wawona maintenance facility, would be inconsistent with the River Protection Overlay and could be removed or relocated. Potential removal would allow natural hydrologic processes to prevail at these locations. It would restore developed zones to natural floodplain and reduce sources of water pollutants, thereby resulting in a long-term, minor, beneficial impact.

An example of an obstruction removal would be the replacement of Wawona Bridge. Design and construction of the bridge would have to conform to criteria to protect and enhance the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the river, pursuant to Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (see Chapter II, Site-Specific Elements Common to All Action Alternatives). Removal of the bridge would eliminate in-channel obstructions (bridge pilings) and channel constrictions (bank armament at the bridge abutments). Under Alternative 2, the River Protection Overlay would not allow further degradation of river conditions and would provide for enhancement of the free-flowing condition wherever possible in design and construction of the new bridge. This bridge could be replaced under the River Protection Overlay as an essential park facility, and the adjacent 2B zone would allow for primary roadways leading to the bridge crossing.

The proposed zoning is not anticipated to substantially alter use patterns or facilities of the South Fork compared to the No Action Alternative. Site-specific, short-term, negligible to minor, adverse effects to water quality (e.g., pollutants associated with construction/demolition) could occur if facilities were removed from the River Protection Overlay. These adverse impacts could be reduced to a negligible intensity by application of mitigation measures described in Chapter II. Overall, Alternative 2 would have a long-term, negligible to minor, beneficial impact on hydrology, floodplains, and water quality and hydrologic-process Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the South Fork compared to the No Action Alternative

Summary of Alternative 2 Impacts. For the duration of this plan, management zoning and the River Protection Overlay would preclude various types of new development that has potential to adversely affect hydrology, floodplains, and water quality (a minor, beneficial impact). In the long term, the combination of management zoning, the River Protection Overlay, application of a consistent set of decision making criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process), and implementation of the VERP framework would have a moderate, beneficial effect on flood hazards and hydrologic and geomorphic processes and related Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the river corridor, because these management elements could preclude inappropriate development, remove inappropriate facilities from the immediate river corridor and floodplain, subject new actions to a rigorous planning process designed to eliminate adverse effects on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values, limit human interaction with the river, and manage zones to their desired conditions. Site-specific, short- and long-term, negative effects to hydrology, floodplains, and water quality could occur as the result of future actions that could be implemented under the proposed zoning (e.g., new parking facilities could alter floodplain characteristics, use of new facilities could increase nonpoint-source pollution discharge to stormwater runoff). These effects would be most pronounced within the Developed zones within east Yosemite Valley and El Portal. Overall, limits on the effects of visitor use (VERP framework) and facilities (management zoning and the River Protection Overlay), in combination with the application of a consistent set of decision-making criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process) would allow the hydrologic and geomorphic processes to remain relatively unimpaired and would direct restoration and enhancement of impaired functions. This would result in a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on hydrologic processes and related Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the river corridor compared to the No Action Alternative.

Cumulative effects to hydrology discussed herein are based on analysis of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the Yosemite region in combination with potential effects of this alternative. The projects identified below include those projects that have the potential to effect the watershed of the Merced River.

Past Actions. The Merced River has been historically affected by a variety of projects that have introduced obstructions into the river channel, modified the floodplain, and adversely affected water quality. Alterations to hydrology have occurred through development and use within the Merced River corridor since Euro-American settlement. Examples of projects that have had adverse effects on the hydrologic processes of the Merced River include bridges, riprap, removal of large woody debris, dikes, flood walls, impoundments, dams, and buildings.

In 1991, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management developed a joint South Fork and Merced Wild and Scenic River Implementation Plan for the segments of the main stem and South Fork of the Merced River that are under their jurisdiction. The plan is also a general management plan with many prescriptive goals and few actions. The plan endeavors to limit or end consumptive uses such as grazing within the river corridor and calls for the formalization of camping and launch facilities for non-motorized watercraft. Implementation of these actions has a beneficial effect by eliminating impacts where feasible (grazing does not currently occur within the river corridor), concentrating impacts in areas able to withstand visitor use, and providing facilities that mitigate adverse effects associated with visitor use (e.g., restrooms).

Present Actions. The El Portal Road Reconstruction Project (NPS) is currently underway from the park boundary to the Cascades Diversion Dam, and affects the water quality of the Merced River immediately adjacent to the roadway. The free-flowing condition of the Merced River has been adversely altered by direct placement of fill and riprap to widen and stabilize the roadway. Natural resources are protected during construction by implementation of a compliance monitoring program, erosion and sediment controls, hazardous materials controls, revegetation and reclamation, and by excluding construction from sensitive habitats. Such measures ensure the overall protection and enhancement of the hydrologic, biological, geologic, cultural, scenic, scientific, and recreation Outstandingly Remarkable Values in the zone as a whole and other parts of the river corridor. Implementation of these measures reduces the overall short-term effects on water quality.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Reasonably foreseeable future actions proposed in the region are separated below into four general categories: (1) projects anticipated to have a net beneficial effect; (2) projects anticipated to have both beneficial and adverse effects; (3) projects anticipated to have a net adverse effect; and (4) projects that would not affect the hydrological processes of the Merced River.

Examples of projects that could have a cumulative, beneficial effect on hydrological processes in the Merced River include:

• The Merced River at Eagle Creek Ecological Restoration Project (NPS)
• Update to the Yosemite Wilderness Management Plan (NPS), which will address land management issues within the wilderness
• Several transportation-related projects (e.g., Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System [YARTS]), which have the general goals of increasing transportation options and reducing reliance on automobiles in the area
• Replacement/Rehabilitation of Yosemite Valley Sewer Line (NPS)
• South Fork Merced River Bridges Replacement (NPS)

Although each of the aforementioned projects may have slight site-specific and short-term adverse effects (e.g., construction-related effects on water quality), the general goal of these projects is to increase coordinated resource management and to restore sensitive ecosystems. Therefore, the net cumulative effect of these projects would be a long-term, beneficial impact on hydrological processes of the Merced River.

A reasonably foreseeable project that could have mixed adverse and beneficial effects on hydrological processes includes:

• The Yosemite Valley Plan (NPS)
• South Entrance/Mariposa Grove Site Planning (NPS), which will restore giant sequoia habitat in the Lower Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias in Yosemite National Park

Cumulative effects of these projects could be mixed, combining both adverse and beneficial effects. For example, implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan has the potential to positively affect free flow of the Merced River by the proposed removal of the Cascades Diversion Dam. The Yosemite Valley Plan also has the potential to adversely affect water quality during construction activities related to Segment D of the El Portal Road Reconstruction Project (short-term), with the long-term, beneficial effect of improving water quality. Segment D reconstruction could cause similar types of impacts to those occurring during reconstruction of Segments A, B, and C of El Portal Road (e.g., effects to water quality). Adverse impacts associated with Segment D reconstruction could be partially mitigated through project design (the design of Segment D would need to protect and enhance the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Merced River) and implementation of best management practices, compliance monitoring, and restoration.

However, some of the proposed redevelopment in El Portal (e.g., redevelopment of the sand pit), would be inconsistent with the management zoning in this alternative. The Merced River Plan guides future allowable actions within the Merced River corridor and subsequent implementation plans, such as the Yosemite Valley Plan. If Alternative 2 were selected, revisions to the Yosemite Valley Plan would be required to conform to the management zones provided in Alternative 2. Components of the Yosemite Valley Plan would need to change to conform to this alternative. The broad goals of the Yosemite Valley Plan, however, would continue to apply, including reclaiming priceless natural beauty, allowing natural processes to prevail, and reducing crowding. In general, revision to the Yosemite Valley Plan to comply with this alternative would have a beneficial effect due to the underlying zoning prescribed in this alternative.

Reasonably foreseeable projects that could have an adverse effect on hydrological processes include:

• The Yosemite View parcel land exchange, El Portal (NPS)
• Merced River Canyon Trail Acquisition (BLM)
• Yosemite Motels, El Portal (Mariposa Co.)

Cumulative effects of these potential future projects on the Merced River watershed would be related to increased use and facility development, which could result in streambank erosion, soil compaction, loss of vegetation, refuse accumulation, nonpoint-source pollution generation, and degradation of stream characteristics and water quality in the Merced River.

Beneficial cumulative impacts on the Merced River watershed would be related to removal of facilities from the floodplain, removal of channel obstructions, and reduced human-related effects. Cumulative adverse effects to the Merced River watershed would be related to increased use and facility development which could result in streambank erosion, soil compaction, loss of vegetation, refuse accumulation, nonpoint-source pollution generation, and degradation of stream characteristics and water quality in the Merced River. Overall, the cumulative actions listed above would have a long-term, minor, beneficial effect on hydrologic processes of the Merced River. Therefore, cumulative beneficial effects associated with this alternative, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, could be long term, minor, and beneficial.

For the duration of this plan, management zoning and the River Protection Overlay would preclude various types of new development that have the potential to adversely affect hydrology, floodplains, and water quality (a minor, beneficial impact). In the long term, the combination of management zoning, the River Protection Overlay, application of a consistent set of decision making criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process), and implementation of the VERP framework would have a moderate, beneficial, effect on flood hazards, hydrologic and geomorphic processes, and related Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the river corridor because these management elements could preclude inappropriate development, remove inappropriate facilities from the immediate river corridor and floodplain, subject new actions to a rigorous planning process designed to eliminate adverse effects on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values, limit human interaction with the river, and manage zones to their desired conditions. Site-specific, short- and long-term, adverse effects on hydrology, floodplains, and water quality could occur as the result of future actions that could be implemented under the proposed zoning (e.g., new parking facilities could alter floodplain characteristics, use of new facilities could increase nonpoint-source pollution discharge to stormwater runoff). These effects would be most pronounced within the Developed zones in east Yosemite Valley and El Portal. Overall, limits on the effects of visitor use (VERP framework) and facilities (management zoning and the River Protection Overlay) in combination with the application of a consistent set of decision-making criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process) would allow the hydrologic and geomorphic processes to remain relatively unimpaired and would direct restoration and enhancement of impaired functions. This would result in a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on hydrologic processes and related Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the river corridor compared to the No Action Alternative.

Beneficial cumulative impacts on the Merced River watershed would be related to removal of facilities from the floodplain, removal of channel obstructions, and reduced human-related effects. Cumulative adverse effects to the Merced River watershed would be related to increased use and facility development, which could result in streambank erosion, soil compaction, loss of vegetation, refuse accumulation, nonpoint-source pollution generation, and degradation of stream characteristics and water quality in the Merced River. Overall, the cumulative actions listed above would have a long-term, minor, beneficial effect on hydrologic processes of the Merced River. Therefore, cumulative beneficial effects associated with this alternative, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, could be long-term, minor, and beneficial.

Wetlands

Analysis

General Impacts. Biological resource Outstandingly Remarkable Values listed in the 1996 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan have been revised based on the application of new scientific information, changed ecological and hydrologic conditions in the river corridor, and to accurately reflect Outstandingly Remarkable Value criteria included in the Interagency Coordinating Council guidelines for implementation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Specifically, those resources that are not related to the Merced River (e.g., western juniper, white fir, black oak woodlands, Mount Lyell salamander) or not unique to the region or nation (e.g., rainbow trout) have been removed. Removal of these resources from the list of Outstandingly Remarkable Values would not alter their management or protection. These resources would continue to be managed and protected by existing park policy and guidelines (e.g., Yosemite General Management Plan, Yosemite Resources Management Plan, Yosemite Vegetation Management Plan), as well as by federal law (e.g., the Federal Endangered Species Act, 1916 Organic Act). Biological resource Outstandingly Remarkable Values common to the entire Merced River (main stem and South Fork) now include riverine habitats, such as riparian forests, meadows, and the aquatic environment and associated special-status species. The revised Outstandingly Remarkable Values provide greater focus on the Merced River than those presented in the 1996 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan.

The following discussion provides an overview of the types of impacts to wetland resources that could occur within each segment of the Merced River corridor from application of management elements included in Alternative 2.

Impacts in the Wilderness Segment of the Upper Main Stem Merced River. Examples of wetland-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the upper Merced River include riverine habitats such as riparian forests, meadows, and the aquatic environment of the river and associated special status species. The upper Merced River would be zoned consistent with existing conditions and use (1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D) and reflects current management practices and use levels based on the Wilderness Act along with federal and Yosemite National Park wilderness policies and guidelines. Although the proposed zoning and the River Protection Overlay are not anticipated to alter use patterns or existing facilities within the upper Merced River, these management elements would limit the type of new facilities (e.g., large campsites with facilities are prohibited in the 1B zone) that possibly could be built (potentially adversely affecting native wetland and aquatic habitats). Although possible future actions (e.g., trail rehabilitation) could occur under the proposed zoning, it would be subject to the consistent set of criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process) which would guide how the action could be implemented. The application of zoning in combination with the consistent set of criteria and considerations within wilderness segments would have a short- and long-term, negligible, beneficial effect on native wetland and aquatic habitats and wetland-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

Implementation of the VERP framework and VERP management actions could have long-term, negligible to minor, beneficial impacts on general wetland and aquatic habitats and wetland-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the upper Merced River by reducing visitor effects on these sensitive resources. For example, if VERP monitoring reveals degradation of high elevation meadows based on visitor use (e.g., camping), VERP management actions (e.g., educational signs, limits on visitor use, restoration) could be implemented to achieve the desired condition for the meadow and management zone.

Impacts in Yosemite Valley. Riverine habitats such as riparian forests, meadows, and the aquatic environment of the Merced River and associated special-status species are wetland-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values within Yosemite Valley. Yosemite Valley would be zoned to protect these Outstandingly Remarkable Values while providing a diverse visitor experience. Although large portions of the east Valley would remain developed or could be further developed, the proposed zoning overall (including the River Protection Overlay) of Yosemite Valley is more restrictive than the absence of zoning in the No Action Alternative. The proposed zoning would preclude several types of new development (e.g., new campsites would be precluded in the 2C Day Use zone at Upper River and Lower River Campgrounds) that have the potential to adversely affect native wetland and aquatic habitats. In addition, possible future actions (e.g., bridge removal, construction of new campsites) that could occur under the proposed zoning, would be subject to the consistent set of criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process) which would guide how the action could be implemented. The application of zoning in combination with the consistent set of criteria and considerations within would have a short- and long-term, negligible, beneficial effect on native wetland and aquatic habitats and wetland-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

Examples of how proposed management zoning, the River Protection Overlay, the VERP framework, and the criteria and considerations would protect and enhance native wetland and aquatic habitats and wetland-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values in Yosemite Valley include the following:

• Sensitive wetland habitats within Yosemite Valley (zoned 2A) would receive increased protection compared to the No Action Alternative. The zoning precludes a variety of new facilities (e.g., paved roads or trails, bicycle paths, day-visitor parking, food service, lodging). Under the VERP framework, this zone would be managed (over the long-term) with a very low tolerance for resource degradation from visitor use. Limits on the effects of visitor use (VERP framework) and facilities (management zoning) would allow existing natural areas to remain relatively unimpaired with continued protection, restoration, and enhancement of these wetland habitats resulting in a site-specific, long-term, minor, beneficial impact.
• El Capitan Meadow is a river-related meadow and is considered part of the biological resource Outstandingly Remarkable Value. The 2B zoning would shift emphasis from unconfined and undirected, large-group and socially oriented recreational activities (No Action Alternative) to small-group and individually oriented activities. El Capitan Meadow is used as an informal viewing location of climbers of El Capitan. A high level of visitor use has degraded the meadow through trampling, soil compaction, and fragmentation. The current level of use of El Capitan Meadow would be inconsistent with the 2B zoning. Under the 2B zoning and the VERP framework, management actions—including restoration of El Capitan Meadow—could be implemented. Visitors could be directed to the proposed 2C picnic area (a more resilient upland location) at the base of El Capitan. This could increase opportunities for revegetation and restoration of natural wetland and aquatic habitats, resulting in a moderate to major, site-specific, long-term, beneficial effect to El Capitan Meadow.
• Several existing facilities immediately adjacent to the Merced River would be inconsistent with the River Protection Overlay and could be removed (e.g., portions of Housekeeping Camp, several bridges, portions of Lower Pines Campground). Removal of facilities from the River Protection Overlay in combination would remove sources of pollutants (e.g., oil), reduce trampling, compaction, and soil erosion (associated with facility use and maintenance), and increase opportunities for revegetation and restoration of riparian vegetation. The magnitude of the effect of the River Protection Overlay on native wetland and aquatic habitats is correlated to the among of facility removal and/or restoration. For example, removal of one bridge would likely have only a negligible, beneficial effect where as removal of several facilities would have a moderate to major, long-term, beneficial effect on streamside vegetation in Yosemite Valley, an Outstandingly Remarkable Value.
• The 2B zoning over a majority of the west Valley would preclude new launch/removal facilities for non-motorized watercraft. These facilities would be allowed at specific locations, such as Sentinel Beach (zoned 2C) and Cathedral Beach (zoned 2C) that are more resilient to visitor use. Limiting this activity to particular points along the river, as opposed to current management practices which do not constrain launchings, would increase protection and allow increased restoration over the entire length of the river within Yosemite Valley. Although site-specific, minor to moderate, long-term, adverse effects could occur at locations such as Sentinel Beach and Cathedral Beach, containment of such effects in a limited area, while protecting a much larger area would result in a net long-term, moderate, beneficial effect on riparian vegetation, a biological resource-related Outstandingly Remarkable Value. The application of mitigation measures described in Chapter II (e.g., siting to avoid effects to sensitive habitats, habitat compensation, best management practices, oil and sediment separators, visitor education) in combination with the implementation of VERP management actions could reduce the severity of the identified site-specific adverse effects to a negligible or minor intensity.

Examples of how management elements proposed under this alternative could have negative effects on native wetland and aquatic habitats and wetland-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values in Yosemite Valley include the following:

• Relocation of facilities to other locations within the park (outside the river corridor) could have site-specific, long-term, negligible to major, adverse effects on wetlands, depending on site-specific conditions and project design. If relocated outside the river corridor, adverse affects could be reduced to a negligible to minor intensity by implementation of standard park policy and federal law (e.g., Clean Water Act).
• Relocation of facilities to other locations within the corridor could have site-specific, long-term, negligible to major, adverse effects on wetlands, depending on site-specific conditions and project design. If relocated within the river corridor, adverse effects could be mitigated to a negligible to minor intensity by implementation of mitigation measures described in Chapter II (e.g., siting to avoid effects to sensitive habitats, habitat compensation, best management practices, oil and sediment separators, visitor education) in combination with the implementation of VERP management actions.
• Localized, minor, short-term, adverse, temporary effects on native wetland and aquatic habitats could occur from construction (e.g., potential transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility, new campground facilities) and demolition (e.g., removal of impoundments and bridges) along the Merced River. Effects would be related to heavy equipment and construction/demolition activities and could include soil compaction, dust, vegetation removal, root damage, erosion, and introduction and spread of non-native species. The addition of silt, the resuspension of sediment, or the introduction of construction-related pollutants (fuels, lubricants, cement) could degrade the quality of native wetland and aquatic habitats. The application of mitigation measures described in Chapter II (e.g., siting to avoid effects to sensitive habitats, habitat compensation, best management practices, oil and sediment separators, visitor education) could reduce the potential adverse impacts to native wetland and aquatic habitats to a negligible intensity.

Although site-specific, short- and long-term, negative effects to native wetland and aquatic habitats could occur as the result of future actions that could be implemented under the proposed zoning (e.g., new campsites, parking facilities, road repair), the overall design of Alternative 2 would provide increased protection for native wetland and aquatic habitats and wetland-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values compared to Alternative 1 resulting in a net long-term, moderate, beneficial effect.

Impacts in the Merced River Gorge and El Portal. Examples of wetland-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the gorge and El Portal include diverse riparian areas and associated special-status species. The majority of the Merced River gorge would be zoned 2A+, 2B, 2C, and 2D. El Portal would have a base zone of 2C with large tracts zoned 3C. Examples of how the management elements of Alternative 2 would affect native wetland and aquatic habitats and wetland-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Merced River gorge and El Portal are described below.

• Existing facilities, such as the Cascades Diversion Dam, would be inconsistent with the River Protection Overlay and could be removed. Potential removal of this and other facilities would increase the free-flowing condition of the Merced River and return this portion of the Merced River to a more natural condition thereby enhancing the biological integrity of this segment. This could increase opportunities for revegetation and restoration of riparian vegetation, resulting in moderate, site-specific, long-term, beneficial effects on this Outstandingly Remarkable Value. Minor, short-term, adverse effects could occur during facility removal and could be mitigated to a negligible to minor intensity by implementation of mitigation measures described in Chapter II (e.g., siting to avoid effects to sensitive habitats, habitat compensation, best management practices, oil and sediment separators, visitor education).
• New or expanded facilities (e.g., parking) could be built within the 2D zone below the Cascades. As an Attraction zone, visitors would be actively directed to this area, therefore, visitor induced impacts, such as soil compaction, litter, trampling, also could occur. New or expanded facilities and increased visitor use could have long-term, site-specific, negligible to moderate, adverse impacts on native wetland and aquatic habitats. Adverse affects could be mitigated to a negligible to minor intensity by implementation of mitigation measures described in Chapter II in combination with the implementation of VERP management actions.
• With the exception of the Cascades, the majority of the gorge is relatively inaccessible and visitor use is unlikely to change. Consequently, there would be no impact on wetland and aquatic habitats or wetland-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values for the large portions of the gorge compared to the No Action Alternative.
• The sand pit in El Portal was once used to mine sand from the Merced River and is currently used for construction staging and other administrative purposes. This use may interfere with natural regeneration of riparian vegetation at the site. The current use of the sand pit would be inconsistent with the proposed 2C zoning and could be removed. This would allow for natural processes to prevail at this location and enhance natural revegetation with riparian species, resulting in a site-specific, moderate, beneficial effect on this Outstandingly Remarkable Value.
• Large portions of El Portal would be zoned 3C (e.g., the Trailer Village, old El Portal), which could allow additional development (e.g., employee residences located in Yosemite Valley could be relocated to the El Portal Administrative Site). Potential development could have both short-term (e.g., construction-related) and long-term (e.g., radiating impacts from development), minor to moderate, adverse effects on native wetland and aquatic habitats. Although application of mitigation measures described in Chapter II (e.g., siting to avoid effects to sensitive habitats, habitat compensation, best management practices, oil and sediment separators, visitor education) in combination with the implementation of VERP management actions, would reduce impacts, long-term, minor to moderate, negative effects to native wetland and aquatic habitats (e.g., conversion of upland woodland or scrub vegetation to developed facilities) would remain.

Repair or redevelopment of existing facilities (e.g., the El Portal Road) would not be precluded by the proposed zoning and could occur. For example, in the future the National Park Service could propose to reconstruct the El Portal Road. Impacts on native wildlife and wildlife-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the proposed design could include direct and permanent loss of riparian habitats, blasting, nest removal, dust, noise, erosion and the long-term discharge of pollutants associated with use of roads (e.g., oil, grease, litter). These types of impacts would be long-term, moderate to major and adverse. The National Park Service would first subject the proposed action to the decision-making criteria and considerations. If the proposed action would affect the bed or banks of the Merced River (i.e., a water resources project), the National Park Service then would complete a Section 7 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act determination, as well as other appropriate documentation (e.g., National Environmental Policy Act, Federal Endangered Species Act). Through these processes, project designs that avoid and minimize the adverse effects to the Outstandingly Remarkable Values (including streamside vegetation), wetlands, wildlife and resources in general would be identified. Projects that cannot be redesigned would either be abandoned or could proceed following notification, in writing, of the Secretary of the Interior and the United States Congress in accordance with Section 7(a) of the act. During reconstruction, mitigation measures described in Chapter II would be applied. Road maintenance and its associated temporary impacts would decrease because the road would be more stable and require less intensive and less frequent maintenance. Over the long term, the roadway (and the surrounding 2B and 2D management zones) would be managed through the VERP framework to the desired conditions. In total, the application of management elements included in this alternative would reduce the negative effects of the original project design to a negligible to minor intensity.

The application of management elements under this alternative would increase protection and enhancement of wetland and aquatic habitats and wetland-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values in the of the gorge. The proposed zoning in El Portal could allow additional development of park administration facilities that could have short- and long-term, negative effects to native wetland and aquatic habitats could occur as the result of future actions that could be implemented under the proposed zoning (e.g., new park administration facilities, road repair). These impacts could be reduced through the application of mitigation measures described in Chapter II. Although the criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination) would protect wetland-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values, other vegetation resources, such as upland scrub or woodlands, could be adversely affected (long term, moderate to major).

Impacts in Wilderness Segments of the South Fork. Examples of wetland-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the South Fork include high riparian species diversity, wetlands, riparian areas that are intact and largely undisturbed by visitors, and a nearly full range of riverine environments typical to the Sierra Nevada. The wilderness segments of the South Fork would be zoned 1A and 1B and reflects current management practices and use levels based on the Wilderness Act along with federal and Yosemite National Park wilderness policies and guidelines. Although the proposed zoning and the River Protection Overlay are not anticipated to alter use patterns or existing facilities within the wilderness portions of the South Fork, these management elements would limit the type of new facilities, such as large campsites with facilities are prohibited in the 1B zone, that possibly could be built (potentially adversely affecting native wetland and aquatic habitats). Although possible future actions, such as trail rehabilitation, could occur under the proposed zoning, it would be subject to the consistent set of criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process) which would guide how the action could be implemented. The application of zoning in combination with the consistent set of criteria and considerations within wilderness segments would have a short- and long-term, negligible, beneficial effect on native wetland and aquatic habitats and wetland-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

Implementation of the VERP framework and VERP management actions could have long-term, negligible to minor, beneficial impacts on general wetland and aquatic habitats and wetland-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values of wilderness portions of the South Fork by reducing visitor effects on these sensitive resources. For example, if VERP monitoring reveals degradation of riparian zones based on visitor use (e.g., informal trails), VERP management actions (e.g., educational signs, limits on visitor use, restoration) could be implemented to achieve the desired condition for the riparian habitat and management zone.

Impacts in Wawona. Although the South Fork through Wawona would have a variety of zones, ranging from 1A (Wilderness) to 3C (Park Operations and Administration), the base zones would be 1A, 2A, and 2B. The 1A, 2A, and 2B zones would preclude new development such as interpretive centers, food services, campgrounds and lodging, and day-visitor parking. Wawona Golf Course and Wawona Picnic Area (zoned 2C), Wawona Campground (zoned 3A), Wawona Hotel (zoned 3B), and the Wawona maintenance facility (zoned 3C) could continue to function consistent with existing conditions. The proposed zoning and continued use of these sites is not expected to adversely affect site-specific wetland and aquatic habitats resources compared to the No Action Alternative.

Portions of facilities within the River Protection Overlay, such as portions of Wawona Campground and a portion of the Wawona maintenance facility, would be inconsistent with the River Protection Overlay and could be removed or relocated thereby increasing opportunities for natural revegetation and restoration of riparian habitat, resulting in a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on streamside vegetation, a biological resource Outstandingly Remarkable Value.

The proposed zoning is not anticipated to substantially alter use patterns or facilities of the South Fork compared to the No Action Alternative. Site-specific, short-term negligible to minor, adverse effects to wetland and aquatic habitats could occur if facilities are removed from the River Protection Overlay. These adverse impacts could be reduced to a negligible intensity by application of mitigation measures described in Chapter II. Overall, Alternative 2 would have a long-term, negligible to minor, beneficial impact on native wetland and aquatic habitats and wetland-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the South Fork compared to the No Action Alternative.

Summary of Alternative 2 Impacts. For the duration of this plan, management zoning and the River Protection Overlay would preclude various types of new development that has potential to adversely affect native wetland and aquatic habitats (a minor, beneficial impact). In the long term, the combination of management zoning, the River Protection Overlay, application of a consistent set of decision making criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process), and implementation of the VERP framework would have a moderate, beneficial, effect on wetland and aquatic habitats and wetland-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the river corridor because these elements could preclude some kinds of development, remove facilities from the immediate river corridor, subject new actions to a rigorous planning process designed to eliminate adverse effects on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values, and manage zones to their desired conditions. Site-specific, short- and long-term, negative affects to native wetland and aquatic habitats could occur as the result of future actions that could be implemented under the proposed zoning (e.g., new campsites, parking facilities, road repair). These effects would be most pronounced within the Developed zones within east Yosemite Valley and El Portal. Overall, limits on the effects of visitor use (VERP framework) and facilities (management zoning and the River Protection Overlay) in combination with the application of a consistent set of decision-making criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process) would allow existing natural areas to remain relatively unimpaired with continued protection and would direct restoration and enhancement of impaired native habitats. Overall, application of management elements included in this alternative would have short- and long-term, moderate, beneficial effects on wetland and aquatic habitats and wetland-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values compared to the No Action Alternative.

Cumulative effects to wetland and aquatic resources discussed herein are based on analysis of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the Yosemite region in combination with potential effects of this alternative. The projects identified below include those projects that have the potential to affect local wetland patterns (i.e., within the river corridor) as well as large-scale or regional wetland patterns.

Past Actions. Aquatic and riparian systems are the most altered and impaired habitats of the Sierra Nevada and are relatively rare in the context of the entire landscape. Wetlands in the Sierra Nevada have been drained since the earliest settlers attempted to "reclaim" meadows and other seasonally wet areas. Mountain meadows were commonly drained with the intent of improving forage conditions and to permit agriculture (Hughes 1934, as in NPS 1997b, University of California, Davis 1996). Development and activity in Yosemite National Park has reduced historic wet meadow acreage by 60-65%. Past and ongoing activities include construction of dams, diversion walls, bridges, roads, pipelines, riprap, recreational use, agriculture, buildings, campgrounds, and recreational features. Dams and diversions throughout most of the range have profoundly altered stream-flow patterns and water temperatures. Within the mountains, broad valleys with wide riparian areas were often reservoir sites, and much of the best former riparian habitat in the Sierra Nevada is now under water. The extent of the inundation across the range becomes apparent when one realizes that virtually all flatwater on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada below 5,000 feet is artificial (University of California, Davis 1996). These past actions have had long-term adverse effects on regional wetland and aquatic habitats.

In 1991, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management developed a joint South Fork and Merced Wild and Scenic River Implementation Plan for the segments of the main stem and South Fork of the Merced River that are under their jurisdiction. The plan is also a general management plan with many prescriptive goals and few actions. The plan endeavors to limit or end consumptive uses such as grazing within the river corridor and calls for the formalization of camping and launch facilities for non-motorized watercraft. Implementation of these actions has a beneficial effect by eliminating impacts where feasible (grazing does not currently occur within the river corridor), concentrating impacts in areas able to withstand visitor use, and providing facilities that mitigate adverse effects associated with visitor use (e.g., restrooms).

Present Actions. The El Portal Road Reconstruction Project (NPS) is currently underway from the park boundary to the Cascades Diversion Dam, and affects wetlands of the Merced River immediately adjacent to the roadway. Natural resources are protected during construction by implementation of a compliance monitoring program, erosion and sediment controls, hazardous materials controls, revegetation and reclamation, and excluding construction from sensitive habitats. Such measures ensure the overall protection and enhancement of the hydrologic, biological, geologic, cultural, scenic, scientific, and recreation Outstandingly Remarkable Values in the zone as a whole and other parts of the river corridor. Implementation of these measures reduces the overall effects.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Reasonably foreseeable future actions proposed in the region are separated below into three general categories: (1) projects anticipated to have a net beneficial effect; (2) projects anticipated to have both beneficial and adverse effects; and (3) projects anticipated to have a net adverse effect.

Examples of projects that could have a cumulative, beneficial effect on regional wetlands include:

• Several Yosemite campground rehabilitation projects, such as at Bridalveil Horse Camp, Yosemite Creek Campground, Tamarack Campground, and Hodgdon Meadow Campground; and Wawona Campground Improvement (NPS)
• The Merced River at Eagle Creek Ecological Restoration Project (NPS)
• Update to the Yosemite Fire Management Plan (NPS), which has a goal of improving ecosystem health and meadow restoration
• Update to the Yosemite Wilderness Management Plan (NPS), which will address land management issues within the wilderness
• Fire Management Action Plan for Wilderness (USFS, Stanislaus)
• The Sierra Nevada Framework for Conservation and Collaboration, and the Management Direction for the John Muir, Ansel Adams and Dinkey Lakes, and Monarch Wildernesses (USFS); Wilderness Boundary Protection Land Exchange, Seventh Day Adventist Camp, Wawona (NPS); each of which will address ecosystem management issues of lands adjacent to Yosemite National Park
• Several transportation-related projects (e.g., Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System [YARTS]) which have the general goals of increasing transportation options and reducing reliance on automobiles in the area
• The Tuolumne Meadows Water and Wastewater Improvements; the White Wolf Water System Improvements, and Hodgdon Meadow Water and Wastewater Treatment Improvements, and Replacement/Rehabilitation of Yosemite Valley Sewer Line (NPS); O’Shaughnessy Compound Water System Improvements (City and Co. San Francisco)
• South Fork Merced River Bridges Replacement (NPS)

Although each of these projects may have site-specific and short-term adverse effects (e.g., construction-related effects), the general goal of these projects is to increase coordinated resource management and to restore sensitive ecosystems. Therefore, these projects could have a long-term, beneficial cumulative impact to regional native wetlands. For example, implementation of the Tuolumne Meadows Water and Wastewater Improvements project has the potential to adversely affect wetland resources during construction (short-term), with the long-term, beneficial effect of improving water quality through improved wastewater treatment. Another example is the update to the Yosemite Wilderness Management Plan, which could result in the removal of the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp, reducing site-specific erosion and trampling and possibly stock use.

Reasonably foreseeable projects that could have mixed adverse and beneficial effects on regional wetlands include:

• The Tuolumne Meadows Development Concept Plan, and Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (NPS)
• The Orange Crush Fuels Treatment Projects (USFS, Stanislaus)
• The A-Rock Reforestation (USFS, Stanislaus) and the Rogge-Ackerson Fire Reforestation (Tuolumne Co.)
• The Yosemite Valley Plan (NPS)
• South Entrance/Mariposa Grove Site Planning (NPS), which will restore giant sequoia habitat in the Lower Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias in Yosemite National Park

Cumulative effects of these projects could be mixed, combining both adverse and beneficial effects. The net beneficial or adverse effects of these projects are difficult to anticipate. For example, implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan is expected to have a long-term, beneficial impact to wetland resources by increasing coordinated management of natural resources and reducing facilities within sensitive habitats. However, short-term, adverse effects of this plan may include temporary construction impacts (e.g., potential reconstruction of Segment D of the El Portal Road Reconstruction Project just above Cascades Diversion Dam). Reconstruction of Segment D could cause short-term adverse impacts to natural resources similar to those currently occurring during reconstruction on Segments A, B, and C. These would include loss of mature riparian vegetation, loss of understory vegetation, impacts to special-status species, loss of topsoil, and footprint effects. Adverse impacts associated with Segment D reconstruction could be partially mitigated through project design (the design of Segment D would need to protect and enhance the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Merced River) and implementation of best management practices, compliance monitoring, and restoration. However, some of the proposed redevelopment in El Portal, for example, the redevelopment of the sand pit, would be inconsistent with the management zoning in this alternative of the Merced River Plan. The Merced River Plan guides future allowable actions within the Merced River corridor and subsequent implementation plans, such as the Yosemite Valley Plan. If Alternative 2 is selected, revisions to the Yosemite Valley Plan would be required to conform to the management zones provided in Alternative 2. Components of the Yosemite Valley Plan would need to change to conform to this alternative. The broad goals of the Yosemite Valley Plan, however, would continue to apply, including reclaiming priceless natural beauty, allowing natural processes to prevail, and reducing crowding. In general, revision to the Yosemite Valley Plan to comply with this alternative would have a general beneficial effect due to the underlying zoning prescribed in this alternative.

Reasonably foreseeable projects that could have an adverse effect on regional wetlands include:

• The Yosemite View parcel land exchange, El Portal (NPS)
• Merced River Canyon Trail Acquisition (BLM)
• Several development related projects, such as the Rio Mesa Area Plan (Madera Co.); Yosemite Motels, El Portal (Mariposa Co.); Silvertip Resort Village Project (Mariposa Co.); University of California, Merced Campus (Merced Co.); Buildout of City of Merced, General Plan; Double Eagle Resort, June Lake (Mono Co.); Tioga Inn, Lee Vining (Mono Co.); June Lake Highlands (Mono Co.); Crane Flat Campus Redevelopment (NPS, YNI); Evergreen Lodge Expansion (Tuolumne Co.); Hardin Flat Lodging and Conference Facility (Tuolumne Co.); Motel and Restaurant, Second Garrotte Basin (Tuolumne Co.); Resources Management Building (NPS); Yosemite West Rezoning Application (NPS); and the Hazel Green Ranch (Mariposa Co.)
• Transportation projects, such as the Highway 41 Extension (Madera Co.); Yosemite Valley Shuttle Bus Stop Improvements (NPS); Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement at Highway 49 and Old Highway (Mariposa Co.); Expansion of Mariposa County Transit System; Mariposa Creek Pedestrian/Bike Path (Mariposa Co.); Evergreen Road Improvements (multi-agency, see Appendix G); and San Joaquin Corridor Rail Projects (DOT, Amtrak)
• Several water-related projects, such as the Replacement/Rehabilitation of Yosemite Valley Sewer Line (NPS); Cherry Dam Fuse Gate, and O’Shaughnessy Dam Well (City and Co. San Francisco)

Cumulative adverse effects would be related to increased facilities, access, and regional growth. Each of the aforementioned projects has the potential to have site-specific, adverse effects on wetland and aquatic resources during construction (short-term) and by direct displacement of resources (long-term). Examples of construction- and human-use-related effects on vegetation patterns include direct displacement of vegetation (e.g., replaced with structures), introduction of non-native species that invade into adjacent natural areas and displace native species (e.g., spread by construction equipment or backyard gardening), fragmentation of habitats that prevents genetic mixing, alteration of natural patterns (e.g., fire suppression around structures, use of herbicides, the introduction of night light), and increased erosion and sedimentation (e.g., during grading activities, overuse of trails). Although each new development is required to mitigate or compensate for adverse effects to wetland and aquatic resources, the mitigation/compensation is generally uncoordinated and does not typically replace natural ecosystem functions or values that were present throughout the region prior to Euro-American settlement.

Wetland and riparian systems of the Merced River and the Sierra Nevada have been substantially altered by development and visitor activities. These changes have negatively influenced wetland size, form, and function and the plants, wildlife, and aquatic species that inhabit them. Cumulative effects would be mixed, combining both adverse and beneficial effects. Cumulative beneficial effects on wetlands include wetland restoration, rehabilitation projects, and ecosystem management. Cumulative adverse effects would be related to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable increased facilities, regional growth, and visitor demand. Several of these cumulative actions could have a long-term, beneficial effect on wetlands and wetland-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the river corridor. However, throughout the Sierra Nevada and larger region, regional development and growth could have a net long-term, adverse effect on regional wetland and aquatic resources that would not be compensated by local or regional planning and restoration projects. Therefore, cumulative adverse effects on regional wetland and aquatic habitats due to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, could be major, adverse, and long term.

Although cumulative actions could have a long-term, major, beneficial cumulative effect on wetlands and wetland-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the river corridor, throughout the Sierra Nevada and larger region, these past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are likely to increase regional growth (construction and human-use-related effects) and have a long-term, major, adverse cumulative effect on regional wetland patterns (e.g., introduction and spread of non-native species, direct displacement of vegetation by structures) that would not be compensated by piecemeal (i.e., project by project) mitigation. These cumulative actions in combination with Alternative 2 could have a net long-term, major, adverse effect on regional wetland patterns.

For the duration of this plan, management zoning and the River Protection Overlay would preclude various types of new development that has potential to adversely affect native wetland (a minor, beneficial impact). In the long term, the combination of management zoning, the River Protection Overlay, application of a consistent set of decision making criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process), and implementation of the VERP framework would have a moderate, beneficial, effect on wetland and wetland-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the river corridor because these elements could preclude inappropriate development, remove inappropriate facilities from the immediate river corridor, subject new actions to a rigorous planning process designed to eliminate adverse effects on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values, and manage zones to their desired conditions. Site-specific, short- and long-term, negative effects to native wetland could occur as the result of future actions that could be implemented under the proposed zoning (e.g., new campsites, parking facilities, road repair). These effects would be most pronounced within the Developed zones within east Yosemite Valley and El Portal. Overall, limits on the effects of visitor use (VERP framework) and facilities (management zoning and the River Protection Overlay) in combination with the application of a consistent set of decision-making criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process) would allow existing natural areas to remain relatively unimpaired with continued protection and would direct restoration and enhancement of impaired native habitats. This would result in a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on native wetland and wetland-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the river corridor compared to the No Action Alternative.

Although cumulative actions could have a long-term, major, beneficial cumulative effect on wetlands and wetland-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the river corridor, throughout the Sierra Nevada and larger region, these past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are likely to increase regional growth (construction and human-use-related effects) and have a long-term, major, adverse cumulative effect on regional wetland patterns (e.g., introduction and spread of non-native species, direct displacement of vegetation by structures) that would not be compensated by piecemeal (i.e., project by project) mitigation. These cumulative actions in combination with Alternative 2 could have a long-term, major, adverse effect on regional wetland patterns.

Vegetation

Analysis

General Impacts. Biological resource Outstandingly Remarkable Values listed in the 1996 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan have been revised based on the application of new scientific information, changed ecological and hydrologic conditions in the river corridor, and to accurately reflect Outstandingly Remarkable Value criteria included in the Interagency Coordinating Council guidelines for implementation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Specifically, those resources that are not related to the Merced River (e.g., western juniper, white fir, black oak woodlands, Mount Lyell salamander) or not unique to the region or nation (e.g., rainbow trout) have been removed. Removal of these resources from the list of Outstandingly Remarkable Values would not alter their management or protection. These resources would continue to be managed and protected by existing park policy and guidelines (e.g., Yosemite General Management Plan, Yosemite Resources Management Plan, Yosemite Vegetation Management Plan), as well as by federal law (e.g., the Federal Endangered Species Act, 1916 Organic Act, Clean Water Act). Biological resource Outstandingly Remarkable Values common to the entire Merced River (main stem and South Fork) now include riverine habitats, such as riparian forests, meadows, and the aquatic environment and associated special-status species. The revised Outstandingly Remarkable Values provide greater focus on the Merced River than those presented in the 1996 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan.

The following discussion provides an overview of the types of impacts to vegetation resources that could occur within each segment of the Merced River corridor from application of management elements included in Alternative 2.

Impacts in the Wilderness Segment of the Upper Main Stem Merced River. Examples of vegetation-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the upper Merced River include riverine habitats such as riparian forests, meadows, and the aquatic environment of the river and associated special status plant species. The upper Merced River would be zoned consistent with existing conditions and use (1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D) and reflects current management practices and use levels based on the Wilderness Act along with federal and Yosemite National Park wilderness policies and guidelines. Although the proposed zoning and the River Protection Overlay are not anticipated to alter use patterns or existing facilities within the upper Merced River, these management elements would limit the type of new facilities, such as large campsites with facilities are prohibited in the 1B zone, that possibly could be built (potentially adversely affecting native vegetation) under the No Action Alternative. Although possible future actions (e.g., trail rehabilitation) could occur under the proposed zoning, it would be subject to the consistent set of criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process) which would guide how the action could be implemented. The application of zoning in combination with the consistent set of criteria and considerations within wilderness segments would have a short- and long-term, negligible, beneficial effect on native vegetation and vegetation-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

Implementation of the VERP framework and VERP management actions could have long-term, negligible to minor, beneficial impacts on general vegetation and vegetation-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the upper Merced River by reducing visitor effects on these sensitive resources. For example, if VERP monitoring reveals degradation of high elevation meadows based on visitor use (e.g., camping), VERP management actions (e.g., educational signs, limits on visitor use, restoration) could be implemented to achieve the desired condition for the meadow and management zone.

Impacts in Yosemite Valley. Riverine habitats such as riparian forests, meadows, and the aquatic environment of the Merced River and associated special-status species are vegetation-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values within Yosemite Valley. Yosemite Valley would be zoned to protect natural resources while providing a diverse visitor experience. Although large portions of the east Valley would remain developed or could be further developed, the proposed zoning overall (including the River Protection Overlay) of Yosemite Valley is more restrictive than the absence of zoning in the No Action Alternative. The proposed zoning would preclude several types of new development (e.g., new campsites would be precluded in the 2B Discovery zone) that have the potential to adversely affect native vegetation. In addition, possible future actions (e.g., bridge removal, construction of new campsites) that could occur under the proposed zoning, would be subject to the consistent set of criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process) which would guide how the action could be implemented. The application of zoning in combination with the consistent set of criteria and considerations within would have a short- and long-term, negligible, beneficial effect on native vegetation and vegetation-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

Examples of how proposed management zoning, the River Protection Overlay, the VERP framework, and the criteria and considerations would protect and enhance native vegetation and vegetation related Outstandingly Remarkable Values in Yosemite Valley include the following:

• Sensitive native habitats within Yosemite Valley (zoned 2A) would receive increased protection compared to the No Action Alternative. The zoning precludes a variety of new facilities (e.g., paved roads or trails, bicycle paths, day-visitor parking, food service, lodging). Under the VERP framework, this zone would be managed (over the long-term) with a very low tolerance for resource degradation from visitor use. Limits on the effects of visitor use (VERP framework) and facilities (management zoning) would allow existing natural areas to remain relatively unimpaired with continued protection, restoration, and enhancement of native habitats resulting in a site-specific, long-term, minor, beneficial impact.
• El Capitan Meadow is a river-related meadow and is considered part of the biological resource Outstandingly Remarkable Value. The 2B zoning would shift emphasis from unconfined and undirected, large-group and socially oriented recreational activities (No Action Alternative) to small-group and individually oriented activities. El Capitan Meadow is used as an informal viewing location of climbers of El Capitan. A high level of visitor use has degraded the meadow through trampling, soil compaction, and fragmentation. The current level of use of El Capitan Meadow would be inconsistent with the 2B zoning. Under the 2B zoning and the VERP framework, management actions—including restoration of El Capitan Meadow—could be implemented. Visitors could be directed to the proposed 2C picnic area (a more resilient upland location) at the base of El Capitan. This could increase opportunities for revegetation and restoration of natural vegetation, resulting in a moderate to major, site-specific, long-term, beneficial effect to El Capitan Meadow.
• Several existing facilities immediately adjacent to the Merced River would be inconsistent with the River Protection Overlay and could be removed (e.g., portions of Housekeeping Camp, several bridges, portions of Lower Pines Campground). Removal of facilities from the River Protection Overlay in combination would remove sources of pollutants (e.g., oil), reduce trampling, compaction, and soil erosion (associated with facility use and maintenance), and increase opportunities for revegetation and restoration of riparian vegetation. The magnitude of the effect of the River Protection Overlay on native vegetation is correlated to degree to which it is implemented in the future. For example, removal of one bridge would likely have only a negligible, beneficial effect where as removal of several facilities would have a moderate to major, long-term, beneficial effect on streamside vegetation in Yosemite Valley, an Outstandingly Remarkable Value.
• The 2B zoning over a majority of the west Valley would preclude new launch/removal facilities for non-motorized watercraft. These facilities would be allowed at specific locations, such as Sentinel Beach (zoned 2C) and Cathedral Beach (zoned 2C) that are more resilient to visitor use. Limiting this activity to particular points along the river, as opposed to current management practices which do not constrain launchings, would increase protection and allow increased restoration over the entire length of the river within Yosemite Valley. Although site-specific, minor to moderate, long-term, adverse effects could occur at locations such as Sentinel Beach and Cathedral Beach, containment of such effects in a limited area, while protecting a much larger area would result in a net long-term, moderate, beneficial effect on riparian vegetation, a biological resource-related Outstandingly Remarkable Value. The application of mitigation measures described in Chapter II (e.g., siting to avoid effects to sensitive habitats, habitat compensation, best management practices, oil and sediment separators, visitor education) in combination with the implementation of VERP management actions could reduce the severity of the identified site-specific adverse effects to a negligible or minor intensity.

Examples of how management elements proposed under this alternative could have negative effects on native vegetation and vegetation-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values in Yosemite Valley include the following:

• The Developed zones (zone 3A, 3B, and 3C) are designed to direct high-impact activities and facilities to areas better able to withstand heavy use and/or to those areas already developed. These zones could absorb the most concentrated visitor and administrative use with a higher tolerance for resource degradation. The woodlot and Pohono Quarry would be zoned 3C, consistent with current use. The proposed 3C zoning at either Taft Toe or Camp 6 and the 3B zoning at Yosemite Lodge could allow construction of new park facilities (e.g., parking, trail hardening). The 3A zoning at the existing North Pines, Lower Pines, and Upper Pines Campgrounds would allow construction of new campground facilities. New facilities could affect native vegetation such as black oak woodland and coniferous forest at these locations, increase human trampling of understory species in the immediate area, increase nonpoint-source pollution and refuse, decrease connectivity between habitats and the river, and increase the potential for introduction and spread of non-native species. It is anticipated that naturally occurring fires would be controlled around new structures, similar to existing park policy, and that this could affect species composition and forest health in the immediate vicinity of structures over the long term. Plant species richness and diversity generally decline where recreational activities occur, due to the physical effect of trampling itself and the tendency of plants with more resistance (tougher leaves, growth points below the ground surface, rapid growth rate, numerous seeds, etc.) to crowd out other species (Cole 1993). Overall, the structural form, connectivity, size, productivity, and diversity of native vegetation located at and in the vicinity of potential development sites could be adversely affected (long-term, adverse, and moderate to major in intensity). The application of mitigation measures described in Chapter II (e.g., siting to avoid effects to sensitive habitats, habitat compensation, best management practices, oil and sediment separators, visitor education) in combination with the implementation of VERP management actions could reduce the severity of the identified effects to a minor or negligible intensity.
• Relocation of facilities to other locations within the park (outside the river corridor) could have site-specific, long-term, negligible to major, adverse effects on vegetation, depending on site-specific conditions and project design. If relocated outside the river corridor, adverse affects could be reduced to a negligible to minor intensity by implementation of standard park policy and federal law (e.g., Clean Water Act).
• Relocation of facilities to other locations within the corridor could have site-specific, long-term, negligible to major, adverse effects on vegetation, depending on site-specific conditions and project design. If relocated within the river corridor, adverse effects could be mitigated to a negligible to minor intensity by implementation of mitigation measures described in Chapter II (e.g., siting to avoid effects to sensitive habitats, habitat compensation, best management practices, oil and sediment separators, visitor education) in combination with the implementation of VERP management actions.
• Localized, minor, short-term, temporary effects on native vegetation could occur from construction (e.g., potential transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility, new campground facilities) and demolition (e.g., removal of impoundments and bridges) along the Merced River. Effects would be related to heavy equipment and construction/demolition activities and could include soil compaction, dust, vegetation removal, root damage, erosion, and introduction and spread of non-native species. The addition of silt, the resuspension of sediment, or the introduction of construction-related pollutants (fuels, lubricants, cement) could degrade the quality of native vegetation. The application of mitigation measures described in Chapter II (e.g., siting to avoid effects to sensitive habitats, habitat compensation, best management practices, oil and sediment separators, visitor education) could reduce the potential adverse impacts to native vegetation to a negligible intensity.

Although site-specific, short- and long-term, negative effects to native vegetation could occur as the result of future actions that could be implemented under the proposed zoning (e.g., new campsites, parking facilities, road repair), the overall design of Alternative 2 would provide increased protection for native vegetation and vegetation-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values compared to Alternative 1 resulting in a net long-term, moderate, beneficial effect.

Impacts in the Merced River Gorge and El Portal. Examples of vegetation-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the gorge and El Portal include diverse riparian areas and associated special-status species. The majority of the Merced River gorge would be zoned 2A+, 2B, 2C, and 2D. El Portal would have a base zone of 2C with large tracts zoned 3C. Examples of how the management elements of Alternative 2 would affect native vegetation and vegetation-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Merced River gorge and El Portal are described below.

• Existing facilities, such as the Cascades Diversion Dam, would be inconsistent with the River Protection Overlay and could be removed. Potential removal of this and other facilities would increase the free-flow condition of the Merced River and return this portion of the Merced River to a more natural condition thereby enhancing the biological integrity of this segment. This could increase opportunities for revegetation and restoration of riparian vegetation, resulting in moderate, site-specific, long-term, beneficial effects on this Outstandingly Remarkable Value. Minor, short-term, adverse effects could occur during facility removal and could be mitigated to a negligible to minor intensity by implementation of mitigation measures described in Chapter II (e.g., siting to avoid effects to sensitive habitats, habitat compensation, best management practices, oil and sediment separators, visitor education).
• New or expanded facilities (e.g., parking) could be built within the 2D zone below the Cascades. As an Attraction zone, visitors would be actively directed to this area, therefore, visitor induced impacts, such as soil compaction, litter, trampling, also could occur. New or expanded facilities and increased visitor use could have long-term, site-specific, negligible to moderate, adverse impacts on native vegetation. Adverse affects could be mitigated to a negligible to minor intensity by implementation of mitigation measures described in Chapter II in combination with the implementation of VERP management actions.
• With the exception of the Cascades, the majority of the gorge is relatively inaccessible and visitor use is unlikely to increase. Consequently, there would be no impact on vegetation or vegetation-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values for the large portions of the gorge compared to the No Action Alternative.
• The sand pit in El Portal was once used to mine sand from the Merced River and is currently used for construction staging and other administrative purposes. This use may interfere with natural regeneration of riparian vegetation at the site. The current use of the sand pit would be inconsistent with the proposed 2C zoning and could be removed. This would allow for natural processes to prevail at this location and enhance natural revegetation with riparian species, resulting in a site-specific, moderate, beneficial effect on this Outstandingly Remarkable Value.
• Large portions of El Portal would be zoned 3C (e.g., the Trailer Village, old El Portal), which could allow additional development (e.g., employee residences located in Yosemite Valley could be relocated to the El Portal Administrative Site). Potential development could have both short-term (e.g., construction-related) and long-term (e.g., fire suppression in the vicinity of structures), minor to moderate, adverse effects on native vegetation. Although application of mitigation measures described in Chapter II (e.g., siting to avoid effects to sensitive habitats, habitat compensation, best management practices, oil and sediment separators, visitor education) in combination with the implementation of VERP management actions, would reduce impact, long-term, minor to moderate, negative effects to native vegetation (e.g., conversion of upland woodland or scrub vegetation to developed facilities) would remain.

Repair or redevelopment of existing facilities (e.g., the El Portal Road) would not be precluded by the proposed zoning and could occur. For example, in the future the National Park Service could propose to reconstruct the El Portal Road. Impacts on native wildlife and wildlife-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the proposed design could include direct and permanent loss of riparian habitats, blasting, nest removal, dust, noise, erosion and the long-term discharge of pollutants associated with use of roads (e.g., oil, grease, litter). These types of impacts would be long-term, moderate to major, and adverse. The National Park Service would first subject the proposed action to the decision-making criteria and considerations. If the proposed action would affect the bed or banks of the Merced River (i.e., a water resources project), the National Park Service then would complete a Section 7 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act determination, as well as other appropriate documentation (e.g., National Environmental Policy Act, federal Endangered Species Act). Through these processes, project designs that avoid and minimize the adverse effects to the Outstandingly Remarkable Values (including streamside vegetation), wetlands, wildlife and resources in general would be identified. Projects that cannot be redesigned would either be abandoned or could proceed following notification, in writing, of the Secretary of the Interior and the United States Congress in accordance with Section 7(a) of the act. During reconstruction, mitigation measures described in Chapter II would be applied. Road maintenance and its associated temporary impacts would decrease because the road would be more stable and require less intensive and less frequent maintenance. Over the long-term, the roadway (and the surrounding 2B and 2D management zones) would be managed through the VERP framework to the desired conditions. In total, the application of management elements included in this alternative would reduce the negative effects of the original project design to a negligible to minor intensity.

The application of management elements under this alternative would increase protection and enhancement of vegetation and vegetation-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values in the of the gorge. The proposed zoning in El Portal could allow additional development of park administration facilities that could have short- and long-term, negative effects to native vegetation could occur as the result of future actions that could be implemented under the proposed zoning (e.g., new park administration facilities, road repair). These impacts could be reduced through the application of mitigation measures described in Chapter II. Although the criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination) would protect vegetation-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values, other vegetation resources (e.g., upland scrub or woodlands) could be adversely affected (long term, moderate to major).

Impacts in Wilderness Segments of the South Fork. Examples of vegetation-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values within wilderness segments of the South Fork include high riparian species diversity, wetlands, riparian areas that are intact and largely undisturbed by humans, and a nearly full range of riverine environments typical to the Sierra Nevada. The upper and lower portions of the South Fork (above and below Wawona) would be zoned 1A and 1B and reflects current management practices and use levels based on the Wilderness Act along with federal and Yosemite National Park wilderness policies and guidelines. The proposed zoning and the River Protection Overlay are not anticipated to alter use patterns or existing facilities within the wilderness portions of the South Fork. However, these management elements would limit the type of new facilities, such as large campsites with facilities are prohibited in the 1B zone, that possibly could be built (potentially adversely affecting native vegetation), providing a minor beneficial impact. Although possible future actions (e.g., trail rehabilitation) could occur under the proposed zoning, it would be subject to the consistent set of criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process) which would guide how the action could be implemented. The application of zoning in combination with the consistent set of criteria and considerations within wilderness segments would have a short- and long-term, negligible, beneficial effect on native vegetation and vegetation-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

Implementation of the VERP framework and VERP management actions could have long-term, negligible to minor, beneficial impacts on general vegetation and vegetation-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values of wilderness portions of the South Fork by reducing visitor effects on these sensitive resources. For example, if VERP monitoring reveals degradation of riparian zones based on visitor use (e.g., informal trails), VERP management actions (e.g., educational signs, limits on visitor use, restoration) could be implemented to achieve the desired condition for the riparian habitat and management zone.

Impacts in Wawona. Although the South Fork in Wawona would have a variety of zones, ranging from 1A (Wilderness) to 3C (Park Operations and Administration), the base zones would be 1A, 2A, and 2B. The 1A, 2A, and 2B zones would preclude new development such as interpretive centers, food services, campgrounds and lodging, and day visitor parking. Wawona Golf Course and Wawona Picnic Area (zoned 2C), Wawona Campground (zoned 3A), Wawona Hotel (zoned 3B), and the Wawona maintenance facility (zoned 3C) could continue to function consistent with existing conditions. The proposed zoning and continued use of these sites is not expected to adversely affect site-specific vegetation resources compared to the No Action Alternative.

Portions of facilities within the River Protection Overlay, such as portions of Wawona Campground and a portion of the Wawona maintenance facility, would be inconsistent with the River Protection Overlay and could be removed or relocated. This could increase opportunities for natural revegetation and restoration of riparian habitat, resulting in a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on streamside vegetation, a biological resource Outstandingly Remarkable Value.

The proposed zoning is not anticipated to substantially alter use patterns or facilities of the South Fork compared to the No Action Alternative. Site-specific, short-term, negligible to minor, adverse effects to vegetation could occur if facilities are removed from the River Protection Overlay. These adverse impacts could be reduced to a negligible intensity by application of mitigation measures described in Chapter II. Overall, Alternative 2 would have a long-term negligible to minor, beneficial impact on native vegetation and vegetation-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the South Fork compared to the No Action Alternative.

Summary of Alternative 2 Impacts. For the duration of this plan, management zoning and the River Protection Overlay would preclude various types of new development that has potential to adversely affect native vegetation (a minor, beneficial impact). In the long-term, the combination of management zoning, the River Protection Overlay, application of a consistent set of decision making criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process), and implementation of the VERP framework would have a moderate, beneficial effect on vegetation and vegetation-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the river corridor because these elements could preclude some kinds of development, remove facilities from the immediate river corridor, subject new actions to a rigorous planning process designed to eliminate adverse effects on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values, and manage zones to their desired conditions. Site-specific, short- and long-term, negative effects to native vegetation could occur as the result of future actions that could be implemented under the proposed zoning (e.g., new campsites, parking facilities, road repair). These effects would be most pronounced within the Developed zones within east Yosemite Valley and El Portal. Overall, limits on the effects of visitor use (VERP framework) and facilities (management zoning and the River Protection Overlay) in combination with the application of a consistent set of decision-making criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process) would allow existing natural areas to remain relatively unimpaired with continued protection and would direct restoration and enhancement of impaired native habitats. Overall, application of management elements included in this alternative would have short- and long-term, moderate, beneficial effects on vegetation and vegetation-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values compared to the No Action Alternative.

Cumulative effects to vegetation discussed herein are based on analysis of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the Yosemite region in combination with potential effects of this alternative. The projects identified below include those projects that have the potential to effect local vegetation patterns (i.e., within the river corridor) as well as large-scale or regional vegetation patterns.

Past Actions. In general, vegetation patterns of the Sierra Nevada are relatively intact compared to other areas of California. Regional vegetation has been historically affected by logging, fire suppression, rangeland clearing, grazing, mining, draining, damming, diversions, and the introduction of non-native species. Portions of the Merced River and South Fork corridors within Yosemite National Park are relatively natural, especially in wilderness areas where use has had little effect on vegetation. Development and use of infrastructure within Yosemite Valley and throughout the Sierra Nevada have caused long-term, adverse alterations to native vegetation patterns since Euro-American occupation.

In 1991, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management developed a joint South Fork and Merced Wild and Scenic River Implementation Plan for the segments of the main stem and South Fork of the Merced River that are under their jurisdiction. The plan is also a general management plan with many prescriptive goals and few actions. The plan endeavors to limit or end consumptive uses such as grazing within the river corridor and calls for the formalization of camping and launch facilities for non-motorized watercraft. Implementation of these actions has a beneficial effect by eliminating impacts where feasible (grazing does not currently occur within the river corridor), concentrating impacts in areas able to withstand visitor use, and providing facilities that mitigate adverse effects associated with visitor use (e.g., restrooms).

Present Actions. The El Portal Road Reconstruction Project (NPS) is currently underway from the park boundary to the Cascades Diversion Dam, and affects vegetation of the Merced River immediately adjacent to the roadway. Natural resources are protected during construction by implementation of a compliance monitoring program, erosion and sediment controls, hazardous materials controls, revegetation and reclamation, and excluding construction from sensitive habitats. Such measures ensure the overall protection and enhancement of the hydrologic, biological, geologic, cultural, scenic, scientific, and recreation Outstandingly Remarkable Values in the zone as a whole and other parts of the river corridor. Implementation of these measures reduces the overall effects.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Reasonably foreseeable future actions proposed in the region are separated below into three general categories: (1) projects anticipated to have a net beneficial effect; (2) projects anticipated to have both beneficial and adverse effects; and (3) projects anticipated to have a net adverse effect.

Examples of projects that could have a cumulative, beneficial effect on regional vegetation include:

• Several Yosemite campground rehabilitation projects, such as at Bridalveil Horse Camp, Yosemite Creek Campground, Tamarack Campground, and Hodgdon Meadow Campground; and Wawona Campground Improvement (NPS)
• The Merced River at Eagle Creek Ecological Restoration Project (NPS)
• Update to the Yosemite Fire Management Plan (NPS), which has a goal of improving ecosystem health and meadow restoration
• Update to the Yosemite Wilderness Management Plan (NPS), which will address land management issues within the wilderness
• Fire Management Action Plan for Wilderness (USFS, Stanislaus)
• The Sierra Nevada Framework for Conservation and Collaboration, and the Management Direction for the John Muir, Ansel Adams and Dinkey Lakes, and Monarch Wildernesses (USFS); Wilderness Boundary Protection Land Exchange, Seventh Day Adventist Camp, Wawona (NPS); each of which will address ecosystem management issues of lands adjacent to Yosemite National Park
• Several transportation-related projects (e.g., Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System [YARTS]) which have the general goals of increasing transportation options and reducing reliance on automobiles in the area

Although each of these projects may have slight site-specific and short-term adverse effects (e.g., construction-related effects), the general goal of these projects is to increase coordinated resource management and to restore sensitive ecosystems. Therefore, these projects could have a long-term, beneficial cumulative impact to regional native vegetation. For example, the update to the Yosemite Wilderness Management Plan could result in the removal of the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp, reducing site-specific erosion and trampling and possibly stock use.

Reasonably foreseeable projects that could have mixed adverse and beneficial effects on regional vegetation include:

• The Tuolumne Meadows Development Concept Plan, and Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (NPS)
• The Tuolumne Meadows Water and Wastewater Improvements; the White Wolf Water System Improvements, Hodgdon Meadow Water and Wastewater Treatment Improvements, and Replacement/Rehabilitation of Yosemite Valley Sewer Line (NPS); O’Shaughnessy Compound Water System Improvements (City and Co. San Francisco)
• The Orange Crush Fuels Treatment Projects (USFS, Stanislaus)
• The A-Rock Reforestation (USFS, Stanislaus) and the Rogge-Ackerson Fire Reforestation (Tuolumne Co.)
• The Yosemite Valley Plan (NPS), which would implement the goals and actions of the 1980 General Management Plan (NPS)
• South Fork Merced River Bridges Replacement (NPS)
• South Entrance/Mariposa Grove Site Planning (NPS), which will restore giant sequoia habitat in the Lower Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias in Yosemite National Park

Cumulative effects of these projects could be mixed, combining both adverse and beneficial effects. The net beneficial or adverse effects of these projects are difficult to anticipate. For example, implementation of the Tuolumne Meadows Water and Wastewater Improvements project has the potential to adversely affect vegetation resources during construction (short-term), with the long-term, beneficial effect of improving water quality through improved wastewater treatment. Another example would be implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Overall, implementation of this plan is expected to have a long-term, beneficial impact to vegetation resources by increasing coordinated management of natural resources and reducing facilities within sensitive habitats. However, short-term, adverse effects of this plan may include temporary construction impacts (e.g., potential reconstruction of Segment D of the El Portal Road Reconstruction Project just above Cascades Diversion Dam). Reconstruction of Segment D could cause short-term adverse impacts to natural resources similar to those currently occurring during reconstruction on Segments A, B, and C. These would include loss of mature (overstory) vegetation, loss of understory vegetation, impacts to special-status species, loss of topsoil, and footprint effects. Adverse impacts associated with Segment D reconstruction could be partially mitigated through project design (the design of Segment D would need to protect and enhance the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Merced River) and implementation of best management practices, compliance monitoring, and restoration. However, some of the proposed redevelopment in El Portal, for example, the redevelopment of the sand pit, would be inconsistent with the management zoning in this alternative of the Merced River Plan. The Merced River Plan guides future allowable actions within the Merced River corridor and subsequent implementation plans, such as the Yosemite Valley Plan. If Alternative 2 is selected, revisions to the Yosemite Valley Plan would be required to conform to the management zones provided in Alternative 2. Components of the Yosemite Valley Plan would need to change to conform to this alternative. The broad goals of the Yosemite Valley Plan, however, would continue to apply, including reclaiming priceless natural beauty, allowing natural processes to prevail, and reducing crowding. In general, revision to the Yosemite Valley Plan to comply with this alternative would have a general beneficial effect due to the underlying zoning prescribed in this alternative.

Reasonably foreseeable projects that could have an adverse effect on regional vegetation include:

• The Yosemite View parcel land exchange, El Portal (NPS)
• Merced River Canyon Trail Acquisition (BLM)
• Several development-related projects, such as the Rio Mesa Area Plan (Madera Co.); Yosemite Motels, El Portal (Mariposa Co.); Silvertip Resort Village Project (Mariposa Co.); University of California, Merced Campus (Merced Co.); Buildout of City of Merced, General Plan; Double Eagle Resort, June Lake (Mono Co.); Tioga Inn, Lee Vining (Mono Co.); June Lake Highlands (Mono Co.); Crane Flat Campus Redevelopment (NPS, YNI); Evergreen Lodge Expansion (Tuolumne Co.); Hardin Flat Lodging and Conference Facility (Tuolumne Co.); Motel and Restaurant, Second Garrotte Basin (Tuolumne Co.); Resources Management Building (NPS); Yosemite West Rezoning Application (NPS); and the Hazel Green Ranch (Mariposa Co.)
• Transportation projects, such as the Highway 41 Extension (Madera Co.); Yosemite Valley Shuttle Bus Stop Improvements (NPS); Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement of Highway 49 and Old Highway (Mariposa Co.); Expansion of Mariposa County Transit System; Mariposa Creek Pedestrian/Bike Path (Mariposa Co.); Evergreen Road Improvements (multi-agency, see Appendix G); and San Joaquin Corridor Rail Projects (DOT, Amtrak)
• Several water-related projects, such as the Replacement/Rehabilitation of Yosemite Valley Sewer Line (NPS); Cherry Dam Fuse Gate, and O’Shaughnessy Dam Well (City and Co. San Francisco)

Cumulative adverse effects would be related to increased facilities, access, and regional population growth. Each of the aforementioned projects has the potential to have substantial site-specific adverse effects on vegetation resources during construction (short-term) and by direct displacement of resources (long-term). The larger effect of these actions is related to population and regional growth and their subsequent effect on natural resources, including native vegetation patterns. Regional population growth primarily affects regional vegetation patterns through construction (e.g., new housing and infrastructure) and visitor use. Examples of construction- and human-use-related effects on vegetation patterns include direct displacement of vegetation (e.g., replaced with structures), introduction of non-native species that invade into adjacent natural areas and displace native species (e.g., spread by construction equipment or backyard gardening), fragmentation of habitats that prevents genetic mixing, alteration of natural patterns (e.g., fire suppression around structures, use of herbicides, the introduction of night light), and increased erosion and sedimentation (e.g., during grading activities, overuse of trails). Although each new development is required to mitigate or compensate for adverse effects to vegetation, the mitigation/compensation is generally uncoordinated and does not typically replace natural ecosystem functions or values that were present throughout the region prior to Euro-American settlement. In total, regional development and growth could have a net long-term, major, adverse effect on regional vegetation resources that would not be compensated by regional planning and restoration projects discussed above.

Although cumulative actions could have a long-term, beneficial cumulative effect on vegetation and vegetation-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the river corridor, throughout the Sierra Nevada and larger region, these past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are likely to increase regional growth (construction and human-use-related effects) and have a long-term, adverse cumulative effect on regional vegetation patterns (e.g., introduction and spread of non-native species, direct displacement of vegetation by structures) that would not be compensated by piecemeal (i.e., project by project) mitigation. These cumulative actions in combination with Alternative 2 could have a net long-term, major, adverse effect on regional vegetation patterns.

For the duration of this plan, management zoning and the River Protection Overlay would preclude various types of new development that has potential to adversely affect native vegetation (a minor, beneficial impact). In the long term, the combination of management zoning, the River Protection Overlay, application of a consistent set of decision making criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process), and implementation of the VERP framework would have a moderate, beneficial effect on vegetation and vegetation-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the river corridor because these elements could preclude inappropriate development, remove inappropriate facilities from the immediate river corridor, subject new actions to a rigorous planning process designed to eliminate adverse effects on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values, and manage zones to their desired conditions. Site-specific, short- and long-term, negative effects to native vegetation could occur as the result of future actions that could be implemented under the proposed zoning (e.g., new campsites, parking facilities, road repair). These effects would be most pronounced within the Developed zones within east Yosemite Valley and El Portal. Overall, limits on the effects of visitor use (VERP framework) and facilities (management zoning and the River Protection Overlay) in combination with the application of a consistent set of decision-making criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process) would allow existing natural areas to remain relatively unimpaired with continued protection and would direct restoration and enhancement of impaired native habitats. This would result in a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on native vegetation and vegetation-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the river corridor compared to the No Action Alternative.

Although cumulative actions could have a long-term, beneficial cumulative effect on vegetation and vegetation-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the river corridor, throughout the Sierra Nevada and larger region, these past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are likely to increase regional growth (construction and human-use-related effects) and have a long-term, adverse cumulative effect on regional vegetation patterns (e.g., introduction and spread of non-native species, direct displacement of vegetation by structures) that would not be compensated by piecemeal (i.e., project by project) mitigation. These cumulative actions in combination with Alternative 2 could have a net long-term, major, adverse effect on regional vegetation patterns.

Wildlife

Analysis

General Impacts. Biological resource Outstandingly Remarkable Values listed in the 1996 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan have been revised based on the application of new scientific information, changed ecological and hydrologic conditions in the river corridor, and to accurately reflect Outstandingly Remarkable Value criteria included in the Interagency Coordinating Council guidelines for implementation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Specifically, those resources that are not related to the Merced River (e.g., western juniper, white fir, black oak woodlands, Mount Lyell salamander) or not unique to the region or nation (e.g., rainbow trout) have been removed. Removal of these resources from the list of Outstandingly Remarkable Values would not alter their management or protection. These resources would continue to be managed and protected by existing park policy and guidelines (e.g., General Management Plan, Yosemite Resources Management Plan), as well as by federal law (e.g., the federal Endangered Species Act, 1916 Organic Act). Biological resource Outstandingly Remarkable Values common to the entire Merced River (main stem and South Fork) now include riverine habitats, such as riparian forests, meadows, and the aquatic environment and associated special-status species. The revised Outstandingly Remarkable Values provide greater focus on the Merced River than those presented in the 1996 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan.

The following discussion provides an overview of the types of impacts to wildlife resources that could occur within each segment of the Merced River corridor from application of management elements in Alternative 2.

Impacts in the Wilderness Segment of the Upper Main Stem Merced River. Examples of wildlife-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the upper Merced River include riverine wildlife habitats such as riparian forests, meadows, and the aquatic environment of the river and associated special-status plant species. The upper Merced River would be zoned consistent with existing conditions and use (1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D) and reflects current management practices and use levels based on the Wilderness Act and federal and Yosemite National Park wilderness policies and guidelines. Although the proposed zoning and the River Protection Overlay are not anticipated to alter use patterns or existing facilities within the upper Merced River, these management elements would limit the type of new facilities (e.g., large campsites with facilities are prohibited in the 1B zone) that possibly could be built (potentially adversely affecting native wildlife). Although possible future actions (e.g., trail rehabilitation) could occur under the proposed zoning, it would be subject to the consistent set of criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process) which would guide how the action could be implemented. The application of zoning in combination with the consistent set of criteria and considerations within wilderness segments would have a short- and long-term, negligible, beneficial effect on native wildlife and wildlife-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

Implementation of the VERP framework and VERP management actions could have long-term, negligible to minor, beneficial impacts on general wildlife and wildlife-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the upper Merced River by reducing visitor effects on these sensitive resources. For example, if VERP monitoring reveals degradation of high elevation meadows based on visitor use (e.g., camping), VERP management actions (e.g., educational signs, limits on visitor use, restoration) could be implemented to achieve the desired condition for the meadow and management zone. However, there are existing limits to visitor use in wilderness that are based on resource protection goals.

Impacts in Yosemite Valley. Riparian areas and low-elevation meadows are the most productive communities in Yosemite Valley. The high quality and large extent of riparian, wetland, and other riverine areas provide rich habitat for a diversity of river-related species, including special-status species, neotropical migrant songbirds, and numerous bat species. These are examples of wildlife-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values within Yosemite Valley.

Yosemite Valley would be zoned to protect natural resources while providing a diverse visitor experience. Although large portions of the east Valley would remain developed or could be further developed, the proposed zoning overall (including the River Protection Overlay) of Yosemite Valley is more restrictive than the absence of zoning in the No Action Alternative. The proposed zoning would preclude several types of new development (e.g., new campsites would be precluded in the 2C Day Use zone at Cathedral Beach) that have the potential to adversely affect native wildlife. In addition, possible future actions (e.g., bridge removal, construction of new campsites) that could occur under the proposed zoning, would be subject to the consistent set of criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process) which would guide how the action could be implemented. The application of zoning in combination with the consistent set of criteria and considerations within would have a short- and long-term, minor, beneficial effect on native wildlife and wildlife-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

Examples of how proposed management zoning, the River Protection Overlay, the VERP framework, and the criteria and considerations would protect and enhance (i.e., beneficial effect) native wildlife and wildlife-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values in Yosemite Valley include the following:

• Sensitive native habitats within Yosemite Valley (zoned 2A) would receive increased protection compared to the No Action Alternative. The zoning precludes a variety of new facilities (e.g., paved roads or trails, bicycle paths, day-visitor parking, food service, lodging). Under the VERP framework, this zone would be managed (over the long term) with a very low tolerance for resource degradation from visitor use. Limits on the effects of visitor use (VERP framework) and facilities (management zoning) would allow existing natural areas to remain relatively unimpaired with continued protection, restoration, and enhancement of native habitats resulting in a site-specific, long-term, minor, beneficial impact for species likely to occur there, such as California newt and western aquatic garter snake, and would increase protection of potential California red-legged frog habitat (a wildlife-related Outstandingly Remarkable Value).
• El Capitan Meadow is a river-related meadow and is considered part of the biological resource Outstandingly Remarkable Value. The 2B zoning would shift emphasis from unconfined and undirected, large-group and socially oriented recreational activities (No Action Alternative) to small-group and individually oriented activities. El Capitan Meadow is used as an informal viewing location of climbers of El Capitan. A high level of visitor use has degraded the meadow through trampling, soil compaction, and fragmentation. The current level of use of El Capitan Meadow would be inconsistent with the 2B zoning. Under the 2B zoning and the VERP framework, management actions—including restoration of El Capitan Meadow—could be implemented. Visitors could be directed to the proposed 2C picnic area (an upland location lacking high value resources that is more resistent to adverse impacts) at the base of El Capitan. This could increase opportunities for revegetation and restoration of natural vegetation and wildlife habitat, resulting in a minor to moderate, site-specific, long-term, beneficial effect to the wildlife habitat of El Capitan Meadow.
• Several existing facilities immediately adjacent to the Merced River would be inconsistent with the River Protection Overlay and could be removed (e.g., portions of Housekeeping Camp, several bridges, portions of Lower Pines Campground). Removal of facilities from the River Protection Overlay in combination would remove sources of pollutants (e.g., oil), reduce trampling, compaction, and soil erosion (associated with facility use and maintenance), and increase opportunities for revegetation and restoration of riparian vegetation. The magnitude of the effect of the River Protection Overlay on native wildlife is correlated to degree to which it is implemented in the future. For example, removal of one bridge would likely have only a negligible, beneficial effect where as removal of several facilities would have a minor to major, long-term, beneficial effect on streamside wildlife in Yosemite Valley, an Outstandingly Remarkable Value.
• The 2B zoning over a majority of the west Valley would preclude new launch/take out facilities for non-motorized watercraft. These facilities would be allowed at specific locations, such as Sentinel Beach (zoned 2C) and Cathedral Beach (zoned 2C) that are more resilient to visitor use. Limiting this activity to particular points along the river, as opposed to current management practices which do not constrain launchings, would increase protection and allow increased restoration over the entire length of the river within Yosemite Valley. Although site-specific, minor to moderate, long-term, adverse effects to wildlife could occur at locations such as Sentinel Beach and Cathedral Beach (e.g., nonmotorized watercraft could have a minor, adverse impact on fish habitat, mainly through riparian vegetation impacts but also due to pool-riffle structure), containment of such effects in a limited area, while protecting a much larger area would result in a net long-term, moderate, beneficial effect on the riparian wildlife habitat, a biological resource-related Outstandingly Remarkable Value. The application of mitigation measures described in Chapter II (e.g., siting to avoid effects to sensitive habitats, habitat compensation, best management practices, oil and sediment separators, visitor education) in combination with the implementation of VERP management actions could reduce the severity of the identified site-specific adverse effects to a negligible to minor intensity.

Examples of how management elements proposed under this alternative could have negative effects on native wildlife and wildlife related Outstandingly Remarkable Values in Yosemite Valley include the following:

• The Developed zones (zone 3A, 3B, and 3C) are designed to direct high-impact activities and facilities to areas able to withstand heavy use and/or to those areas already developed. These zones could absorb the most concentrated visitor and administrative use with a higher tolerance for resource degradation. The woodlot and Pohono Quarry would be zoned 3C, consistent with current use. The proposed 3C zoning at either Taft Toe or Camp 6 and the 3B zoning at Yosemite Lodge could allow construction of new park facilities (e.g., parking, trail hardening). The 3A zoning at the existing North Pines, Lower Pines, and Upper Pines Campgrounds would allow construction of new campground facilities. New facilities could affect native wildlife habitats such as black oak woodland and coniferous forest at these locations, increase human trampling of understory species in the immediate area, increase nonpoint-source pollution and refuse, decrease connectivity between habitats and the river, and increase the potential for introduction and spread of non-native species. It is anticipated that naturally occurring fires would be controlled around new structures, similar to existing park policy, and that this could affect habitat composition in the immediate vicinity of structures over the long term. Species richness and diversity generally decline where recreational activities occur (Cole 1993). In addition, walk-in camps, greater distance between parking and campsites could result in a higher incidence of food in vehicles, leading to more food conditioning of bears and property damage. The higher use could over time indirectly affect wildlife diversity in the immediate area, due to a decrease in connectivity between habitats and the river, and could increase the potential for introduction and spread of non-native species such as the bullfrog, or parasitic species such as the cowbird. Disturbance-tolerant plants and animals would increase, at the expense of species sensitive to disturbance or with sensitive habitat elements (e.g., meadows and dependent wildlife species such as California voles and foraging raptors). Overall, the structural form, connectivity, size, productivity, and diversity of native wildlife and wildlife habitat located at and in the vicinity of potential development sites could be adversely affected (long-term, adverse, and moderate to major in intensity). The application of mitigation measures described in Chapter II (e.g., siting to avoid effects to sensitive habitats, habitat compensation, best management practices, oil and sediment separators, visitor education) in combination with the implementation of VERP management actions could reduce the severity of the identified effects to a negligible to moderate intensity.
• Relocation of facilities to other locations within the park (outside the river corridor) could have site-specific, long-term, negligible to major, adverse effects on native wildlife, depending on site-specific conditions and project design. If relocated outside the river corridor, adverse affects could be reduced to a negligible to minor intensity by implementation of standard park policy and federal regulations (e.g., the federal Endangered Species Act).
• Relocation of facilities to other locations within the corridor could have site-specific, long-term, negligible to major, adverse effects on native wildlife, depending on site-specific conditions and project design. If relocated within the river corridor, adverse effects could be mitigated to a negligible to minor intensity by implementation of mitigation measures described in Chapter II (e.g., siting to avoid effects to sensitive habitats, habitat compensation, best management practices, oil and sediment separators, visitor education) in combination with the implementation of VERP management actions.
• Localized, minor to major, short-term, temporary effects on wildlife could occur from construction (e.g., potential transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility, new campground facilities) and demolition (e.g., removal of impoundments and bridges) along the Merced River. Effects would be related to heavy equipment and construction/demolition activities and could include soil compaction, dust, vegetation removal, noise, and introduction and spread of non-native species. These actions could result in direct losses of nests or burrows, and indirect effects through the disturbance of nesting birds. The application of mitigation measures (e.g., siting to avoid effects to sensitive habitats, habitat compensation, best management practices, oil and sediment separators, visitor education) could lessen the potential for impacts to wildlife habitats (described in Chapter II). Implementation of such measures could reduce the potential adverse impacts to a negligible to moderate intensity.

Although site-specific, short- and long-term, negative effects to native wildlife could occur as the result of future actions that could be implemented under the proposed zoning (e.g., new campsites, parking facilities, road repair), the overall design of Alternative 2 would provide increased protection for native wildlife and wildlife-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values compared to Alternative 1 resulting in a net long-term, moderate, beneficial effect.

Impacts in the Merced River Gorge and El Portal. Examples of wildlife-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Merced River gorge include diverse riparian areas that are largely undisturbed by humans and river-associated special-status species. The majority of the Merced River gorge would be zoned 2A+, 2B, 2C, and 2D. El Portal would have a base zone of 2C with large tracts zoned 3C. Examples of how the management elements of Alternative 2 would affect native wildlife and wildlife-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Merced River gorge and El Portal are described below.

• Existing facilities, such as the Cascades Diversion Dam, would be inconsistent with the River Protection Overlay and could be removed. Potential removal of this and other facilities would increase the free-flowing condition of the Merced River and return this portion of the Merced River to a more natural condition thereby enhancing the biological integrity of this segment and fish habitat. This could increase opportunities for revegetation and restoration of riparian habitats, resulting in moderate, site-specific, long-term, beneficial effects on this Outstandingly Remarkable Value.
• Localized, minor to major, short-term, temporary effects on wildlife could occur from construction (e.g., potential transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility, new campground facilities) and demolition (e.g., removal of impoundments and bridges) along the Merced River. Effects would be related to heavy equipment and construction/demolition activities and could include soil compaction, dust, vegetation removal, noise, and introduction and spread of non-native species. These actions could result in direct losses of nests or burrows, and indirect effects through the disturbance of nesting birds. The application of mitigation measures (e.g., siting to avoid effects to sensitive habitats, habitat compensation, best management practices, oil and sediment separators, visitor education) could lessen the potential for impacts to wildlife habitats (described in Chapter II). Implementation of such measures could reduce the potential adverse impacts to a negligible to moderate intensity.
• New or expanded facilities (e.g., parking) could be built within the 2D zone below Cascades. As an Attraction zone, visitors would be actively directed to this area, therefore, visitor induced impacts, such as soil compaction, litter (attractants for a number of wildlife including bears), trampling, also could occur. New or expanded facilities and increased visitor use could have long-term, site-specific, negligible to moderate, adverse impacts on native wildlife. Adverse affects could be mitigated to a negligible to minor intensity by implementation of mitigation measures described in Chapter II.
• With the exception of the Cascades, the majority of the gorge is relatively inaccessible and visitor use is unlikely to increase. Consequently, there would be no impact on wildlife or wildlife-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values for the large portions of the gorge compared to the No Action Alternative.
• The sand pit in El Portal was once used to mine sand from the Merced River and is currently used for construction staging and other administrative purposes. This use may interfere with riverine habitat and natural regeneration of riparian habitat at the site. The current use of the sand pit would be inconsistent with the proposed 2C zoning and could be removed, which would allow for natural processes to prevail at this location, enhance the aquatic habitat (e.g., the removal of sources of pollutants would improve water quality and increase habitat values) and allow natural revegetation with riparian species. This could result in a site-specific, moderate, beneficial effect on this Outstandingly Remarkable Value.
• Large portions of El Portal would be zoned 3C (e.g., the Trailer Village, old El Portal), which could allow additional development (e.g., employee residences located in Yosemite Valley could be relocated to the El Portal Administrative Site). Potential development could have both short-term (e.g., construction-related) and long-term (e.g., night lighting, human presence, fire suppression in the vicinity of structures), minor to major, adverse effects on native wildlife. Although application of mitigation measures described in Chapter II (e.g., siting to avoid effects to sensitive habitats, habitat compensation, shielded lighting, best management practices, oil and sediment separators, visitor education) in combination with the implementation of VERP management actions, would reduce impacts to long-term, minor to moderate, negative effects to native wildlife (e.g., conversion of upland woodland or scrub vegetation to developed facilities) would remain.

Repair or redevelopment of existing facilities (e.g., the El Portal Road) would not be precluded by the proposed zoning and could occur. For example, in the future the National Park Service could propose to reconstruct the El Portal Road. Impacts on native wildlife and wildlife-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the proposed design could include direct and permanent loss of riparian habitats, blasting, nest removal, dust, noise, erosion and the long-term discharge of pollutants associated with use of roads (e.g., oil, grease, litter). These types of impacts would be long-term, moderate to major and adverse. The National Park Service would first subject the proposed action to the decision-making criteria and considerations. If the proposed action would affect the bed or banks of the Merced River (i.e., a water resources project), the National Park Service then would complete a Section 7 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act determination, as well as other appropriate documentation (e.g., National Environmental Policy Act, federal Endangered Species Act). Through these processes, project designs that avoid and minimize the adverse effects to the Outstandingly Remarkable Values (including streamside vegetation), wetlands, wildlife and resources in general would be identified. Projects that cannot be redesigned would either be abandoned or could proceed following notification, in writing, of the Secretary of the Interior and the United States Congress in accordance with Section 7(a) of the act. During reconstruction, mitigation measures described in Chapter II would be applied. Road maintenance and its associated temporary impacts would decrease because the road would be more stable and require less intensive and less frequent maintenance. Over the long-term, the roadway (and the surrounding 2B and 2D management zones) would be managed through the VERP framework to the desired conditions. In total, the application of management elements included in this alternative would reduce the negative effects of the original project design to a negligible to minor intensity.

The application of management elements under this alternative would increase protection and enhancement of wildlife and wildlife-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values in the of the gorge. The proposed zoning in El Portal could allow additional development of park administration facilities that could have short- and long-term negative affects to native wildlife could occur as the result of future actions that could be implemented under the proposed zoning (e.g., new park administration facilities, road repair). These impacts could be reduced through the application of mitigation measures described in Chapter II. Although the criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination) would protect wildlife-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values, other wildlife resources, such as upland wildlife species (e.g., bears, deer) could be adversely affected (long-term, moderate to major).

Impacts in Wilderness Segments of the South Fork. Examples of wildlife-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values of wilderness segments of the South Fork include a nearly full range of riverine environments typical to the Sierra Nevada that are largely intact and undisturbed by humans. Examples of river-related federal and state special-status species include Wawona riffle beetle and mountain yellow-legged frog.

The upper and lower portions of the South Fork (above and below Wawona) would be zoned 1A and 1B and reflect current management practices and use levels based on the Wilderness Act and federal and Yosemite National Park wilderness policies and guidelines. The proposed zoning and the River Protection Overlay are not anticipated to alter use patterns or existing facilities within the wilderness portions of the South Fork. However, these management elements would limit the type of new facilities (e.g., large campsites with facilities are prohibited in the 1B zone) that possibly could be built (potentially adversely affecting native wildlife), providing a minor beneficial impact. Although possible future actions (e.g., trail rehabilitation) could occur under the proposed zoning, they would be subject to the consistent set of criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process) which would guide how the action could be implemented. The application of zoning in combination with the consistent set of criteria and considerations within wilderness segments would have a short- and long-term, negligible, beneficial effect on native wildlife and wildlife-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

Implementation of the VERP framework and VERP management actions could have long-term, negligible to minor, beneficial impacts on general wildlife and wildlife-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values of wilderness portions of the South Fork by reducing visitor effects on these sensitive resources. For example, if VERP monitoring reveals degradation of riparian habitat based on visitor use (e.g., informal trails), VERP management actions (e.g., educational signs, limits on visitor use, restoration) could be implemented to achieve the desired condition for the riparian habitat and management zone. However, there are existing limits to visitor use in wilderness that are based on resource protection goals.

Impacts in Wawona. Examples of wildlife-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values of Wawona includes diverse riparian areas that are intact and largely undisturbed by humans. River-related federal and state special-status species in this segment include Wawona riffle beetle.

Although the South Fork in Wawona would have a variety of zones, ranging from 1A (Wilderness) to 3C (Park Operations and Administration), the base zones would be 1A, 2A, and 2B. The 1A, 2A, and 2B zones would preclude new development such as interpretive centers, food services, campgrounds and lodging, and day-visitor parking. This would result in a long-term, minor beneficial impact. Wawona Golf Course and Wawona Picnic Area (zoned 2C), Wawona Campground (zoned 3A), Wawona Hotel (zoned 3B), and the Wawona maintenance facility (zoned 3C) could continue to function consistent with existing conditions. The proposed zoning and continued use of these sites is not expected to adversely affect site-specific wildlife resources compared to the No Action Alternative.

Portions of facilities within the River Protection Overlay, such as portions of Wawona Campground and a portion of the Wawona maintenance facility, would be inconsistent with the River Protection Overlay and could be removed or relocated. This could increase opportunities for natural revegetation and restoration of riparian habitat, resulting in a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on streamside vegetation, a biological resource Outstandingly Remarkable Value.

The proposed zoning is not anticipated to substantially alter use patterns or facilities of the South Fork compared to the No Action Alternative. Site-specific, short-term negligible to minor adverse effects to wildlife could occur if facilities are removed from the River Protection Overlay. These adverse impacts could be reduced to a negligible intensity by application of mitigation measures described in Chapter II. Overall, Alternative 2 would have a long-term negligible to minor beneficial impact on native wildlife and wildlife-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the South Fork compared to the No Action Alternative.

Summary of Alternative 2 Impacts. For the duration of the plan, management zoning and the River Protection Overlay would preclude various types of new development that have the potential to adversely affect native wildlife (a minor, beneficial impact). In the long term, the combination of management zoning, the River Protection Overlay, application of a consistent set of decision-making criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process), and implementation of the VERP framework would have a moderate, beneficial, effect on wildlife and wildlife-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the river corridor. These elements could preclude inappropriate development, remove inappropriate facilities from the immediate river corridor, subject new actions to a rigorous planning process designed to eliminate adverse effects on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values, and manage zones to their desired conditions. Site-specific, short- and long-term, negative effects to native wildlife could occur as the result of future actions that could be implemented under the proposed zoning (e.g., new campsites, parking facilities, road repair). These effects would be most pronounced within the Developed zones within east Yosemite Valley and El Portal. Overall, limits on the effects of visitor use (VERP framework) and facilities (management zoning and the River Protection Overlay) in combination with the application of a consistent set of decision-making criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process) would allow existing natural areas to remain relatively unimpaired with continued protection and would direct restoration and enhancement of impaired native habitats. This would result in a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on native wildlife and wildlife-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the river corridor compared to the No Action Alternative.

Cumulative effects to wildlife discussed herein are based on analysis of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the Yosemite region in combination with potential effects of this alternative. The projects identified below include those projects that have the potential to effect local wildlife patterns (i.e., within the river corridor) as well as large-scale or regional wildlife patterns.

Past Actions. Wildlife communities have been manipulated almost since the beginning of the park. Regional wildlife has been historically affected by logging, fire suppression, rangeland clearing, grazing, mining, draining, damming, diversions, and the introduction of non-native species. Fur-bearing mammals were trapped by park rangers until 1925; lions were considered dangerous predators and controlled through the 1920s; bears were artificially fed as a tourist attraction until 1940. Natural wildfires, with their generally beneficial effects on wildlife habitat, were routinely suppressed until 1972 (Wuerthner 1994). Past and ongoing activities include construction of dams, diversion walls, bridges, roads, pipelines, riprap, recreational use, buildings, campgrounds, and other recreational features.

Yosemite’s largest mammal, the grizzly bear, was extirpated from the region and from the state in the 1920s. Other mammal species that survive but are extremely rare are the fisher, wolverine (possibly extinct), and Sierra Nevada red fox. Several bird species have probably been reduced in Yosemite Valley by human activity, but are present in less disturbed areas of the park. Willow flycatchers no longer nest in Yosemite Valley—probably due as much to parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds as to destruction of riparian and meadow habitat. On a wider scale, apparent population declines have been detected in numerous other bird species in the Sierra Nevada, including Yosemite National Park. Possible causes for these declines include grazing, logging, fire suppression, development, recreational use, pesticides, habitat destruction on wintering grounds, and large-scale climate changes.

Amphibians in Yosemite National Park have suffered population declines similar to those seen in the rest of the Sierra Nevada (Drost and Fellars 1996). Red-legged frogs likely were found in Yosemite Valley in the past but are now are presumed extirpated. Significant factors in their disappearance probably include reduction in perennial ponds and wetlands, and predation by bullfrogs. At higher elevations, mountain yellow-legged frogs and Yosemite toads are still present in a number of areas, but are severely reduced in population and range. Foothill yellow-legged frogs have disappeared completely from the park, if not the entire Sierra Nevada. Research continues to identify the causes of Sierra Nevada-wide amphibian declines; possible causes include habitat destruction, non-native fish, pesticides, and diseases. Most fish currently found in the Merced River and its tributaries in Yosemite National Park have been introduced. Prior to trout stocking for sport fishing, native fish in Yosemite were probably limited to the rainbow trout and the Sacramento sucker, both of which were present only in the lower portions of the Merced River (i.e., Yosemite Valley and below). Rainbow trout introduced through stocking from other waters and fish hatcheries have now hybridized with, and/or has displaced, the original strain.

In 1991, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management developed a joint South Fork and Merced Wild and Scenic River Implementation Plan for the segments of the main stem and South Fork of the Merced River that are under their jurisdiction. The plan is also a general management plan with many prescriptive goals and few actions. The plan endeavors to limit or end consumptive uses such as grazing within the river corridor and calls for the formalization of camping and launch facilities for non-motorized watercraft. Implementation of these actions has a beneficial effect by eliminating impacts where feasible (grazing does not currently occur within the river corridor), concentrating impacts in areas able to withstand visitor use, and providing facilities that mitigate adverse effects associated with visitor use (e.g., restrooms).

Present Actions. The El Portal Road Reconstruction Project (NPS) is currently underway from the park boundary to the Cascades Diversion Dam, and affects wildlife of the Merced River immediately adjacent to the roadway. Natural resources are protected during construction by implementation of a compliance monitoring program, erosion and sediment controls, hazardous materials controls, revegetation and reclamation, and excluding construction from sensitive habitats. Such measures ensure the overall protection and enhancement of the hydrologic, biological, geologic, cultural, scenic, scientific, and recreation Outstandingly Remarkable Values in the zone as a whole and other parts of the river corridor. Implementation of these measures reduces the overall effects.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Reasonably foreseeable future actions proposed in the region are separated below into three general categories: (1) projects anticipated to have a net beneficial effect; (2) projects anticipated to have both beneficial and adverse effects; and (3) projects anticipated to have a net adverse effect.

Examples of projects that could have a cumulative, beneficial effect on regional wildlife include:

• Several Yosemite campground rehabilitation projects, such as at Bridalveil Horse Camp, Yosemite Creek Campground, Tamarack Campground, Hodgdon Meadow Campground; and Wawona Campground Improvement (NPS)
• The Merced River at Eagle Creek Ecological Restoration Project (NPS)
• Update to the Yosemite Fire Management Plan (NPS), which has a goal of improving ecosystem health and meadow restoration
• Update to the Yosemite Wilderness Management Plan (NPS), which will address land management issues within the wilderness
• Fire Management Action Plan for Wilderness (USFS, Stanislaus)
• The Sierra Nevada Framework for Conservation and Collaboration, and the Management Direction for the John Muir, Ansel Adams and Dinkey Lakes, and Monarch Wildernesses (USFS); Wilderness Boundary Protection Land Exchange, Seventh Day Adventist Camp, Wawona (NPS); each of which will address ecosystem management issues of lands adjacent to Yosemite National Park
• Several transportation-related projects (e.g., Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System [YARTS]) which have the general goals of increasing transportation options and reducing reliance on automobiles in the area

Although each of these projects may have slight site-specific and short-term adverse effects (e.g., construction-related effects), the general goal of these projects is to increase coordinated resource management and to restore sensitive ecosystems. Therefore, these projects could have a long-term, beneficial cumulative impact to regional native wildlife. For example, the update to the Yosemite Wilderness Management Plan could result in the removal of the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp, reducing site-specific erosion and trampling and possibly stock use.

Reasonably foreseeable projects that could have mixed adverse and beneficial effects on regional wildlife include:

• The Tuolumne Meadows Development Concept Plan, and Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (NPS)
• The Tuolumne Meadows Water and Wastewater Improvements; the White Wolf Water System Improvements, Hodgdon Meadow Water and Wastewater Treatment Improvements, Replacement/Rehabilitation of Yosemite Valley Sewer Line (NPS); O’Shaughnessy Compound Water System Improvements (City and Co. San Francisco),
• The Orange Crush Fuels Treatment Projects (USFS, Stanislaus)
• The A-Rock Reforestation (USFS, Stanislaus) and the Rogge-Ackerson Fire Reforestation (Tuolumne Co.)
• The Yosemite Valley Plan (NPS), which would implement the goals and actions of the 1980 General Management Plan (NPS)
• South Fork Merced River Bridges Replacement (NPS)
• South Entrance/Mariposa Grove Site Planning (NPS), which will restore giant sequoia habitat in the Lower Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias in Yosemite National Park

Cumulative effects of these projects could be mixed, combining both adverse and beneficial effects. The net beneficial or adverse effects of these projects are difficult to anticipate. For example, implementation of the Tuolumne Meadows Water and Wastewater Improvements project has the potential to adversely affect wildlife resources during construction (short-term), with the long-term, beneficial effect of improving water quality through improved wastewater treatment. Another example would be implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Overall, implementation of this plan is expected to have a long-term, beneficial impact to wildlife resources by increasing coordinated management of natural resources and reducing facilities within sensitive habitats. However, short-term, adverse effects of this plan may include temporary construction impacts (e.g., potential reconstruction of Segment D of the El Portal Road Reconstruction Project just above Cascades Diversion Dam). Reconstruction of Segment D could cause short-term adverse impacts to natural resources similar to those currently occurring during reconstruction on Segments A, B, and C. These would include loss of mature (overstory) wildlife, loss of understory vegetation, impacts to special-status species, loss of topsoil, and footprint effects. Adverse impacts associated with Segment D reconstruction could be partially mitigated through project design (the design of Segment D would need to protect and enhance the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Merced River) and implementation of best management practices, compliance monitoring, and restoration. However, some of the proposed redevelopment in El Portal, for example, the redevelopment of the sand pit, would be inconsistent with the management zoning in this alternative of the Merced River Plan/FEIS. The Merced River Plan guides future allowable actions within the Merced River corridor and subsequent implementation plans, such as the Yosemite Valley Plan. If Alternative 2 is selected, revisions to the Yosemite Valley Plan would be required to conform to the management zones provided in Alternative 2. Components of the Yosemite Valley Plan would need to change to conform with this alternative. The broad goals of the Yosemite Valley Plan, however, would continue to apply, including reclaiming priceless natural beauty, allowing natural processes to prevail, and reducing crowding. In general, revision to the Yosemite Valley Plan to comply with this alternative would have a general beneficial effect due to the underlying zoning prescribed in this alternative.

Reasonably foreseeable projects that could have an adverse effect on regional wildlife include:

• The Yosemite View parcel land exchange, El Portal (NPS)
• Merced River Canyon Trail Acquisition (BLM)
• Several development-related projects, such as the Rio Mesa Area Plan (Madera Co.); Yosemite Motels, El Portal (Mariposa Co.); Silvertip Resort Village Project (Mariposa Co.); University of California, Merced Campus (Merced Co.); Buildout of City of Merced, General Plan; Double Eagle Resort, June Lake (Mono Co.); Tioga Inn, Lee Vining (Mono Co.); June Lake Highlands (Mono Co.); Crane Flat Campus Redevelopment (NPS, YNI); Evergreen Lodge Expansion (Tuolumne Co.); Hardin Flat Lodging and Conference Facility (Tuolumne Co.); Motel and Restaurant, Second Garrotte Basin (Tuolumne Co.); Resources Management Building (NPS); Yosemite West Rezoning Application (NPS); and the Hazel Green Ranch (Mariposa Co.)
• Transportation projects, such as the Highway 41 Extension (Madera Co.); Yosemite Valley Shuttle Bus Stop Improvements (NPS); Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement at Highway 49 and Old Highway (Mariposa Co.); Expansion of Mariposa County Transit System; Mariposa Creek Pedestrian/Bike Path (Mariposa Co.); Evergreen Road Improvements (multi-agency, see Appendix G); and San Joaquin Corridor Rail Projects (DOT, Amtrak)
• Several water-related projects, such as the Replacement/Rehabilitation of Yosemite Valley Sewer Line (NPS); Cherry Dam Fuse Gate, and O’Shaughnessy Dam Well (City and Co. San Francisco)

Cumulative adverse effects would be related to increased facilities, access, and regional population growth. Each of the aforementioned projects has the potential to have substantial site-specific adverse effects on wildlife resources during construction (short-term) and by direct displacement of resources (long-term). The larger effect of these actions is related to population and regional growth and their subsequent effect on natural resources, including native wildlife patterns. Regional population growth primarily affects regional wildlife patterns through construction (e.g., new housing and infrastructure) and human use. Examples of construction- and human-use-related effects on wildlife patterns include direct displacement of wildlife (e.g., replaced with structures), introduction of non-native species that invade into adjacent natural areas and displace native species (e.g., spread by construction equipment or backyard gardening), fragmentation of habitats that prevents genetic mixing, alteration of natural patterns (e.g., fire suppression around structures, use of herbicides, the introduction of night light), and increased erosion and sedimentation (e.g., during grading activities, overuse of trails). More importantly, some of the projects provide for increased residential growth adjacent to the park and would accommodate increased recreational development. In total, regional development and growth could have a net long-term, moderate, adverse effect on wildlife associated with the Merced River corridor. For the species at higher elevations, the effects are somewhat mitigated by resource protection planning and restoration. Although each new development is required to mitigate or compensate for adverse effects to wildlife, the mitigation/compensation is generally uncoordinated and does not typically replace natural ecosystem functions or values that were present throughout the region prior to Euro-American settlement. In total, regional development and growth could have a net long-term, moderate, adverse effect on regional wildlife resources that would not be compensated by regional planning and restoration projects discussed above.

Wildlife communities have been manipulated almost since the beginning of the park, and these actions have negatively influenced wildlife and wildlife habitat. Past, present, and future reasonably foreseeable cumulative effects would be mixed, combining both adverse and beneficial effects. Cumulative beneficial effects on wildlife include habitat restoration and rehabilitation projects and ecosystem management. Cumulative adverse effects would be related to increased facilities, regional growth, and visitor demand. Although general effects associated with this alternative are beneficial, the overall cumulative effect of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, in combination with this alternative would be moderate, adverse, and long term.

For the duration of this plan, management zoning and the River Protection Overlay would preclude various types of new development that has potential to adversely affect native wildlife (a minor, beneficial impact). In the long-term, the combination of management zoning, the River Protection Overlay, application of a consistent set of decision making criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process), and implementation of the VERP framework would have a moderate, beneficial, effect on wildlife and wildlife-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the river corridor because these elements could preclude inappropriate development, remove inappropriate facilities from the immediate river corridor, subject new actions to a rigorous planning process designed to eliminate adverse effects on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values, and manage zones to their desired conditions. Site-specific, short- and long-term, negative effects to native wildlife could occur as the result of future actions that could be implemented under the proposed zoning (e.g., new campsites, parking facilities, road repair). These effects would be most pronounced within the Developed Zones within east Yosemite Valley and El Portal. Overall, limits on the effects of visitor use (VERP framework) and facilities (management zoning and the River Protection Overlay) in combination with the application of a consistent set of decision-making criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process) would allow existing natural areas to remain relatively unimpaired with continued protection and would direct restoration and enhancement of impaired native habitats. This would result in a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on native wildlife and wildlife-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the river corridor compared to the No Action Alternative.

Wildlife communities have been manipulated almost since the beginning of the park, and these actions have negatively influenced wildlife and wildlife habitat. Past, present, and future cumulative effects would be mixed, combining both adverse and beneficial effects. Cumulative beneficial effects on wildlife include habitat restoration and rehabilitation projects and ecosystem management. Cumulative adverse effects would be related to increased facilities, regional growth, and visitor demand. Although general effects associated with this alternative are beneficial, the overall cumulative effect of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions would be moderate, adverse, and long term.

Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species

Analysis

General Impacts. Biological resource Outstandingly Remarkable Values listed in the 1996 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan have been revised based on the application of new scientific information, changed ecological and hydrologic conditions in the river corridor, and to accurately reflect Outstandingly Remarkable Value criteria included in the Interagency Coordinating Council guidelines for implementation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Specifically, those resources that are not related to the Merced River (e.g., western juniper, white fir, black oak woodlands, Mount Lyell salamander) or not unique to the region or nation (e.g., rainbow trout) have been removed. Removal of these resources from the list of Outstandingly Remarkable Values would not alter their management or protection. These resources would continue to be managed and protected by existing park policy and guidelines (e.g., Yosemite General Management Plan, Yosemite Resources Management Plan, Yosemite Vegetation Management Plan), as well as by federal law (e.g., the federal Endangered Species Act, 1916 Organic Act). Biological resource Outstandingly Remarkable Values common to the entire Merced River (main stem and South Fork) now include riverine habitats, such as riparian forests, meadows, and the aquatic environment and associated special status species. The revised Outstandingly Remarkable Values provide greater focus on the Merced River than those presented in the 1996 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan.

The following discussion provides an overview of the types of impacts to rare, threatened, and endangered species that could occur within each segment of the Merced River corridor from application of management elements included in Alternative 2.

Impacts in the Wilderness Segment of the Upper Main Stem Merced River. Examples of biological resource Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the upper Merced River include riverine habitats such as riparian forests, meadows, and the aquatic environment of the river and associated special status plant species. The upper Merced River would be zoned consistent with existing conditions and use (1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D) and reflects current management practices and use levels based on the Wilderness Act and federal and Yosemite National Park wilderness policies and guidelines. Although the proposed zoning and the River Protection Overlay are not anticipated to alter use patterns or existing facilities within the upper Merced River, these management elements would limit the type of new facilities (e.g., large campsites with facilities are prohibited in the 1B zone) that possibly could be built (potentially adversely affecting rare, threatened, or endangered species). Although possible future actions (e.g., trail rehabilitation) could occur under the proposed zoning, it would be subject to the consistent set of criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process) which would guide how the action could be implemented. The application of zoning in combination with the consistent set of criteria and considerations within wilderness segments would have a short- and long-term, negligible, beneficial effect on rare, threatened, or endangered species and related Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

Implementation of the VERP framework and VERP management actions could have long-term, negligible to minor, beneficial impacts on rare, threatened, or endangered species and related Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the wilderness segment of main stem Merced River by reducing visitor effects on these sensitive resources. For example, if VERP monitoring reveals degradation of high elevation meadows, a habitat for rare, threatened, or endangered species, based on visitor use (e.g., camping), VERP management actions (e.g., educational signs, limits on visitor use, restoration) could be implemented to achieve the desired condition for the meadow and management zone.

Impacts in Yosemite Valley. Riverine habitats such as riparian forests, meadows, and the aquatic environment of the Merced River and associated special-status species are biological resource Outstandingly Remarkable Values within Yosemite Valley. Yosemite Valley would be zoned to protect natural resources while providing a diverse visitor experience. Although large portions of the east Valley would remain developed or could be further developed, the proposed zoning overall (including the River Protection Overlay) of Yosemite Valley is more restrictive than the absence of zoning in the No Action Alternative. The proposed zoning would preclude several types of new development (e.g., new campsites would be precluded in the 2B Discovery zone) that have the potential to adversely affect rare, threatened, or endangered species. In addition, possible future actions (e.g., bridge removal, construction of new campsites) that could occur under the proposed zoning, would be subject to the consistent set of criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process) which would guide how the action could be implemented. The application of zoning in combination with the consistent set of criteria and considerations within would have a short- and long-term, negligible, beneficial effect on rare, threatened, or endangered species and related Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

Examples of how proposed management zoning, the River Protection Overlay, the VERP framework, and the criteria and considerations would protect and enhance rare, threatened, or endangered species and related Outstandingly Remarkable Values in Yosemite Valley include the following:

• Sensitive native habitats within Yosemite Valley (zoned 2A) would receive increased protection compared to the No Action Alternative. The zoning precludes a variety of new facilities (e.g., paved roads or trails, bicycle paths, day-visitor parking, food service, lodging). Under the VERP framework, this zone would be managed (over the long-term) with a very low tolerance for resource degradation from visitor use. Limits on the effects of visitor use (VERP framework) and facilities (management zoning) would allow existing natural areas to remain relatively unimpaired with continued protection, restoration, and enhancement of native habitats resulting in a site-specific, long-term, minor, beneficial impact for special status-species likely to use wet meadows for foraging, such as western mastiff bat.
• El Capitan Meadow is a river-related meadow and is considered part of the biological resource Outstandingly Remarkable Value. The 2B zoning would shift emphasis from unconfined and undirected, large-group and socially-oriented recreational activities (No Action Alternative) to small-group and individually-oriented activities. El Capitan Meadow is used as an informal viewing location of climbers of El Capitan. A high level of visitor use has degraded the meadow through trampling, soil compaction, and fragmentation. The current level of use of El Capitan Meadow would be inconsistent with the 2B zoning. Under the 2B zoning and the VERP framework, management actions—including restoration of El Capitan Meadow—could be implemented. Visitors could be directed to the proposed 2C picnic area (a more resilient upland location) at the base of El Capitan. This could increase opportunities for rare, threatened, and endangered species and restoration of natural rare, threatened, and endangered species , resulting in a moderate to major, site-specific, long-term, beneficial effect to El Capitan Meadow and a variety special-status species which are also Outstandingly Remarkable Values, such as great gray owl, foothill yellow-legged frog, and numerous bat species.
• Several existing facilities immediately adjacent to the Merced River would be inconsistent with the River Protection Overlay and could be removed (e.g., portions of Housekeeping Camp, several bridges, portions of Lower Pines Campground). Removal of facilities from the River Protection Overlay in combination would remove sources of pollutants (e.g., oil), reduce trampling, compaction, and soil erosion (associated with facility use and maintenance), and increase opportunities for rare, threatened, and endangered species and restoration of riparian vegetation. Removal of obstructions may lead to seasonal creation of back-channel pools (a habitat niche now largely unavailable), which could improve conditions for native amphibians currently absent from the park, such as California red-legged frog. The magnitude of the effect of the River Protection Overlay on rare, threatened, and endangered species is correlated to degree to which it is implemented in the future. For example, removal of one bridge would likely have only a negligible, beneficial effect where as removal of several facilities would have a moderate to major, long-term, beneficial effect on streamside habitats for river-associated rare, threatened, or endangered species in Yosemite Valley, an Outstandingly Remarkable Value.
• The 2B zoning over a majority of the west Valley would preclude new launch/removal facilities for non-motorized watercraft. These facilities would be allowed at specific locations, such as Sentinel Beach (zoned 2C) and Cathedral Beach (zoned 2C) that are more resilient to visitor use. Limiting this activity to particular points along the river, as opposed to current management practices which do not constrain launchings, would increase protection and allow increased restoration over the entire length of the river within Yosemite Valley. Although site-specific, minor to moderate, long-term, adverse effects could occur at locations such as Sentinel Beach and Cathedral Beach, containment of such effects in a limited area, while protecting a much larger area would result in a net long-term, moderate, beneficial effect on riparian species. Use of non-motorized watercraft could have a minor but more dispersed adverse impact on special-status wildlife (e.g., yellow warbler), mainly through riparian vegetation impacts but also due to noise. The application of mitigation measures described in Chapter II (e.g., siting to avoid effects to sensitive habitats, habitat compensation, best management practices, oil and sediment separators, visitor education) in combination with the implementation of VERP management actions could reduce the severity of the identified site-specific adverse effects to a negligible or minor intensity.

Examples of how management elements proposed under this alternative could have negative effects on rare, threatened, or endangered species and related Outstandingly Remarkable Values in Yosemite Valley include the following:

• The Developed zones (zone 3A, 3B, and 3C) are designed to direct high-impact activities and facilities to areas able to withstand heavy use and/or to those areas already developed. These zones could absorb the most concentrated visitor and administrative use with a higher tolerance for resource degradation. The woodlot and Pohono Quarry would be zoned 3C, consistent with current use. The proposed 3C zoning at either Taft Toe or Camp 6 and the 3B zoning at Yosemite Lodge could allow construction of new park facilities (e.g., parking, trail hardening). The 3A zoning at the existing North Pines, Lower Pines, and Upper Pines Campgrounds would allow construction of new campground facilities. New facilities could affect rare, threatened, or endangered species, if present, at these locations, increase human trampling of understory species in the immediate area, increase nonpoint-source pollution and refuse, decrease connectivity between habitats and the river, and increase the potential for introduction and spread of non-native species. It is anticipated that naturally occurring fires would be controlled around new structures, similar to existing park policy, and that this could affect species composition in the immediate vicinity of structures over the long term. Species richness and diversity generally decline where recreational activities occur (Cole 1993). Overall, the structural form, connectivity, size, productivity, and diversity of rare, threatened, and endangered species located at and in the vicinity of potential development sites could be adversely affected (long-term, adverse, and moderate to major in intensity). The higher use over time could indirectly affect wildlife diversity in the immediate area due to a decrease in connectivity between habitats and the river, and an increase in the potential for introduction and spread of non-native species such as the bullfrog, or parasitic species such as the cowbird. Disturbance-tolerant plants and animals would increase, at the expense of species sensitive to disturbance or with sensitive habitat elements (e.g., meadows and dependent wildlife species, such as California voles and foraging raptors). Rare, threatened, or endangered species directly or indirectly affected could include northern goshawk, yellow warbler, great gray owl, and special-status bats. The application of mitigation measures described in Chapter II (e.g., siting to avoid effects to sensitive habitats, habitat compensation, best management practices, oil and sediment separators, visitor education) in combination with the implementation of VERP management actions could reduce the severity of the identified effects to a minor or negligible intensity.
• Relocation of facilities to other locations within the park (outside the river corridor) could have site-specific, long-term, negligible to major, adverse effects on rare, threatened, and endangered species, depending on site-specific conditions and project design. If relocated outside the river corridor, adverse affects could be reduced to a negligible to minor intensity by implementation of standard park policy and federal law (e.g., federal Endangered Species Act).
• Relocation of facilities to other locations within the corridor could have site-specific, long-term, negligible to major, adverse effects on rare, threatened, and endangered species, depending on site-specific conditions and project design. If relocated within the river corridor, adverse effects could be mitigated to a negligible to minor intensity by implementation of mitigation measures described in Chapter II (e.g., siting to avoid effects to sensitive habitats, habitat compensation, best management practices, oil and sediment separators, visitor education) in combination with the implementation of VERP management actions.
• Localized, minor, short-term, temporary effects on special-status species could occur from construction (e.g., potential transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility, new campground facilities) and demolition (e.g., removal of impoundments and bridges) along the Merced River. Effects would be related to heavy equipment and construction/demolition activities and could include soil compaction, dust, vegetation removal, root damage, erosion, and introduction and spread of non-native species. The addition of silt, the resuspension of sediment, or the introduction of construction-related pollutants (fuels, lubricants, cement) could degrade the quality of native habitats. These actions could result in direct losses of nests or burrows, and indirect effects through the disturbance of nesting birds. Bridge removal could also adversely affect roosting bats (if present). The application of mitigation measures described in Chapter II (e.g., siting to avoid effects to sensitive habitats, habitat compensation, best management practices, oil and sediment separators, visitor education) could reduce the potential adverse impacts to special-status species to a negligible intensity.

Although site-specific, short- and long-term, negative effects to rare, threatened, or endangered species could occur as the result of future actions that could be implemented under the proposed zoning (e.g., new campsites, parking facilities, road repair), the overall design of Alternative 2 would provide increased protection for rare, threatened, or endangered species and related Outstandingly Remarkable Values compared to Alternative 1, resulting in a net long-term, moderate, beneficial effect.

Impacts in the Merced River Gorge and El Portal. Examples of Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the gorge and El Portal include diverse riparian areas and associated special-status species. The majority of the Merced River gorge would be zoned 2A+, 2B, 2C, and 2D. El Portal would have a base zone of 2C with large tracts zoned 3C. Examples of how the management elements of Alternative 2 would affect rare, threatened, and endangered species and related Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Merced River gorge and El Portal are described below.

• Existing facilities, such as the Cascades Diversion Dam, would be inconsistent with the River Protection Overlay and could be removed. Potential removal of this and other facilities would increase the free-flowing condition of the Merced River and return this portion of the Merced River to a more natural condition thereby enhancing the biological integrity of this segment. This could increase opportunities for revegetation and restoration of riparian vegetation, resulting in moderate, site-specific, long-term, beneficial effects on this Outstandingly Remarkable Value. Removal of obstructions may lead to seasonal creation of back-channel pools (a habitat niche now largely unavailable), which could improve conditions for native amphibians currently absent from the park, such as California red-legged frog. Minor, short-term, adverse effects could occur during facility removal and could be mitigated to a negligible to minor intensity by implementation of mitigation measures described in Chapter II (e.g., siting to avoid effects to sensitive habitats, habitat compensation, best management practices, oil and sediment separators, visitor education).
• New or expanded facilities (e.g., parking) could be built within the 2D zone below the Cascades. As an Attraction zone, visitors would be actively directed to this area, therefore, visitor induced impacts, such as soil compaction, litter, trampling, also could occur. New or expanded facilities and increased visitor use could have long-term, site-specific, negligible to moderate, adverse impacts on rare, threatened, and endangered species. Adverse affects could be mitigated to a negligible to minor intensity by implementation of mitigation measures described in Chapter II in combination with the implementation of VERP management actions.
• With the exception of the Cascades, the majority of the gorge is relatively inaccessible and visitor use is unlikely to increase. Consequently, there would be no impact on rare, threatened, and endangered species or related Outstandingly Remarkable Values for the large portions of the gorge compared to the No Action Alternative.
• The sand pit in El Portal was once used to mine sand from the Merced River and is currently used for construction staging and other administrative purposes. This use may interfere with natural regeneration of riparian vegetation, such as blue elderberry–host plant for the Valley elderberry longhorn beetle. It may also adversely impact the recently identified population of Cogdon’s wooly sunflower at this site. The current use of the sand pit would be inconsistent with the proposed 2C zoning and could be removed. This would allow for natural processes to prevail at this location and enhance natural revegetation with riparian species, resulting in a site-specific, moderate, beneficial effect on this Outstandingly Remarkable Value.
• Large portions of El Portal would be zoned 3C (e.g., the Trailer Village, old El Portal), which could allow additional development (e.g., employee residences located in Yosemite Valley could be relocated to the El Portal Administrative Site). Potential development could have both short-term (e.g., construction-related) and long-term (e.g., night lighting, noise, fire suppression in the vicinity of structures), minor to moderate, adverse effects rare, threatened, and endangered species. Although application of mitigation measures described in Chapter II (e.g., siting to avoid effects to sensitive habitats, habitat compensation, best management practices, oil and sediment separators, visitor education) in combination with the implementation of VERP management actions, would reduce impact, long-term, minor to moderate, negative effects to rare, threatened, and endangered species (e.g., conversion of upland woodland or scrub vegetation to developed facilities) would remain.

Repair or redevelopment of existing facilities (e.g., the El Portal Road) would not be precluded by the proposed zoning and could occur. For example, in the future the National Park Service could propose to reconstruct the El Portal Road. Impacts on native wildlife and wildlife-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the proposed design could include direct and permanent loss of riparian habitats, blasting, nest removal, dust, noise, erosion and the long-term discharge of pollutants associated with use of roads (e.g., oil, grease, litter). These types of impacts would be long-term, moderate to major and adverse. The National Park Service would first subject the proposed action to the decision-making criteria and considerations. If the proposed action would affect the bed or banks of the Merced River (i.e., a water resources project), the National Park Service then would complete a Section 7 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act determination, as well as other appropriate documentation (e.g., National Environmental Policy Act, federal Endangered Species Act). Through these processes, project designs that avoid and minimize the adverse effects to the Outstandingly Remarkable Values (including streamside vegetation), wetlands, wildlife and resources in general would be identified. Projects that cannot be redesigned would either be abandoned or could proceed following notification, in writing, of the Secretary of the Interior and the United States Congress in accordance with Section 7(a) of the act. During reconstruction, mitigation measures described in Chapter II would be applied. Road maintenance and its associated temporary impacts would decrease because the road would be more stable and require less intensive and less frequent maintenance. Over the long term, the roadway (and the surrounding management zones) would be managed through the VERP framework to the desired conditions. In total, the application of management elements included in this alternative would reduce the negative effects of the original project design to a negligible to minor intensity.

The application of management elements under this alternative would increase protection and enhancement of rare, threatened, and endangered species and related Outstandingly Remarkable Values in the of the gorge. The proposed zoning in El Portal could allow additional development of park administration facilities that could have short- and long-term negative affects to rare, threatened, and endangered species could occur as the result of future actions that could be implemented under the proposed zoning (e.g., new park administration facilities, road repair). These impacts could be reduced through the application of mitigation measures described in Chapter II. Although the criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination) would protect river-related rare, threatened, and endangered species (Outstandingly Remarkable Values), other rare, threatened, and endangered species (e.g., upland rare, threatened, and endangered species) would be mitigated for during consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act.

Impacts in Wilderness Segments of the South Fork. Examples of biological resource Outstandingly Remarkable Values within wilderness segments of the South Fork include high riparian species diversity, wetlands, riparian areas that are intact and largely undisturbed by humans, and a nearly full range of riverine environments typical to the Sierra Nevada. Examples of river-related federal and state special-status species include Wawona riffle beetle and mountain yellow-legged frog. The upper (above Wawona) and lower (below Wawona) portions of the South Fork would be zoned 1A and 1B and reflects current management practices and use levels based on the Wilderness Act along with federal and Yosemite National Park wilderness policies and guidelines. The proposed zoning and the River Protection Overlay are not anticipated to alter use patterns or existing facilities within the wilderness portions of the South Fork. However, these management elements would limit the type of new facilities (e.g., large campsites with facilities are prohibited in the 1B zone) that possibly could be built (potentially adversely affecting rare, threatened, and endangered species), providing a minor beneficial impact. Although possible future actions (e.g., trail rehabilitation) could occur under the proposed zoning, it would be subject to the consistent set of criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process) which would guide how the action could be implemented. The application of zoning in combination with the consistent set of criteria and considerations within wilderness segments would have a short- and long-term, negligible, beneficial effect on rare, threatened, and endangered species and related Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

Implementation of the VERP framework and VERP management actions could have long-term, negligible to minor, beneficial impacts on rare, threatened, and endangered species and related Outstandingly Remarkable Values of wilderness portions of the South Fork by reducing visitor effects on these sensitive resources. For example, if VERP monitoring reveals degradation of riparian zones based on visitor use (e.g., informal trails), VERP management actions (e.g., educational signs, limits on visitor use, restoration) could be implemented to achieve the desired condition for the riparian habitat and management zone.

Impacts in Wawona. Although the South Fork in Wawona would have a variety of zones, ranging from 1A (Wilderness) to 3C (Park Operations and Administration), the base zones would be 1A, 2A, and 2B. The 1A, 2A, and 2B zones would preclude new development such as interpretive centers, food services, campgrounds and lodging, and day visitor parking. Wawona Golf Course and Wawona Picnic Area (zoned 2C), Wawona Campground (zoned 3A), Wawona Hotel (zoned 3B), and the Wawona maintenance facility (zoned 3C) could continue to function consistent with existing conditions. The proposed zoning and continued use of these sites is not expected to adversely affect site-specific rare, threatened, and endangered species compared to the No Action Alternative.

Portions of facilities within the River Protection Overlay, such as portions of Wawona Campground and a portion of the Wawona maintenance facility, would be inconsistent with the River Protection Overlay and could be removed or relocated. This could increase opportunities for natural revegetation and restoration of riparian habitat, resulting in a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on streamside vegetation and habitat for river-related rare, threatened, and endangered species, a biological resource Outstandingly Remarkable Value.

The proposed zoning is not anticipated to substantially alter use patterns or facilities of the South Fork compared to the No Action Alternative. Site-specific, short-term negligible to minor adverse effects to vegetation could occur if facilities are removed from the River Protection Overlay. These adverse impacts could be reduced to a negligible intensity by application of mitigation measures described in Chapter II. Overall, Alternative 2 would have a long-term negligible to minor beneficial impact on rare, threatened, and endangered species and related Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the South Fork compared to the No Action Alternative.

Summary of Alternative 2 Impacts. For the duration of this plan, management zoning and the River Protection Overlay would preclude various types of new development that has potential to adversely affect rare, threatened, and endangered species (a minor, beneficial impact). In the long term, the combination of management zoning, the River Protection Overlay, application of a consistent set of decision-making criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process), and implementation of the VERP framework would have a moderate, beneficial, effect on rare, threatened, and endangered species and related Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the river corridor because these elements could preclude inappropriate development, remove inappropriate facilities from the immediate river corridor, subject new actions to a rigorous planning process designed to eliminate adverse effects on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values, and manage zones to their desired conditions. Site-specific, short- and long-term, negative effects to rare, threatened, and endangered species could occur as the result of future actions that could be implemented under the proposed zoning (e.g., new campsites, parking facilities, road repair). These effects would be most pronounced within the Developed zones within east Yosemite Valley and El Portal. Overall, limits on the effects of visitor use (VERP framework) and facilities (management zoning and the River Protection Overlay) in combination with the application of a consistent set of decision-making criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process) would allow existing natural areas to remain relatively unimpaired with continued protection and would direct restoration and enhancement of impaired native habitats. This would result in a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on rare, threatened, and endangered species and related Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the river corridor compared to the No Action Alternative.

Cumulative effects to rare, threatened, and endangered species discussed herein are based on analysis of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the Yosemite region. The intensity of impact depends on whether the impacts are anticipated to interact cumulatively. For example, factors external to the park, such as broad regional habitat degradation and pesticide use, can combine with existing, in-park impacts, such as non-native species, to cause declines in rare, threatened, or endangered amphibians (e.g., mountain yellow-legged frog and Yosemite toad), an adverse, cumulative impact. The projects identified below include those projects that have the potential to effect populations of rare, threatened, or endangered species (i.e., within the river corridor) as well as large-scale or regional populations of the same species.

Past Actions. Natural habitats have been manipulated almost since the beginning of the park. Regional wildlife and vegetation patterns have been historically affected by logging, fire suppression, rangeland clearing, grazing, mining, draining, damming, diversions, and the introduction of non-native species. Mammal species that survive but are extremely rare are the fisher, wolverine (possibly extinct), and Sierra Nevada red fox. Several bird species have probably been reduced in Yosemite Valley by visitor activity, but are present in less disturbed areas of the park. Willow flycatchers no longer nest in Yosemite Valley—probably due as much to parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds as to destruction of riparian and meadow habitat. Amphibians in Yosemite National Park have suffered population declines similar to those seen in the rest of the Sierra Nevada (Drost and Fellars 1996). Red-legged frogs likely were found in Yosemite Valley in the past but are now are presumed extirpated. Significant factors in their disappearance probably include reduction in perennial ponds and wetlands, and predation by bullfrogs. At higher elevations, mountain yellow-legged frogs and Yosemite toads are still present in a number of areas, but are severely reduced in population and range. Foothill yellow-legged frogs have disappeared completely from the park, if not the entire Sierra Nevada. Research continues to identify the causes of Sierra Nevada-wide amphibian declines; possible causes include habitat destruction, non-native fish, pesticides, and diseases. Past and ongoing activities that affect rare, threatened, or endangered species include construction of dams, diversion walls, bridges, roads, pipelines, riprap, recreational use, buildings, campgrounds, and other recreational features.

In 1991, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management developed a joint South Fork and Merced Wild and Scenic River Implementation Plan for the segments of the main stem and South Fork of the Merced River that are under their jurisdiction. The plan is also a general management plan with many prescriptive goals and few actions. The plan endeavors to limit or end consumptive uses such as grazing within the river corridor and calls for the formalization of camping and launch facilities for non-motorized watercraft. Implementation of these actions has a beneficial effect by eliminating impacts where feasible (grazing does not currently occur within the river corridor), concentrating impacts in areas able to withstand visitor use, and providing facilities that mitigate adverse effects associated with visitor use (e.g., restrooms).

Present Actions. The El Portal Road Reconstruction Project (NPS) is currently underway from the park boundary to the Cascades Diversion Dam, and affects habitats immediately adjacent to the roadway. Special-status species with potential to be affected during construction include Valley elderberry longhorn beetle, roosting bats, peregrine falcon, and Tompkin’s sedge. Special-status roosting bats could be affected, primarily through the noise generated by construction equipment and blasting. Blasting is also a concern for the peregrine falcon, known to occur at the Cascades aerie in the project vicinity (the peregrine was recently delisted but continues to be a species of concern in the park). Adverse effects to these species are avoided or minimized during construction by implementation of a compliance monitoring program, pre-construction surveys, erosion and sediment controls, minimizing noise during sensitive biological periods, construction timing restrictions, hazardous materials controls, revegetation and reclamation, and excluding construction from sensitive habitats. Such measures ensure the overall protection and enhancement of the hydrologic, biological, geologic, cultural, scenic, scientific, and recreation Outstandingly Remarkable Values in the zone as a whole and other parts of the river corridor. Implementation of these measures reduces the overall effects.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Reasonably foreseeable future actions proposed in the region are separated below into three general categories: (1) projects anticipated to have a net beneficial effect; (2) projects anticipated to have both beneficial and adverse effects; and (3) projects anticipated to have a net adverse effect.

Examples of projects that could have a cumulative, beneficial effect on regional rare, threatened, or endangered species include:

• Several Yosemite campground rehabilitation projects, such as at Bridalveil Horse Camp, Yosemite Creek Campground, Tamarack Campground, Hodgdon Meadow Campground; and Wawona Campground Improvement (NPS)
• The Merced River at Eagle Creek Ecological Restoration Project (NPS)
• Update to the Yosemite Fire Management Plan (NPS), which has a goal of improving ecosystem health and meadow restoration
• Update to the Yosemite Wilderness Management Plan (NPS), which will address land management issues within the wilderness
• Fire Management Action Plan for Wilderness (USFS, Stanislaus)
• The Sierra Nevada Framework for Conservation and Collaboration, and the Management Direction for the John Muir, Ansel Adams and Dinkey Lakes, and Monarch Wildernesses (USFS); Wilderness Boundary Protection Land Exchange, Seventh Day Adventist Camp, Wawona (NPS); each of which will address ecosystem management issues of lands adjacent to Yosemite National Park
• Several transportation-related projects (e.g., Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System [YARTS]) which have the general goals of increasing transportation options and reducing reliance on automobiles in the area

Although each of these projects may have slight site-specific and short-term adverse effects (e.g., construction-related effects), the general goal of these projects is to increase coordinated resource management and to restore sensitive ecosystems. Therefore, these projects could have a long-term, beneficial cumulative impact to regional rare, threatened, or endangered species. For example, the update to the Yosemite Wilderness Management Plan could result in the removal of the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp, reducing site-specific erosion and trampling and possibly stock use.

Reasonably foreseeable projects that could have mixed adverse and beneficial effects on regional rare, threatened, and endangered species include:

• The Tuolumne Meadows Development Concept Plan, and Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (NPS)
• The Tuolumne Meadows Water and Wastewater Improvements; the White Wolf Water System Improvements, Hodgdon Meadow Water and Wastewater Treatment Improvements, and Replacement/Rehabilitation of Yosemite Valley Sewer Line (NPS); O’Shaughnessy Compound Water System Improvements (City and Co. San Francisco)
• The Orange Crush Fuels Treatment Projects (USFS, Stanislaus)
• The A-Rock Reforestation (USFS, Stanislaus) and the Rogge-Ackerson Fire Reforestation (Tuolumne Co.)
• The Yosemite Valley Plan (NPS), which would implement the goals and actions of the 1980 General Management Plan (NPS)
• South Fork Merced River Bridges Replacement (NPS)
• South Entrance/Mariposa Grove Site Planning (NPS), which will restore giant sequoia habitat in the Lower Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias in Yosemite National Park

Cumulative effects of these projects could be mixed, combining both adverse and beneficial effects. The net beneficial or adverse effects of these projects are difficult to anticipate. For example, implementation of the Tuolumne Meadows Water and Wastewater Improvements project has the potential to adversely affect rare, threatened, and endangered species during construction (short-term), with the long-term, beneficial effect of improving water quality through improved wastewater treatment. Another example would be implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Overall, implementation of this plan is expected to have a long-term, beneficial impact to rare, threatened, and endangered species by increasing coordinated management of natural resources and reducing facilities within sensitive habitats. However, short-term, adverse effects of this plan may include temporary construction impacts (e.g., potential reconstruction of Segment D of the El Portal Road Reconstruction Project just above Cascades Diversion Dam). Reconstruction of Segment D could cause short-term adverse impacts to natural resources similar to those currently occurring during reconstruction on Segments A, B, and C. These would include loss of mature (overstory) vegetation, loss of understory vegetation, impacts to special-status species, loss of topsoil, and footprint effects. Adverse impacts associated with Segment D reconstruction could be partially mitigated through project design (the design of Segment D would need to protect and enhance the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Merced River) and implementation of best management practices, compliance monitoring, and restoration. However, some of the proposed redevelopment in El Portal, for example, the redevelopment of the sand pit, would be inconsistent with the management zoning in this alternative of the Merced River Plan/FEIS. The Merced River Plan guides future allowable actions within the Merced River corridor and subsequent implementation plans, such as the Yosemite Valley Plan. If Alternative 2 is selected, revisions to the Yosemite Valley Plan would be required to conform to the management zones provided in Alternative 2. Components of the Yosemite Valley Plan would need to change to conform to this alternative. The broad goals of the Yosemite Valley Plan, however, would continue to apply, including reclaiming priceless natural beauty, allowing natural processes to prevail, and reducing crowding. In general, revision to the Yosemite Valley Plan to comply with this alternative would have a general beneficial effect due to the underlying zoning prescribed in this alternative.

Reasonably foreseeable projects that could have an adverse effect on regional rare, threatened, and endangered species include:

• The Yosemite View parcel land exchange, El Portal (NPS)
• Merced River Canyon Trail Acquisition (BLM)
• Several development related projects, such as the Rio Mesa Area Plan (Madera Co.); Yosemite Motels, El Portal (Mariposa Co.); Silvertip Resort Village Project (Mariposa Co.); University of California, Merced Campus (Merced Co.); Buildout of City of Merced, General Plan; Double Eagle Resort, June Lake (Mono Co.); Tioga Inn, Lee Vining (Mono Co.); June Lake Highlands (Mono Co.); Crane Flat Campus Redevelopment (NPS, YNI); Evergreen Lodge Expansion (Tuolumne Co.); Hardin Flat Lodging and Conference Facility (Tuolumne Co.); Motel and Restaurant, Second Garrotte Basin (Tuolumne Co.); Resources Management Building (NPS); Yosemite West Rezoning Application (NPS); and the Hazel Green Ranch (Mariposa Co.)
• Transportation projects, such as the Highway 41 Extension (Madera Co.); Yosemite Valley Shuttle Bus Stop Improvements (NPS); Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement at Highway 49 and Old Highway (Mariposa Co.); Expansion of Mariposa County Transit System; Mariposa Creek Pedestrian/Bike Path (Mariposa Co.); Evergreen Road Improvements (multi-agency, see Appendix G); and San Joaquin Corridor Rail Projects (DOT, Amtrak)
• Several water-related projects, such as the Replacement/Rehabilitation of Yosemite Valley Sewer Line (NPS); Cherry Dam Fuse Gate, and O’Shaughnessy Dam Well (City and Co. San Francisco)

Cumulative adverse effects would be related to increased facilities, access, and regional population growth. Each of the aforementioned projects has the potential to have substantial site-specific adverse effects on rare, threatened, and endangered species during construction (short-term) and by direct displacement of resources (long-term). The larger effect of these actions is related to population and regional growth and their subsequent effect on natural resources, including rare, threatened, and endangered species. Regional population growth primarily affects regional rare, threatened, and endangered species through construction (e.g., new housing and infrastructure) and visitor use. Examples of construction- and human-use-related effects on rare, threatened, and endangered species include direct displacement of rare, threatened, and endangered species (e.g., nest trees removed and replaced with structures), introduction of non-native species that invade into adjacent natural areas and displace native species (e.g., the spread of yellow star thistle by construction equipment and its subsequent adverse impacts on special status plant species), fragmentation of habitats that prevents genetic mixing, alteration of natural patterns (e.g., use of herbicides, the introduction of night light), and increased erosion and sedimentation (e.g., during grading activities, overuse of trails). Although each new development is required to mitigate or compensate for adverse effects to rare, threatened, and endangered species, the mitigation/compensation is generally uncoordinated and does not typically replace natural ecosystem functions or values that were present throughout the region prior to Euro-American settlement. In total, regional development and growth could have a net long-term, moderate to major (depending on species-specific impacts), adverse effect on regional rare, threatened, and endangered species that would not be compensated by regional planning and restoration projects discussed above.

Although cumulative actions could have a long-term, beneficial cumulative effect on rare, threatened, and endangered species and related Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the river corridor, throughout the Sierra Nevada and larger region, these past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are likely to increase regional growth (construction and human-use-related effects) and have long-term, moderate to major (depending on species-specific impacts), adverse cumulative impacts on regional rare, threatened, and endangered species that would not be compensated by regional planning and restoration projects discussed above. These cumulative actions in combination with Alternative 2 could have a net long-term, major, adverse effect on regional rare, threatened, and endangered species.

For the duration of this plan, management zoning and the River Protection Overlay would preclude various types of new development that has potential to adversely affect rare, threatened, and endangered species (a minor, beneficial impact). In the long term, the combination of management zoning, the River Protection Overlay, application of a consistent set of decision-making criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process), and implementation of the VERP framework would have a moderate, beneficial, effect on rare, threatened, and endangered species and related Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the river corridor because these elements could preclude inappropriate development, remove inappropriate facilities from the immediate river corridor, subject new actions to a rigorous planning process designed to eliminate adverse effects on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values, and manage zones to their desired conditions. Site-specific, short- and long-term, negative effects to rare, threatened, and endangered species could occur as the result of future actions that could be implemented under the proposed zoning (e.g., new campsites, parking facilities, road repair). These effects would be most pronounced within the Developed zones within east Yosemite Valley and El Portal. Overall, limits on the effects of visitor use (VERP framework) and facilities (management zoning and the River Protection Overlay) in combination with the application of a consistent set of decision-making criteria and considerations (including the Section 7 determination process) would allow existing natural areas to remain relatively unimpaired with continued protection and would direct restoration and enhancement of impaired native habitats. This would result in a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on rare, threatened, and endangered species and related Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the river corridor compared to the No Action Alternative.

Although cumulative actions could have a long-term, major, beneficial cumulative effect on rare, threatened, and endangered species and related Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the river corridor, throughout the Sierra Nevada and larger region, these past, present, and reasonably future actions are likely to increase regional growth (construction and human-use-related effects) and have a long-term, major, adverse cumulative effect on regional rare, threatened, and endangered species (e.g., introduction and spread of non-native species, direct displacement of habitat by structures). These cumulative actions in combination with Alternative 2 could have a net long-term, major, adverse effect on regional rare, threatened, and endangered species.

Air Quality

Analysis

General Impacts. As a general matter, under Alternative 2, air quality in the corridor would continue to be influenced by local sources within the park and by regional sources upwind of the park. The differences between air quality conditions under this alternative and those under Alternative 1 would relate to the following issues: under Alternative 2, "air quality" would be eliminated as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value along all river segments; construction or demolition activities could be more frequent and extensive; a centralized transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility could be developed; the number of day-visitor parking spaces could be reduced; and the number of campsites could increase or decrease.

Under Alternative 2, air quality would be removed from the list of Outstandingly Remarkable Values along all segments of the main stem of the Merced River and the South Fork within the park. Outstandingly Remarkable Values listed in the 1996 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan have been revised based on the application of new scientific information, changed ecological and hydrologic conditions in the river corridor, and to accurately reflect Outstandingly Remarkable Value criteria included in the Interagency Coordinating Council guidelines for implementation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Air quality has been removed as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value because it is not river-related nor is it unique in the region or nation. However, the removal would not affect air quality, since no air quality policies have been established as a direct result of its designation as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value. Emissions sources in the park would continue to be regulated pursuant to applicable provisions of the federal Clean Air Act, local air district Rules and Regulations, park campfire regulations, the Fire Management Plan, and state and federal motor-vehicle emissions control programs.

Under this alternative, some facilities could be constructed and other facilities removed based on the new management zoning designations. Construction or demolition activities could generate substantial amounts of dust (including particles with diameters of 10 microns or less [PM-10] and particles with diameters of 2.5 microns or less [PM-2.5]) primarily from "fugitive" sources (i.e., emissions released through means other than through a stack or tailpipe) and lesser amounts of other criteria air pollutants, primarily from operation of heavy equipment. Dust emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the level and type of activity, silt content of the soil, and the weather. In the absence of mitigation, construction activities could result in significant quantities of dust, and, as a result, local visibility and PM-10/PM-2.5 concentrations could be adversely affected. Without mitigation, dust raised by construction or demolition activities would have a major but temporary effect in the immediate vicinity of individual sites.

Best management practices are available to reduce construction- and demolition-related air quality impacts and could be made conditions of agreements with contractors. These practices are listed in Chapter II and are common to all action alternatives. Generally, these practices include watering active construction areas; covering trucks hauling materials that could spill onto paved surfaces; sweeping (with water sweepers) paved areas that are subject to vehicle traffic and on which soil materials have been deposited; stabilizing inactive construction areas; covering stockpiles; limiting vehicle speeds on unpaved areas; installing erosion control measures; and timely revegetation. All of these measures would not apply at each construction or demolition site. Generally, larger, more intensive construction or demolition projects require more comprehensive dust abatement programs than smaller, less intensive projects. Implementation of the best management practices would reduce the temporary and localized air quality impacts from construction or demolition activities to a minor level.

The 3C zone in Alternative 2 would accommodate a new transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility at either Taft Toe or Camp 6. If such a facility were developed, the effect on air quality would be beneficial by reducing vehicle-miles-traveled within the Valley, although air quality in the immediate vicinity of the transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility itself would experience a minor, local, adverse effect due to the concentration of vehicular emissions in that area. The magnitude of the potential Valleywide beneficial effect would depend upon the types of technology used to transport visitors within the Valley. For instance, as a general matter, diesel-powered vehicles generate substantially greater exhaust emissions of PM-10/PM-2.5 than gasoline-powered vehicles, and the net effect of replacing gasoline-powered autos with diesel-powered buses would depend upon the number of vehicle-miles-traveled by autos that would be displaced, but could potentially be negative. However, if the National Park Service were to consider net emissions effects in the selection of the technology for expanded in-Valley shuttle service (that would naturally arise from development of a transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility at Taft Toe or Camp 6), then a moderately beneficial impact from the standpoint of Valleywide air quality would be assured.

If a transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility were to be developed at Camp 6, a traffic check station would be developed at Taft Toe. This traffic check station would result in a local, long-term, minor, adverse effect on air quality in the immediate vicinity of that station, due to the concentration of slow-moving and idling traffic in that area. Generally, vehicles emit greater relative amounts of air pollutants at slower speeds and when idling than when moving at higher speeds.

Under Alternative 2, the number of day-visitor parking spaces could be reduced relative to Alternative 1, because some of these spaces would be located in areas in which they would be inconsistent with the 2A and 2B zones. If these parking areas were simply removed from the corridor and not relocated, long-term air quality in the Valley would be adversely affected by increased vehicular congestion from visitors searching for remaining parking spaces or parking in nondesignated areas. Such congestion would lead to a minor, adverse impact due to the localized concentration of vehicular emissions. Coordination of parking space removal with development of a transit center and/or parking area facility at Taft Toe or Camp 6 would effectively remedy this impact.

Lastly, under Alternative 2, the overall number of campsites could be higher or lower than under the No Action Alternative. An example of a potential increase in overnight accommodation facilities under Alternative 2 is associated with the areas adjacent to Upper Pines Campground and Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) that do not currently have camping uses, which would be zoned 3A and could be converted to camping. In addition, an area in Section 35 in Wawona that does not currently have camping use would be zoned 3A/3C and could be developed for camping use. A reduction in the number of campsites would have a minor, beneficial effect by reducing the number of campfires and related emissions within the Valley on the typically busy days when the campgrounds would be full. Conversely, an increase in the number of campsites could have a minor, adverse effect by increasing the number of campfires and associated emissions; however, a redesign of a campground could also increase the number of sites without increasing campfire-related emissions by providing for group fire rings rather than providing a fire ring at each site.

Summary of Alternative 2 Impacts. Under Alternative 2, "air quality" would be removed as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value, but the removal would not affect air quality, since no air quality policies have been established as a direct result of its designation as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value, and since emissions sources in the park would continue to be regulated pursuant to other laws and regulations. Application of the management zones for this alternative could result in short-term, local, minor (with implementation of best management practices), adverse effects associated with site-specific construction or demolition activities within the corridor. Over the long term, this alternative would accommodate development of a new transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility, which could result in a long-term, local, moderate, beneficial effect due to reduced vehicle travel and related emissions in the eastern part of the Valley, but which would also result in a long-term, local, minor, adverse effect in its immediate vicinity and in the vicinities of related facilities (such as the traffic check station or removal of existing parking areas) due to the increased concentration of vehicular activity and associated emissions at those locations.

Cumulative effects to air quality discussed herein are based on analysis of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the Yosemite region in combination with potential effects of this alternative. The projects identified below include only those projects that could affect air quality within the river corridor or that could be affected by air pollutant sources within the river corridor.

Past Actions. Since 1950, the population of California has tripled, and the rate of increase in vehicle-miles-traveled has increased six-fold. Air quality conditions within the park have been influenced by this surge in population growth and its associated emissions from related industrial, commercial, and vehicular sources in upwind areas as tempered by a burgeoning regulatory apparatus. Since the 1970s, emissions sources operating within the park, as well as California as a whole, have been subject to local stationary-source controls and state and federal mobile-source controls. With the passage of time, such controls have been applied to an increasing number of sources, and the associated requirements have become dramatically more stringent and complex. In the 1980s, a Restricted Access Plan was developed for use when traffic and parking conditions in Yosemite Valley are overcongested. The plan has the effect of reducing the number of incoming vehicles and their related emissions until the traffic volume and parking demand in Yosemite Valley decrease sufficiently (as departing visitors leave the Valley) to stabilize traffic conditions.

The 1990 Fire Management Plan was developed to address management issues related to prescribed natural burns, prescribed burns, and wildfires in the park. Implementation of the smoke management policies of the 1990 Fire Management Plan reduces the potential for burns or wildfires to have a major effect on air quality in the park or in the park vicinity.

Present Actions. The El Portal Road Reconstruction Project (NPS) is currently underway and has both negative (short-term during construction) and potentially beneficial (long-term) effects on air quality. Short-term, construction-related effects include dust and other pollutant emissions associated with operation of construction equipment, earthmoving activities, and vehicle travel over unpaved surfaces. Current safety improvements on Segments A, B, and C of El Portal Road would facilitate regional transit service on that route, which could have a long-term, beneficial impact by reducing automobile trips.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Reasonably foreseeable future actions proposed in the region are separated below into three general categories: (1) projects anticipated to have a net beneficial, long-term effect; (2) projects anticipated to have a net adverse, long-term effect; and (3) projects not anticipated to have a net adverse or beneficial, long-term effect.

Examples of projects that could have a cumulative, beneficial, long-term effect on air quality include:

• The Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) is a collaborative, multiagency effort to evaluate the feasibility of a regional transportation system and to determine the organizational structure of an entity that would implement and operate the system. The intent of YARTS is to provide an attractive alternative to private vehicles by expanding the range of travel options for visitors to Yosemite Valley and to other primary park destinations, and for employees commuting to work in the park.
• The San Joaquin Corridor Rail Projects (DOT, Amtrak) would contribute to a long-term, beneficial impact on air quality because such improvements would encourage travel by alternative (non-private vehicle) modes, particularly if combined with the potential expansion of regional transit service proposed by YARTS.
• The Yosemite West Rezoning Application (NPS) and the Resources Management Building (NPS) are two projects that would reduce work/home commutes for some employees.
• The Yosemite Valley Plan (NPS) proposes to enhance the quality of the visitor experience in Yosemite Valley by reducing automobile congestion, limiting crowding, and expanding orientation and interpretation services. It also proposes traffic management systems and options for the size and placement of parking lots, both within and outside Yosemite Valley. Parking lot(s) outside the Valley could be used to intercept day visitors and shift those visitors to Valley-bound shuttle buses.
• The Yosemite Valley Plan (NPS) also includes safety improvements on Segment D of the El Portal Road Reconstruction Project (i.e., the segment from Cascades Diversion Dam [near the El Portal Road/Big Oak Flat Road intersection] to the Pohono Bridge). Construction activity on Segment D would cause short-term, major, adverse impacts on local air quality primarily due to dust from construction activities, similar to those currently occurring during construction on Segments A, B, and C. Those adverse impacts associated with Segment D construction activity could be mitigated by implementation of best management practices. Safety improvements on Segment D of El Portal Road, together with improvements on Segments A, B, and C, would facilitate expanded regional transit service on that route, and expanded transit could lead to fewer vehicles and less vehicle emissions.
• Several other regional projects that will have a net beneficial effect on air quality by improving the relative attractiveness of alternative modes of transportation and thereby reducing private automobile vehicle trips include the Yosemite Valley Shuttle Bus Stop Improvements (NPS) and the Expansion of Mariposa County Transit System.

Although most of the aforementioned projects would have localized, short-term, adverse effects (e.g., construction-related effects), the general goal of each of these projects is to improve regional transportation, circulation, and safety. As such, these projects would, individually and in combination, encourage travel to the park by alternative (non-private vehicle) modes and would have a beneficial, long-term effect on air quality.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions that could have an adverse effect on air quality include:

• Revisions to the 1990 Yosemite Fire Management Plan and development of the U.S. Forest Service’s Fire Management Action Plan for Wilderness, which could lead to increased use of prescribed burning techniques
• Forest-related projects, such as the Orange Crush Fuels Treatment Projects, the A-Rock Reforestation, the Fire Management Action Plan for Wilderness (USFS, Stanislaus), and the Rogge-Ackerson Fire Reforestation (Tuolumne Co.)
• The Wawona Campground Improvement (NPS)
• Various development-related projects such as the Mariposa County General Plan Update; Hazel Green Ranch (Mariposa Co.); Rio Mesa Area Plan (Madera Co.); Yosemite Motels, El Portal (Mariposa Co.); Silvertip Resort Village Project (Mariposa Co.); University of California, Merced Campus (Merced Co.); and the Buildout of City of Merced, General Plan
• The Highway 41 Extension (Madera Co.), which would not be a land use development project but would remove an obstacle to land use development (and associated emissions) in the fast-growing area north of Fresno

Revisions to 1990 Yosemite Fire Management Plan, the development of the Fire Management Action Plan for Wilderness (USFS, Stanislaus), and the fuels and reforestation projects could lead to increased use of prescribed burning techniques and could have an intermittent, long-term, adverse effect on local and regional air quality and visibility, depending upon the extent to which these projects protect air resources. The Wawona Campground Improvement (NPS) would construct additional campsites, which could result in increased local emissions from campfires, unless the overall project (which would also involve rehabilitation of an existing campground) provides for group fire rings, rather than fire rings at each campsite.

Cumulative growth in the region, and the transportation projects such as the Highway 41 Extension (Madera Co.) that support cumulative growth, would have localized, short-term, construction-related impacts; over the long term, these projects would generate emissions of ozone precursors and particulate matter primarily due to associated motor vehicle trips.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions not anticipated to have a net adverse or beneficial effect on air quality, other than short-term, localized impacts due to construction activities, include:

• Infrastructure and transportation projects, such as Replacement/Rehabilitation of Yosemite Valley Sewer Line (NPS); and South Fork Merced River Bridges Replacement (NPS)
• Several Yosemite campground rehabilitation and resource restoration projects and plans, such as Merced River at Eagle Creek Ecological Restoration Project (NPS); update to the Yosemite Wilderness Management Plan (NPS); Tamarack Campground Rehabilitation (NPS); Bridalveil Horse Camp Rehabilitation (NPS); Yosemite Creek Campground Rehabilitation (NPS); and the South Fork and Merced Wild and Scenic River Implementation Plan (USFS, BLM)
• Land exchanges, such as Yosemite View Parcel Land Exchange, El Portal (NPS) and Wilderness Boundary Protection Land Exchange, Seventh Day Adventist Camp, Wawona (NPS)

Many of the above cumulative projects would result in local, short-term, major, adverse effects on air quality due to construction activities, and, in some cases, these effects would occur within the corridor. With respect to long-term effects, a distinction can be made between ozone and particulate matter. For ozone, regional emissions trends suggest that the combination of the beneficial effect of ongoing regional, state, and federal regulatory controls (particularly mobile-source control programs) with the adverse effect of existing and future land use development and associated stationary, area, and mobile emissions sources would result in a regional, moderate, beneficial effect. That is, the beneficial effect of past and present actions that regulate stationary and mobile emissions sources and reasonably foreseeable future actions that have the potential to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle-miles-traveled would offset the adverse effect of ozone precursor emissions associated with increased cumulative growth in the region, leading to a gradual improvement in ozone air quality.

For particulate matter, the net cumulative effect is more difficult to determine, since ambient concentrations of particulate matter reflect primary (i.e., directly emitted) particles as well as secondary (i.e., derived through photochemical reactions involving precursor pollutants) particles derived from emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur oxides. One of the principal sources of directly emitted particles is entrainment of dust by vehicles moving over paved roads, and this component of particulate matter would increase in proportion to increases in vehicle-miles-traveled associated with cumulative growth. One of the secondary sources of particulate matter, sulfur oxides, would also continue to increase with cumulative growth. In contrast, as discussed above in connection with ozone, emissions of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides would continue a downward trend despite cumulative growth, and thus, their contribution to particulate matter concentrations would diminish. Furthermore, unlike ozone, which is considered a regional pollutant, particulate matter reflects both local and regional sources, and the relative influence of these two basic types of sources changes from day to day. Thus, given the opposing emissions trends and the varying relative contributions of regional and local emissions sources, it would be speculative to conclude that the cumulative effect relative to particulate matter would be beneficial or adverse; however, the opposing emissions trends would tend to diminish the magnitude of the effect, regardless of whether the effect would be beneficial or adverse.

Alternative 2 could contribute to the cumulative number of construction sites in and near the corridor; in most instances, construction projects undertaken as part of Alternative 2 would not overlap in time and space with cumulative construction projects, and thus, the local, short-term adverse effects on air quality due to construction activities could be reduced to a minor intensity with implementation of best management practices. Over the long term, with respect to ozone, conditions in the corridor would be determined almost entirely by regional emissions trends rather than by local emissions sources under Alternative 2; as discussed above, the long-term, regional effect would be moderate and beneficial, primarily due to the emissions reductions expected to occur with implementation of ongoing state and federal mobile-source control programs. With respect to particulate matter, conditions in the corridor would be determined by both regional sources and local sources, and the relative influence of these two types of sources would vary from day to day and season to season. Given the opposing emissions trends between primary and secondary sources of particulate matter and the varying relative contributions of regional and local emissions sources, it would be speculative to conclude that the combined effect of cumulative actions and Alternative 2 would be beneficial or adverse with respect to particulate matter; however, the opposing emissions trends would tend to diminish the magnitude of the effect, regardless of whether the effect would be beneficial or adverse.

Under Alternative 2, "air quality" would be removed as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value, but the removal would not affect air quality, because no air quality policies have been established as a direct result of its designation as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value and because emissions sources in the park would continue to be regulated pursuant to other laws and regulations. Application of the management zones for this alternative could result in short-term, local, minor (with implementation of best management practices), adverse effects associated with construction or demolition activities within the corridor. Over the long term, this alternative would accommodate development of a new transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility, which could result in a long-term, local, moderate, beneficial effect due to reduced vehicle travel and related emissions in the eastern part of the Valley, but which would also result in a long-term, local, minor, adverse effect in its immediate vicinity and in the vicinities of related facilities (such as the traffic check station or removal of existing parking areas) due to the increased concentration of vehicular activity and associated emissions at those locations.

Alternative 2 could contribute to the cumulative number of construction sites in and near the corridor; in most instances, construction projects undertaken as part of Alternative 2 would not occur in the vicinity of and at the same time as cumulative construction projects; thus, the local, short-term, adverse effects on air quality due to construction activities could be reduced to a minor intensity with implementation of best management practices. Over the long term, with respect to ozone, conditions in the corridor would be determined almost entirely by regional emissions trends rather than by local emissions sources under Alternative 2; as discussed above, the long-term, regional effect would be moderate and beneficial, primarily due to the emissions reductions expected to occur with implementation of ongoing state and federal mobile-source control programs. With respect to particulate matter, conditions in the corridor would be determined by both regional sources and local sources, and the relative influence of these two types of sources would vary on a daily and seasonal basis. Given the opposing emissions trends between primary and secondary sources of particulate matter and the varying relative contributions of regional and local emissions sources, it would be speculative to conclude that the combined effect of cumulative actions and Alternative 2 would be beneficial or adverse with respect to particulate matter; however, the opposing emissions trends would tend to diminish the magnitude of the effect, regardless of whether the effect would be beneficial or adverse.

Noise

Analysis

General Impacts. As a general matter, under Alternative 2, the acoustical environment in wilderness areas would continue to be shaped largely by natural sources of sound punctuated by intrusive noise generated by high-altitude aircraft overflights, and the acoustical environment in non-wilderness areas would continue to be influenced by human-caused sources of noise, such as vehicles and recreational activities, and by natural sources of sound, such as rushing water and wind. The differences between noise conditions under this alternative and those under Alternative 1 would relate to the following issues: under Alternative 2, "natural quiet" would be eliminated as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value along certain river segments; construction or demolition activities could occur; and a centralized transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility could be developed.

Under Alternative 2, "natural quiet" would be removed from the list of Outstandingly Remarkable Values along those segments of the main stem of the Merced River (wilderness) and the South Fork (wilderness and below Wawona) for which "natural quiet" is currently listed as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value. Outstandingly Remarkable Values listed in the 1996 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan have been revised based on the application of new scientific information, changed ecological and hydrologic conditions in the river corridor, and to accurately reflect Outstandingly Remarkable Value criteria included in the Interagency Coordinating Council guidelines for implementation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Natural quiet has been removed as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value because it is not river-related nor is its presence in the corridor unique to the region or nation.

However, the removal would have a local, negligible, long-term, adverse effect on noise, since one important aspect of this environmental condition—the enjoyment of natural river sounds—has been integrated into the recreation Outstandingly Remarkable Values for each of the three applicable river segments. As such, that particular aspect would continue to be considered for both protection and enhancement. Also, for the two segments in designated Wilderness areas, noise sources would continue to be regulated through implementation of policies contained in the 1989 Wilderness Management Plan, such as the wilderness permit system and restrictions on aircraft and snowmobile use. Although the third river segment for which "natural quiet" would no longer be an Outstandingly Remarkable Value (below Wawona) would not be located in a designated Wilderness area, it would be designated 2A+ under this alternative; this designation would essentially eliminate the potential for noise impacts since, as undeveloped open space, new development and related noise sources would generally not be allowed.

The application of management zones under this alternative would ensure that essentially no new human-caused noise sources would be introduced along segments of the corridor that would lie in wilderness areas. Thus, Alternative 2 would have essentially no effect on the noise environment in wilderness areas.

In non-wilderness areas under this alternative, some facilities could be constructed and other facilities removed based on the new management zoning designations. Construction or demolition activities could generate substantial amounts of noise during the temporary construction period. The noise levels generated by typical pieces of construction equipment are shown in table IV-1.

At each individual construction or demolition site, the related noise impact would vary depending upon a number of factors, such as the number and types of equipment in operation on a given day, their usage rates, the level of background noise in the area, and the distance between sensitive uses and the construction site. However, in general, given the low background noise levels away from park roadways and the expectation of visitors that the environment be free of excessive noise sources (if not natural quiet), the impact from construction or demolition activities would generally be local, major, short-term, and adverse.

Best management practices are available to reduce noise impacts from equipment associated with construction or demolition activities and could be made conditions of agreements with contractors. These practices are listed in Chapter II and are common to all action alternatives. With each individual construction or demolition project, these best management practices would need to be refined and balanced against other resource goals, such as protection of wildlife. Implementation of best management practices would generally reduce the related impacts from major to moderate.

The 3C zone in Alternative 2 would accommodate the potential development of a transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility at either Taft Toe or Camp 6. If such a facility were developed, the effect on noise would be beneficial by reducing vehicle-miles-traveled within the eastern portion of the Valley, although the immediate vicinity of the transit center and parking area itself would experience adverse effects. Once operational, noise impacts from the concentration of vehicular activity in that area would be moderate and long term. The geographic extent of adverse local noise impacts related to the transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility would depend upon the acoustical characteristics of the topography in the surrounding area (e.g., bowl or echo effects), and such characteristics should be taken into account in the development of any such facility.

The intensity of the potential beneficial effect in the eastern portion of the Valley would depend upon the types of technology used to transport visitors within the Valley. For instance, as a general matter, diesel-powered shuttle buses would generate substantially more noise than the autos they would be replacing, and the net effect of replacing autos with diesel-powered shuttle buses would depend upon the number of vehicle-miles-traveled by autos that would be displaced. However, electric shuttle buses generate substantially less noise than diesel buses, and if the National Park Service were to consider noise effects in the selection of the technology for expanded in-Valley shuttle service (that would naturally arise from the potential development of a transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility at Taft Toe or Camp 6), then a minor to moderate, beneficial impact from the standpoint of noise levels in the eastern portion of the Valley would be expected.

If a transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility were developed at Camp 6, a traffic check station could be developed at Taft Toe. This traffic check station would result in a local, long-term, adverse effect on noise in the immediate vicinity of that station. The effect would be minor given that the same volume of traffic would pass through this area with or without the traffic check station, whether traffic proceeds eastbound or westbound. West of the station, roadside noise levels would be reduced, since eastbound traffic would decelerate in their approach to the station and since vehicles generate less noise at lower speeds. East of the station, roadside noise levels would be higher, since eastbound traffic would accelerate back to the speed limit and since accelerating vehicles generate relatively high noise levels.

Summary of Alternative 2 Impacts. Under Alternative 2, "natural quiet" would be removed from the list of Outstandingly Remarkable Values along segments of the main stem of the Merced River and South Fork, but this action would have a local, negligible, long-term, adverse effect on noise for the following reasons: "enjoyment of natural river sounds" would be integrated into the recreation Outstandingly Remarkable Values for those same river segments; noise sources in wilderness areas would continue to be regulated through implementation of policies in the 1989 Wilderness Management Plan; and the one affected non-wilderness segment, below Wawona, would be designated zone 2A+.

The acoustical environment in wilderness areas would not be affected by Alternative 2, but would continue to be shaped largely by natural sources of sound punctuated by intrusive noise generated by high-altitude aircraft overflights. The acoustical environment in non-wilderness areas would continue to be shaped by human-caused sources of noise, such as vehicles and recreational activities, and by natural sources of sound, such as rushing water and wind.

Under Alternative 2, construction or demolition activities could result in a moderate, short-term, adverse effect on noise levels (assuming implementation of best management practices) within the corridor in the immediate vicinities of the construction or demolition sites. Alternative 2 would also allow for the development of a transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility (and, possibly, a related traffic check station), which would result in a moderate, long-term, adverse noise effect in the vicinity of the facility itself due to the concentration of vehicular activity and related noise, but would also result in a long-term, beneficial effect in the eastern portion of the Valley due to reduced vehicle trips and their related noise. The intensity of this potential long-term, beneficial effect could be minor to moderate, depending upon the types of technology used to transport visitors within the Valley.

Cumulative effects to the ambient noise environment discussed herein are based on analysis of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the Yosemite region in combination with potential effects of this alternative. The projects identified below include only those projects that could affect noise within the river corridor or could be affected by noise sources within the corridor.

Past Actions. Development of facilities that include various sources of noise has occurred in and near some segments of the river corridor. Such facilities include roadways, campgrounds, and administrative buildings. Generally, these facilities were developed with limited consideration of potential noise impacts. From a regulatory standpoint, relevant state and federal noise standards typically apply to individual types of noise sources, such as automobiles and buses, rather than to overall noise levels, but National Park Service has adopted two plans, a Restricted Access Plan and the Wilderness Management Plan, that indirectly affect overall noise levels in the river corridor. The Restricted Access Plan was developed for use when traffic and parking conditions in Yosemite Valley are overcongested. The plan has the indirect effect of limiting the amount of vehicle noise during peak periods by restricting the number of incoming vehicles until the traffic volume and parking demand in Yosemite Valley decrease sufficiently (as departing visitors leave the Valley) to stabilize traffic conditions.

The Wilderness Management Plan was developed to preserve a wilderness environment in which the natural world along with the processes and events that shape it are largely untouched by human interference. Implementation of the permit system for overnight camping under the Wilderness Management Plan reduces potential noise impacts in those areas where natural quiet is an important element of the visitor experience.

Present Actions. The El Portal Road Reconstruction Project (NPS) is currently underway and has both adverse (short-term during construction) and beneficial (long-term) effects on noise. Short-term, construction-related effects include noise from heavy equipment operations. Current safety improvements on Segments A, B, and C of El Portal Road would facilitate regional transit service on that route, which may have a long-term, beneficial impact by replacing automobile trips with a fewer number of transit vehicle trips, depending upon transit ridership levels and the technology used for transit vehicles.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Reasonably foreseeable future actions proposed in the region are separated below into three general categories: (1) projects anticipated to have a net beneficial, long-term effect; (2) projects anticipated to have a net adverse, long-term effect; and (3) projects anticipated not to have a net adverse or net beneficial, long-term effect.

Cumulative projects that could have a net, beneficial, long-term effect on the ambient noise environment include:

• The Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) is a collaborative, multiagency effort to evaluate the feasibility of a regional transportation system and to determine the organizational structure of an entity that would implement and operate the system. The intent of YARTS is to provide an attractive alternative to private vehicles by expanding the range of travel options for visitors to Yosemite Valley and to other primary park destinations, and for employees commuting to work in the park. It also could provide a means for visitors to travel to Yosemite Valley when the Restricted Access Plan is implemented for private vehicles during times of severe congestion.
• Passenger rail improvements in the Amtrak San Joaquin Corridor (DOT, Amtrak) and potential creation of high-speed rail service would encourage travel by alternative (nonprivate vehicle) modes, particularly if combined with the potential expansion of regional transit service proposed by YARTS.
• The Yosemite West Rezoning Application (NPS) and the Resources Management Building (NPS) are two projects that would reduce in-Valley vehicle trips for some employees.
• The Yosemite Valley Plan (NPS) proposes to enhance the quality of the visitor experience in Yosemite Valley by reducing automobile congestion, limiting crowding, and expanding orientation and interpretation services. It also proposes traffic management systems and options for the size and placement of parking lots, both within and outside Yosemite Valley. Parking lot(s) outside the Valley could be used to intercept day visitors and shift those visitors to Valley-bound shuttle buses.
• The Yosemite Valley Plan (NPS) also includes safety improvements on Segment D of the El Portal Road Improvement Project (i.e., the segment from Cascades Diversion Dam [near the El Portal Road/Big Oak Flat Road intersection] to the Pohono Bridge). Construction activity on Segment D would cause short-term adverse impacts on the local noise environment primarily due to construction activities, similar to those currently occurring during construction on Segments A, B, and C. Those adverse impacts associated with Segment D construction activity could be mitigated by implementation of best management practices. Safety improvements on Segment D of El Portal Road, together with improvements on Segments A, B, and C, would facilitate expanded regional transit service on that route, and expanded transit could lead to fewer vehicles and less vehicle noise.
• Several other regional transportation projects that would have a net beneficial effect on noise by improving the relative attractiveness of alternative modes of transportation and thereby reducing private automobile vehicle trips include the Yosemite Valley Shuttle Bus Stop Improvements (NPS), and the Expansion of Mariposa County Transit System (Mariposa Co.).
• Update to the National Park Service's 1989 Yosemite Wilderness Management Plan.

Although most of the aforementioned projects would have localized, short-term, adverse effects (e.g., construction-related effects), the general goal of each of these projects is to improve regional transportation, circulation, and safety. As such, these projects would, individually and in combination, encourage travel to the park by alternative (non-private vehicle) modes and would therefore have a beneficial, long-term effect on the ambient noise environment.

To the extent that the transportation-related projects cited above would replace automobile trips in the Valley with bus trips, the anticipated beneficial effect would depend upon ridership levels (and the corresponding number of automobile trips that would be avoided) and the technology selected for the buses. While a bus generates higher maximum noise levels than an automobile, a shift from auto to bus trips would reduce average roadside noise levels, assuming a certain number of auto trips would be displaced. For instance, a typical diesel-powered bus generates the same amount of noise as approximately 6 to 50 typical automobiles at speeds of 40 miles per hour or less (the difference between bus and auto noise is inversely related to speed), based on data compiled by the U.S. Department of Transportation (FHWA 1995). Assuming that a typical electric bus generates approximately 6 dBA less than a typical diesel bus, an electric bus generates the same amount of noise as approximately 2 to 13 typical automobiles. Thus, these projects have the potential to contribute to a cumulative beneficial effect in the Valley, but also have the potential to offset some of the benefit with a combination of low ridership levels and typical diesel bus technology.

Implementation of an update to the Yosemite Wilderness Management Plan (NPS) would have a net beneficial, long-term effect on the ambient noise environment in the Merced River corridor because of the emphasis on improving visitor use management as it relates to naturally functioning ecosystems and a quality diverse wilderness experience.

Cumulative projects that could have a net, adverse, long-term effect on the ambient noise environment include:

• Various development-related projects, such as the Mariposa County General Plan Update (Mariposa Co.); Hazel Green Ranch (Mariposa Co.); Rio Mesa Area Plan (Madera Co.); Yosemite Motels, El Portal (Mariposa Co.); University of California, Merced Campus (Merced Co.); Buildout of City of Merced, General Plan
• Wawona Campground Improvement (NPS)

Cumulative growth in the region would have localized, short-term, construction-related impacts; over the long term, these projects would have an adverse effect on local roadside noise levels due to increased vehicle trips. The Wawona Campground Improvement (NPS) would construct an additional campground, which may result in increased noise in Section 35.

Reasonably foreseeable projects not anticipated to have a net adverse or beneficial effect on the ambient noise environment, other than short-term, localized impacts due to construction activities, include:

• Infrastructure and transportation projects, such as Replacement/Rehabilitation of Yosemite Valley Sewer Line (NPS); South Fork Merced River Bridges Replacement (NPS); El Portal Road Improvement Project (NPS)
• Several Yosemite campground rehabilitation and resource restoration projects and plans, such as Merced River at Eagle Creek Ecological Restoration; Bridalveil Horse Camp Rehabilitation; and Yosemite Creek Campground Rehabilitation (NPS)
• Land exchanges, such as Yosemite View Parcel Land Exchange, El Portal (NPS) and Wilderness Boundary Protection Land Exchange, Seventh Day Adventist Camps, Wawona (NPS)

Many of the above cumulative projects would result in local, short-term, major, adverse effects on the ambient noise environment due to construction activities, and in some cases, these effects would occur within the corridor. Over the long-term, statewide growth and development would accelerate the national trend in increased air travel, resulting in a local, minor, long-term adverse effect in some portions of the corridor in wilderness areas due to increased aircraft overflights and associated intrusive noise levels. In non-wilderness areas, cumulative actions that would provide for increased transit use and reduced automobile use or that would reduce vehicle trips in the Valley could result in a local, minor, long-term, beneficial effect within the corridor depending upon the type of technology used for transit purposes and the extent to which private automobile trips are diverted to transit.

Alternative 2 could contribute to the cumulative number of construction sites in and near the corridor; in most instances, construction projects undertaken as part of Alternative 2 would not overlap in time and space with cumulative construction projects, and thus, the local, short-term adverse effects on noise due to construction activities could be reduced to a moderate intensity with implementation of best management practices. Over the long term, in wilderness areas, noise impacts in the corridor would be determined almost entirely by cumulative trends in air travel rather than by in-park noise sources under Alternative 2; as discussed above, the national trend in air travel would result in a local, minor, long-term, adverse effect on the ambient noise environment. In non-wilderness areas, the cumulative actions that would tend to reduce motor vehicle trips, and the potential development of a transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility (and, possibly, a related traffic check station) would result in moderate, long-term, adverse effect on noise levels in the immediate vicinities of such facilities due to the concentration of vehicular activity, but could result in a minor to moderate, long-term, beneficial effect in the eastern portion of the Valley due to reduced vehicle trips and related noise, depending upon the type of technology used for transit purposes.

Under Alternative 2, "natural quiet" would be removed from the list of Outstandingly Remarkable Values along segments of the main stem of the Merced River and South Fork, but this action would have a local, negligible, long-term, adverse effect on noise for the following reasons: "enjoyment of natural river sounds" would be integrated into the recreation Outstandingly Remarkable Values for those same river segments; noise sources in wilderness areas would continue to be regulated through implementation of policies in the 1989 Wilderness Management Plan; and the one affected non-wilderness segment, below Wawona, would be designated zone 2A+.

The acoustical environment in wilderness areas would not be affected by Alternative 2, but would continue to be shaped largely by natural sources of sound punctuated by intrusive noise generated by high-altitude aircraft overflights. The acoustical environment in non-wilderness areas would continue to be shaped by human-caused sources of noise, such as vehicles and recreational activities, and by natural sources of sound, such as rushing water and wind. Under Alternative 2, construction or demolition activities could result in a moderate, short-term, adverse effect on noise levels (assuming implementation of best management practices) within the corridor in the immediate vicinities of the construction or demolition sites. Alternative 2 would also allow for the development of a transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility (and, possibly, a related traffic check station), which would result in a moderate, long-term, adverse noise effect in the vicinity of the facility itself due to the concentration of vehicular activity and related noise, but would also result in a long-term, beneficial effect in the eastern portion of the Valley due to reduced vehicle trips and their related noise. The intensity of this potential, long-term, beneficial effect could be minor to moderate, depending upon the types of technology used to transport visitors within the Valley.

Alternative 2 could contribute to the cumulative number of construction sites in and near the corridor; in most instances, construction projects undertaken as part of Alternative 2 would not overlap in time and space with cumulative construction projects, and thus, the local, short-term, adverse effects on noise due to construction activities could be reduced to a moderate intensity with implementation of best management practices. Over the long term, in wilderness areas, noise impacts in the corridor would be determined almost entirely by cumulative trends in air travel rather than by in-park noise sources under Alternative 2; as discussed above, the national trend in air travel would result in a local, minor, long-term, adverse effect on the ambient noise environment. In non-wilderness areas, the cumulative actions that would tend to reduce motor vehicle trips, and the potential development of a transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility (and, possibly, a related traffic check station) would result in a moderate, long-term, adverse effect on noise levels in the immediate vicinities of such facilities due to the concentration of vehicular activity, but could result in a minor to moderate, long-term, beneficial effect in the eastern portion of the Valley due to reduced vehicle trips and related noise, depending upon the type of technology used for transit purposes.

Cultural Resources

General Impacts. Cultural resource Outstandingly Remarkable Values listed in the 1996 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan have been revised based on the application of new scientific information and to accurately reflect Outstandingly Remarkable Value criteria included in the Interagency Coordinating Council guidelines for implementation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Specifically, those cultural resources that are not related to the Merced River, are not unique to the region or nation, or do not accurately reflect site conditions have been removed. Removal of these resources from the list of Outstandingly Remarkable Values would not alter their management or protection. These resources would continue to be managed and protected by existing park policy and guidelines (e.g., Yosemite General Management Plan, Yosemite Resources Management Plan, 1999 Programmatic Agreement), as well as by federal law (e.g., National Historic Preservation Act and Archeological Resources Protection Act).

Cultural resource Outstandingly Remarkable Values common to the entire Merced River (main stem and South Fork) now include river-related cultural resources that are either eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places that are not intended to divert the free flow of the river. The revised Outstandingly Remarkable Values are more inclusive than those in the 1996 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan and provide greater focus on the Merced River and resources unique to the region or nation.

Under the application of management elements for Alternative 2, there is a potential that earthmoving activities would be required as part of construction and/or development. The following discussion provides an overview of the types of impacts that could occur within each segment of the Merced River corridor.

Wilderness. The proposed zoning designations for the wilderness areas of the Merced River corridor would not allow for development of any new facilities. Therefore, impacts to archeological resources would occur only as a result of ongoing park operations and programs, such as facilities maintenance and repair. These actions have the potential to adversely affect entire sites or portions of sites by disturbing intact archeological resources, which are identified as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value. This is considered a local, long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impact, the intensity of impact would depend upon the nature, location, and design of the facility to be developed or removed as well as the quantity and data potential of the archeological resource(s) affected.

These actions would be subject to site-specific planning and compliance and would be undertaken in accordance with stipulations in the park’s 1999 Programmatic Agreement. Every effort would be made to avoid adverse impacts in design. Where such avoidance would not be feasible or prudent, the park would implement data recovery excavations to retrieve important scientific information, thereby reducing the intensity of the impact.

Yosemite Valley. The 3C zone could allow for the development of a transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility at either Taft Toe or Camp 6. In addition, the 3B and 3C zones could allow construction of new facilities and hardened surfaces (e.g., overnight accommodations, parking areas, and park operations and maintenance) and the removal or relocation of existing facilities. If this development or construction occurred and earthmoving activities were required, then intact archeological resource(s), which are identified as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value, could be disturbed and possibly destroyed. Although the intensity of impact would depend partly upon the nature and location of the undertaking, extensive grading and ground disturbance could result in a local, long-term, moderate to major, adverse impact to archeological resources.

The 2B, 2C, and 3A zones could allow construction of new facilities and hardened surfaces (e.g., campgrounds, trails, parking areas, restrooms, and picnic areas) and the removal or relocation of existing facilities. Development within these management zones also could concentrate visitor use at specific locations in the Valley, which could affect archeological resources by causing trampling, surface collection, and erosion. However, by providing more structured visitor experiences in the river corridor, use could be directed away from known archeological resources, which would reduce the likelihood of visitor-related damage. If this development or construction occurred and earthmoving activities were required, then intact archeological resource(s), which are identified as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value, could be disturbed. Although the intensity of impact would depend partly upon the nature and location of the undertaking, grading and ground disturbance could result in a local, long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impact to archeological resources.

These actions would be subject to site-specific planning and compliance and would be undertaken in accordance with stipulations in the park’s 1999 Programmatic Agreement. Under this agreement, the park would conduct data recovery excavations to retrieve important scientific information, thereby reducing the intensity of the impact. Every effort would be made to avoid adverse impacts wherever possible.

Merced River Gorge. Under Alternative 2, the zoning designations could allow for the construction of facilities, such as trails, parking areas, restrooms, and picnic areas, within the Merced River gorge. If construction occurred and earthmoving activities were required, then intact archeological resource(s), which are identified as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value, could be disturbed. These potential actions also could concentrate visitor use, thereby resulting in impacts such as trampling, surface collection, and erosion. However, by establishing a site monitoring program and by providing more structured visitor experiences in the river corridor, use could be directed away from known archeological resources, reducing the likelihood of visitor-related damage. This is considered a local, long-term, minor to major, adverse impact, and the intensity of impact would depend upon the nature, location, and design of the facility to be developed or removed as well as the quantity and data potential of the archeological resource(s) affected. These actions would be subject to site-specific planning and compliance and would be undertaken in accordance with stipulations in the park’s 1999 Programmatic Agreement. Under this agreement, disturbance to archeological sites would be avoided wherever possible. Where such avoidance would not be feasible or prudent, the park would implement data recovery excavations to retrieve important scientific information, thereby reducing the intensity of the impact.

El Portal. The 3C zone could allow for the development of facilities or the removal of existing facilities. If this development or removal occurred and earthmoving activities were required, then intact archeological resource(s), which are identified as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value, could be disturbed. This is considered a local, long-term, minor to major, adverse impact, and the intensity of impact would depend upon the nature, location, and design of the facility to be developed or removed as well as the quantity and data potential of the archeological resource(s) affected.

The 2C zone could allow construction of new facilities and hardened surfaces and the removal or relocation of existing facilities. Development within these management zones also could concentrate visitor use at specific locations in El Portal, which could affect archeological resources by causing trampling, surface collection, and erosion. However, by providing more structured visitor experiences in the river corridor, use could be directed away from known archeological resources, which would reduce the likelihood of visitor-related damage. If this development or construction occurred and earthmoving activities were required, then intact archeological resource(s), which are identified as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value, could be disturbed. This is considered a local, long-term, minor to major, adverse impact, and the intensity of impact would depend upon the nature, location, and design of the facility to be developed or removed as well as the quantity and data potential of the archeological resource(s) affected.

These actions would be subject to site-specific planning and compliance and would be undertaken in accordance with stipulations in the park’s 1999 Programmatic Agreement. Under this agreement, the park would conduct data recovery excavations to retrieve important scientific information, thereby reducing the intensity of the impact. Every effort would be made to avoid adverse impacts wherever possible.

Wawona. Under Alternative 2, the 3A and 3C zoning designations allow for the potential development, maintenance, rehabilitation, or removal of facilities in the Wawona area. If these activities occurred and earthmoving activities are required, intact archeological resource(s), which are identified as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value, could be disturbed. This is considered a local, long-term, minor to major, adverse impact, and the intensity of impact would depend upon the nature, location, and design of the facility to be developed or removed as well as the quantity and data potential of the archeological resource(s) affected.

The 2B and 2C zones could allow construction of new facilities and hardened surfaces and the removal or relocation of existing facilities. Development within these management zones also could concentrate visitor use at specific locations in Wawona, which could affect archeological resources by causing trampling, surface collection, and erosion. However, by providing more structured visitor experiences in the river corridor, use could be directed away from known archeological resources, which would reduce the likelihood of visitor-related damage. If this development or construction occurred and earthmoving activities were required, then intact archeological resource(s), which are identified as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value, could be disturbed. This is considered a local, long-term, minor to major, adverse impact, and the intensity of impact would depend upon the nature, location, and design of the facility to be developed or removed as well as the quantity and data potential of the archeological resource(s) affected.

These actions would be subject to site-specific planning and compliance and would be undertaken in accordance with stipulations in the park’s 1999 Programmatic Agreement. Under this agreement, disturbance to archeological resources would be avoided wherever possible. Where such avoidance would not be feasible or prudent, the park would implement data recovery excavations to retrieve important scientific information, thereby reducing the intensity of the impact.

Summary of Alternative 2 Impacts. The implementation of potential future actions in accordance with the management zones of Alternative 2 would result in a long-term, major, adverse impact to archeological resources due to the potential earthmoving activities that could disturb intact archeological resources, some of which are identified as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value. The intensity of impact would depend upon the nature, location, and design of the facility to be developed or removed as well as the quantity and data potential of the archeological resource(s) affected.

Cumulative impacts to archeological resources discussed herein are based on analysis of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the Yosemite region in combination with potential effects of this alternative. The projects identified below include only those projects that could affect archeological resources within the river corridor or in the park vicinity.

Past Actions. Archeological resources are subject to damage from development, vandalism, visitor access, and natural processes. For example, the 1997 flood exposed portions of two archeological resources in El Portal.

In general, the archeological resources within the Merced River corridor are the result of thousands of years of human occupation. Development of facilities within the river corridor has disturbed or destroyed numerous archeological resources and compromised the integrity of numerous other such resources.

In 1991, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management developed a joint South Fork and Merced Wild and Scenic River Implementation Plan for the segments of the main stem and South Fork of the Merced River that are under their jurisdiction. The plan is also a general management plan with many prescriptive goals and few actions. The plan endeavors to limit or end consumptive uses such as grazing within the river corridor and calls for the formalization of camping and launch facilities for non-motorized watercraft. Implementation of these actions has a beneficial effect by eliminating impacts where feasible (grazing does not currently occur within the river corridor), concentrating impacts in areas able to withstand visitor use, and providing facilities that mitigate adverse effects associated with visitor use (e.g., restrooms).

Present Actions. There are archeological resource sites in Yosemite Valley, El Portal, and Wawona that are considered to be at risk from existing facility development. These sites are at or adjacent to trails, structures, utility systems, and other facilities and are subject to ongoing disturbances such as trampling, surface collection, and ground disturbance associated with facility maintenance.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Reasonably foreseeable future actions proposed in the region that could have a cumulative effect on archeological resources in the vicinity include:

• Several Yosemite campground rehabilitation projects, such as at Bridalveil Horse Camp, Yosemite Creek Campground, Tamarack Campground, Wawona Campground, and Hodgdon Meadow Campground (NPS)
• The Merced River at Eagle Creek Ecological Restoration Project (NPS)
• Update to the Yosemite Wilderness Management Plan (NPS), which will address land management issues within the wilderness
• The Yosemite Valley Plan (NPS)
• Several transportation-related projects (e.g., Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System), which have the general goals of increasing transportation options and reducing reliance on automobiles in the area
• South Entrance/Mariposa Grove Site Planning (NPS)
• Resources Management Building, Yosemite West Rezoning Application, South Fork Merced River Bridges Replacement (NPS)
• Tuolumne Meadows Development Concept Plan, and Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (NPS)
• Several water improvement projects, such as the Tuolumne Meadows Water and Wastewater Improvements, the White Wolf Water System Improvements, Hodgdon Meadow Water and Wastewater Treatment Improvements, Replacement/Rehabilitation of Yosemite Valley Sewer Line (NPS), Cherry Dam Fuse Gate, O’Shaughnessy Dam Well, and O’Shaughnessy Compound Water System Improvements (City and Co. of San Francisco)
• Orange Crush Fuels Treatment Projects (USFS, Stanislaus)
• Various development-related projects, such as the Yosemite View parcel land exchange, El Portal (NPS); Wilderness Boundary Protection Land Exchange, Seventh Day Adventist Camp, Wawona (NPS), Hazel Green Ranch (Mariposa Co.), Crane Flat Campus Redevelopment (NPS, YNI), Rio Mesa Area Plan (Madera Co.); Yosemite Motels, El Portal (Mariposa Co.); Silvertip Resort Village Project (Mariposa Co.); University of California, Merced Campus (Merced Co.); Buildout of City of Merced General Plan; Double Eagle Resort, June Lake (Mono Co.); Tioga Inn, Lee Vining (Mono Co.); June Lake Highlands (Mono Co.); Evergreen Lodge Expansion (Tuolumne Co.); Hardin Flat Lodging and Conference Facility (Tuolumne Co.); Motel and Restaurant, Second Garrotte Basin (Tuolumne Co.); Resources Management Building (NPS); Yosemite West Rezoning Application (NPS); and the Hazel Green Ranch (Mariposa Co.)
• Transportation projects, such as the Highway 41 Extension (Madera Co.); Yosemite Valley Shuttle Bus Stop Improvements (NPS); South Fork Merced River Bridge Replacement (NPS); Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement of Highway 49 and Old Highway (Mariposa Co.); Expansion of Mariposa County Transit System; Mariposa Creek Pedestrian/Bike Path (Mariposa Co.); Evergreen Road Improvements (multi-agency, see Appendix G); San Joaquin Corridor Rail Projects (DOT, Amtrak)
• Merced River Canyon Trail Acquisition (BLM)

The extensive grading and ground disturbance that could be required for these projects could disturb individual archeological resources. Each of these projects is within an archeologically sensitive area, such as a river valley or a mountain meadow. Specific impacts would depend upon the nature, location, and design of the facility to be developed or removed as well as the quantity and data potential of the archeological resource(s) affected. Any disturbance of an individual archeological resource is considered to be a long-term, adverse impact.

Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of Yosemite National Park would result in a long-term, major, adverse impact on archeological resources.

The implementation of potential future actions in accordance with the management zones of Alternative 2 would result in a long-term, major, adverse impact to archeological resources due to the potential earthmoving activities that could disturb intact archeological resources, some of which are identified as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value. The intensity of impact would depend upon the nature, location, and design of the facility to be developed or removed as well as the quantity and data potential of the archeological resource(s) affected.

Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of Yosemite National Park would result in a long-term, major, adverse impact on archeological resources.

Under the application of management elements for Alternative 2, there is a potential that ethnographic resources could be affected. The following discussion provides an overview of the types of impacts that could occur within each segment of the Merced River corridor.

Wilderness. The zoning designations for wilderness areas of the Merced River corridor would not allow for the development of any new facilities. Therefore, impacts to ethnographic resources would occur only as a result of ongoing park operations and programs, such as facilities maintenance and repair. The intensity of impact would depend on the nature, location and design of the undertaking as well as the quantity and nature of the ethnographic resources affected. These actions would be subject to site-specific planning and compliance and would be undertaken in accordance with stipulations in the park’s 1999 Programmatic Agreement and the cooperative agreement for traditional uses. Every effort would be made to avoid adverse impacts to ethnographic sites. Where avoidance would not be possible, the park, in consultation with the culturally associated Indian tribes, would mitigate the impacts to the greatest extent possible, potentially reducing the intensity of the impact. Mitigation could include identification of and assistance in accessing alternative resource gathering areas, continuing to provide access to traditional use and spiritual areas, and screening new development from traditional use areas.

Yosemite Valley. The zoning designations under Alternative 2 could allow for development of new facilities and hardened surfaces (e.g., a transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility, trails, parking areas, restrooms, and picnic areas) and removal and relocation of existing facilities. If these actions were to occur, ethnographic resources, which are identified as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value, could be affected by disturbing or destroying traditional use areas or changing access to these places, disturbing historic village sites, or adding or increasing visitation in spiritual places. This is considered a local, long-term, minor to major, adverse impact, and the intensity of impact would depend upon the nature, location, and design of the undertaking as well as the quantity and nature of the ethnographic resources affected. Any such action would be subject to site-specific planning and compliance and would be undertaken in accordance with stipulations in the park’s 1999 Programmatic Agreement. The park would continue to consult with culturally associated Indian tribes under this Programmatic Agreement and the cooperative agreement for traditional uses. The park, in consultation with the culturally associated Indian tribes, would make every effort to avoid impacts to ethnographic resources. Where avoidance would not be possible, the park would mitigate the impact to the greatest extent possible, potentially reducing the intensity of the impacts. Mitigation could include identification of and assistance in accessing alternative resource gathering areas, continuing to provide access to traditional use and spiritual areas, and screening new development from traditional use areas.

The general increase in visitors to the park would increase the potential that American Indians would be discouraged from using traditional gathering areas within the Valley. However, this alternative would provide more structured visitor experiences in the Merced River corridor and could direct visitors away from traditional gathering areas. Compared to Alternative 1, this alternative would reduce the likelihood of impacts to ethnographic resources and would provide a long-term, minor, beneficial impact.

The River Protection Overlay could result in the restoration of botanic communities in the Merced River corridor. This would have a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on ethnographic resources by improving conditions for the recovery of traditionally used plants.

Merced River Gorge. The zoning designations in the Merced River gorge could allow for construction of facilities such as trails, parking areas, restrooms, and picnic areas at the Cascades area. If these actions were to occur, then ethnographic resources could be affected by disturbing or destroying traditional use areas or changing access to these places, disturbing historic village sites, or adding or increasing visitation in spiritual places. This is considered a local, long-term, minor to major, adverse impact, and the intensity of impact would depend upon the nature, location, and design of the undertaking as well as the quantity and nature of the ethnographic resources affected. These actions would be subject to site-specific planning and compliance and would be undertaken in accordance with stipulations in the park’s 1999 Programmatic Agreement. The park would continue to consult with culturally associated Indian tribes under this Programmatic Agreement and the cooperative agreement for traditional uses and would avoid adverse impacts wherever possible. Where avoidance would not be possible, the park, in consultation with the culturally associated Indian tribes, would mitigate the impacts to the greatest extent possible, potentially reducing the intensity of the impacts. Mitigation could include identification of and assistance in accessing alternative resource gathering areas, continuing to provide access to traditional use and spiritual areas, and screening new development from traditional use areas.

El Portal. The zoning designations for portions of the river corridor in El Portal could allow for development of new facilities, construction of other facilities (e.g., trails, parking areas, restrooms, and picnic areas), and removal or relocation of existing facilities. If these actions were to occur, then ethnographic resources could be affected by disturbing or destroying traditional use areas or changing access to these places, disturbing historic village sites, or adding or increasing visitation in spiritual places. This is considered a local, long-term, minor to major, adverse impact, and the intensity of impact would depend upon the nature, location, and design of the undertaking as well as the quantity and nature of the ethnographic resources affected. These actions would be subject to site-specific planning and compliance and would be undertaken in accordance with stipulations in the park’s 1999 Programmatic Agreement. The park would continue to consult with culturally associated Indian tribes under this Programmatic Agreement and the cooperative agreement for traditional uses and would avoid adverse impacts wherever possible. Where avoidance would not be possible, the park would mitigate the impacts to the greatest extent possible, potentially reducing the intensity of the impacts. Mitigation could include identification of and assistance in accessing alternative resource gathering areas, continuing to provide access to traditional use and spiritual areas, and screening new development from traditional use areas.

Wawona. The zoning designations for portions of the river corridor through Wawona could allow for ongoing maintenance and rehabilitation of facilities, construction of other facilities (e.g., trails, parking areas, restrooms, picnic areas, and new or replacement park operational facilities), and removal or relocation of existing facilities. If these actions were to occur, ethnographic resources could be affected by disturbing or destroying traditional use areas or changing access to these places, disturbing historic village sites, or adding or increasing visitation in spiritual places. This is considered a local, long-term, minor to major, adverse impact, and the intensity of impact would depend upon the nature, location, and design of the undertaking as well as the quantity and nature of the ethnographic resources affected. These actions would be subject to site-specific planning and compliance and would be undertaken in accordance with stipulations in the park’s 1999 Programmatic Agreement. The park would continue to consult with culturally associated Indian tribes under this Programmatic Agreement and the cooperative agreement for traditional uses and would avoid adverse impacts wherever possible. Where avoidance would not be possible, the park would mitigate the impacts to the greatest extent possible, potentially reducing the intensity of the impacts. Mitigation could include identification of and assistance in accessing alternative resource gathering areas, continuing to provide access to traditional use and spiritual areas, and screening new development from traditional use areas.

Summary of Alternative 2 Impacts. Alternative 2 could provide more structured visitor experiences in the Merced River corridor and could direct visitors away from traditional gathering areas, and the River Protection Overlay could result in the restoration of botanic communities in the Merced River corridor. This would reduce the likelihood of impacts to ethnographic resources and would improve conditions for the recovery of traditionally used plants. This long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial impact could be offset by the implementation of potential future actions that could occur under the management zones of Alternative 2, which is considered to be a local, long-term, minor to major, adverse impact.

Cumulative impacts to ethnographic resources discussed herein are based on analysis of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the Yosemite region in combination with potential effects of this alternative. The projects identified below include only those projects that could affect ethnographic resources within the river corridor or in the park vicinity.

Past Actions. Ethnographic resources and their traditional cultural associations have been lost or damaged in Yosemite National Park through past development, visitor use, natural events, and widespread disruption of cultural traditions. Nevertheless, Yosemite National Park retains many sites and resources of significance to local and culturally associated American Indians.

In general, the ethnographic resources within the Merced River corridor are the result of thousands of years of human occupation. Development of facilities within the river corridor has disturbed or destroyed numerous ethnographic resources and compromised the integrity of numerous other such resources.

In 1991, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management developed a joint South Fork and Merced Wild and Scenic River Implementation Plan for the segments of the main stem and South Fork of the Merced River that are under their jurisdiction. The plan is also a general management plan with many prescriptive goals and few actions. The plan endeavors to limit or end consumptive uses such as grazing within the river corridor and calls for the formalization of camping and launch facilities for non-motorized watercraft. Implementation of these actions has a beneficial effect by eliminating impacts where feasible (grazing does not currently occur within the river corridor), concentrating impacts in areas able to withstand visitor use, and providing facilities that mitigate adverse effects associated with visitor use (e.g., restrooms).

Present Actions. No present actions have been identified that would affect ethnographic resources in the vicinity of the Merced River corridor.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Reasonably foreseeable future actions proposed in the region are separated below into three general categories: (1) projects that could adversely affect ethnographic resources; (2) projects that could beneficially affect ethnographic resources; and (3) projects that could either adversely or beneficially affect ethnographic resources.

Examples of projects that could have a cumulative, adverse effect on ethnographic resources include:

• Several Yosemite campground rehabilitation projects, such as at Bridalveil Horse Camp, Yosemite Creek Campground, Tamarack Campground, Wawona Campground, and Hodgdon Meadow Campground (NPS)
• Several water improvement projects, such as the Tuolumne Meadows Water and Wastewater Improvements, the White Wolf Water System Improvements, Hodgdon Meadow Water and Wastewater Treatment Improvements, Replacement/Rehabilitation of Yosemite Valley Sewer Line (NPS), Cherry Dam Fuse Gate, O’Shaughnessy Dam Well, and O’Shaughnessy Compound Water System Improvements (City and Co. of San Francisco)
• The Orange Crush Fuels Treatment Projects (USFS, Stanislaus)
• Transportation projects, such as the Highway 41 Extension (Madera Co.); Yosemite Valley Shuttle Bus Stop Improvements (NPS); South Fork Merced River Bridges Replacement (NPS); Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement of Highway 49 and Old Highway (Mariposa Co.); Expansion of Mariposa County Transit System; Mariposa Creek Pedestrian/Bike Path (Mariposa Co.); Evergreen Road Improvements (multi-agency, see Appendix G); San Joaquin Corridor Rail Projects (DOT, Amtrak)
• Various development-related projects such as, the Yosemite View parcel land exchange, El Portal (NPS); Rio Mesa Area Plan (Madera Co.); Yosemite Motels, El Portal (Mariposa Co.); Silvertip Resort Village Project (Mariposa Co.); University of California, Merced Campus (Merced Co.); Buildout of City of Merced General Plan; Double Eagle Resort, June Lake (Mono Co.); Tioga Inn, Lee Vining (Mono Co.); June Lake Highlands (Mono Co.); Evergreen Lodge Expansion (Tuolumne Co.); Hardin Flat Lodging and Conference Facility (Tuolumne Co.); Motel and Restaurant, Second Garrotte Basin (Tuolumne Co.); Hazel Green Ranch (Mariposa Co.); and Resources Management Building (NPS)
• Merced River Canyon Trail Acquisition (BLM)

All of these projects could adversely affect ethnographic resources by damaging gathering sites and historic villages or restricting access to traditional use places. These projects would have a long-term, adverse impact on ethnographic resources. The intensity of this impact would depend on the extent to which gathering sites were damaged and access to traditional use places were facilitated.

Reasonably foreseeable projects that would beneficially affect ethnographic resources in the vicinity of the Merced River corridor include:

• The Merced River at Eagle Creek Ecological Restoration Project (NPS)
• Update to the Yosemite Wilderness Management Plan (NPS)
• South Entrance/Mariposa Grove Site Planning (NPS)
• The Tuolumne Meadows Development Concept Plan, and Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (NPS)
• Update to the Yosemite Fire Management Plan (NPS)
• The Sierra Nevada Framework for Conservation and Collaboration, and the Management Direction for the John Muir, Ansel Adams and Dinkey Lakes, and Monarch Wildernesses (USFS); both of which will address ecosystem management issues of Forest Service lands adjacent to Yosemite National Park
• Fire Management Action Plan for Wilderness (USFS, Stanislaus)
• The Pinecrest Basin Forest Plan Amendment (USFS, Stanislaus)
• A-Rock Reforestation (USFS, Stanislaus) and the Rogge-Ackerson Fire Reforestation (Tuolumne Co.)

These projects could result in restoring native plant habitat, which would be a long-term, beneficial impact on ethnographic resources. The intensity of this impact would depend on the extent to which gathering sites were restored and access to traditional use places were facilitated.

Reasonably foreseeable projects that would adversely or beneficially affect ethnographic resources in the vicinity of the Merced River corridor include:

• The Yosemite Valley Plan (NPS)

The preferred alternative of the Yosemite Valley Plan could adversely affect ethnographic resources by damaging gathering sites and historic villages or restricting access to traditional use places, and could beneficially affect ethnographic resources by restoring native plant habitat.

The cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of Yosemite National Park would result in a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on ethnographic resources because the long-term, beneficial impacts associated with the management of natural resources and river processes in the vicinity of the Merced River corridor would be partially offset by the long-term, adverse impacts associated with damaging gathering sites or restricting access to traditional use places.

Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of Yosemite National Park would result in both a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on ethnographic resources (through the management of natural resources and river processes) and in a long-term, adverse impact on ethnographic resources (by damaging gathering sites or restricting access to traditional use places). The type and intensity of the impact would depend upon design and final locations of proposed facilities.

Alternative 2 could provide more structured visitor experiences in the Merced River corridor and could direct visitors away from traditional gathering areas, and the River Protection Overlay could result in the restoration of botanic communities in the Merced River corridor. This would reduce the likelihood of impacts to ethnographic resources and would improve conditions for the recovery of traditionally used plants. This long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial impact could be offset by the implementation of potential future actions that could occur under the management zones of Alternative 2, which is considered to be a local, long-term, minor to major, adverse impact.

Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of Yosemite National Park would result in both a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on ethnographic resources (through the management of natural resources and river processes) and in a long-term, adverse impact on ethnographic resources (by damaging gathering sites or restricting access to traditional use places). The type and intensity of the impact would depend upon design and final locations of proposed facilities.

Under the application of management elements for Alternative 2, there is a potential that cultural landscape resources could be affected. The following discussion provides an overview of the types of impacts that could occur within each segment of the Merced River corridor.

Wilderness. The management zoning designations for the wilderness areas of the Merced River corridor would not allow development of new facilities. Therefore, impacts to cultural landscape resources would occur only as a result of ongoing park operations and programs, such as facilities maintenance and repair. These actions have the potential to adversely affect cultural landscape resources, which are classified as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value. Impacts would be associated with maintenance activities that remove historic fabric, remove historic structures, or add incompatible facilities within or adjacent to historic structures. The intensity of impact would depend upon the nature, location, and design of the undertaking, measurable change in character-defining features of a historic property, and the number of contributing elements of a historic district that are affected. These actions would be subject to site-specific planning and compliance and would be undertaken in accordance with stipulations in the park’s 1999 Programmatic Agreement. Every effort would be made during the design phase to avoid adverse impacts. These efforts could include screening and/or sensitive design that would be compatible with cultural landscape resources. Should avoidance of adverse impacts not be possible, documentation and treatment stipulated in the 1999 Programmatic Agreement would reduce the intensity of the impacts.

Yosemite Valley. The Merced River, its adjacent riparian corridor and meadows, and viewsheds are considered to be important elements of the Yosemite Valley cultural landscape historic district. The management zones and the River Protection Overlay could allow for the protection and enhancement of these elements of the cultural landscape historic district. This would be a long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial impact. The intensity of impact would depend on the nature, location, and design of the undertaking, the measurable change in protecting and/or enhancing the character-defining features of a historic property, and the number of contributing elements of a historic district that were protected and/or enhanced.

The management zoning designations for portions of the river corridor in Yosemite Valley could allow for the development of new facilities (e.g., a transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility, campgrounds, trails), the relocation of existing facilities, the redesign of developed areas (e.g., Yosemite Lodge, Curry Village, Yosemite Village), or the removal of facilities. Implementation of the River Protection Overlay, in combination with the management zones, would allow for the removal or redesign of bridges; however, the historic automobile and footbridges (e.g., Stoneman Bridge, Sugar Pine Bridge, Housekeeping Bridge) are considered to be Outstandingly Remarkable Values, and any future proposal for removal or redesign would be subject to the Section 7 process. Any or all of these actions could disrupt historical circulation and land use patterns, add noncontributing elements to the Valleywide cultural landscape, result in removal of historic fabric or resources, or add incompatible facilities within or adjacent to a cultural landscape resource. The intensity of impact would depend on the nature, location, and design of the undertaking, the measurable change in character-defining features of a historic property, and the number of contributing elements of a historic district that were affected. These actions would be subject to site-specific planning and compliance and would be undertaken in accordance with stipulations in the park’s 1999 Programmatic Agreement. Every effort would be made during the design phase to avoid adverse impacts. These efforts could include screening and/or sensitive design that would be compatible with cultural landscape resources. Should avoidance of adverse impacts not be possible, documentation and treatment stipulated in the 1999 Programmatic Agreement would reduce the intensity of the impacts.

Merced River Gorge. The management zoning designations under Alternative 2 would allow for construction or removal of facilities (e.g., trails, parking areas, restrooms, Cascades residences, and picnic areas). In addition, implementation of the River Protection Overlay would allow for the removal of the Cascades Diversion Dam. If such construction or removal activities were to occur, then cultural landscape resources could be adversely affected by removing resources or by adding incompatible facilities within or adjacent to cultural landscape resources. The intensity of impact would depend upon the nature, location, and design of the undertaking, the measurable change in character-defining features of a historic property, and the number of contributing elements of a historic district that were affected. These actions would be undertaken in accordance with stipulations in the park’s 1999 Programmatic Agreement. Every effort would be made during the design phase to avoid adverse impacts. These efforts could include screening and/or sensitive design that would be compatible with cultural landscape resources. Should avoidance of adverse impacts prove impossible, documentation and treatment stipulated in the 1999 Programmatic Agreement would reduce the intensity of the impacts.

El Portal. The management zoning designations for the river corridor in El Portal could allow for construction of facilities (e.g., trails, parking areas, restrooms, park operational facilities, and picnic areas), and removal or relocation of existing facilities. If these actions were to occur, then cultural landscape resources could be adversely affected by removing historic structures or by adding incompatible facilities adjacent to historic resources. The intensity of impact would depend upon the nature, location, and design of the undertaking, the measurable change in character-defining features of a historic property, and the number of contributing elements of a historic district that were affected. These actions would be subject to site-specific planning and compliance and would be undertaken in accordance with stipulations in the park’s 1999 Programmatic Agreement. Every effort would be made during the design phase to avoid adverse impacts. These efforts could include screening and/or sensitive design that would be compatible with cultural landscape resources. Should avoidance of adverse impacts not be possible, documentation and treatment stipulated in the 1999 Programmatic Agreement would reduce the intensity of the impacts.

Wawona. The zoning designations in the river corridor in Wawona could allow for construction of facilities (e.g., trails, parking areas, restrooms, and picnic areas) and removal or relocation of existing facilities. If these actions were to occur, then cultural landscape resources could be adversely affected by removing or altering historic fabric, removing historic structures, or by adding incompatible facilities within or adjacent to cultural landscape resources. Since the intensity of impact would depend upon the nature, location, and design of the undertaking, the measurable change in character-defining features of a historic property, and the number of contributing elements of a historic district that are affected, it is not possible to determine the intensities of these impacts. These actions would be subject to site-specific planning and compliance and would be undertaken in accordance with stipulations in the park’s 1999 Programmatic Agreement. Every effort would be made during the design phase to avoid adverse impacts. These efforts could include screening and/or sensitive design that would be compatible with cultural landscape resources. Should avoidance of adverse impacts not be possible, documentation and treatment stipulated in the 1999 Programmatic Agreement would reduce the intensity of the impacts.

Summary of Alternative 2 Impacts. The zoning designations and River Protection Overlay could allow for the protection and/or enhancement of elements of the Yosemite Valley cultural landscape historic district. This would be a long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial impact. Conversely, the zoning designations and the River Protection Overlay could allow for the development of new facilities, the relocation or removal of existing facilities, or the redesign of developed areas. Any or all of these actions could disrupt historical circulation and land use patterns, add noncontributing elements to the cultural landscape, result in removal of historic fabric or resources, or add incompatible facilities within or adjacent to a cultural landscape resource. The intensity of impact would depend on the nature, location, and design of the undertaking, the measurable change in character-defining features of a historic property, and the number of contributing elements of a historic district that were affected.

Cumulative impacts to cultural landscape resources discussed herein are based on analysis of the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the Yosemite region in combination with potential effects of this alternative. The projects identified below include only those projects that could affect cultural landscape resources within the river corridor or in the park vicinity.

Past Actions. Cultural landscape resources have been lost or damaged in Yosemite through past development, visitor use, and natural events. In wilderness areas, cultural landscape resources include remnants of early stock grazing, trails, and work camps. In Yosemite Valley, Wawona and El Portal, cultural landscape resources include early hotels, bridges, stores, studios, cabins, farms, and railroad structures that were associated with early Euro-American pioneer settlement and industries. In the Merced River gorge, cultural landscape resources include segments of the early wagon road and engineering projects. Rapidly disappearing structures and sites in other areas include homestead cabins, barns, road and trail segments, bridges, mining complexes, railroad and logging facilities, blazes, and campsites. These resources are reminders of the area’s ranching, grazing, lumbering, and mining history.

In 1991, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management developed a joint South Fork and Merced Wild and Scenic River Implementation Plan for the segments of the main stem and South Fork of the Merced River that are under their jurisdiction. The plan is also a general management plan with many prescriptive goals and few actions. The plan endeavors to limit or end consumptive uses such as grazing within the river corridor and calls for the formalization of camping and launch facilities for non-motorized watercraft. Implementation of these actions has a beneficial effect by eliminating impacts where feasible (grazing does not currently occur within the river corridor), concentrating impacts in areas able to withstand visitor use, and providing facilities that mitigate adverse effects associated with visitor use (e.g., restrooms).

Present Actions. The El Portal Road Reconstruction Project (NPS) is currently underway and affects cultural landscape resources within the Merced River gorge. Cultural landscape resources are protected during construction by implementation of a compliance monitoring program.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Reasonably foreseeable future actions proposed in the region that could affect cultural landscape resources include:

• Several Yosemite campground rehabilitation projects, such as at Bridalveil Horse Camp, Wawona Campground, Tamarack Campground Yosemite Creek Campground, and Hodgdon Meadow Campground (NPS)
• The Yosemite Valley Plan (NPS)
• Several transportation-related projects (e.g., Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System [YARTS]), which have the general goals of increasing transportation options and reducing reliance on automobiles in the area
• The Yosemite View parcel land exchange, El Portal (NPS)
• The Merced River at Eagle Creek Ecological Restoration Project (NPS)
• The Update to the Yosemite Wilderness Management Plan(NPS)
• Several water improvement projects such as, Replacement/Rehabilitation of Yosemite Valley Sewer Line (NPS); Cherry Dam Fuse Gate, O’Shaughnessy Dam Well, and O’Shaughnessy Compound Water System Improvements (City and Co. of San Francisco)
• Merced River Canyon Trail Acquisition (BLM)
• The update to the Yosemite Fire Management Plan (NPS)

Given that each of these actions could result in removal of historic fabric or resources, add noncontributing elements to the historic cultural landscape, or add incompatible facilities within or adjacent to a cultural landscape resource, these cumulative projects would have a long-term, adverse impact on cultural landscape resources. The impact intensity of any planning projects would depend upon the extent to which the plan’s recommendations were implemented.

Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of Yosemite National Park would result in a long-term, minor to major, adverse impact on cultural landscape resources in Yosemite National Park because these projects would, individually and in combination, disrupt historical circulation and land use patterns, add noncontributing elements to the cultural landscape, result in removal of historic fabric or resources, or add incompatible facilities within or adjacent to a cultural landscape resource. The intensity of the impact would depend on the implementation of various projects that would affect cultural landscape resources.

The zoning designations and River Protection Overlay could allow for the protection and/or enhancement of elements of the Yosemite Valley cultural landscape historic district. This would be a long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial impact. Conversely, the zoning designations and the River Protection Overlay could allow for the development of new facilities, the relocation or removal of existing facilities, or the redesign of developed areas. Any or all of these actions could disrupt historical circulation and land use patterns, add noncontributing elements to the cultural landscape, result in removal of historic fabric or resources, or add incompatible facilities within or adjacent to a cultural landscape resource. The intensity of impact would depend on the nature, location, and design of the undertaking, the measurable change in character-defining features of a historic property, and the number of contributing elements of a historic district that were affected.

Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of Yosemite National Park would result in a long-term, minor to major, adverse impact on cultural landscape resources in Yosemite National Park because these projects would, individually and in combination, disrupt historical circulation and land use patterns, add noncontributing elements to the cultural landscape, result in removal of historic fabric or resources, or add incompatible facilities within or adjacent to a cultural landscape resource. The intensity of the impact would depend on the implementation of various projects that would affect cultural landscape resources.

Under regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.9) that address the criteria of effect and adverse effect, the zoning designations and River Overlay Protection proposed under this alternative would allow (but do not prescribe) actions that have the potential to adversely affect significant properties. The National Park Service has determined that selection of this alternative would result in "no effect" to historic properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The California State Historic Preservation Officer has concurred with this determination.

Visitor Experience

Analysis

General Impacts. Outstandingly Remarkable Values listed in the 1996 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan have been revised based on the application of new scientific information, changed ecological and hydrologic conditions in the river corridor, and to accurately reflect Outstandingly Remarkable Value criteria included in the Interagency Coordinating Council guidelines for implementation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Specifically, those recreation resources that are not related to the Merced River (e.g., rock climbing) or not unique to the region or nation (e.g., rainbow trout fishing) have been removed. Removal of these resources from the list of Outstandingly Remarkable Values would not alter their management or protection. These resources would continue to be managed and protected by existing park policy and guidelines (e.g., General Management Plan and Resources Management Plan), as well as by federal law (e.g., the National Park Service Organic Act). Recreation Outstandingly Remarkable Values common to the entire Merced River (main stem and South Fork) include activities such as river-related hiking, picnicking, and opportunities for solitude and enjoyment of natural river sounds and the scenery of riverine habitats, such as riparian forests, meadows, and the aquatic environment.

The revised Outstandingly Remarkable Values provide greater focus on the Merced River than those presented in the 1996 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan. Alternative 2 management zoning, in combination with the implementation of Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) proposed under this alternative (refer to discussions of specific areas below), would provide increased protection for these Outstandingly Remarkable Values compared to the absence of zoning in the No Action Alternative.

Implementation of the VERP framework would have an overall beneficial impact on all recreation Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the main stem and South Fork of the Merced River. VERP is designed to protect and enhance the quality of the visitor experience. Over the long term, implementation of VERP could have a beneficial impact on visitor experience because it would protect the visitor experience from adverse impacts associated with visitor use.

For example, if the number of encounters along a segment of trail were selected as an indicator of desired visitor experience, violation of the standard associated with this indicator would result in management action to manage or limit visitor use in the area. The management action could be to redirect some visitors to trails where the standard is not being violated, or to reduce the frequency of shuttle bus stops at the trailhead. This action would have a beneficial impact by discontinuing further visual and ecological degradation of the trail segment and thus protecting the future enjoyment of the trail.

Implementation of the VERP framework would manage visitor use in the Merced River corridor in Yosemite National Park. Because the management actions necessary to protect the visitor experience and natural resources are unknown, and it is uncertain how protecting the visitor experience and resources would specifically affect visitor experience in the Merced River corridor, analysis of the impacts of implementation of VERP on overall Yosemite visitation, and thus the accessibility to recreational opportunities, the wilderness interpretation and orientation facilities, or visitor services, would be speculative. Before new management action were taken, a determination would be made as to whether preparation of environmental documentation to comply with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act or other applicable legislation would be required to assess the effects of this action on the environment – including visitor experience opportunities.

The following discussion provides an overview of the types of impacts to recreation resources that could occur within each segment of the Merced River corridor from application of management elements (e.g., the VERP framework, management zoning, the River Protection Overlay).

Impacts in Wilderness. The proposed management zoning (zones 1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D) of wilderness portions of the Merced River corridor reflects current management practices and use levels based on the Wilderness Act and federal and Yosemite National Park wilderness policies and guidelines. The zoning is not anticipated to alter the recreational experience or use patterns of these areas compared to the No Action Alternative. Access to an organized camping experience in the wilderness at the backpackers campgrounds (Little Yosemite Valley, Moraine Dome, and Merced Lake Backpackers Campgrounds) would not change under this alternative. In addition, visitors could still establish independent camps in the wilderness under the wilderness permit and quota systems and the Wilderness Management Plan. Consequently, the application of management zoning within wilderness segments would have no effect on the recreation experience within the wilderness.

Outstandingly Remarkable Values within wilderness segments include opportunities for solitude along the river with primitive and unconfined river-related recreation (e.g., day hiking, backpacking, fishing, horseback riding and packing, camping, and enjoyment of natural river sounds). Effects to recreation-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values within wilderness portions of the Merced River are considered beneficial under this alternative, because the proposed management zoning would protect the quality of recreational opportunities while precluding new development that could reduce this quality or its availability.

Impacts in Yosemite Valley. Recreation Outstandingly Remarkable Values of Yosemite Valley include opportunities to experience a spectrum of river-related recreational activities, from nature study and sightseeing to hiking. Yosemite Valley is one of the premier outdoor recreation areas in the world. Effects to recreation-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values within Yosemite Valley are considered beneficial under this alternative, because the proposed zoning would protect the quality of recreational opportunities while precluding new development that could reduce these opportunities or their availability.

The proposed zoning under Alternative 2 would alter recreational use of Yosemite Valley compared to Alternative 1. Recreational zoning protects the diversity of recreational experiences along the length of Yosemite Valley – from opportunities for solitude, group activities, challenge, and access. This protected access to diverse experiences would result in a beneficial, long-term impact.

The 2B zoning over much of west Yosemite Valley could restrict some uses in the immediate vicinity of the Merced River. Some recreation would be directed toward areas better able to withstand heavy use without adverse effects on the river’s natural processes. For example, the launching of non-motorized watercraft in Yosemite Valley could be limited to certain areas (e.g., Sentinel Beach and Cathedral Beach, zoned 2C). Likewise, present high use of El Capitan Meadow (zoned 2B) and along Southside Drive near Bridalveil Fall would be inconsistent with the proposed management zoning and would be redirected toward areas such as the proposed picnic area at the base of El Capitan (zoned 2C).

In general, river access could be available on a less independent basis than at present, and could be more directed and controlled in an attempt to minimize effects on sensitive areas within the corridor that are currently not protected. There would be a likely reduction of access by personal motor vehicles (but potential greater access by bicycles) to recreational opportunities west of Sentinel Beach in Yosemite Valley (except at higher-use areas such as picnic areas, the Cascades, and Bridalveil Fall). Management zones could allow protection and restoration efforts to take place in certain areas within the corridor, particularly in Day Use and Attraction zones in the east Valley. Essentially, the intent is to manage the park to allow the maximum amount of resource-based recreation, while at the same time protecting the unique natural resources that contribute to the overall visitor experience.

Under Alternative 2, the majority of recreational opportunities would continue to be available (e.g., swimming and wading, hiking, backpacking, rock climbing, fishing, sightseeing, photography, nature study, bicycling, and private stock use), but could potentially be limited in some zones as a result of VERP monitoring and management actions. The trail system would remain unaffected by zoning but could require adjustment over time as a result of VERP management actions. The concession-run stable in Yosemite Valley would be inconsistent, as the zoning is for Camping (zone 3A) under this alternative.

The use of non-motorized watercraft (e.g., inner tubes, rafts, kayaks) would be affected by zoning. The ability to launch and remove a raft, for example, could be limited to certain points along the Merced River in an effort to direct use to less sensitive areas and allow for some restoration. The overall quantity of rafting itself, or the use of other non-motorized watercraft, would not be limited under this alternative.

Management zoning prescriptions under Alternative 2 allow for day-use areas within the corridor that could support more active and intensive recreational activities (in terms of more people and heavier use), such as swimming and picnicking, than would be allowed in other zones within the corridor. As a result, certain areas in Yosemite Valley would likely become more crowded. These areas include Sentinel Beach, Cathedral Beach, and Devils Elbow. At the same time, management zoning would discourage use of other areas that are currently accessible to large groups of visitors. Though it is not possible to quantify the effect, the characteristics and the quality of the recreational opportunities that would take place in those locations (e.g., between Sentinel Beach and Pohono Bridge) would be altered. For example, the concentration of swimmers in certain parts of the river would lead to a more social experience for those visitors, rather than an independent or solitary one. Additionally, the spontaneity of visitors’ recreational experiences, relative to swimming, fishing, picnicking, nature study, and photography, would be reduced.

The effects of Alternative 2 zoning on camping or lodging in Yosemite Valley are analyzed in Visitor Services.

Impacts in the Merced River Gorge and El Portal. Management zoning prescriptions under Alternative 2 would not alter access to areas along the Merced River currently used for recreation, nor preclude any of the existing recreational activities in the gorge or El Portal. In fact, zoning prescriptions for undeveloped lands in El Portal could allow for greater intensity of use. In El Portal, visitors swim at Patty’s Hole and near the sand pit. Fishermen access the river from the sand pit, as well as between Patty’s Hole and the sand pit. These areas would generally not be affected. As a result, some visitors displaced from other zones within the corridor could use this area. These changes could reduce opportunities for finding solitude and quiet. Additionally, the potential development of specific locations (e.g., the Middle Road area) could shift some use to other areas in El Portal.

Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the gorge and El Portal include a range of river-related recreational opportunities, in particular white-water rafting and kayaking (class III to V), fishing, picnicking, photography, and sightseeing. Effects to recreation-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values within these segments of the Merced River are considered beneficial under this alternative, because the proposed zoning would protect the range of recreational opportunities while precluding new development that could reduce this range of opportunities or its availability.

Impacts in Wawona. Alternative 2 zoning prescriptions for the Wawona area would allow many recreational opportunities similar to existing use patterns, but would alter some uses. The trail system would remain unaffected by zoning but could require adjustment over time as a result of VERP monitoring and implementation of VERP management actions.

The concession-run stable in Wawona could not remain in operation, as the existing use would be inconsistent with management zoning prescriptions. The stable could, however, be relocated outside of the management zone. Therefore, this is considered to be a short-term, negligible, adverse effect.

The effects of Alternative 2 zoning on camping in Wawona are analyzed in this section under the heading "Visitor Services."

Outstandingly Remarkable Values within Wawona include opportunities to experience a spectrum of river-related recreational activities, from nature study and photography to hiking. Effects to recreation-related Outstandingly Remarkable Values within Wawona are considered beneficial under this alternative, because the proposed zoning would protect the range of recreational opportunities while precluding new development that could reduce this range of opportunities or its availability.

Summary of Alternative 2 Impacts. Alternative 2 could have either a beneficial or adverse impact on visitor experience as it relates to access to and availability of recreational opportunities, because of changes in the character and accessibility of recreational opportunities in the river corridor. The implementation of potential future actions in accordance with the management zones of Alternative 2 is considered to be either a long-term, minor, beneficial impact or a long-term, negligible, adverse impact, depending on the viewpoint of the recreational user. The quality of the recreational experience could improve because of improved quality of the environment. However, the availability and access to certain areas may could be restricted, which would be a local, long-term, negligible, adverse impact.

Cumulative impacts on visitor experience as it relates to recreation are based on analysis of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Yosemite region in combination with potential effects of this alternative. The projects identified include only those that could affect visitor experience within the river corridor or in the park vicinity.

Past Actions. In 1991, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management developed a joint South Fork and Merced Wild and Scenic River Implementation Plan for the segments of the main stem and South Fork of the Merced River that are under their jurisdiction. The plan is also a general management plan with many prescriptive goals and few actions. The plan endeavors to limit or end consumptive uses such as grazing within the river corridor and calls for the formalization of camping and launch facilities for non-motorized watercraft. Implementation of these actions would have a beneficial effect by eliminating impacts where feasible (grazing does not currently occur within the river corridor), concentrating impacts in areas able to withstand visitor use, and providing facilities (e.g., restrooms) that mitigate adverse effects associated with visitor use.

Present Actions. The El Portal Road Reconstruction Project (NPS) is currently underway and has both adverse (short-term during construction) and beneficial (long-term) effects on visitor experience. Short-term, construction-related effects include travel delay and closure of the area to recreational use. Those effects are mitigated by implementation of a traffic control plan with measures such as strict construction timing restrictions, roadway safety procedures, and the use of flaggers, and signals. Long-term effects are improved access to recreational opportunities along the river corridor and El Portal Road, and easier, more dependable, and safer access for recreational vehicles, buses, and other vehicles to Yosemite Valley and other park destinations.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Reasonably foreseeable future actions proposed in the region are separated below into three general categories: (1) projects anticipated to have a net beneficial effect; (2) projects anticipated to have both adverse and beneficial effects; and (3) projects anticipated to have a net adverse effect.

Examples of projects that could have a cumulative, beneficial effect on regional visitor experience as it relates to recreation include:

• The Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS)
• The Merced River at Eagle Creek Ecological Restoration Project (NPS)
• Several Yosemite campground rehabilitation projects, such as at Bridalveil Horse Camp, Yosemite Creek Campground, Tamarack Campground, Wawona Campground, and Hodgdon Meadow Campground (NPS)
• The Merced River Canyon Trail Acquisition (BLM)

These projects would provide increased access for visitors to the park and expand recreational opportunities in the vicinity of the park.

Reasonably foreseeable projects that could have both adverse and beneficial impacts include:

• The Yosemite Valley Plan (NPS)
• The Update to the Yosemite Wilderness Management Plan (NPS)

These projects have the potential to enhance the quality of the visitor experience in the wilderness and Yosemite Valley but also could result in the removal of existing recreational facilities. For example, the Yosemite Wilderness Management Plan could prescribe the closure of the High Sierra Camps. The structures would remain to be interpreted as cultural resources. This change could be considered a local, long-term, adverse impact to some users, due to the loss of a unique lodging experience in the wilderness. This action could also result in a beneficial effect for other user groups whose access to the wilderness would not be affected, but who would benefit from a reduction in facilities in the wilderness, a reduction in stock impacts, improvements in scenic and natural quiet, and improvements in opportunities for solitude and a primitive and unconfined recreational experience.

Reasonably foreseeable projects that could have a net adverse effect on visitor experience include:

• Several development-related projects, including Yosemite Motels, El Portal (Mariposa Co.); Silvertip Resort Village Project (Mariposa Co.); Double Eagle Resort, June Lake (Mono Co.); Tioga Inn, Lee Vining (Mono Co.); June Lake Highlands (Mono Co.); Evergreen Lodge Expansion (Tuolumne Co.); Hardin Flat Lodging and Conference Facility (Tuolumne Co.); Motel and Restaurant, Second Garrotte Basin (Tuolumne Co.); the Rio Mesa Area Plan (Madera Co.); Hazel Green Ranch (Mariposa Co.); and the Yosemite West Rezoning Application (NPS)

These projects could increase visitor use in the park and in the river corridor and could contribute to increased congestion and reduce the quality of specific, solitude-based recreational opportunities in the park.

The cumulative projects would have a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact, because the beneficial impacts associated with increased visitor access and expanded recreational opportunities would be partially offset by the adverse impacts associated with the removal of specific recreational opportunities.

Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of Yosemite National Park would result in a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on recreation, because an increase in visitor access, an expansion of recreational opportunities, and improved quality of the natural environment would only be partially offset by the removal of specific recreational opportunities.

Alternative 2 could have either a beneficial or adverse impact on visitor experience as it relates to access to and availability of recreational opportunities, because of changes in the character and accessibility of recreational opportunities in the river corridor. The implementation of potential future actions in accordance with the management zones of Alternative 2 is considered to be either a long-term, minor, beneficial impact or a long-term, negligible, adverse impact, depending on the viewpoint of the recreational user. The quality of the recreational experience could improve because of improved quality of the environment. However, the availability and access to certain areas could be restricted, which would be a local, long-term, negligible, adverse impact.

Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of Yosemite National Park would result in a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on recreation, because an increase in visitor access, an expansion of recreational opportunities, and improved quality of the natural environment would only be partially offset by the removal of specific recreational opportunities.

The following discussion provides an overview of the types of impacts to interpretation and orientation that could occur within each segment of the Merced River corridor from application of management elements (e.g., the VERP framework, management zoning, the River Protection Overlay).

Impacts in Wilderness. The proposed management zoning (zones 1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D) of wilderness portions of the Merced River corridor is not anticipated to alter interpretation or orientation of these areas compared to the No Action Alternative. Interpretive programs in the wilderness, such as ranger talks at Little Yosemite Valley Backpackers Campground and ranger-led loop hikes in the wilderness that visit the High Sierra Camps, including Merced Lake High Sierra Camp, would continue as currently managed. There would be no impact compared to Alternative 1.

Impacts in Yosemite Valley. Under Alternative 2, the availability and diversity of interpretation, orientation, education, and information services within Yosemite Valley could change. This ability to provide a full range of interpretive programs and services could be limited as a result of management zoning, which would direct visitor access to particular areas along the river and away from sensitive areas to reduce the impacts of visitor use. The 2B zone would allow mainly for self-interpretation between Sentinel Beach (zone 2C) and Cathedral Beach (zone 2C), while other management zoning prescriptions (the 2C zone) would allow for ranger-led walks and talks in east Yosemite Valley. Amphitheater programs could continue at Lower Pines Campground.

Also, management zoning prescriptions under this alternative would allow for the construction of a transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility at Taft Toe or Camp 6 (zone 3C). Zoning in this area would allow for the construction of facilities to assist in avoiding or minimizing impacts on sensitive resources.

If a transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility at Taft Toe or Camp 6 were constructed, access to an associated visitor center, if incorporated, would greatly improve. Visitors to Yosemite Valley and the corridor would be able to receive both orientation and interpretation at a easily located, accessible facility. Interpretive programs and services currently offered by the park partners and the primary concessioner would continue throughout the Merced River corridor; however, flexibility of programs, such as group numbers or kind of programs offered at some locations, could be limited to reduce impacts of high visitor use at sensitive or impacted locations.

Impacts in the Merced River Gorge and El Portal. There are no interpretive programs currently offered in the gorge or El Portal. Under Alternative 2, this condition would not change (compared to Alternative 1). The application of management zoning proposed under Alternative 2 would not affect existing interpretive signs and exhibits. There would be no impact compared to Alternative 1.

Impacts in Wawona. The proposed zoning of Wawona is not anticipated to alter interpretation or orientation of these areas compared to Alternative 1. Under Alternative 2, the Pioneer Yosemite History Center in Wawona would continue as currently managed and would not be relocated out of the corridor. Amphitheater programs could continue at Wawona Campground. Interpretive programs and services offered by the park partners and the primary concessioner would continue as currently managed throughout the Merced River corridor. There would be no impact compared to Alternative 1.

Summary of Alternative 2 Impacts. Alternative 2 could have either a long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impact on interpretation and orientation in the river corridor (e.g., because the types and access to interpretation and orientation programs and services could be more limited and directed to particular areas than at present) or a long-term, negligible to minor, beneficial impact (e.g., because access to orientation and interpretation at a potentially relocated visitor center would be improved).

Cumulative effects on visitor experience as it relates to orientation and interpretation are based on analysis of past and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Yosemite region. The projects identified below include only those projects that could affect visitor interpretation and orientation within the river corridor or in the park vicinity.

Past Actions. In 1991, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management developed a joint South Fork and Merced Wild and Scenic River Implementation Plan for the segments of the main stem and South Fork of the Merced River that are under the jurisdiction of these agencies. The plan is also a general management plan with many prescriptive goals and few actions. The plan endeavors to limit or end consumptive uses such as grazing within the river corridor and calls for the formalization of camping and launch facilities for non-motorized watercraft. Implementation of these actions has a beneficial effect by eliminating impacts where feasible (grazing does not currently occur within the river corridor), concentrating impacts in areas able to withstand visitor use, and providing facilities that mitigate adverse effects associated with visitor use (e.g., restrooms).

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Reasonably foreseeable future actions proposed in the region are separated below into two general categories: (1) projects anticipated to have a net beneficial effect; and (2) projects anticipated to have both a beneficial and adverse effect.

Examples of projects that could have a cumulative, beneficial effect on regional visitor experience as it relates to orientation and interpretation include:

• The Yosemite Valley Plan (NPS)
• South Entrance/Mariposa Grove Site Planning (NPS)

These projects could enhance the quality of the visitor experience by expanding interpretation and orientation services in Yosemite Valley and Wawona.

Reasonably foreseeable projects that could have both a beneficial and adverse effect include:

• The Update to the Yosemite Wilderness Management Plan (NPS)

This planning effort could prescribe the closure of the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp. The potential discontinuation of visitor use of the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp would disrupt the High Sierra Camp loop-trip experience and the ranger-led interpretive hikes in the wilderness. On the other hand, this could result in a beneficial effect for other user groups who would benefit from a reduction in facilities in the wilderness and enhanced opportunities for solitude and self-guided interpretive experiences.

The cumulative projects would have a long-term, minor, beneficial impact, because the beneficial impacts associated with an increase in interpretation and orientation programs and services would only be partially offset by the potential loss of ranger-led hikes in the wilderness.

Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of Yosemite National Park would result in a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on interpretation and orientation, because the beneficial impacts associated with an increase in interpretation and orientation programs and services would only be partially offset by programs and services being more limited and directed to particular areas pursuant to Alternative 2 and the potential loss of ranger-led hikes in the wilderness.

Alternative 2 could have either a long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impact on interpretation and orientation in the river corridor (e.g., because the types and access to interpretation and orientation programs and services could be more limited and directed to particular areas than at present) or a long-term, negligible to minor, beneficial impact (e.g., because access to orientation and interpretation at a potentially relocated visitor center would be improved).

Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of Yosemite National Park would result in a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on interpretation and orientation, because the beneficial impacts associated with an increase in interpretation and orientation programs and services would only be partially offset by programs and services being more limited and directed to particular areas pursuant to Alternative 2 and the potential loss of ranger-led hikes in the wilderness.

The following discussion provides an overview of the types of impacts to visitor services that could occur within each segment of the Merced River corridor from application of management elements (e.g., the VERP framework, management zoning, the River Protection Overlay).

Impacts in Wilderness. The proposed management zoning (zones 1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D) of wilderness portions of the Merced River corridor is not anticipated to alter visitor services within these areas compared to the No Action Alternative. Access to an organized camping experience in the wilderness at the backpackers campgrounds (Little Yosemite Valley, Moraine Dome, and Merced Lake Backpackers Campgrounds) and lodging at the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp would not change under this alternative. In addition, visitors could still establish independent camps in the wilderness under the wilderness permit and quota systems and the Wilderness Management Plan. Interpretive programs in the wilderness, such as ranger talks at Little Yosemite Valley Backpackers Campground and ranger-led loop hikes in the wilderness that visit the High Sierra Camps, including Merced Lake High Sierra Camp, would continue.

Impacts in Yosemite Valley. Alternative 2 management zoning prescribes levels of recreational use and related facilities that vary from existing use patterns. Overall, the availability and diversity of visitor services could change from what is currently available to the visitor in Yosemite Valley. Demand for visitor services, including camping and lodging, are currently unmet in the summer months, though food and retail services are able to meet visitor demand.

During peak summer months, Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground), North Pines Campground, Upper Pines Campground, and Lower Pines Campground are typically full. In addition, Housekeeping Camp, Yosemite Lodge, and Curry Village are also full during peak summer months (Yosemite Lodge is at capacity year-round). The park’s inability to meet demand in Yosemite Valley was exacerbated by the damage sustained during the 1997 flood. Campsites that were closed as a result (e.g., Upper River and Lower River Campgrounds) would not be reopened. Some units at Yosemite Lodge were also removed due to flood damage and would not be replaced. Under this alternative, Housekeeping Camp could be redesigned, which could include the removal of some units, because these units would be in the River Protection Overlay.

Zoning under Alternative 2 could allow for expansion of campsites at North Pines Campground and Upper Pines Campground. Yellow Pine Campground (zone 3A/3C), which is currently used for volunteers only, could also become walk-in or car campsites, or its current use could be continued.

Alternative 2 could perpetuate the inability to meet visitor demand for camping and lodging accommodations during the summer months, if additional accommodations were not built. The number of camping units could increase, decrease, or stay the same under this alternative. If the number of park campsites and lodging units were to increase under Alternative 2, there would be a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact on visitor experience, because of the potential for a slight increase in the park’s ability to meet demand for overnight camping and lodging. If the number of campsites and lodging units were to stay the same, there would be a local, long-term, minor, adverse impact on visitor experience, as this would perpetuate the park’s inability to meet demand. If the number of campsites and lodging units were to decrease, there would be a local, long-term, moderate, adverse impact on visitor experience, because the inability of the park to meet demand would worsen over time.

The National Park Service, park partners, and the primary park concessioner would continue to operate food service and retail outlets in Yosemite Valley and thus would continue to meet demand. Therefore, no impacts associated with these aspects of visitor experience would occur.

Impacts in the Merced River Gorge and El Portal Visitor. There are no visitor services currently offered in the gorge; those services available in El Portal are mostly run by private businesses (e.g., lodging, restaurants, etc.) and would not be affected by Alternative 2.

Impacts in Wawona. During peak summer months, Wawona Campground and the Wawona Hotel are typically full. Approximately one-third of the campsites at Wawona Campground would be located within the River Protection Overlay and could be relocated or removed. This would further exacerbate the park’s ability to meet demand in Wawona, especially during peak summer months. Additional campsites could be built in the 3A/3C zone in Section 35 in Wawona outside the corridor. If the number of park campsites were to increase under Alternative 2, there would be a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact on visitor experience, because of the potential for a slight increase in the park’s ability to meet demand for overnight camping. If the number of campsites were to decrease, there would be a local, long-term, moderate, adverse impact on visitor experience, because the inability of the park to meet demand would worsen over time.

Summary of Alternative 2 Impacts. Alternative 2 could have either a local, long-term, minor, beneficial or moderate, adverse impact on visitor services, depending upon implementation of potential future actions in accordance with the management zones. If the number of park campsites and lodging units were to increase under Alternative 2, there would be a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact on visitor experience because of the potential for a slight increase in the park’s ability to meet demand for camping and lodging. If the number of campsites and lodging units were to stay the same, there would be a local, long-term, minor, adverse impact on visitor experience, as this would perpetuate the park’s inability to meet demand. If the number of campsites and lodging units were to decrease, there would be a local, long-term, moderate, adverse impact on visitor experience, because the inability of the park to meet demand would worsen over time.

Cumulative effects on visitor experience as it relates to visitor services are based on analysis of past and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Yosemite region in combination with potential effects of this alternative. The projects identified below include only those projects that could affect visitor experience within the river corridor or in the park vicinity.

Past Actions. Upper and Lower River Campgrounds and part of Lower Pines Campground were closed following damage sustained during the 1997 flood. This resulted in a decrease in the overall number of campsites available to visitors in the Valley. Similarly, lodging units at the Yosemite Lodge were removed as a result of flood damage and have not been replaced.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Reasonably foreseeable future actions proposed in the region are separated below into three general categories: (1) projects anticipated to have a net beneficial effect; (2) projects anticipated to have a net adverse effect; and (3) projects anticipated to have a mixed effect.

Examples of projects that could have a cumulative, beneficial effect on visitor services include:

• The Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS)
• Several Yosemite campground rehabilitation projects, such as at Bridalveil Horse Camp, Yosemite Creek Campground, Tamarack Campground, Wawona Campground, and Hodgdon Meadow Campground (NPS)
• Several development-related projects, including Yosemite Motels, El Portal (Mariposa Co.); Silvertip Resort Village Project (Mariposa Co.); Double Eagle Resort, June Lake (Mono Co.); Tioga Inn, Lee Vining (Mono Co.); June Lake Highlands (Mono Co.); Evergreen Lodge Expansion (Tuolumne Co.); Hardin Flat Lodging and Conference Facility (Tuolumne Co.); Motel and Garrotte Restaurant, Second Garrotte Basin (Tuolumne Co); the Rio Mesa Area Plan (Madera Co.); and the Yosemite West Rezoning Application (NPS)

These projects could improve transportation to and from the park, which would ultimately have a beneficial effect on visitor services by providing increased access for visitors staying outside the park. In addition, the number of campsites and lodging units in the park and in the park vicinity could increase, which would improve visitor services for park visitors.

Reasonably foreseeable projects that could have a net adverse effect on visitor services include:

• The Update to the Yosemite Wilderness Management Plan (NPS)

The Yosemite Wilderness Management Plan could prescribe the closure of the High Sierra Camps. This change could affect the ability to meet the lodging demand in the corridor and park and could be considered an adverse impact, due to the loss of a unique lodging experience in the wilderness.

Examples of projects that could have a cumulative mixed effect on visitor services include:

• The Yosemite Valley Plan (NPS)

The Yosemite Valley Plan proposes restoration of degraded areas and a reduction of development within the Merced River ecosystem while enhancing the quality of the visitor experience in Yosemite Valley. Visitor services could be improved by reducing automobile congestion, limiting crowding, and expanding orientation and interpretation services. The Yosemite Valley Plan, however, would prescribe a reduction in camping and lodging units in Yosemite Valley, which would have an adverse effect on the provision of visitor services.

These cumulative projects would have a long-term, minor, adverse impact on visitor services due to the reduction of camping and lodging opportunities in Yosemite Valley and potential closure of the High Sierra Camps. These adverse impacts would be partially offset by improving transportation to and from the park, rehabilitating and expanding some campgrounds in the park, and expanding lodging opportunities outside the park.

Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of Yosemite National Park would result in a long-term, minor, adverse impact on visitor services due to the reduction of camping and lodging opportunities in Yosemite Valley and potential closure of the High Sierra Camps. These adverse impacts would be partially offset by improving transportation to and from the park, rehabilitating and expanding some campgrounds in the park, and expanding lodging opportunities outside the park. The potential for overnight accommodation facilities to be maintained, reduced, or increased in the Valley, as described in Alternative 2 would be clarified by the actions proposed in the Yosemite Valley Plan.

Alternative 2 could have either a local, long-term, minor, beneficial or moderate, adverse impact on visitor services, depending upon implementation of potential future actions in accordance with the management zones. If the number of park campsites and lodging units were to increase under Alternative 2, there would be a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact on visitor experience because of the potential for a slight increase in the park’s ability to meet demand for camping and lodging. If the number of campsites and lodging units were to stay the same, there would be a local, long-term, minor, adverse impact on visitor experience, as this would perpetuate the park’s inability to meet demand. If the number of campsites and lodging units were to decrease, there would be a local, long-term, moderate, adverse impact on visitor experience, because the inability of the park to meet demand would worsen over time.

Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of Yosemite National Park would result in a long-term, minor, adverse impact on visitor services due to the reduction of camping and lodging opportunities in Yosemite Valley and potential closure of the High Sierra Camps. These adverse impacts would be partially offset by improving transportation to and from the park, rehabilitating and expanding some campgrounds in the park, and expanding lodging opportunities outside the park. The potential for overnight accommodation facilities to be maintained, reduced, or increased in the Valley, as described in Alternative 2 would be clarified by the actions proposed in the Yosemite Valley Plan.

The following discussion provides an overview of the types of impacts to the wilderness experience that could occur within the Merced River corridor from application of management elements (e.g., the VERP framework, management zoning, the River Protection Overlay).

Under Alternative 2, management zone prescriptions applied to wilderness areas within the Merced River corridor reflect existing conditions. The wilderness zones include trailed areas with heavy use, trailed areas with light use, and untrailed areas. Most visitors experience the wilderness area by foot, though there is a small percentage of stock use. Heavy Use Trails (zone 1C), particularly en route to the wilderness via Little Yosemite Valley, provide the least opportunity for solitude, as encounters with other visitors are likely to be frequent. In the Trailed Travel zones (1B), visitor encounters would be infrequent, except at key trail junctions and camping areas (e.g., near Merced Lake High Sierra Camp). In the Untrailed zones (1A), there would be a very high potential for solitude and primitive camping experiences due to the remoteness of the area.

Management zoning prescriptions under this alternative would not change access to the wilderness or access to backpackers campgrounds in the wilderness.

Overall, access to the wilderness within the Merced River corridor would continue to be managed under the current wilderness permit system, and primitive camping and opportunities for solitude would remain available. At present, the park is able to accommodate visitor requests for wilderness permits parkwide, although demand specifically for access to the upper reaches of the Merced River corridor (particularly in Little Yosemite Valley) exceeds the availability of wilderness permits as controlled by the quota system. This condition would likely continue under Alternative 2 in order to maintain the management direction that visitors have the ability to experience solitude and engage in a primitive camping experience in the wilderness.

Summary of Alternative 2 Impacts. The wilderness experience under Alternative 2 would be the same as that for Alternative 1. Therefore, this is considered to have no impact under Alternative 2.

Cumulative effects on the wilderness experience are based on analysis of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Yosemite region. The projects identified below include only those projects that could affect the wilderness experience within the river corridor or in the park vicinity.

Past Actions. The wilderness permit/trailhead quota system, established in 1974-1976 set limits for the numbers of people allowed to enter the wilderness per day per trailhead. These limits were based on extensive research and monitoring to assess capacity based on ecological and social considerations, and were in response to exceptionally high levels of use in the early- to mid-1970s. This system has had beneficial impacts on the wilderness experience through implementation of a quota system to protect natural resources.

Present Actions. The wilderness permit/trailhead quota system continues to limit and/or disperse use based on trailhead access, and thus provides the beneficial impact of improved experience of natural values due to resource protection.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Reasonably foreseeable future actions proposed in the region are separated below into two general categories: (1) projects anticipated to have a net beneficial effect; and (2) projects anticipated to have both a beneficial and adverse effect.

Examples of projects that could have a cumulative, beneficial effect on regional visitor experience as it relates to wilderness experience include:

• Several planning or restoration efforts are in various stages of development, including the Fire Management Plan (NPS); the Fire Management Action Plan for Wilderness (USFS); the Sierra Nevada Framework for Conservation and Collaboration (USFS); Management Direction for the John Muir, Ansel Adams and Dinkey Lakes, and Monarch Wildernesses (USFS); the Pinecrest Basin Forest Plan Amendment (USFS, Stanislaus); the Tuolumne Meadows Development Concept Plan (NPS); and Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (NPS)
• The Merced Canyon River Trail Acquisition (BLM).

These projects could result in the restoration of wilderness areas within the park and in the park vicinity. Any improvement to the wilderness ecosystem is considered to be a long-term, beneficial impact.

Reasonably foreseeable projects that could have both a beneficial and adverse effect include:

• The Update to the Yosemite Wilderness Management Plan (NPS);

The Yosemite Wilderness Management Plan could prescribe the closure of the High Sierra Camps. The structures would remain to be interpreted as cultural resources. This change could affect the ability to meet lodging demand and would impact some users due to the loss of a unique lodging experience in the wilderness. In addition, the potential discontinuation of visitor use of the High Sierra Camps would eliminate the High Sierra Camp loop-trip experience. On the other hand, this action might also result in a beneficial effect for other user groups whose access to the wilderness would not be affected, but who would benefit from a reduction in facilities in the wilderness and a reduction in stock impacts. These individuals could benefit from improvements in scenic and natural quiet qualities, opportunities for solitude, and an overall primitive recreational experience.

These cumulative projects would have a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on the wilderness experience, because the wilderness ecosystem would be improved and would only be partially offset by the long-term, adverse impact of removing the High Sierra Camps.

Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of Yosemite National Park would result in a long-term, minor, beneficial impact to the wilderness experience, because the beneficial improvements to the wilderness ecosystem would offset the adverse impacts associated with the removal of the High Sierra Camps.

The wilderness experience under Alternative 2 would be the same as that for Alternative 1. Therefore, this is considered to have no impact under Alternative 2.

Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of Yosemite National Park would result in a long-term, minor, beneficial impact to the wilderness experience, because the beneficial improvements to the wilderness ecosystem would offset the adverse impacts associated with the removal of the High Sierra Camps.

Social Resources

Land Use

Analysis

General Impacts. Under the management zones for Alternative 2, expansion and/or development of uses and facilities within the river corridor could occur, altering the intensity of the use of a specific site. However, the basic land use designation of Yosemite National Park (i.e., public parklands) would not change under Alternative 2, and National Park Service policy concerning the acquisition of private lands within or adjacent to the park is compatible with current plans and policies and would not change under Alternative 2; therefore, there would be no land-use impacts on parklands or other properties within or adjacent to the park.

Private property within the river corridor in El Portal and Wawona is not zoned under the Merced River Plan. Management zones in the Merced River Plan would not result in conflicts with existing land uses or existing plans and policies and would not induce changes in those land uses.

Section 8 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act withdraws lands within the boundaries of Wild and Scenic Rivers from "public entry, sale, or disposition under the public land laws, of the United States." This section of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act preempts public land laws such as the 1872 General Mining Act, under which nonreserved public lands may be disposed of for private use. However, because Yosemite National Park is by definition "reserved land," no additional lands have been identified for withdrawal under the Merced River Plan. Furthermore, much of the river corridor had previously been withdrawn after the creation of Yosemite National Park and the establishment of the El Portal Administrative Site (72 Stat. 1772).

In accordance with Section 9 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, lands within one-quarter mile of the main stem and South Fork of the Merced River have been withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under mining and mineral leasing laws of the United States. Because much of the river corridor had previously been withdrawn after the creation of Yosemite National Park and the establishment of the El Portal Administrative Site (72 Stat. 1772), no additional lands have been identified for withdrawal under the Merced River Plan.

Summary of Alternative 2 Impacts. Under Alternative 2, the adoption of management zoning is considered to be a short-term, minor, beneficial impact. Since the basic land use of the park would not change, no impacts to land uses would occur as a result of Alternative 2.

Cumulative impacts to land use discussed herein are based on analysis of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the Yosemite region in combination with potential effects of this alternative. The projects identified below include only those projects that could affect land use within the river corridor and in the immediate vicinity of Yosemite National Park.

Past Actions. In general, land uses in the Merced River corridor have been determined by past decisions on the development, relocation, and removal of specific facilities. Development within the Merced River corridor has occurred since Euro-American occupation.

In 1991, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management developed a joint South Fork and Merced Wild and Scenic River Implementation Plan for the segments of the main stem and South Fork of the Merced River that are under their jurisdiction. The plan is also a general management plan with many prescriptive goals and few actions. The plan endeavors to limit or end consumptive uses such as grazing within the river corridor and calls for the formalization of camping and launch facilities for non-motorized watercraft. Implementation of these actions has a beneficial effect by eliminating impacts where feasible (grazing does not currently occur within the river corridor), concentrating impacts in areas able to withstand visitor use, and providing facilities that mitigate adverse effects associated with visitor use (e.g., restrooms).

Present Actions. The El Portal Road Reconstruction Project (NPS) does not affect the land uses within the Merced River corridor.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Reasonably foreseeable future actions proposed in the region that are anticipated to change overall land uses can be separated into local and regional projects. Local projects (i.e., those within the Park and involving parklands) being carried out under the direction of the National Park Service include:

• The Yosemite Valley Plan, the Yosemite View parcel land exchange, El Portal; South Entrance/Mariposa Grove Site Planning; Resources Management Building; Yosemite West Rezoning Application; Tuolumne Meadows Development Concept Plan, and Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River Management Plan; Wilderness Boundary Protection Land Exchange, Seventh Day Adventist Camp, Wawona (NPS); and Crane Flat Campus Redevelopment (NPS, YNI)
• Several Yosemite campground rehabilitation projects include Tamarack Campground, Bridalveil Horse Camp, Yosemite Creek Campground, Hodgdon Meadows Campground, and the Wawona Campground Improvement (NPS)

Local projects have the potential to change land uses within the park. For example, the Yosemite Valley Plan could change existing land uses and the intensity of existing land uses within portions of the Merced River corridor in Yosemite Valley as well as in El Portal and Wawona. These changes to land uses would be dictated by the development plans outlined in the Yosemite Valley Plan.

Another example of a local project is the land exchange between the National Park Service and the owner of a parcel of private property near the park’s western entrance at the El Portal Administrative Site. The owner of the private parcel would receive a plot of National Park Service land adjacent to the owner’s hotel properties in exchange for the landowner’s plot two miles west of the Arch Rock Entrance Station. This land exchange would allow the National Park Service to construct facilities, such as a vehicle turnaround area, that would increase the vehicle handling efficiency of the entrance station. The U.S. Congress has passed legislation allowing this land exchange to occur, but it is not yet completed. Though completion of the land exchange would alter the land use for those two plots of land, the overall effect would be negligible, because the two plots of land are close together and there would be no net change in the amount of each type of land use in the area. A similar land exchange would also take place in Wawona. The Seventh Day Adventist recreational camp is located in Wawona on privately owned land inside the boundaries of Yosemite National Park. The privately owned land occupied by the camp literally abuts portions of Yosemite’s designated Wilderness. To protect designated Wilderness this project would exchange lands between the National Park Service and the Seventh Day Adventist camp.

Regional projects (those that take place outside of the park) that would affect land use and planning within the Yosemite region and are not under National Park Service jurisdiction include:

• Projects undertaken by county governments include: Hazel Green Ranch (Mariposa Co.); Mariposa County General Plan Update (Mariposa Co.); Yosemite Motels, El Portal (Mariposa Co.); Mariposa Creek Pedestrian/Bike Path (Mariposa Co.); Silvertip Resort Village Project (Mariposa Co.); Rio Mesa Area Plan (Madera Co.); University of California, Merced Campus (Merced Co.); Buildout of the City of Merced, General Plan (City of Merced); Double Eagle Resort, June Lake (Mono Co.); Tioga Inn, Lee Vining (Mono Co.); Evergreen Lodge Expansion (Tuolumne Co.); Hardin Flat Lodging and Conference Facility (Tuolumne Co.); Motel and Restaurant, Second Garrotte Basin (Tuolumne Co.); and Evergreen Road Improvements (multi-agency, see Appendix G)
• Projects undertaken by federal agencies include: South Fork and Merced Wild and Scenic River Implementation Plan (USFS, BLM); Sierra Nevada Framework for Conservation and Collaboration (USFS); and Merced River Canyon Trail Acquisition (BLM)

Regional projects have the ability to alter land use in the park vicinity. An example of such a project would be the Mariposa County General Plan Update, which is scheduled to begin in 2000. Although the plan does not explicitly call for land use changes, it does provide general guidance for land use, zoning, and development throughout Mariposa County, which could likely impact land use in the long term.

Another regional project that could affect land use is the South Fork and Merced Wild and Scenic River Implementation Plan. This plan covers management of lands along river segments including: a 15-mile portion of the main stem extending from the El Portal Administrative Site to a point 300 feet upstream of the confluence with Bear Creek; a 21-mile segment of the South Fork from the park boundary to the confluence of the Merced River; and a 3-mile segment of the South Fork just upstream of Wawona, where the National Park Service has jurisdiction over the north side of the river and the U.S. Forest Service has jurisdiction over the south side. The plan calls for the long-term protection of natural and cultural resources, and managing the area for the use and enjoyment of visitors in a way that will leave the resource unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as a natural setting.

The impact intensity of planning projects would depend upon the extent to which the plan’s recommendations were implemented. Land uses would most likely shift in various areas. The short-term impacts on land use would be neither adverse nor beneficial; likewise, long-term impacts on land use would be neither an adverse nor beneficial.

Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of Yosemite National Park would result in no net effect on land use (i.e., the impact would be neither beneficial nor adverse), due to the fact that land uses would simply shift.

Since the basic land use designation would not change, no impacts to land uses would occur as a result of Alternative 2.

Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of Yosemite National Park would result in no net effect on land use (i.e., the impact would be neither beneficial nor adverse), due to the fact that land uses would simply shift.

Transportation

Analysis

General Impacts. The following discussion provides an overview of the types of transportation impacts that could occur within the Merced River corridor from application of Alternative 2.

Under the application of management zones for Alternative 2, there is a potential that the number of overnight accommodation facilities in the park (campsites or lodging) could be increased, maintained, or reduced from that under Alternative 1. An increase or decrease in these facilities would shift the mix of park overnight visitors and day visitors (i.e., more or fewer visitors would be able to stay overnight in the park, respectively). An example of a potential increase in overnight accommodation facilities under Alternative 2 involves the areas adjacent to Upper Pines Campground and Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground), which do not currently have camping uses but would be zoned 3A and could be converted to camping. In addition, an area in Section 35 in Wawona that does not currently have camping use would be zoned 3A/3C and could be developed for camping use. If the overall number of camping accommodations increased compared to the No Action Alternative, then the number of park overnighters would increase. This would result in less regional traffic (entering and leaving the park) because the additional park overnighters would not need to make two trips per day between their out-of-park accommodations and attractions within the park. This would have a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on traffic conditions at park entrances by negligibly decreasing delays experienced by queues of backed-up vehicles.

An example of a potential decrease in overnight accommodations under Alternative 2 involves application of the River Protection Overlay, which could result in the removal of some overnight accommodation facilities (e.g., a portion of Housekeeping Camp in Yosemite Valley and a portion of the Wawona Campground). If those facilities were relocated from within the River Protection Overlay to locations elsewhere in the park, then the current mix of park overnighters and day visitors would be maintained, and there would be no change to traffic conditions from those under Alternative 1. If, however, the above-described overnight accommodation facilities were removed from the River Protection Overlay and not relocated elsewhere in the park, then the number of park overnighters would decrease, and more regional traffic (entering and leaving the park) and local traffic within the park would be generated, and more local traffic could be generated within Yosemite Valley. An overall reduction of overnight accommodation facilities in the park would cause visitors who otherwise (under Alternative 1) would stay overnight in the park to use campsites and/or lodging outside the park (i.e., to become day visitors, or more precisely, local overnighters). That shift to higher numbers of local overnighters would increase the amount of traffic entering and leaving the park, because visitors would need to make two trips per day between their out-of-park accommodations and attractions within the park. This would have a long-term, negligible, adverse impact on traffic conditions at park entrances and on the majority of park roadways (i.e., outside of Yosemite Valley, including in Wawona and El Portal) by negligibly increasing delays experienced by queues of backed-up vehicles, and negligibly increasing congestion and delays experienced by drivers on roadways outside of the Valley.

The effect on local traffic conditions within Yosemite Valley would depend on whether a transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility were developed at either Taft Toe or Camp 6 as a result of the 3C zone. If a transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility were developed, then local traffic congestion in the east Valley would be reduced. Day visitors (i.e., those visitors without reservations for overnight accommodations in Yosemite Valley) would be intercepted at a traffic check station on Southside Drive near the El Capitan crossover and would be directed to the transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility (at either Taft Toe or Camp 6). Day visitors then would move between destinations in the Valley by shuttle bus, bicycle, or on foot. If a transit center and day-visitor parking facility were established at Taft Toe, then the number of private vehicles entering the more-congested east Valley would be greatly reduced, which would yield a major benefit. Siting this facility at Camp 6 would reduce the number of vehicles once the day-visitor vehicles intercepted at the traffic check station reached Camp 6; however, the reduction would be less than if this facility were sited at Taft Toe, because private vehicles could be used in a larger area of the Valley before reaching Camp 6. Creation of a transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility would offset increases in local traffic generated by an increase in the number of local overnighters that would occur if overnight accommodation facilities in the park were removed (see above). Shifting visitors (local overnighters and day visitors) from their private vehicles to Valley shuttle buses would have a long-term, moderate, beneficial (if at Camp 6) or major, beneficial (if at Taft Toe) impact on traffic conditions in the east Valley by moderately (or exceptionally) reducing congestion and delays experienced by drivers.

Also as a result of the application of the management zoning, parking spaces inconsistent with the 2B zone could be removed from the Merced River corridor. If those spaces were removed and not relocated elsewhere, then more traffic congestion would be generated within the park, because visitors unable to find an authorized place to park would circle around, increasing traffic volumes at congested locations. This would have a long-term, negligible, adverse impact on traffic conditions in Yosemite Valley by negligibly increasing congestion and delays experienced by drivers. If parking spaces were relocated to other areas in the river corridor with a 3C zone designation (e.g., a transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility at either Taft Toe or Camp 6 in Yosemite Valley), the relocated spaces would reduce the above-described adverse effects of removing parking spaces within the river corridor. In addition, if a transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility were not built at either Taft Toe or Camp 6, parking spaces removed from within the river corridor could be relocated to outside the corridor (e.g., near Yosemite Village), which also would reduce the adverse effects of removing parking within the river corridor. It also is assumed that the Restricted Access Plan would continue to be implemented during peak-season periods when criteria for implementation were met.

Additionally, if parking spaces were removed and not relocated elsewhere (as described above), then conflicts between vehicles would potentially increase, because visitors unable to find an authorized space could decide to park in unauthorized/improper areas. This would have a long-term, negligible, adverse impact on traffic safety conditions by negligibly increasing the potential for traffic safety hazards.

Under Alternative 2, the River Protection Overlay could result in the removal of vehicle bridges over the Merced River, altering the circulation patterns of vehicles (private, regional public transit, Valley shuttle, etc.). This would have a long-term, moderate, adverse impact on traffic conditions in Yosemite Valley by moderately increasing traffic volumes on the remaining bridges (and roadways used to access those bridges). Creation of a transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility (see above) would likely lower traffic volumes on roadways in the Valley enough to reduce the effect of bridge removal to a negligible-to-minor, adverse impact (i.e., negligibly to slightly increasing traffic volumes on the bridges that remain and on roadways used to access those remaining bridges).

Summary of Alternative 2 Impacts. The implementation of potential future actions in accordance with the management zones of Alternative 2 is considered to be either a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact or a long-term, negligible, adverse impact, depending on whether an increase or a decrease in overnight accommodations within the river corridor occurred, whether a transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility were developed, and whether parking spaces within the 2B zone were removed.

Cumulative transportation effects discussed herein are based on analysis of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the Yosemite region in combination with potential effects of this alternative. The projects identified below include only those projects that could affect access and transportation in the vicinity of the river corridor.

Past Actions. Development of a circulation system that includes roadways, parking areas, and bridges has occurred within and in the vicinity of Yosemite National Park. This circulation system was developed to provide access to the park and the surrounding areas. In the 1980s, a Restricted Access Plan was developed for use when traffic and parking conditions in Yosemite Valley are overcongested. The plan has the effect of reducing the number of incoming vehicles until the traffic volume and parking demand in the Valley decreases sufficiently (as departing visitors leave the Valley) to stabilize traffic conditions.

Present Actions. The El Portal Road Reconstruction Project (NPS) is currently underway and has both adverse (short-term during construction) and beneficial (long-term) effects on transportation. Short-term, construction-related effects include visitor delays and visitor hazards through the construction work zone. Those effects are mitigated by implementation of a traffic control plan, with measures such as strict construction timing restrictions, roadway safety procedures, flaggers, and signalling. Current safety improvements on Segments A, B, and C of El Portal Road would facilitate regional transit service on that route, which would be a long-term, beneficial impact.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Reasonably foreseeable future actions proposed in the region are separated below into three general categories: (1) projects anticipated to have a net beneficial effect; (2) projects anticipated to have both beneficial and adverse effects; and (3) projects anticipated to have adverse effects.

Reasonably foreseeable projects that could have a cumulative, long-term, beneficial effect on regional transportation include the following:

• The Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS)
• San Joaquin Corridor Rail Projects (DOT, Amtrak)
• The Yosemite West Rezoning Application (NPS)
• The Yosemite Valley Plan (NPS)

The aforementioned projects, individually and in combination, would reduce congestion by encouraging travel to the park by alternative (non-private vehicle) modes. For example, YARTS is a collaborative, multi-agency effort to evaluate the feasibility of a regional transportation system and to determine the organizational structure of an entity that would implement and operate the system. The intent of YARTS is to provide an attractive alternative to private vehicles by expanding the range of travel options for visitors to Yosemite Valley and to other primary park destinations, and for employees commuting to work in the park. It also could provide a means for visitors to travel to Yosemite Valley when the Restricted Access Plan is implemented for private vehicles during times of severe congestion. The initial YARTS service would be a demonstration project (scheduled to begin by early summer 2000), with a target market of visitors staying overnight in the gateway communities and employees working at Yosemite National Park who live in the gateway communities. A successful YARTS would reduce the number of day visitors arriving in private vehicles. Similarly, the Yosemite West Rezoning Application would include a provision for a regional staging area to provide visitor parking and linkage to regional public transportation systems. The preferred alternative of the Yosemite Valley Plan would consolidate parking for day visitors at Yosemite Village and in parking areas outside Yosemite Valley (at Badger Pass, El Portal, and South Landing), which would result in a reduction in vehicle travel in the eastern portion of Yosemite Valley. The circulation pattern in Yosemite Valley would be changed by the removal of roads from Ahwahnee and Stoneman Meadows, the removal of parking from Curry Orchard, the conversion of Northside Drive to a multi-use (bicycle and pedestrian) paved trail from El Capitan crossover to Yosemite Lodge, and the conversion of Southside Drive to two-way traffic between El Capitan crossover and Curry Village. The implementation of these projects would result in a reduction in automobile congestion within Yosemite Valley. In addition, parking lots(s) outside the Valley could be used to intercept day visitors and shift those visitors to Valley-bound shuttle buses.

Reasonably foreseeable projects that could have a short-term, adverse effect but a cumulative, long-term, beneficial effect on regional transportation include:

• Highway 41 Extension (Madera Co.)
• South Entrance/Mariposa Grove Site Planning (NPS)
• Yosemite Valley Shuttle Bus Stop Improvements (NPS)
• South Fork Merced River Bridges Replacement (NPS)
• Road Realignment and Bridge Replacement of Highway 49 and Old Highway (Mariposa Co.)
• Mariposa Creek Pedestrian/Bike Path (Mariposa Co.)
• Evergreen Road Improvements (multi-agency, see Appendix G)

Although the above projects would have site-specific and short-term, adverse effects (e.g., construction-related transportation effects), the general goal of these projects is to improve regional transportation circulation and safety.

Reasonably foreseeable projects that could have a short-term adverse effect on regional transportation include:

• Several water improvement projects, such as the Tuolumne Meadows Water and Wastewater Improvements, White Wolf Water System Improvements, Hodgdon Meadow Water and Wastewater Treatment Improvements, and Replacement/Rehabilitation of Yosemite Valley Sewer Line (NPS); Cherry Dam Fuse Gate, O’Shaughnessy Dam Well, and O’Shaughnessy Compound Water System Improvements (City and Co. of San Francisco)
• Forest-related projects, such as the Orange Crush Fuels Treatment Projects and the A-Rock Reforestation (USFS, Stanislaus); and the Rogge-Ackerson Fire Reforestation (Tuolumne Co.)
• Various development-related projects, such as the Yosemite View parcel land exchange, El Portal (NPS); Rio Mesa Area Plan (Madera Co.); Yosemite Motels, El Portal (Mariposa Co.); Silvertip Resort Village Project (Mariposa Co.); University of California, Merced Campus (Merced Co.); Buildout of City of Merced, General Plan; Double Eagle Resort, June Lake (Mono Co.); Tioga Inn, Lee Vining (Mono Co.); June Lake Highlands (Mono Co.); Evergreen Lodge Expansion (Tuolumne Co.); Hardin Flat Lodging and Conference Facility (Tuolumne Co.); Motel and Restaurant, Second Garrotte Basin (Tuolumne Co.); Hazel Green Ranch (Mariposa Co.); Crane Flat Campus Redevelopment (NPS, YNI); Wilderness Boundary Protection Land Exchange, Seventh Day Adventist Camp, Wawona (NPS); and the Resources Management Building (NPS)

The adverse effects associated with the above projects would be short term in nature, primarily related to construction-generated traffic on roadways serving the project sites. These projects would not result in any net, long-term effects to regional transportation.

Given the potential for a reduction in the number of day visitors arriving in private vehicles, these cumulative projects would have a long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial impact on the regional transportation system. The impact intensity of any planning projects would depend upon the extent that the plan’s recommendations are implemented. The short-term, construction-related traffic impacts that would occur from development of site-specific projects would not appreciably alter these long-term, beneficial impacts.

Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of Yosemite National Park would result in a long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial impact on traffic and traffic safety conditions in Yosemite National Park, because these projects would, individually and in combination, encourage travel to the park by alternative (non-private vehicle) modes and would manage traffic and parking to reduce congestion. The intensity of the impact depends on the implementation of various projects that would benefit the transportation system.

The implementation of potential future actions in accordance with the management zones of Alternative 2 is considered to be either a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact or a long-term, negligible, adverse impact, depending on whether an increase or a decrease in overnight accommodations within the river corridor occurred, whether a transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility were developed, and whether parking spaces within the 2B zone were removed.

Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of Yosemite National Park would result in a long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial impact on traffic and traffic safety conditions in Yosemite National Park because these projects would, individually and in combination, encourage travel to the park by alternative (non-private vehicle) modes and would manage traffic and parking to reduce congestion. The intensity of the impact depends on the implementation of various projects that would benefit the transportation system.

Scenic Resources

Analysis

General Impacts. Scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Values listed in the 1996 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan have been revised based on the application of new scientific information and to accurately reflect Outstandingly Remarkable Value criteria included in the Interagency Coordinating Council guidelines for implementation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Specifically, those resources that are not related to the Merced River or not unique to the region or nation have been removed (e.g., the confluence of tributaries in Wawona, magnificent views of Triple Divide Peak and the Sierra Crest within the wilderness segment of the South Fork). Removal of these resources from the list of Outstandingly Remarkable Values would not alter their management or protection. These resources would continue to be managed and protected by existing park policy and guidelines (e.g., General Management Plan and Resources Management Plan), as well as by federal law (e.g., the 1916 Organic Act). Scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Values common to the entire Merced River (main stem and South Fork) are now focussed on spectacular views from the river and its banks. The revised Outstandingly Remarkable Values provide greater focus on the Merced River than those presented in the 1996 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan.

Implementation of the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) framework would have a local, long-term, minor, beneficial effect on scenic resources and scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the main stem and South Fork of the Merced River. VERP is intended to institutionalize an ongoing adaptive management program in which park staff would continuously monitor visitors and resources, identify discrepancies between existing and desired visitor experiences and resource conditions, and take action to achieve desired conditions. If monitoring determined that desired visitor experiences and resource conditions were not being met in a particular management zone, management sub-zone, or segment, then management actions could be undertaken. An example of a management action that could be implemented includes thinning or removal of unnaturally dense stands of conifer trees along the riverbank and replacing them with stands of broad-leafed trees, as existed before Euro-American settlers began altering the natural plant communities within Yosemite Valley. This would likely open previously closed views and improve the texture and lighting of the foreground of any landscape viewable from the Merced River corridor.

The following discussion provides an overview of the types of impacts to scenic resources that could occur within each segment of the Merced River corridor from application of management elements (e.g., management zoning, the River Protection Overlay, the VERP framework).

Impacts in the Wilderness. Scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the wilderness include views from the Merced River and its banks of the exposed bedrock riverbed, Merced Lake and Washburn Lake, the Bunnell Cascades, the confluence of tributaries, a large concentration of granite domes, and the Clark and Cathedral Ranges. The wilderness reaches of the Merced River would be zoned consistent with existing conditions and use (as prescribed by zones 1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D); management practices and use levels would continue to be based on the Wilderness Act and federal and Yosemite National Park wilderness policies and guidelines. Although the proposed zoning and the River Protection Overlay are not anticipated to alter use patterns or existing facilities within the wilderness reaches of the Merced River, these management elements would limit the type of new facilities (e.g., campsites with facilities are prohibited in the 1B zone) that could be built in the Merced River corridor. This would limit potential adverse effects on scenic resources associated with disruption of native vegetation or placement of facilities in undeveloped areas. The application of management zoning and the River Protection Overlay within wilderness segments would have a local, long-term, negligible, beneficial effect on scenic resources and scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

Impacts in Yosemite Valley. Under Alternative 2, the total number of overnight accommodations in the park (campsites or structured lodging, zones 3A or 3B) could be decreased, increased, or unchanged compared to the No Action Alternative. Application of the River Protection Overlay under Alternative 2 could result in the removal of some Housekeeping Camp units, but other areas of Yosemite Valley would be zoned to allow development of new campsites. Depending on the level of development of new sites, the total number of overnight accommodations in Yosemite Valley could increase, remain the same, or decrease. Also, this alternative would not preclude relocating facilities from the Merced River corridor to other areas of the park. While this would likely have a beneficial impact on scenic resources within or viewable from the corridor, the relocation could have an adverse impact on scenic resources in their new location.

Decreasing the total number of overnight accommodations in Yosemite Valley would likely have a local, long-term, minor, beneficial effect on scenic resources within the Merced River corridor. Removal of overnight accommodations would reduce the amount of developed area in the corridor and, if restored to natural conditions, would increase restoration of naturally vegetated areas.

Conversely, if the total number of accommodations within Yosemite Valley were to increase, this would have local, long-term, minor, adverse impact on scenic resources within the Merced River corridor. Increasing overnight accommodations would increase the amount of developed area in the corridor and would decrease the amount of naturally vegetated areas in the Valley.

Alternative 2 also would allow for the creation of a transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility at Taft Toe or Camp 6 (zone 3C) in Yosemite Valley. The development at either Taft Toe or Camp 6 would have an adverse effect on scenic resources in the Valley, due to the intrusion of the new structures into the visual landscape, including the introduction of new transportation-related facilities and the reflective glare and visual intrusion of parked vehicles at these locations. The extent of the adverse impact would depend on the design of the new facility and the degree to which it would be visible from traditionally valuable viewpoints within the Merced River corridor. The adverse visual effects of a transit center/day-visitor parking facilities would be somewhat offset by beneficial effects, including a decrease of vehicle traffic in Yosemite Valley by increasing the movement of visitors via mass transit (i.e., shuttle buses). This could decrease the frequency of vehicle intrusions into views of the landscape. The net adverse effects of the development at Taft Toe or Camp 6 could be mitigated to a local, long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impact on scenic resources by implementation of mitigation measures described in Chapter II, under Mitigation Measures Common to All Action Alternatives.

The proposed 2C zoning over much of east Yosemite Valley and the 2B zoning in west Yosemite Valley are more restrictive in terms of permitted visitor uses and facilities than the absence of zoning in the No Action Alternative and would allow for greater protection and restoration of natural resources, an important component of the scenic environment within the Valley. For example, the visual character of El Capitan Meadow is degraded by visitor use due to trampling, soil compaction, and fragmentation. The current visitor-intensive use of El Capitan Meadow would be inconsistent with the 2B zoning, which is characterized by relatively quiet natural areas where visitor encounters would be low to moderate. Application of the 2B zoning prescriptions and implementation of VERP could result in management actions that would redirect use away from sensitive areas such as El Capitan Meadow and initiate restoration of the meadow. These management actions would have a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact on the scenic quality of the meadow.

Application of the River Protection Overlay could have both beneficial and adverse effects on scenic resources within Yosemite Valley. Adverse effects on scenic resources could occur if implementation of the River Protection Overlay resulted in the removal of a historic bridge. This could adversely affect scenic resources within the Merced River corridor due to the loss of an aesthetically pleasing component of the scenic landscape. Beneficial effects on scenic resources from implementation of the River Protection Overlay could include removal of facilities (e.g., portions of Housekeeping Camp) that intrude upon the natural character of the corridor, which would increase opportunities for natural revegetation and restoration of the river corridor. The net effect of the River Protection Overlay would be a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact on scenic resources, since the opportunities to increase natural vegetation and restoration of the river corridor would offset the adverse effects on scenic resources associated with possible removal of aesthetically pleasing historic bridges.

The intensity of potential impacts to scenic resources caused by Alternative 2 would be directly related to the effectiveness of methods employed in the park to reduce human-caused erosion within the river corridor and to reduce crowding at popular viewpoints. The VERP framework would monitor visitor use and its effects on scenic resources and scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Facilities such as boardwalks and fences could be used to route people away from sensitive natural resources, while still permitting access to important viewpoints. Signs could be used to promote an understanding among park visitors of how to avoid harm to natural communities and features, though any physical facilities constructed to manage the impact of people on scenic resources should be designed for minimal disturbance of and visual intrusion into the natural landscape.

Scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Values within Yosemite Valley include views from the Merced River and its banks of waterfalls and water features (Nevada, Vernal, Illilouette, Yosemite, Sentinel, Ribbon, and Bridalveil Falls, and Silver Strand), rock cliffs (Half Dome, North Dome/Washington Column, Glacier Point, Yosemite Point/Lost Arrow Spire, Sentinel Rock, Three Brothers, Cathedral Rocks, and El Capitan), and meadows (Stoneman, Ahwahnee, Cook’s, Sentinel, Leidig, El Capitan, and Bridalveil). There is a scenic interface of river, rock, meadow, and forest throughout the segment. Alternative 2 would protect and enhance the scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Values through the application of extensive 2B and 2C management zoning in the Valley, the River Protection Overlay, and VERP. These management elements would place restrictions on new development and would encourage restoration activities. An example of a restoration activity that could be implemented includes thinning or removal of unnaturally dense stands of conifer trees along the riverbank and replacing them with stands of broad-leafed trees, as existed before Euro-American settlers began altering the natural plant communities within Yosemite Valley. This would likely open views of scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Values from the Merced River corridor. Application of these management elements and implementation of VERP would have a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact on scenic resources and scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

Impacts in the Merced River Gorge and El Portal. The majority of the Merced River gorge would have a quarter-mile boundary, be zoned 2A+, 2A, and 2B, and would receive increased protection over the absence of zoning under the No Action Alternative. Extensive use of 2A+, 2A, and 2B zoning in the gorge would substantially limit areas where new development could occur. Management zoning would ensure that the natural appearance of the gorge would be maintained, which would have a local, long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on scenic resources.

Scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Merced River gorge include views from the Merced River and its banks of the Cascades, spectacular rapids among giant boulders, Wildcat Fall, Tamarack Creek Fall, the Rostrum, and Elephant Rock. The extensive application of 2A+, 2A, and 2B zoning and the quarter-mile boundary over a majority of the Merced River gorge would protect and enhance these Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Management zoning in the gorge would substantially limit areas where new development could occur and would maintain the natural appearance of the gorge, ensuring the protection of the scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

Portions of El Portal would be zoned 3C (e.g., the Trailer Village, Old El Portal), which could allow additional development (e.g., employee residences in Yosemite Valley could be relocated to the El Portal Administrative Site). Such development could have local, long-term, minor, adverse effects on the scenic character of the Merced River corridor in El Portal. Adverse effects could be mitigated by implementing mitigation measures described in Chapter II under Mitigation Measures Common to All Action Alternatives. The adverse impact on scenic resources in El Portal could be further offset by the potential restoration of the sand pit. The current park operations–related use of the sand pit would be inconsistent with the proposed 2C zoning, and the sand pit could be restored to a natural condition, which would have a beneficial effect on scenic resources at this location.

Impacts in the South Fork. The upper and lower portions of the South Fork would be zoned 1A, 1B, and 2A+. The majority of the South Fork through Wawona would be zoned 2A, 2B, and 3C. The 1A, 1B, 2A+, 2A, and 2B management zoning would increase protection over the absence of zoning under the No Action Alternative. Application of these zones along the South Fork would substantially limit areas where new development could occur. The 1A, 1B, 2A+, 2A, and 2B management zones would ensure that the natural appearance of these areas of the South Fork would be maintained, which would have a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact on scenic resources.

Substantial portions of the Wawona area would be zoned 3C. These areas include existing developments, such as the Wawona Hotel, the wastewater treatment plant and maintenance area, and residential and commercial areas in Section 35. An area on the south side of the river in Section 35 would be zoned 3A/3C that currently has only limited development. Naturally vegetated and undeveloped areas in the 3A/3C zoned area of Section 35 could be developed with camping or housing uses. If such development were to occur, this would have a local, long-term, minor, adverse effect on scenic resources in Wawona, due to the visual intrusion of new development in areas that are currently undeveloped. This impact would be minor, because much of Section 35 is currently developed with similar uses.

Portions of features adjacent to the South Fork, such as Wawona Campground and the Wawona maintenance facility, would be inconsistent with the River Protection Overlay and could be removed or relocated, thereby increasing opportunities for natural revegetation and restoration. Should these areas within the River Protection Overlay be restored, this would have a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact on scenic resources in these areas.

Scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the South Fork include views from the Merced River and its banks of large pothole pools within slick rock cascades, old growth forest, and meadows, Wawona Dome, and continual white-water cascades in the deep and narrow river canyon below Wawona. Alternative 2 would protect and enhance the scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Values through the application of 1A, 1B, 2A+, 2A, and 2B management zoning along the South Fork, the River Protection Overlay, and VERP. These management elements would place restrictions on new development and would encourage restoration activities. Should VERP monitoring reveal degradation of riparian vegetation due to visitor use (e.g., informal trails), VERP management actions (e.g., educational signs, limits on visitor use, restoration) could be implemented to achieve the desired condition for the resource and management zone. Such management elements would protect scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Values, including views from the river and its banks of unique features, and would have a local, long-term, minor, beneficial effect on scenic resources.

Summary of Alternative 2 Impacts. Generally, application of management zoning, the River Protection Overlay, and VERP would have a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact on scenic resources and scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Values in Yosemite Valley and Wawona due to opportunities to restore degraded areas of the Merced River corridor, remove developments inconsistent with the River Protection Overlay, and to implement management actions to maintain desired resource conditions pursuant to VERP. This beneficial impact would be partially offset by management zoning that allows for certain new developments to occur, such as a transit center in Yosemite Valley and camping or housing in Section 35 in Wawona. In designated Wilderness, the impacts would be negligible and beneficial, because scenic resources in Wilderness would experience somewhat perceptible improvements compared to Alternative 1. In the gorge and El Portal, this alternative would have a negligible, beneficial impact on scenic resources by ensuring the natural appearance of the gorge would be maintained, and due to the potential for restoration in El Portal; this beneficial impact could be partially offset by the potential for new development in El Portal.

Cumulative impacts to scenic resources discussed herein are based on analysis of past and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Yosemite region in combination with potential effects of this alternative. The projects identified below include only those projects that could affect scenic resources within the river corridor or in the immediate park vicinity.

Past Actions. Scenic resources have been affected by numerous past actions since the inception of the park. Primary among these, when considered in relation to the potential effects of the Merced River Plan, is the alteration of natural communities caused by Euro-American settlers who lived in the park. For example, attempts to establish agricultural activities and the development of tourism resulted in the drying out of the Valley by breaching the moraine and controlling naturally occurring fires, which affected vegetation patterns along the Merced River. Broad-leafed trees along the river banks were replaced by the comparatively dense stands of conifers that exist today. This has had a local, long-term, adverse effect on scenic resources, as the conifers now block views of important scenic resources that were viewable before the vegetation patterns were changed.

In 1991, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management developed a joint South Fork and Merced Wild and Scenic River Implementation Plan for the segments of the main stem and South Fork of the Merced River that are under their jurisdiction. The plan is also a general management plan with many prescriptive goals and few actions. The plan endeavors to limit or end consumptive uses such as grazing within the river corridor, and calls for the formalization of camping and launch facilities for non-motorized watercraft. Implementation of these actions has a beneficial effect by eliminating impacts where feasible (grazing does not currently occur within the river corridor), concentrating impacts in areas able to withstand visitor use, and providing facilities that mitigate adverse effects associated with visitor use (e.g., restrooms).

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Reasonably foreseeable future actions proposed in the region are separated below into three general categories: (1) projects anticipated to have a net beneficial effect; (2) projects anticipated to have a net adverse effect; and (3) projects anticipated to have a mixed effect.

Projects that could have a cumulative beneficial effect on scenic resources include those that could reduce the number of vehicles entering the park, and therefore the frequency of intrusion of vehicles into the scenic landscape. Projects that improve the general health of ecosystems viewable from or within the Merced River corridor also would result in a net cumulative, beneficial effect on scenic resources. Examples of these types of projects are:

• The Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS)
• Yosemite Valley Shuttle Bus Stop Improvements (NPS).
• Update to the Yosemite Fire Management Plan (NPS)
• The Merced River at Eagle Creek Ecological Restoration Project (NPS)
• South Fork Merced River Bridges Replacement (NPS)
• The Sierra Nevada Framework for Conservation and Collaboration, and the Management Direction for the John Muir, Ansel Adams, Dinkey Lakes, and Monarch Wildernesses (USFS)

The general goal of these projects is to either reduce private vehicle traffic in the park, and especially in Yosemite Valley (which would reduce the frequency of vehicles intruding into important scenic resources viewable within or from the Merced River corridor), or to improve the health of ecosystems that make up parts of important scenic resources, either in the park or on lands adjacent to the park. For example, the update to the Yosemite Wilderness Management Plan could result in the removal of the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp, reducing site-specific erosion and trampling and restoring natural vegetation. These cumulative projects would have a net long-term, beneficial impact on scenic resources.

Reasonably foreseeable projects that could have an adverse effect on scenic resources include:

• Replacement/Rehabilitation of Yosemite Valley Sewer Line (NPS)
• Yosemite View parcel land exchange, El Portal (NPS)

The local, long-term, adverse effects of these reasonably foreseeable projects would be related to the potential introduction of new structures and/or infrastructure that would intrude into views of important scenic resources within or viewable from the Merced River corridor. For example, the Yosemite View parcel land exchange could result in new development in an area of El Portal that is currently undeveloped and reduce in the vegetative screening of the existing motel complex. This project would result in increased views of developed structures on the banks of the Merced River from Highway 140.

Reasonably foreseeable projects that could have a mixed effect on scenic resources include:

• The Yosemite Valley Plan (NPS)
• Wawona Campground Improvement (NPS)

The Yosemite Valley Plan would have a local, long-term, beneficial impact on scenic resources in the Valley due to restoration of disturbed or developed land to natural conditions and, in particular, large-scale restoration of areas within the A–scenic category (areas considered to have the most significant scenic views within the Valley). The Yosemite Valley Plan also would include areas of new development in the Valley (largely consolidated in the east Valley), Wawona, and El Portal, resulting in adverse impacts due to visual intrusions in the scenic landscape. However, impacts in these areas contribute directly to the improvement of the scenery within the Valley by removing facilities and restoring impacted areas.

The Wawona Campground Improvement project would have a local, long-term, beneficial impact on scenic resources due to restoration activities to improve the existing degraded campground, including activities to revegetate the riverbanks. Some aspects of the campground improvement project could have adverse effects on scenic resources due to new development in undeveloped areas, such as the proposal to construct an additional campground in Section 35.

These past and reasonably foreseeable future actions could have a net local, long-term, major, beneficial cumulative effect on scenic resources in Yosemite Valley because of the overall emphasis on restoring disturbed or developed land to natural conditions, improving the health of ecosystems, and reducing the number of vehicles. Scenic resources in the Wilderness segments would experience local, long-term, negligible, beneficial cumulative impacts due to the reduction of site-specific erosion and trampling and restoration of natural vegetation. In some developed areas in Wawona and El Portal, the cumulative projects would result in local, long-term, minor, adverse cumulative impacts to scenic resources due to visual intrusions in the scenic landscape from new facilities, such as facilities being relocated from Yosemite Valley.

Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of Yosemite National Park would result in local, long-term, major, beneficial impacts on scenic resources in Yosemite Valley because of the overall emphasis on restoring disturbed or developed land to natural conditions, improving the health of ecosystems within or adjacent to the park, applying management zoning and the River Protection Overlay in the Merced River corridor, and implementing VERP. In designated Wilderness, the cumulative impacts would be minor and beneficial, because scenic resources in Wilderness areas would experience somewhat detectable improvements compared to Alternative 1. In some developed areas in Wawona and El Portal, Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects would result in local, long-term, minor, adverse impacts to scenic resources due to visual intrusions in the scenic landscape from new facilities, such as facilities being relocated from Yosemite Valley; these adverse impacts have been partially offset by the potential for restoration in these communities pursuant to the management elements of Alternative 2.

Generally, application of management zoning, the River Protection Overlay, and VERP would have a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact on scenic resources and scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Values in Yosemite Valley and Wawona due to opportunities to restore degraded areas of the Merced River corridor, remove developments inconsistent with the River Protection Overlay, and to implement management actions to maintain desired resource conditions pursuant to VERP. This beneficial impact would be partially offset by management zoning that allows for certain new developments to occur, such as a transit center in Yosemite Valley and camping or housing in Section 35 in Wawona. In designated Wilderness, the impacts would be negligible and beneficial, because scenic resources in Wilderness would experience somewhat perceptible improvements compared to Alternative 1. In the gorge and El Portal, this alternative would have a negligible, beneficial impact on scenic resources by ensuring the natural appearance of the gorge be maintained and due to the potential for restoration in El Portal; this beneficial impact would be partially offset by the potential for new development in El Portal.

Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of Yosemite National Park would result in local, long-term, major, beneficial impacts on scenic resources in Yosemite Valley because of the overall emphasis on restoring disturbed or developed land to natural conditions, improving the health of ecosystems within or adjacent to the park, applying management zoning and the River Protection Overlay in the Merced River corridor, and implementing VERP. In designated Wilderness, the cumulative impacts would be minor and beneficial, because scenic resources in the Wilderness would experience detectable improvements compared to Alternative 1. In some developed areas in Wawona and El Portal, Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects would result in local, long-term, minor, adverse impacts to scenic resources due to visual intrusions into the scenic landscape from new development, such as facilities being relocated from Yosemite Valley; these adverse impacts would be partially offset by the potential for restoration in these communities under the management elements of Alternative 2.

Socioeconomics

Social Environment

Analysis

General Impacts. Under the application of management zones for Alternative 2, a number of employee residences could possibly be displaced in Yosemite Valley. The Valley stable and primary park concession employee residences at the Valley stable would be inconsistent with the 3A zoning prescription and could be relocated from the corridor to another area of the Valley or could be removed from the park altogether. If the Valley stable were relocated elsewhere in the Valley, then the employee residences at the stable would likely be relocated to the El Portal Administrative Site; the possible displacement of these residences is analyzed below. If the Valley stable were removed from the park, the stable would no longer operate; these employee residences would no longer be needed and would not be replaced elsewhere in the park or in the El Portal Administrative Site.

Under Alternative 2, the Yellow Pine Campground would be zoned 3A/3C such that the area could be used as a volunteer campground or a visitor campground. If volunteer camping were replaced by visitor camping, volunteer camping could be relocated elsewhere in the Valley, resulting in no net loss of volunteer camping compared to the No Action Alternative. If volunteer camping were replaced by visitor camping, and this use were not relocated elsewhere, there would be a net loss of volunteer camping in the Valley.

In Section 35 in Wawona, a nominal number of park-owned residences are located within the Merced River corridor and River Protection Overlay and would be inconsistent with the 2B zoning prescription and River Protection Overlay applied to that area. Under Alternative 2, these employee residences could be removed or relocated to other sites within Wawona, resulting in the displacement of the residents.

The possible reduction or relocation in employee housing of Yosemite Valley and Wawona could be offset by the potential ability to develop employee housing in El Portal or Wawona (in areas with 3C or 3A/3C zoning prescriptions, or areas outside the river corridor). In addition, the potential new housing in El Portal or Wawona would likely be of better quality than the present employee quarters.

Employee commuting distances and costs would increase if employee housing were relocated from Yosemite Valley and Wawona to El Portal or some other location. Yosemite Valley employees, for example, would experience an hour commute each day from El Portal, and Wawona employees would experience an approximately two-hour daily commute.

The possible reduction or relocation of employee housing and associated effects on employee commutes would constitute a long-term, negligible, adverse impact on the local social environments of Yosemite Valley and Wawona, because only a small number of employee residences in these communities would be affected, and the impact could be offset by the possibility of developing replacement housing in El Portal or Wawona. In both Yosemite Valley and Wawona, less than 5% of government-owned housing would be affected. Eligible residents who might be effected by actions of this plan, and who meet the compensation criteria under provisions of the Uniform Relocation Act, may be eligible for housing and moving benefits, although this would not be expected to lower the intensity of the impact.

Although it is unknown where the displaced employee housing would be relocated, some or all of the housing units could be located in El Portal or Wawona. The social environment in El Portal and Wawona could experience long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts because less than 5% of housing would be affected and there would be limited impacts on community amenities from relocation of displaced employee housing to these communities. The intensity of the impact would depend on the number of new residents relocated to these areas.

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative effects on the social environment discussed herein are based on analysis of reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Yosemite region in combination with potential effects of this alternative. The cumulative projects that follow are those most relevant to this environmental discipline.

Reasonably foreseeable future projects that could have a cumulative, beneficial effect on the social environment include:

• Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS)
• Merced River Canyon Trail Acquisition (BLM)

Implementation of YARTS would provide additional transportation options for employees and community residents. YARTS could somewhat improve the commuting conditions of employees by providing regional transportation alternatives for those employees resulting in a regional, long-term, beneficial impact on employee commutes.

The Bureau of Land Management’s Merced River Canyon Trail Acquisition would allow for the development of a recreational trail west of the El Portal Administrative Site. This project would somewhat improve community amenities in El Portal, resulting in a local, long-term, beneficial impact on the social environment of El Portal.

A reasonably foreseeable future project that could have an adverse effect on the social environment includes:

• The Yosemite View parcel land exchange, El Portal (NPS)

The Yosemite View parcel land exchange would somewhat reduce the amount of open space available to the community of El Portal, although the proposed motel development would incorporate a public trail system and limited nature/river interpretive areas. This project would result in a local, long-term, adverse impact to the social environment of El Portal. This would result from the strain on limited community amenities in El Portal, loss of open space, and the opportunity cost of removing the National Park Service Parkline land from consideration for other community needs.

A reasonably foreseeable future project that could have a mixed effect on the social environment includes:

• The Yosemite Valley Plan (NPS)

The Yosemite Valley Plan would remove substantial amounts of employee housing from Yosemite Valley, and would construct new employee housing in El Portal and Wawona, among other locations. Redesigned housing in Yosemite Valley and new housing in El Portal and Wawona would substantially improve the quality of housing in these communities. The social environment in Yosemite Valley would experience local, long-term, beneficial effects associated with reduced crowding, more secure housing conditions, and increased privacy. The social environment of the workforce would experience local, long-term, adverse effects associated with increases in commuting time, change of housing locale, and a decrease in social amenities near housing sites. For the Yosemite Valley workforce, the adverse effects may be so severe that they would no longer be willing to work in the Valley and may leave the area. The social environment in El Portal and Wawona would experience local, long-term, adverse effects due to substantial increases in housing in these communities, although it is expected that the projected population growth would be gradual. Even though the Yosemite Valley Plan calls for the placement of community amenities in El Portal, there could be substantial strains on the limited community amenities of El Portal as employees transition from Yosemite Valley.

The cumulative projects would have a regional, long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on employee commuting conditions due to the provision of regional transportation alternatives. The cumulative projects would have a local, long-term, moderate to major, adverse effect on the social environments of Yosemite Valley, El Portal, and Wawona due to decreases in housing and social amenities near housing and increases in commuting time in Yosemite Valley, and substantial increases in housing in El Portal and Wawona (resulting in substantial strains on the limited community amenities of El Portal and Wawona, even though the Yosemite Valley Plan calls for the placement of community amenities in El Portal). The impact intensity of any planning projects would depend upon the extent that the plan’s recommendations are implemented.

Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of Yosemite National Park would result in a regional, long-term, negligible, beneficial impact by somewhat improving the commuting conditions of employees whose residences could be relocated under Alternative 2 by providing regional transportation alternatives for those employees. Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects would have a local, long-term, moderate to major, adverse effect on the social environments of Yosemite Valley, El Portal, and Wawona due to decreases in housing and social amenities near housing and increases in commuting time in Yosemite Valley, and substantial increases in housing in El Portal and Wawona (resulting in substantial strains on the limited community amenities of El Portal and Wawona, even though the Yosemite Valley Plan calls for the placement of community amenities in El Portal). The impact intensity would depend upon the extent that the cumulative projects’ recommendations are implemented.

Conclusions. The possible reduction or relocation of employee housing and associated effects on employee commutes would constitute a long-term, negligible, adverse impact on the local social environments of Yosemite Valley and Wawona, because only a small number of employee residences in these communities would be affected, and the impact could be offset by the possibility of developing replacement housing in El Portal or Wawona. The social environments in El Portal and Wawona would experience long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts associated with the strain on limited community amenities from the potential relocation of displaced employee housing to these communities.

Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of Yosemite National Park would result in a regional, long-term, negligible, beneficial impact by somewhat improving the commuting conditions of employees whose residences could be relocated under Alternative 2 by providing regional transportation alternatives for those employees. Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects would have a local, long-term, moderate to major, adverse effect on the social environments of Yosemite Valley, El Portal, and Wawona due to decreases in housing and social amenities near housing and increases in commuting time in Yosemite Valley, and substantial increases in housing in El Portal and Wawona (resulting in substantial strains on the limited community amenities of El Portal and Wawona, even though the Yosemite Valley Plan calls for the placement of community amenities in El Portal). The impact intensity would depend upon the extent that the cumulative projects’ recommendations are implemented.

Visitor Populations

Analysis

General Impacts. Under the application of management zones for Alternative 2, the Valley stable would be zoned 3A and could be developed as camping. Areas adjacent to Upper Pines and North Pines Campgrounds that do not currently have camping uses would be zoned 3A and could be converted to camping. An area northeast of Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) that is currently undeveloped would be zoned 3A/3B and could be developed with camping or lodging uses. As mentioned above, Yellow Pine Campground (zoned 3A/3C) could be used as volunteer camping or visitor camping. Although the majority of Housekeeping Camp would be located in a compatible 3B zone, a small number of lodging units would be within the River Protection Overlay, and those units could be relocated from the corridor or removed from the park altogether. In Section 35 in Wawona, an area would be zoned 3A/3C that does not currently have camping uses, and could be developed as camping. At the Wawona Campground, approximately one-third of the campsites would be located within the River Protection Overlay and could be relocated from the corridor or removed from the park. Overall, the zoning prescriptions would allow for the addition of some camping areas, and the reduction of some camping and lodging (Housekeeping Camp) areas. The zoning prescriptions could result in no net change in park accommodations, a decrease in park accommodations, or an increase in park accommodations. It is expected, however, that any net change in in-park accommodations would be relatively low, given the application of management zones under this alternative. A decrease or increase in these facilities would shift the mix of park overnighters and day visitors. It is assumed that the total number of annual visitors would be the same as under Alternative 1.

Should the overnight accommodation facilities that are inconsistent with the management zone prescriptions be relocated from the Merced River corridor to elsewhere in the park, there would be no net loss of park accommodations. The composition of the Yosemite visitor population (the ratio of park overnighters to day visitors) and visitor spending would not differ from Alternative 1.

Should the overnight accommodation facilities that are inconsistent with the management zone prescriptions be removed from the park altogether, the total number of in-park accommodations would decrease. There would likely be a shift in the Yosemite visitor population such that there would be a decrease in park overnighters and an increase in day visitors. This would further exacerbate the unmet demand for park accommodations described under Alternative 1. Day-visitor parking facilities could be provided at Taft Toe or Camp 6 under this alternative (see the discussion in the Transportation section of this document). The shift in the Yosemite visitor population would constitute a long-term, minor, adverse impact on park overnight visitors due to the permanent decrease in park overnight accommodations. The decrease in park accommodations would not represent a substantial change as compared to total park accommodations and would be expected to be slightly detectable. This would be a local impact.

It is expected that displaced park overnighters would stay in gateway communities. In the short term, some visitors that wish to lodge overnight in the region could become day visitors due to a lack of lodging capacity, particularly during the peak season. In the long-term, however, the regional lodging market would respond to visitor demand, and displaced day visitors could become local overnighters.

As with Alternative 1, no changes in Yosemite visitor spending behavior would be expected. No major changes are proposed that would alter the types of goods and services available to visitors. Zoning prescriptions under this alternative would not exclude or attract any different visitor groups or appreciably change the character of the "average" Yosemite visitor. Therefore, visitor spending patterns and estimates based on the 1998 YARTS survey are appropriate for use in estimating future visitor spending behavior. Based on the YARTS visitor survey, local overnighters generally spend more than park overnighters during their trip, who in turn generally spend more than day visitors (see table III-20 in Chapter III, Affected Environment). Compared to Alternative 1, it is expected in the short term that visitor spending would decrease slightly, because former park overnighters would become day visitors. In the long run, however, visitor spending would increase, because former park overnighters would become local overnighters. Impacts to the regional economy associated with changes in visitor spending are discussed below under the heading "Regional Economy."

Should the total number of in-park accommodations increase in the Merced River corridor, there would likely be a shift in the Yosemite visitor population. There would be an increase in park overnighters and a decrease in day visitors, particularly local overnighters who are more likely than day visitors to wish to lodge in the park. This would somewhat reduce the unmet demand for park accommodations described under Alternative 1. The shift in the Yosemite visitor population would constitute a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on park visitors due to the permanent increase in overnight accommodations. The increase in park accommodations would not represent a substantial change as compared to total park accommodations and would be expected to be slightly detectable. This would be a local impact.

Visitor spending would decrease somewhat, because former local overnighters would likely select to stay in the park, spending less per capita on average than local overnighters, based on the 1998 YARTS survey. Impacts to the regional economy associated with changes in visitor spending are discussed below under the heading Regional Economy.

In the absence of precise data, this analysis assumes that low-income visitors favor lower-cost accommodations, such as camping or lodging at Housekeeping Camp, and inexpensive activities such as swimming, wading, or hiking. Alternative 2 would not likely affect the availability of day-visitor activities. Therefore, the potential impact of Alternative 2 on low-income visitors is related primarily to the change in availability of comparatively low-cost lodging accommodations. A decrease in the total number of campsites and a small number of Housekeeping Camp units under Alternative 2 would likely result in a long-term, minor, adverse impact on low-income visitors. Conversely, an increase in the total number of campsites under Alternative 2 would likely result in a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on low-income visitors.

Alternative 2 would likely result in a long-term, minor, adverse impact on low-income visitors due to the potential decrease in campsites and Housekeeping Camp units. Conversely, an increase in the total number of campsites under Alternative 2 would likely result in a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on low-income visitors.

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative socioeconomic impacts discussed herein are based on analysis of past and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Yosemite region in combination with potential effects of this alternative. The cumulative projects that follow are those most relevant to the visitor populations.

Reasonably foreseeable future projects that could have a cumulative, beneficial effect on the visitor population include:

• Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS)
• Wawona Campground Improvement (NPS)

YARTS would provide increased access for day visitors to the park and a means for visitors to travel to the Valley if the Restricted Access Plan were implemented. It is anticipated that the regional, long-term, beneficial effect of YARTS would be dependent on the number of visitors that would use the voluntary regional transit system.

The Wawona Campground Improvement project would improve the existing camping facilities at Wawona Campground and would construct additional campground facilities in Section 35 in Wawona. This project would have a local, long-term, beneficial impact on the visitor population by increasing the number of campsites in the park.

A reasonably foreseeable future project that could have a net adverse effect on the visitor population includes:

• The Yosemite Valley Plan (NPS)

The Yosemite Valley Plan would substantially reduce the number of lodging facilities and nominally reduce the number of campsites in Yosemite Valley, resulting in a local, long-term, adverse impact on the visitor population due to decreased opportunities to lodge and camp in the Valley. Since the number of less expensive lodging and camping units would be reduced under the Yosemite Valley Plan, the number of low income visitors able to stay overnight in the Valley may be reduced. This could represent a local, long-term, adverse impact on the low-income visitor population.

The cumulative projects would have a regional, long-term, negligible to minor, beneficial impact on the visitor population by providing increased access for day visitors to the park. The intensity of the regional impact would be dependent on the number of visitors that would use the voluntary regional transit system. Given the reduction in the number of lodging and camping units, these cumulative projects would have a local, long-term, moderate, adverse impact on the visitor population, including low-income visitors, due to decreased opportunities to lodge and camp in the Valley.

Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of Yosemite National Park would result in a regional, long-term, negligible to minor, beneficial impact on the visitor population by providing increased access for day visitors to the park. The intensity of the regional impact would be dependent on the number of visitors that would use the voluntary regional transit system. Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects would have a local, long-term, moderate, adverse impact on the visitor population, including low-income visitors, due to the potential overall reduction in the number of lodging and camping units in the park. The potential for overnight accommodation facilities to be maintained, reduced, or increased in the Valley, as described in Alternative 2 of the Merced River Plan/FEIS, would be clarified by the actions proposed in the Yosemite Valley Plan.

Conclusions. Under Alternative 2, the number of overnight accommodations in the park could be maintained, reduced, or increased from that under Alternative 1. Should the total number of in-park accommodations remain the same, the composition of the Yosemite visitor population would not differ from that under Alternative 1. Should the total number of in-park accommodations decrease, there would be a local, long-term, minor, adverse impact on park overnight visitors. Conversely, should the total number of in-park accommodations increase, there would be a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact on overnight park visitors.

Alternative 2 would likely result in a long-term, minor, adverse impact on low-income visitors due to the potential decrease in campsites and Housekeeping Camp units. Conversely, an increase in the total number of campsites under Alternative 2 would likely result in a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on low-income visitors.

Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of Yosemite National Park would result in a regional, long-term, negligible to minor, beneficial impact on the visitor population by providing increased access for day visitors to the park. The intensity of the regional impact would be dependent on the number of visitors that would use the voluntary regional transit system. Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects would have a local, long-term, moderate, adverse impact on the visitor population, including low-income visitors, due to the potential overall reduction in the number of lodging and camping units in the park. The potential for overnight accommodation facilities to be maintained, reduced, or increased in the Valley, as described in Alternative 2 of the Merced River Plan/FEIS, would be clarified by the actions proposed in the Yosemite Valley Plan.

Regional Economy

Analysis

General Impacts. As stated in the discussion of the Visitor Populations, the number of overnight accommodations in the park could be maintained, reduced, or increased from that under Alternative 1. Should the total number of in-park accommodations remain the same under Alternative 2, Yosemite visitor spending in the region would not be expected to differ from that under Alternative 1.

Should the total number of in-park accommodations decrease, the Yosemite visitor population and visitor spending would be expected to change: in the short term, visitor spending would decrease somewhat, because former park overnighters would become day visitors. In the long run, however, visitor spending would increase somewhat, because former park overnighters would become local overnighters, who generally spend more per capita than park overnighters. In the short term, the decrease in visitor spending in the affected region would have a negligible, adverse impact on the regional economy. In the long term, the increase in visitor spending would have a negligible, beneficial effect on the regional economy. The shift in the number of park overnighters as compared to day users that could result under Alternative 2 would not likely have a discernible effect on the regional socioeconomic environment, given the small magnitude of the potential shift in visitor spending as compared to the size of the regional tourist economy. In the long term, increased visitor spending in the affected region would negligibly increase output, income, and employment in the gateway region.

Should the total number of in-park accommodations increase, visitor spending in the affected region would be expected to decrease somewhat, because former local overnighters could select to stay in the park rather than the gateway communities, and park overnighters generally spend less per capita that local overnighters. The decrease in visitor spending would have a long-term, negligible, adverse effect on the regional economy. The shift in local overnighters to park overnighters that could result under Alternative 2 would not likely have a discernible effect on the regional socioeconomic environment, given the small magnitude of the shift in visitor spending as compared to the size of the regional tourist economy. The decrease in visitor spending in the affected region would negligibly decrease output, income, and employment in the gateway region.

Alternative 2 could result in shifts in regional employment. Application of the management zone prescriptions could result in the closure of certain facilities (such as the Valley stable), and the development of other facilities (such as a transit center at Taft Toe or Camp 6), resulting in changes in employment within the park. In addition, potential changes in the composition of park overnighters and local overnighters could shift employment associated with overnight accommodations from within the park to the gateway region, or vice versa. These shifts in employment would constitute a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on the regional economy. The impact would be beneficial, since it is unlikely that Alternative 2 would decrease regional employment compared to the No Action Alternative.

Implementation of Alternative 2 could result in construction activity associated with removal or development of facilities in the river corridor. Although the magnitude of the construction activity is not quantifiable, the activity would generate construction-related output, employment, and income in the regional economy. This would have a short-term, negligible, beneficial impact on the regional economy, due to the temporary nature of construction activity and the expected small magnitude of the construction activity compared with the size of the construction industry in the affected region.

Alternative 2 could result in shifts in regional employment, which would have a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on the regional economy.

Implementation of Alternative 2 could result in construction activity, which would have a short-term, negligible, beneficial impact on the regional economy.

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative socioeconomic impacts discussed herein are based on analysis of reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Yosemite region in combination with potential effects of this alternative. The cumulative projects that follow are those most relevant to the regional economy.

• The Yosemite Valley Plan (NPS)
• Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS)
• Development-related projects, such as Yosemite West Rezoning Application (NPS), Hazel Green Ranch (Mariposa Co.), Yosemite Motels, El Portal (Mariposa Co.), Double Eagle Resort, June Lake (Mono Co.), Tioga Inn, Lee Vining (Mono Co.), Evergreen Lodge Expansion (Tuolumne Co.), Hardin Flat Lodging and Conference Facilities (Tuolumne Co.), Motel and Restaurant, Second Garrotte Basin (Tuolumne Co.), Silvertip Resort Village Project (Mariposa Co.)

The Yosemite Valley Plan would have a short-term, beneficial impact on the regional economy resulting from project construction spending and employment associated with implementation of the alternative. In the long-term, although the Yosemite Valley Plan would result in a decrease in in-park accommodations (and its associated visitor spending), the overall economic impacts of changes from visitor spending and operations spending to the regional economy would be long-term and beneficial. It is anticipated that Yosemite visitor spending associated adverse impacts to the regional economy would be more than offset by increased regional output and employment from expanded National Park Service in-park operations and the proposed new park visitor transit system.

YARTS would provide increased access for day visitors to the park and a means for visitors to travel to the Valley if the Restricted Access Plan were implemented. It is anticipated that the long-term, beneficial effect of YARTS would be dependent on the number of visitors that would use the voluntary regional transit system.

Several new lodging facilities are planned in the affected region, including tent cabins and hard-sided cabins at Hazel Green Ranch outside the park near the Big Oak Flat Entrance Station (Mariposa Co.), a hotel complex as part of the Yosemite West Rezoning Application (NPS), Yosemite Motels, El Portal (Mariposa Co.), Double Eagle Resort in June Lake, Tioga Inn, Lee Vining (Mono Co.), Evergreen Lodge expansion near Camp Mather, a hotel in Hardin Flat, a motel and restaurant in Second Garrotte Basin (Tuolumne Co.), and the Silver Tip Resort Village Project in Fish Camp. Development of these facilities would expand the overnight lodging capacity of the gateway region. By providing local construction spending and employment during development, increasing lodging revenues and transient occupancy taxes, and providing sources of income and employment for area residents, these facilities would have a long-term, beneficial effect on the regional economy. The development of these facilities would increase demand for government services, including police, fire, and other services; it would be expected, however, that local government taxes assessed for these facilities would offset the incremental costs associated with providing such services.

These cumulative projects would have a short-term, minor, beneficial effect on the regional economy due to project construction spending and employment associated with implementation of the projects. The cumulative projects would have a long-term, minor, beneficial effect on the regional economy due to increased regional output and employment from expanded National Park Service in-park operations, increased access for day visitors to the park, and increased lodging revenues and transient occupancy taxes and providing sources of income and employment for area residents.

Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of Yosemite National Park would result in a short-term, minor, beneficial impact on the regional economy due to project construction spending and employment associated with development of the cumulative projects. Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects would result in a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on the regional economy due to increased regional output and employment from expanded National Park Service in-park operations, increased access for day visitors to the park, and increasing lodging revenues and transient occupancy taxes and providing sources of income and employment for area residents.

Conclusions. Under Alternative 2, the number of overnight accommodations in the park could be maintained, reduced, or increased from that under Alternative 1. Should the total number of in-park accommodations remain the same, visitor spending in the region would not be expected to differ from that under Alternative 1. Should the total number of in-park accommodations decrease, Yosemite visitor spending would increase in the affected region, resulting in a long-term, negligible, beneficial effect on the regional economy. The impact would be negligible due to the small magnitude of the shift in visitor spending as compared to the size of the regional tourist economy. Conversely, should the total number of in-park accommodations increase, Yosemite visitor spending would decrease in the affected region, resulting in a long-term, negligible, adverse effect on the regional economy.

Alternative 2 could result in shifts in regional employment, which would have a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on the regional economy.

Implementation of Alternative 2 could result in construction activity, which would have a short-term, negligible, beneficial impact on the regional economy.

Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of Yosemite National Park would result in a short-term, minor, beneficial impact on the regional economy due to project construction spending and employment associated with development of the cumulative projects. Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects would result in a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on the regional economy due to increased regional output and employment from expanded National Park Service in-park operations, increased access for day visitors to the park, and increasing lodging revenues and transient occupancy taxes and providing sources of income and employment for area residents.

Concessioner

Impacts

General Impacts. Under the application of management zones for Alternative 2, several facilities operated by the primary park concessioner would be inconsistent with the management zone prescriptions or the River Protection Overlay and could be relocated from the corridor or removed from the park altogether. The concession facilities that would be inconsistent under this alternative include the Valley stables (located in a 3A zone) and a small number of Housekeeping Camp units (located within the River Protection Overlay). Conservatively assuming that Alternative 2 could result in the removal of the Valley stable and the potential discontinuation of visitor lodging at a small number of the Housekeeping Camp units, this would have an adverse impact on concession revenues.

Under the current concession contract, a greater than 2% change in concession revenues would constitute a major impact for the primary park concessioner because of the high fixed costs experienced by the concessioner. This threshold provides a reasonable opportunity for net profit for the primary park concessioner in relation to capital invested and the obligations of the contract, as required by the National Park Service Concessions Management Improvement Act of 1998. Conservatively assuming the removal of all primary park concessioner facilities that would be inconsistent with the management zones, this alternative would decrease annual revenues (based on 1998 data) by about 1%, a local, short-term, moderate, adverse impact on park concession operations. The impact would be short-term because it would extend through the period of the current concession contract, which expires in 2008, after which a new contract would be negotiated. In the long-term, the impacts to the park concessioner would be unknown because the terms of the future contract are unknown.

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative socioeconomic impacts discussed herein are based on analysis of reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Yosemite region in combination with potential effects of this alternative. The cumulative projects that follow are those most relevant to concessioner operations.

• The Yosemite Valley Plan (NPS)
• The update to the Yosemite Wilderness Management Plan (NPS), which will address land management issues within the wilderness

The Yosemite Valley Plan proposes changes to park facilities that are expected to have a local, long-term, adverse impact on the primary concessioner. The adverse impact is associated with locating new employee housing outside of the Valley, and a decrease in annual concessioner profits (although the profit loss could be offset and result in the concessioner’s net profit being unaffected).

The update to the Yosemite Wilderness Management Plan (NPS) could restrict visitor use of the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp, resulting in closure of the camp to overnight lodging and a loss of revenues to the concessioner associated with providing overnight lodging services. The cumulative effect of the potential closure of Merced Lake High Sierra Camp would be a local, long-term, adverse impact on primary park concessioner revenues.

The cumulative projects would have a local, long-term, minor, adverse impact on the primary park concessioner associated with locating new employee housing outside of the Valley, a decrease annual concessioner profits (although this could be offset and result in the concessioner’s net profit being unaffected), and possible closure of Merced Lake High Sierra Camp.

Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of Yosemite National Park would result in a long-term, minor, adverse impact on the concessioner associated with locating new employee housing outside of the Valley, a decrease annual concessioner profits (although this could be offset and result in the concessioner’s net profit being unaffected), and possible closure of Merced Lake High Sierra Camp. The short-term, moderate, adverse impacts associated with the possible removal of facilities in Alternative 2 of the Merced River Plan would be partially offset by the actions proposed in the Yosemite Valley Plan.

Conclusions. The Valley stable and a portion of Housekeeping Camp would be inconsistent with the management zoning prescriptions under this alternative and could be relocated from the corridor or removed from the park altogether. Removal of such facilities from the park would constitute a short-term, moderate, adverse impact on the primary park concessioner revenues.

Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of Yosemite National Park would result in a long-term, minor, adverse impact on the primary park concessioner associated with locating new employee housing outside of the Valley, a decrease in annual concessioner profits (although this could be offset and result in the concessioner’s net profit being unaffected), and possible closure of Merced Lake High Sierra Camp. The short-term, moderate, adverse impacts associated with the possible removal of facilities in Alternative 2 of the Merced River Plan/FEIS would be partially offset by the actions proposed in the Yosemite Valley Plan.

The following discussion provides an overview of the types of impacts to park operations and facilities that could occur within each segment of the Merced River corridor from implementation of Alternative 2.

Impacts in Wilderness. The wilderness reaches of the Merced River would be zoned consistent with existing conditions and use (1A, 1B, and 1C, except at existing facilities, where the zoning would be 1D); management practices and use levels would continue to be based on the Wilderness Act and federal and Yosemite National Park wilderness policies and guidelines. The proposed zoning is not anticipated to alter visitor use patterns or facilities within wilderness reaches of the Merced River (main stem and South Fork) compared to the No Action Alternative. Consequently, the application of zoning within wilderness segments would have no effect on park operations or facilities. Development (short-term impacts) and implementation (long-term impacts) of the VERP framework for wilderness segments of the main stem and South Fork of the Merced River would require additional staff commitments, resulting in minor to moderate, adverse impacts on park operations (primarily resources management, interpretation, and protection staff).

Impacts in Yosemite Valley. The proposed zoning of Yosemite Valley in combination with the VERP framework could alter facilities, management of visitors, and restoration activities within the Merced River corridor and could increase demand on park staff and facilitates. The proposed base zone (2C) for east Yosemite Valley would be primarily intermixed with Developed Zones (3A, 3B, and 3C) and Diverse Visitor Experience Zones (2A, 2B, and 2D). Additional facilities could include roads (new or relocated), improved trails, shuttle bus stops, restrooms, picnic tables, non-motorized watercraft launch and removal facilities, and other facilities to support individual and group recreation uses and access to the river. Construction of new facilities or removal of existing facilities (e.g., potential removal of the stables consistent with the proposed zoning) would increase demands on staff in the short term during planning, construction/demolition, and restoration. Over the long term, new or rehabilitated facilities could increase or decrease the demand on park operations. For example, construction of additional campgrounds or lodging facilities would likely increase maintenance requirements (adverse impact). Conversely, repair or rehabilitation of failing facilities (e.g., roads, utilities, buildings) could decrease maintenance requirements over the long term compared to the No Action Alternative (beneficial impact).

Application of proposed management zoning under this alternative could decrease, increase, or have no net effect on overnight accommodations in Yosemite Valley (campsites or structured lodging) compared to the No Action Alternative. Although an increase or decrease in these facilities would shift the mix of park overnight visitors and day visitors (i.e., more or fewer visitors would be able to stay overnight in the park, respectively), the total number of visitors to Yosemite Valley would remain unchanged. For example, the River Protection Overlay could result in the removal of some overnight accommodation facilities (e.g., a portion of Housekeeping Camp). Removed facilities could be relocated to appropriate 3A zones within the corridor (e.g., areas adjacent to Upper Pines Campground and Camp 4 that do not currently have camping uses would be zoned 3A and could be converted to camping), to unspecified locations elsewhere in the park, or not at all. If overnight accommodation facilities were removed from the River Protection Overlay and not relocated elsewhere in the park, then the number of park overnighters likely would decrease and the number of day visitors, or more precisely, "local overnighters," would increase proportionally. Because there would be no reduction in the total number of visitors, demands on park staff would not decrease (compared to the No Action Alternative), but are expected to be redirected to other divisions. For example, reduction in the total number of overnight accommodations could reduce demand for maintenance and protection services at Valley campgrounds and lodging facilities, but could increase demand for interpretation, resource restoration, and road maintenance (e.g., visitors would need to make two trips per day between their out-of-park accommodations and park attractions, which could have a long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impact on park operations related to road maintenance). Conversely, if the total number of campsites and lodging facilities within Yosemite Valley were increased, additional visitors could be accommodated within the Merced River corridor. The increase in the total number of visitors and duration of visitor impact within the corridor would increase demand for maintenance as well as for visitor protection, resource protection, and restoration services. If those facilities were relocated from within the River Protection Overlay to locations elsewhere in the park, then the current mix of park overnighters and day visitors would be maintained, and there would be no net change in park operations compared to the No Action Alternative.

Parking spaces inconsistent with the 2B zone could be removed from the Merced River corridor. If those spaces were removed and not relocated elsewhere (and assuming no decrease in visitation), then demand for road maintenance, protection, and resources (restoration) staff could increase, as visitors unable to find an authorized place to park could circle the Valley (increasing road wear) or could decide to park in unauthorized/improper areas (increasing the need for protection and restoration). This would have a long-term, minor, adverse impact on park operations in Yosemite Valley. If parking spaces were relocated to other areas in the river corridor with a 3C zone designation (e.g., a transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility at either Taft Toe or Camp 6 in Yosemite Valley), the relocated spaces would reduce the above-described adverse effects of removing parking spaces within the river corridor. However, additional demand for facilitates maintenance would be created, resulting in a negligible to minor, adverse effect on park operations.

Potential future development of a transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility in Yosemite Valley would allow the National Park Service to more effectively manage access to the Merced River corridor. Day visitors (i.e., visitors without reservations for overnight accommodations in Yosemite Valley) would be intercepted at a traffic check station on Southside Drive near the El Capitan crossover and would be directed to the transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility (at either Taft Toe or Camp 6). Day visitors then would move between destinations in the Valley by shuttle bus, bicycle, or on foot. Shifting visitors (local overnighters and day visitors) from their private vehicles to Valley shuttle buses would redirect demand from currently affected park operations (e.g., protection) to other divisions (e.g., restoration, maintenance, and custodial services). While the number of private vehicles would be reduced, the number of shuttle buses would increase. The increased weight of shuttle buses would likely increase wear on Valley roads and require increased maintenance (a long-term, moderate, adverse impact). In addition, the zoning of lands adjacent to the potential transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility (zone 2B) would call for minimizing the adverse impacts of human presence in those parts of the river corridor. The challenge of managing the highly concentrated flow of visitors into and out of the transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility, while affording maximum protection to adjacent lands, would also be likely to increase demand on park operations services and facilities, such as restoration, protection, maintenance, and custodial services. Because of these countering factors, it is unclear whether construction of a transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility would have an overall adverse or beneficial impact on park operations and facilities.

Development of the VERP framework and its implementation within Yosemite Valley is considered to have short- and long-term, major, adverse impacts on park operations and facilities because visitor use is relatively high (is expected to remain consistent or increase), access throughout the Valley is good, and the proposed zoning would set up VERP management conflicts relative to existing and proposed uses. For example, if El Capitan Meadow (zone 2B) were managed to the desired condition (e.g., moderate to high-quality meadow habitat with low to moderate visitor encounters), demand on park operations (primarily protection and resources staff) would dramatically increase related to meadow restoration, patrolling (to discourage informal use of the meadow and informal parking), and direction of visitors to more appropriate zones (e.g., the proposed 2C picnic area at the base of El Capitan). This effect would be most pronounced during initial application of VERP management actions, while park visitors became accustomed to the new setting. Overall, the increased visitor management within Yosemite Valley would have a major, long-term, adverse impact on park operations and facilities because of the need for increased interpretive and resource protection activities to achieve desired conditions within management zones.

Impacts in the Merced River Gorge and El Portal. The gorge would be zoned (2A+, 2B, 2C, and 2D) consistent with existing conditions. Management of the 2D zone below the Cascades to its desired condition is expected to increase maintenance, protection, and interpretation services within the zone (e.g., related to litter, restrooms, parking, education) and to implement the zone boundary (e.g., between the 2D Attraction Zone and the 2B Discovery Zone), resulting in a minor, long-term, adverse effect on park operations and facilities. The remainder of the gorge is relatively inaccessible, and visitor use is unlikely to increase. Consequently, there would be no impact on park operations and facilities for the remainder of the gorge compared to the No Action Alternative.

Potential future actions (e.g., removal of Cascades Diversion Dam), or new or rehabilitated facilities (e.g., restrooms, roads) could occur consistent with the proposed management zoning and River Protection Overlay. If implemented, these future actions could create short-term, moderate, adverse impacts on park operations, facilities, resources, and planning staff related to construction/demolition. Because these potential actions would be implemented to protect resources (e.g., road repair could reduce erosion and the need for corrective maintenance), the long-term effect on park operations, facilities, maintenance, and resource staff would be minor to moderate and beneficial.

Application of the proposed Day Use (zone 2C) and Park Operations and Administration (zone 3C) zones in El Portal could decrease, increase, or have no net effect on development within El Portal compared to the No Action Alternative. An example of decreased operations is the application of the 2C zoning at the Sand Pit (currently used for construction staging and other administrative purposes). The current use of the Sand Pit would be inconsistent with the proposed 2C zoning and could be removed. Removal of facilities such as the Sand Pit would increase staff requirements in the short term (related to removal), but could decrease staff requirements over the long term (related to facility maintenance). Because the management zoning does not specify specific actions, there would be no effect on development within El Portal and no impact on park operations and facilities compared to Alternative 1. Alternatively, if the 3C zones were fully built out, the demand on park operations and facilities would dramatically increase for El Portal compared to the No Action Alternative. In the short term, resource, planning, and facility staff would be required to accommodate construction of new facilities (short-term, moderate to major, adverse impact). Over the long term, demand on protection and maintenance staff would increase proportional to development, resulting in a long-term, moderate to major, adverse impact on park operations and facilities.

Development of the VERP framework and its implementation within the gorge and El Portal is considered to have only minor to moderate, adverse impacts on park operations and facilities because visitor use is relatively low and is expected to remain relatively low due to access and topography constraints.

Impacts in Wawona. The majority of Wawona would be zoned consistent with existing conditions and would have no net effect on park operations or facilities compared to Alternative 1. Portions of existing facilities immediately adjacent to the South Fork, such as portions of Wawona Campground and the Wawona maintenance yard, would be inconsistent with the River Protection Overlay and could be removed. Demand for park operations, facilities, and resource staff would likely increase in the short term during removal (short-term, minor, adverse impact). However, the long-term effect of removal or relocation is considered only negligible to minor and adverse, because these facilities could be relocated elsewhere within the corridor or outside the corridor.

Potential future actions (e.g., removal or replacement of Wawona Bridge, construction of new restrooms) could occur consistent with the proposed management zoning and River Protection Overlay. If implemented, these future actions could create short-term, moderate, adverse impacts on park operations, facilities, resources, and planning staff related to construction/demolition. Because these potential actions would be implemented to protect resources (e.g., bridge replacement to restore the free flow of the river and decrease erosion, scour, and the need for corrective maintenance), the long-term effect on park operations, facilities, maintenance, and resource staff would be minor and beneficial.

Development of the VERP framework and its implementation within Wawona is considered to have only minor to moderate, adverse impacts (both short-term and long-term) on park operations and facilities, because visitor use is relatively low (and change in visitor use patterns for Wawona under this alternative is considered speculative) and because the proposed management zoning is designed to facilitate implementation of the VERP framework over the long term (e.g., wilderness portions of the corridor immediately adjacent to developed zones are generally zoned 1B to account for the potential conflict with adjacent visitor and land uses).

Summary Alternative 2 Impacts. In total, application of management zoning and the River Protection Overlay, in combination with development and implementation of the VERP framework, would substantially increase demand on park staff and resources. Resource and planning staff would be adversely affected in the short term by an increased need for research, planning, and monitoring to establish scientifically based indicators, standards, and monitoring protocols for the VERP framework. Over the long term, regular VERP monitoring and the implementation of VERP management actions to maintain management zones and the River Protection Overlay to their desired conditions would further increase demand on park staff and resources. Overall, implementation of VERP, in combination with other management elements proposed under Alternative 2, is anticipated to have moderate to major, short- and long-term, adverse impacts on park operations and facilities. Impacts would be most pronounced in Yosemite Valley and El Portal, where visitor use is more concentrated, but would affect the entire corridor to some degree.

Cumulative effects on park operations and facilities discussed herein are based on analysis of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the immediate Yosemite region in combination with potential effects of this alternative. The extent to which past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects could have a cumulative effect, when combined with other actions that could result under present National Park Service management strategies, is determined largely by whether such projects would affect demand for park operations services and facilities. For example, effects of projects that change the number of vehicles traveling through the park could combine with effects of the Merced River Plan to either increase or decrease the need for maintenance activities on roads and bridges. Similarly, projects that affect demand for other park operations services and facilities could also have a cumulative effect. These services include maintenance of utility systems, provision of interpretation programs, visitor protection, and resource management.

Past Actions. Park operations and facilities have been affected by numerous past National Park Service management decisions made since the inception of the park. Primary among those, when considered in relation to the potential effects of the Merced River Plan, include relocating the National Park Service maintenance shops and warehouse to El Portal (mostly adverse), removal of the hydroelectric generating plant (mostly adverse), professionalization of law enforcement staff (mostly adverse), rehabilitation of the water and electric distribution systems (mostly beneficial), improved communication systems (cell phones and radios, mostly beneficial), relocating the National Park Service wastewater treatment facility from Yosemite Valley to El Portal (mostly beneficial), and implementation of the prescribed fire program (adverse and beneficial). Overall, there is no net adverse or beneficial effect of these past actions on park operations and facilities.

Present Actions. Present actions that affect park operations and facilities include planning related to the Yosemite Valley Plan (NPS) and the El Portal Road Reconstruction Project (NPS). The Yosemite Valley Plan has substantially increased demand on resource, facility, and planning staff. The El Portal Road Reconstruction Project (NPS) is currently underway and affects park operations and facilities because the reconstruction is placing some increased demand on park operations staff.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Reasonably foreseeable future actions proposed in the region are separated below into three general categories: (1) projects anticipated to have a net beneficial effect; (2) projects anticipated to have both beneficial and adverse effects; and (3) projects anticipated to have a net adverse effect.

Projects that could have a cumulative, beneficial effect on park operations and facilities include those that could reduce the number of visitors entering the park, reduce the number or amount of facilities within the park, or reduce long-term maintenance activities. Examples of these types of projects include:

• Transportation projects including the Yosemite Valley Shuttle Bus Stop Improvements (NPS), South Fork Merced River Bridges Replacement (NPS), and Evergreen Road Improvements (multi-agency, see Appendix G)
• Several Yosemite utility projects such as, Replacement/Rehabilitation of Yosemite Valley Sewer Line, Tuolumne Meadows Water and Wastewater Improvements, White Wolf Water System Improvements, and Hodgdon Meadows Water and Wastewater Treatment Improvements (NPS), and O’Shaughnessy Compound Water System Improvements (City and Co. of San Francisco)
• Planning efforts, including the South Entrance/Mariposa Grove Site Planning (NPS), update to the Yosemite Fire Management Plan (NPS), update to the Yosemite Wilderness Management Plan (NPS), and Fire Management Action Plan for Wilderness (USFS, Stanislaus)
• Rogge-Ackerson Fire Reforestation (Tuolumne Co.)

Although each of the aforementioned projects could have short-term, adverse effects associated with planning, construction, replacement, or rehabilitation, the general goal of each of these projects is to reduce long-term maintenance. Therefore, these projects could have a long-term, beneficial, cumulative impact on park operations and facilities.

Reasonably foreseeable projects that could have mixed adverse and beneficial effects on park operations and facilities include:

• The Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS), which has a goal of increasing transportation options and reducing reliance on automobiles in the area
• Planned rehabilitation of Tamarack Campground, Yosemite Creek Campground, Hodgdon Meadow Campground, Wawona Campground Improvement, and Bridalveil Horse Camp (NPS)
• Development-related projects such as Yosemite West Rezoning Application (Mariposa Co.), Crane Flat Campus Redevelopment (NPS, YNI), Tuolumne Meadows Development Concept Plan (NPS), Resource Management Building (NPS), Expansion of Mariposa County Transit System; and University of California, Merced Campus (Merced Co.)

Cumulative effects of the campground rehabilitation projects could be mixed, combining both adverse and beneficial effects. For example, the rehabilitation of Tamarack Campground would have a short-term, adverse effect on park operations and facilities during planning and construction. Post-construction, maintenance would be reduced compared to existing conditions, resulting in a long-term, beneficial impact on park operations and facilities.

Reasonably foreseeable projects that could have an adverse effect on park operations and facilities include:

• The Yosemite Valley Plan (NPS), which would implement the goals of the 1980 General Management Plan
• Tuolumne Meadows Development Concept Plan, and Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (NPS)
• Several regional lodging projects, including Yosemite Motels, Silvertip Resort Village Project (Mariposa Co.); Tioga Inn, Lee Vining (Mono Co.), Hazel Green Ranch (Mariposa Co.); and Evergreen Lodge Expansion (multi-agency, see Appendix G)
• Merced River Canyon Trail Acquisition (BLM)
• Sierra Nevada Framework for Conservation and Collaboration (USFS)

Each of these projects would increase demand for services and facilities and add to the cumulative, adverse impact on park operations and facilities. For example, the Yosemite Valley Plan could substantially increase demand on park operations and facilities in the short term during planning, repair, rehabilitation, construction/demolition and replacement of facilities (e.g., removal of the road through Stoneman Meadow, construction of new campsites, restoration of large areas of Yosemite Valley to natural conditions).

These past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions could have adverse, cumulative effects on park operations and facilities because of the increased demand on park operations services and facilities over both the short and long term. The combined effects of Alternative 2 with other cumulative projects would result in a long-term, major, adverse impact on park operations and facilities because of the increased demand on park operations services and facilities resulting from these projects.

Application of management zoning and the River Protection Overlay, in combination with development and implementation of the VERP framework, could substantially increase demand on park staff and resources. Resource and planning staff would be adversely affected in the short term by an increased need for research, planning, and monitoring to establish scientifically based indicators, standards, and monitoring protocols related to the development of the VERP framework. Over the long term, regular VERP monitoring and the implementation of VERP management actions to maintain management zones and the River Protection Overlay to their desired conditions would further increase demand on park staff and resources. Overall, implementation of VERP, in combination with other management elements proposed under Alternative 2, is anticipated to have moderate to major, short- and long-term, adverse impacts on park operations and facilities. Impacts would be most pronounced in Yosemite Valley and El Portal, where visitor use is more concentrated, but would affect the entire corridor to some degree.

The combined effects of Alternative 2 with other cumulative projects would result in a long-term, major, adverse impact on park operations and facilities because of the increased demand on park operations services and facilities resulting from these projects.

Under Alternative 2, a framework for decision-making on future management actions within the Merced River corridor would be provided. This would be accomplished through the application of a consistent set of decision-making criteria and considerations composed of seven management elements: boundaries, classifications, updated Outstandingly Remarkable Values, the Section 7 determination process, management zoning, the River Protection Overlay, and the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) framework.

The application of the River Protection Overlay could allow for the removal of human-made obstructions to the free-flowing condition of the river. If one or more of the historic bridges considered to be an obstruction to the free flow condition of the river were removed, then this would constitute an unavoidable adverse effect.

Development of the VERP framework and its implementation within Yosemite Valley is considered to have an unavoidable adverse effect on park operations and facilities, because visitor use is relatively high (is expected to remain consistent or increase), access throughout the Valley is good, and the proposed zoning would set up VERP management conflicts relative to existing and proposed uses. This effect would be most pronounced during initial application of VERP management actions, while park visitors became accustomed to the new setting. Overall, the increased visitor management within Yosemite Valley would have a unavoidable adverse effect on park operations and facilities because of the need for increased interpretive and resource protection activities to achieve desired conditions within management zones.

This section identifies any resources that would be lost either temporarily or permanently as a result of Alternative 2. This alternative provides a framework for decision-making on future management actions within the Merced River corridor. This would be accomplished through the application of a consistent set of decision-making criteria and considerations composed of seven management elements: boundaries, classifications, updated Outstandingly Remarkable Values, the Section 7 determination process, management zoning, the River Protection Overlay, and the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) framework.

The application of the River Protection Overlay could allow for the enhancement of natural resources in the river corridor. Therefore, no natural resources would be irreversibly or irretrievably committed as a result of Alternative 2.

The application of the River Protection Overlay provides for the possibility of removing human-made obstructions, which include historic bridges, within the river corridor. If any historic bridges were removed, then the loss of this cultural landscape resource would be permanent and irreversible.

If relocation of existing facilities and/or the development of new facilities within the river corridor occurred as a result of the management zoning designations under Alternative 2, then this would result in the expenditure of energy to relocate or develop the facility. In addition, if the relocation of existing facilities and/or the construction of new facilities occurred, then there would be an irreversible commitment of materials, such as concrete, asphalt, wood, and metal, that would be used in relocation or construction activities.

This section compares the short- and long-term environmental effects of Alternative 2.

Under Alternative 2, a framework for decision-making on future management actions within the Merced River corridor would be provided. This would be accomplished through the application of a consistent set of decision-making criteria and considerations composed of seven management elements: boundaries, classifications, updated Outstandingly Remarkable Values, the Section 7 determination process, management zoning, the River Protection Overlay, and the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) framework. The application of the River Protection Overlay could have short-term adverse impacts and long-term beneficial impacts. Short-term impacts could occur if obstructions in the river were removed and streambanks along the river were restored. These actions could temporarily adversely affect biological resources along the river, including vegetation and wildlife, as well as water quality. In the long term, if streambank restoration and obstruction removal occurred, then this would enhance the free-flowing condition of the river and natural resource Outstandingly Remarkable Values (e.g., biological, hydrologic processes, etc.). The intensity of the impact would depend on the level of streambank restoration and the number of obstructions removed. Also in the long term, benefits could occur to floodplains if the river were restored to natural geomorphic conditions, to water quality if human interaction with the river were limited, and to biological resources if wetland habitat for plant and animal species were restored.

The 3C management zone under Alternative 2 could allow for the development of a transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility at either Taft Toe or Camp 6. If the transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility were constructed, then localized air quality, noise, cultural resource, and natural resource impacts could occur. In addition, if the transit center and/or day-visitor parking facility were constructed, then a long-term benefit to the park could occur through the reduction of traffic congestion, the improvement of local air quality in the Valley, and the provision of a more structured visitor experience in accessing the river corridor.