Main | Superintendent's Letter | Abstract | Executive Summary | Table of Contents | Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3
Chapter 4 | Chapter 5 | Chapter 6 | Chapter 7 | Chapter 8 | Chapter 9 | Tables | Figures | Appendices

Chapter 4
Environmental Consequences
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Introduction

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that environmental assessments disclose the environmental impacts of a proposed federal action, reasonable alternatives to that action, and any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed action is implemented. This chapter presents analyses of potential environmental impacts on natural, cultural, and social resources. The analyses provide the basis for comparing the effects of the three alternatives described in Chapter 2.

Methodologies

The methodologies used to conduct the environmental impact analyses are presented in this section. Methodologies are provided for project impacts as well as for cumulative impacts and impairment to park resources. Methodologies and assumptions common to all resource topic areas are presented first, followed by methodologies specific to individual resource topic areas.

Each resource topic includes a discussion of the project impacts and the duration, intensity, and type of each impact. These impact criteria are defined below.

• Duration – whether the impact would occur in the short term (temporary) or the long term (permanent).
  
• Intensity – whether the impact would be negligible, minor, moderate, or major.
  
• Type – whether the impact would be beneficial or adverse to the natural, cultural, or social environment.

Impacts are also considered in the context of whether they would be limited to the local setting or regional setting (see Chapter 3). In this analysis, local setting impacts would be those that occur within the Lower Yosemite Fall area. Regional impacts (i.e., those that would occur within Yosemite Valley), when viewed in combination with direct impacts of this project, are considered cumulative impacts.

The National Park Service is committed to the protection of wetlands. The wetland protection statutes that guide the National Park Service include Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands; Director’s Order #77-1 (see Appendix A for further discussion), Wetland Protection, and its accompanying Procedural Manual #77-1; Clean Water Act Section 404; and the "no net loss" goal outlined by the White House Office on Environmental Policy in 1993. Executive Order 11990 requires that leadership be provided by involved agencies to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands. The National Park Service’s Director’s Order #77-1 and Procedural Manual #77-1 provide specific procedures for carrying out the Executive Order.

Wetlands in the Lower Yosemite Fall area were delineated and mapped in the field during the spring of 2001 to two standards: Cowardin wetlands and jurisdictional wetlands. Cowardin wetlands are used as the basis for analysis under National Park Service Wetland Protection Guidelines. Jurisdictional wetlands are used as a basis for analysis under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Wetland data were compared to each alternative to determine the area that would potentially be effected by the proposed project alternative. For wetlands, the area of potential effect is areas identified as having Cowardin and jurisdictional wetlands.

Duration of Impact. A short-term impact is defined as lasting less than 20 years following the implementation of an alternative. A long-term impact is defined as lasting longer than 20 years after implementation of an alternative.

Intensity of Impact. Three primary measures were used to evaluate the intensity of impacts on wetlands: the size and type of the wetland, the integrity of the wetland, and the connectivity of the wetland to adjacent habitats. The greater the size of a wetland and the strength of its linkages with neighboring ecological communities, the more valuable a wetland is for the integrity and maintenance of biotic and abiotic processes. The intensity of impacts has been described as negligible, minor, moderate, or major. Negligible impacts would be imperceptible or not detectable. Minor impacts would be slightly detectable, localized within a small area, and would not affect the overall viability of wetlands in the park. Moderate impacts would be apparent and have the potential to become major impacts. Major impacts would be substantial, highly noticeable, and could be permanent.

Type of Impact. Adverse impacts are those that would degrade the size, integrity, or connectivity of wetlands. Conversely, beneficial impacts would enlarge or enhance the size, integrity, and connectivity of wetlands.

The impact analysis for geology, geologic hazards, and soils focused on effects that geologic processes in Yosemite National Park would have on visitors, personnel, and facilities under each project alternative. Geologic processes can negatively affect visitors, personnel, and facilities when events such as rockfalls, earthquakes, and severe soil instability result in injury, death, or damage to facilities. The assessment also focused on effects the project alternatives would have on geologic processes—specifically, the formation and conservation of soil resources. Actions prescribed for the Lower Yosemite Fall Project could affect soil resources through accelerated erosion, soil loss, or soil removal.

Geologic risks that affect public safety are rarely predictable, and the extent to which they may affect people and property cannot be quantified. Analysis of effects was qualitative, and professional judgment has been applied to reach reasonable conclusions as to the context, duration, intensity, and type of potential impacts (see the Yosemite Valley Geologic Hazard Guideline in Appendix C of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS).

Duration of Impact. Rockfall hazards would likely be long-term and permanent. The potential for rockfall is ongoing, as this natural process continues to occur in Yosemite Valley. Short-term impacts on soils would be those that could be restored when project construction is completed and are considered as those lasting 20 years or less. Long-term impacts would be considered as those lasting over 20 years.

Intensity of Impact. The intensity of an impact was based on its location within the Valley. The intensity of the impact would be negligible if facilities of any kind are located outside geologic hazard zones. The intensity of the impact would be considered a minor risk if standard occupancy and miscellaneous facilities are within the rockfall shadow zone. The intensity of the impact would be moderate if essential, hazardous, and special occupancy facilities are within the rockfall shadow zone, or standard occupancy and miscellaneous facilities are within the talus slope zone. The intensity of the impact would be considered major if essential, hazardous, and special occupancy facilities are within the talus slope zone. For soils, impact intensities are related to soil type, history of disturbance, and scale of measurability.

Type of Impact. All rockfall events are potentially hazardous. The type of impact is related to risk, and it is difficult to estimate risk involving natural events. In general, reducing risk is considered a beneficial impact. The type of impact would be considered beneficial if there would be a decrease in both the density of individuals and facilities from the talus slope zone; this includes moving them into the rockfall shadow zone, a zone of lower risk. It would also be considered beneficial if there would be a decrease in both the density of individuals and facilities from the rockfall shadow zone. Beneficial impacts to soils would be those that contribute to protecting or restoring natural soil conditions, including abiotic and biotic components, soils structure, and moisture. Adverse impacts would result in degradation of chemical, physical, abiotic, or biotic soil components.

Generally, maintaining facilities within or moving facilities into a zone of higher risk or exposing people to greater levels of risk was considered adverse. Specifically, the type of impact would be considered adverse if (1) essential and hazardous occupancy facilities remain in or are placed in the talus slope and rockfall shadow zones; or (2) special occupancy facilities remain or are placed in the talus slope zone.

This analysis focused on how the action alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3), relative to the No Action Alternative, would affect hydrologic processes during project construction and operation. The hydrology impact assessment evaluates how construction activities, particularly on trails and bridges, would affect channel morphology, flooding, and water quality. Hydrology impacts were evaluated in terms of their context, duration, and intensity, and whether the impacts were considered to be beneficial or adverse.

The analysis examined potential changes to channel morphology (channel depth, position, and streamflow) as a result of actions in the alternatives. The analysis identified potential effects on water quality associated with construction operations, such as the location of construction staging areas near the braided stream channel and use of heavy equipment during construction.

Duration of Impact. Short-term impacts occur during the alternative’s implementation and are usually less than 2 years in duration (e.g., construction projects). Long-term impacts remain after the alternative has been implemented and are usually longer than 2 years in duration. Since the full implementation of an alternative would take place over a number of years, this section frequently assesses the duration of individual actions of the alternative (e.g., removal of a bridge) instead of full implementation of the alternative.

Intensity of Impact. Negligible impacts would be imperceptible or not detectable. Minor impacts would be slightly perceptible and localized, without the potential to expand if left alone. Moderate impacts would be apparent and have the potential to become larger. Major impacts would be substantial, highly noticeable, and may be permanent.

Type of Impact. Adverse impacts alter natural hydrologic conditions (e.g., impede flood flows, cause unnatural erosion or deposition, etc.) or degrade water quality (e.g., increase pollution or bacteria levels from recreational use). Beneficial impacts are those that restore natural hydrologic conditions (e.g., remove impediments to flood flows, stabilize riverbanks, etc.) or improve water quality (e.g., reduce non-point source pollution).

The analysis qualitatively analyzed the health and safety impacts to persons as well as potential property damage that would be caused by minor changes in the floodplain of the Merced River and its tributaries, as well as structures within the floodplain. The source of these minor changes includes the following: trail alignments, bridge rehabilitation and construction, restroom demolition and construction, and replacement of the parking area with either a seating area or a picnic area.

Duration of Impact. Short-term impacts (e.g., construction) would be those that occur over a period of less than 1 year. Long-term impacts would be those occurring for more than 1 year. All the impacts evaluated would be considered long term. The risk posed to construction personnel working in the floodplain (short term) was considered too small to warrant evaluation.

Intensity of Impact. Beneficial and adverse impacts of individual actions in each alternative were assigned intensities as they relate to effects on life/safety and property in the floodplain.

Definitions of impact intensities are provided in table 4-1.

Type of Impact. In the context of evaluating impacts of each alternative by evaluating risk to human life and property, removing structures from the 100-year floodplain was considered a beneficial impact to human life or property. Development of new Class I or Class II actions (non-exempted facilities) in the 100-year floodplain was considered an adverse impact to human life or property.

Two primary parameters were used to evaluate the intensity of impacts on vegetation: (1) the size and continuity of the plant community, and (2) the natural structure, productivity, diversity (integrity), and rarity of the plant community.

Other not-so-visible impacts (such as encroachment of wetland habitats by non-native species) would continue to be managed by the National Park Service in conjunction with National Park Service programs involved in the protection and long-term management of the park’s vegetative resources.

Duration of Impact. Long-term impacts have been defined as those that can be detected for longer than 20 years. Short-term impacts have been defined as those lasting less than 20 years.

Intensity of Impact. Negligible impacts would have no measurable or perceptible changes in plant community size, integrity, or continuity. Minor impacts would be measurable or perceptible and localized within a relatively small area. This means the overall viability of the plant community would not be affected. Moderate impacts would cause a change in the plant community (e.g., size, integrity, and continuity); however, the impact would remain localized. The change would be measurable and perceptible, but could be reversed. Major impacts would be substantial, highly noticeable, and could be permanent in their effect on plant community size, integrity, continuity, productivity, and structure.

Type of Impact. Impacts were classified as adverse if they would reduce the size, continuity, or integrity of a plant community. Conversely, impacts were classified as beneficial if they would increase the size, continuity, or integrity of a plant community.

The effects that the alternatives would have on wildlife and their habitat are addressed by considering the effects of alternatives on wildlife habitat as represented by general vegetation types. A description of how vegetation impacts would affect wildlife is provided.

Impacts on wildlife have been assessed in terms of changes in the amount and distribution of wildlife habitat, the size and connectivity of habitat, the integrity of the site (including past disturbance), the potential for habituation of wildlife to humans, and the relative importance of habitats.

Duration of Impact. Long-term impacts are defined as those lasting 20 years or longer. Short-term impacts would be expected to last for less than 20 years. All short-term impacts to wildlife and habitat from implementation of an alternative would relate to construction activities and their immediate effects on wildlife. These impacts would end with cessation of construction activity, or soon thereafter, and include the following:

• Noise, dust, and light emanating from construction sites could affect the use of surrounding habitats by wildlife.
  
• Vegetation removed, trampled, or run-over during temporary use of some habitat as areas for staging of machinery or materials would affect wildlife until such areas could be restored after the project.
  
• Diversion of water flows during construction would result in unnatural drying or wetting of habitats adjacent to sites.
  
• Wildlife could be injured or killed by traffic or machinery associated with construction.
  
• Pits and trenches could entrap wildlife, resulting in their death. Spills of fuel, oil, hydraulic fluid, antifreeze, and other toxic chemicals could affect wildlife, especially those in aquatic environments.
  
• Construction personnel, at in-park residences or at work sites, could provide human food to wildlife, resulting in conditioning of wildlife and human/wildlife conflicts.

Subsequent impact analyses focused primarily on long-term effects of implementation of the alternatives.

Intensity of Impact. Negligible impacts are impacts that would not be measurable or perceptible. Minor impacts would be measurable or perceptible and would be localized within a relatively small area; however, the overall viability of the resource would not be affected. Without further impacts, negative effects would be reversed, and the resource would recover. Moderate impacts would be sufficient to cause a change in the resource (e.g., abundance, distribution, quantity, or quality); however, the impact would remain localized. The change would be measurable and perceptible, but negative effects could be reversed. Major impacts would be substantial, highly noticeable, and could be permanent.

Type of Impact. Impacts were classified as adverse if they would negatively affect the size, continuity, or integrity of wildlife habitat. Conversely, impacts were classified as beneficial if they would positively affect the size, continuity, or integrity of wildlife habitat.

The National Park Service compiled a list of potential special-status species with potential habitat in the Lower Yosemite Fall area from three main sources: (1) a list of federal endangered and threatened species that may be affected, provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (2) species listed under the California Endangered Species Act or considered rare or sensitive by the California Department of Fish and Game, and (3) park rare plant species identified by the National Park Service. Almost 60 special-status species on this compiled list were evaluated for presence or potential habitat within the Lower Yosemite Fall area (see Appendix B). All species except bald eagle, American peregrine falcon, Wawona riffle beetle, harlequin duck, and special-status bats were found to be absent in the Lower Yosemite Fall area, and are not subject to further analysis in this chapter.

The impact evaluation for special-status wildlife species for each alternative was based on the following: (1) the possibility of a species or its preferred habitat types occurring in areas that may be affected, (2) the direct loss of habitat or individuals, (3) the partial loss of habitat from its modification, and (4) the species’ sensitivity to disturbance from human activities that may cause it to abandon currently occupied habitat or deter it from occupying suitable habitat.

Impacts have been evaluated considering species’ sensitivity to impacts (based on rarity, resilience, size of population, and extent of species throughout the park); location of species in proximity to new disturbance; and mitigation measures applied as appropriate for the species and the site.

Duration of Impact. The expected duration of impacts is described as long-term or short-term. Long-term impacts are defined as those that would last 20 years or longer, and short-term impacts are those that would last less than 20 years.

Intensity of Impact. The intensity and magnitude of impacts on special-status vegetation and wildlife species are described as negligible, minor, moderate, or major. Negligible impacts would be imperceptible or not detectable. Minor impacts would be slightly detectable, localized within a relatively small area, and not affect the overall viability of resources in the park; without further impacts, adverse effects would be reversed, and the resource would recover. Moderate impacts would be sufficient to cause a change in the resource (e.g., abundance, distribution, quantity, or quality), but would remain localized; they would be readily apparent. Major impacts would be substantial, highly noticeable, and affect larger areas.

Type of Impact. Impacts were classified as adverse if they would negatively affect individuals of federally listed species or the species population size, or habitat size, continuity, or integrity. Conversely, impacts were classified as beneficial if they would positively affect individuals of federally listed species or species population size, or the size, continuity, or integrity of habitat.

The air quality impact assessment evaluates how construction activities would affect air pollutant emissions and concentrations. Air quality impacts were evaluated in terms of their duration, intensity, and type, and whether the impacts were considered to be beneficial or adverse.

The air quality impact assessment involved the identification and qualitative description of the types of activities associated with the Lower Yosemite Fall Project that could affect air quality. A qualitative assessment was performed to evaluate the potential for higher pollutant emissions or concentrations, taking into account the frequency, magnitude, duration, location, and reversibility of the potential impact. In addition, regional pollutant sources and transport issues were evaluated in the context of regional cumulative impacts.

Duration of Impact. For this analysis, short-term impacts would be associated with construction and demolition activities that are temporary in nature, while vehicle emissions were quantified for a 15-year (2000-2015) time period and assumed to continue beyond 2015.

Intensity of Impact. The intensity of an impact was assessed based on whether the impact is judged to be negligible, minor, moderate, or major relative to Alternative 1. For this analysis, impacts that would increase or decrease air emissions or pollutant concentrations by 5% or less would be negligible; by 5% to 20% would be minor; by 21% to 50% would be moderate; by more than 50% would be major.

Type of Impact. Impacts were considered to be beneficial or adverse to air quality. Beneficial air quality impacts would reduce emissions or lower pollutant concentrations, while adverse impacts would increase emissions or raise pollutant concentrations.

The noise impact assessment involved the identification and description of the types of actions that could affect the ambient noise environment, corresponding noise sources, relative source strengths, and other characteristics. Based on the relative source strengths, a qualitative assessment was performed to evaluate the potential for a substantial increase in ambient noise levels. Assessments were also performed where noise-sensitive uses are located or would expose persons to excessive noise levels, taking into account the frequency, magnitude, duration, location, and reversibility of the potential impact.

Duration of Impact. Long-term impacts have a permanent effect on the ambient noise environment (visitor and operational activity). Short-term impacts are temporary in duration and would be associated with transitional types of impacts (construction activity is usually a short-term impact).

Intensity of Impact. Negligible impacts would not be detectable. Minor impacts would be slightly detectable in proximity to the source, but would not be expected to have an appreciable effect on ambient noise levels. Moderate impacts would be clearly detectable and could have an appreciable effect on ambient noise levels; moderate adverse impacts may include introduction of noise associated with an activity or facility into an area with little or no ambient noise. Major impacts would be clearly audible against ambient noise levels, or would have a substantial, highly noticeable effect on ambient noise levels.

Type of Impact. Beneficial impacts are those impacts that would result in less noise, and adverse impacts are those impacts that would result in more noise.

This impact analysis methodology applies to three basic types of cultural resources: archeological sites, ethnographic resources, and cultural landscape resources (including individually significant historic structures).

Cultural resource impacts in this document are described in terminology consistent with the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality, and in compliance with the requirements of both the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

The National Historic Preservation Act requires determinations of no effect or effect, and where there would be an effect, a determination as to whether that effect would be adverse or not adverse. Archeological resources are typically considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places because of the information they have or may be likely to yield. Intensity of impacts to archeological resources relates to the importance of the information they contain and the extent of disturbance or degradation.

Council on Environmental Quality regulations call for a discussion of the "appropriateness" of mitigation, and Director’s Order 12 (Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis and Decision-Making; see Appendix A for further discussion) requires an analysis of the "effect" of mitigation. The reduction in intensity that would result from mitigation is an estimate of the effectiveness of mitigation under NEPA. It does not suggest that the level of effect as determined by Section 106 would be similarly reduced. Although adverse effects under Section 106 may be mitigated, the effect would remain adverse.

Mitigation for NEPA purposes in this environmental assessment is based on the park’s 1999 Programmatic Agreement and includes avoidance of adverse effects or application of one or more standard mitigation measures, described in stipulation VIII(A) of this agreement. According to stipulation VII(C) of the 1999 Programmatic Agreement, impacts to archeological resources are considered not adverse for purposes of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act if data recovery is carried out in accordance with the 1999 research design. Under the revised regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation of May 18, 1999 (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 800, Protection of Historic Properties, Final Rule and Notice), data recovery is considered to be an adverse effect. However, according to Part 800.3(A)(2) of those revised regulations, provisions of programmatic agreements in existence at the effective date of the new regulations remain in effect. Therefore, archeological data recovery excavations are not considered adverse effects.

Section 106 Summary. Under regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 CFR 800.9) addressing the criteria of effect and adverse effect, actions proposed under the action alternatives would have the potential to adversely affect significant historic properties. Ethnographic resources would be disturbed or destroyed by construction occurring in traditional plant-gathering areas, historic village sites, and/or places holding special sacred and spiritual significance to American Indians. Historic sites, structures, districts, and cultural landscape features would also be adversely affected by undertakings entailing substantial facility alteration or removal, or the introduction of modern non-contributing development within or in proximity to historic districts and sensitive landscape areas. To mitigate adverse effects, the park would utilize compatible design principles, carry out Historic Architectural Building Survey/Historic Architectural and Engineering Record documentation, salvage historic materials, develop cooperative agreement provisions for traditional plant gathering, or other suitable mitigation in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement.

Many archeological resources having varied potential to yield prehistoric and historic information would be affected by ground-disturbing activities. To avoid adverse effects to archeological resources, the park would carry out data recovery to retrieve important information, in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement.

The restoration of vegetation contributing to historic settings and the cultural landscape, and the removal of non-contributing structures and landscape elements also would have no adverse effect on historic properties. Rehabilitation would be carried out in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (USDOI 1983).

For project areas lacking sufficient cultural resource data or design information to adequately assess effects, the park would carry out inventories, evaluate identified resources for national register significance, consult according to the stipulations of the Programmatic Agreement, and recommend avoidance or appropriate treatment/standard mitigation measures prior to construction disturbance.

Duration of Impact. Impacts to archeological resources could be of short-term, long-term, or permanent duration.

Type of Impact. Any change in the physical attributes of an archeological site is irreparable and considered adverse and of permanent duration. Adverse impacts to archeological resources most often occur as a result of earthmoving activities within an archeological site area, soil compaction or increased erosion, unauthorized surface collection, or vandalism. Beneficial impacts to archeological resources can occur when patterns of visitor use or management action are changed in the vicinity of archeological resources such that an ongoing impact, which would otherwise continue to degrade archeological resources, is reduced or arrested.

Intensity of Impact. The intensity of impact to an archeological resource would depend upon the potential of the resource to yield important information, as well as the extent of the physical disturbance or degradation. For example, major earthmoving at an archeological site with low data potential might result in a minor, adverse impact. Negligible impacts would be barely perceptible and not measurable, and would usually be confined to archeological sites with low data potential. Minor impacts would be perceptible and measurable, and would remain localized and confined to archeological site(s) with low to moderate data potential. Moderate impacts would be sufficient to cause a noticeable change, and would generally involve one or more archeological sites with moderate to high data potential. Major impacts would result in substantial and highly noticeable changes, involving archeological site(s) with high data potential.

Duration of Impact. Impacts are considered short term if they represent a temporary change in important vegetation or temporarily restrict access to an important resource, and do not disrupt the cultural traditions associated with that resource for a noticeable period of time. They are considered long term if they involve a change in important vegetation or cultural feature, or addition of a new facility or visitor use that would change the physical character of or access to a resource for a noticeable period of time. This period of time would vary by resource type and traditional practitioners. These long-term changes would disrupt cultural tradition(s) associated with the affected resource, but the disruption would not alter traditional activities to the extent that the important cultural traditions associated with the resource are lost. Permanent impacts to ethnographic resources would involve irreversible changes in important resources such that the ongoing cultural traditions associated with those resources are lost.

Type of Impact. Impacts to ethnographic resources occur as a result of changes in the physical characteristics, access to, or use of resources, such that the cultural traditions associated with those resources are changed or lost. Beneficial impacts can occur when intrusive facilities, or visitor or management activities are removed from a traditional use area; when ecological conditions are improved at a gathering area such that the traditionally used resource is enhanced; or when access for American Indian people is enhanced. Adverse impacts occur when physical changes to a traditionally used resource or its setting degrade the resource itself, or degrade access to or use of a resource.

Intensity of Impact. The intensity of impacts to an ethnographic resource would depend on the importance of the resource to an ongoing cultural tradition, as well as the extent of physical damage or change. Negligible impacts would be barely perceptible and not measurable, and would be confined to a small area or single contributing element of a larger National Register district (such as the ethnographic landscape in Yosemite Valley). Minor impacts would be perceptible and measurable, and would remain localized and confined to a single contributing element of a larger National Register district. Moderate impacts would be sufficient to cause a change in a significant characteristic of a National Register district or property, and/or would generally involve a small group of contributing elements in a larger National Register district. Major impacts would result in substantial and highly noticeable changes in significant characteristics of a National Register district or property, and/or would involve a large group of contributing elements in a larger National Register district and/or an individually significant property.

Duration of Impact. Impacts to cultural landscape resources are considered short term if they involve activities such as temporary removal of vegetation or other contributing resources, road closures, or prescribed burns, where the impacts are noticeable for a period of from 1 to 5 years. Other examples of short-term impacts to historic structures include constructing scaffolding surrounding a building during rehabilitation work, or minor deterioration in historic fabric that is repairable as part of routine maintenance and upkeep. Impacts are considered long term if they involve a reversible change, lasting from 5 to 20 years, in a significant characteristic of a historic structure or landscape. Permanent impacts to a historic structure or landscape resources would include irreversible changes in significant characteristics, such as removal of contributing resources; restoration of natural systems and features; irreversible removal of historic fabric that changes the historic character of a property; or demolition of a historic structure.

Type of Impact. Impacts to cultural landscape resources result from physical changes to significant characteristics of a resource or its setting. Beneficial impacts can occur as a result of restoration or rehabilitation of resources, or removal of incompatible or noncontributing facilities. Adverse impacts generally occur as a result of modifying a significant characteristic of a historic structure or landscape resource; removal of a significant structure or landscape resource; or addition of new, incompatible facilities in proximity to a historic site or structure.

Intensity of Impact. Negligible impacts would be barely perceptible and not measurable and would be confined to small areas or a single contributing element of a larger National Register district. Minor impacts would be perceptible and measurable but remain localized and confined to a single contributing element of a larger National Register district. Moderate impacts would be sufficient to cause a change in a significant characteristic of an individually significant historic structure, or would generally involve a single or small group of contributing elements in a larger National Register district. Major impacts would result from substantial and highly noticeable changes in significant characteristics of an individually significant historic structure, or would involve a large group of contributing elements in a National Register district.

The overriding management purpose of any national park, as defined by the National Park Service 1916 Organic Act, is to conserve the scenery and natural and historic objects. Following this direction, the National Park Service evaluated impacts on scenic resources by examining the potential effects of the Lower Yosemite Fall Project on the landscape character and/or features.

Impacts of the Lower Yosemite Fall Project on visual resources were examined and assessed by comparing the existing visual character of the landscape components and features and the degree to which actions that may result from the Lower Yosemite Fall Project would affect (i.e., contrast or conform with) these components and features.

Potential impacts to scenic resources consist of substantial changes that would alter (1) existing landscape character, whether foreground, intermediate ground, or background, and would be visible from viewing areas the National Park Service has established as important or (2) access to historically important viewing areas.

Duration of Impact. The duration of the impacts considers whether the impact would be short-term or long-term. A short-term impact would be short-lived or temporary due to construction, restoration, or demolition activities, and a long-term impact would be permanent and continual.

Intensity of Impact. The magnitude of impacts to the scenery within the view from specific vantage points and to specific scenic features is described as negligible, minor, moderate, or major depending upon their comparison to scenic categories presented in table 3-14 of the Yosemite Valley Plan (Vol. Ia, Chapter 3, page 3-69), and as described below.

• Negligible impacts would be imperceptible or not detectable.
  
• For the A Scenic category, minor impacts would be slightly detectable or localized within a relatively small area. For the B Scenic category, minor impacts would be slightly detectable, localized within a relatively small area, or readily apparent.
  
• For the A Scenic category, moderate impacts would be those that are readily apparent. For the B Scenic category, moderate impacts would be substantial, highly noticeable, and/or result in changing the character of the landscape.
  
• For the A Scenic category, major impacts would be substantial, highly noticeable, and/or result in changing the character of the landscape. For the B Scenic category, major impacts would be substantial, highly noticeable, and/or result in changing the character of the landscape by adding human-made features to a mostly undisturbed area or by removing most human-made features from a developed area.

Analysis of impacts to the Merced Wild and Scenic River’s scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Values can be found in Chapter 5 of this environmental assessment.

Type of Impact. All actions proposed in each alternative were analyzed using a geographic information system to evaluate the net change in each of the scenic categories (A, B, and C). This approach assesses the acreage of scenic categories A, B, and C that would be improved by the removal of development and restoration to natural communities, or affected by new development. Impacts were considered beneficial if they would decrease the number of acres disturbed within A and B Scenic resource categories, and considered adverse if actions within each alternative would increase the number of human-caused visual intrusions in these categories. Impacts were also considered beneficial if the quality of the visual experience would be improved, and adverse if the visual quality would be degraded. No C Scenic resources would be altered by any of the alternatives.

Impacts on visitor experience may occur as a result of changes to road circulation, interpretation facilities, trails, and other facilities and resources that contribute to the type and quality of the visit to Yosemite National Park. Impacts may also occur from direct actions, thereby altering the availability of a specific experience or activity.

Visitor experience is also directly affected by actions influencing natural resources such as air quality, scenic resources, and cultural resources. Though impacts to these resources are not repeated in the analysis of visitor experience, enhancement or degradation of these resources also enhances or degrades the quality of the visitor experience.

Impacts on visitor experience have been assessed using professional judgment to develop a qualitative analysis of the effects of actions to the Lower Yosemite Fall area. These conclusions have been considered in combination with data on the proportion, when known, of visitors who participate in different activities while in the park. Anticipated changes in visitor participation would represent an effect.

Duration of Impact. A short-term impact on visitor experiences would be temporary in duration because construction, restoration, or demolition activities would be temporary. A long-term impact would have a permanent effect on the visitor experience.

Intensity of Impact. The intensity of impacts are defined as negligible, minor, moderate, and major. Negligible impacts would result in little noticeable change in visitor experience. Minor impacts would result in changes in desired experiences but without appreciably limiting or enhancing critical characteristics. (Critical characteristics are those elements of a recreational activity that are most important to those who pursue it; for example, it may be important to picnickers to be able to drive to a picnic site.) Moderate impacts would change the desired experience appreciably, (i.e., changes one or more critical characteristics, or appreciably reduces/increases number of participants). Major impacts would eliminate or greatly enhance multiple critical characteristics or greatly reduce/increase participation.

Type of Impact. Impacts were evaluated in terms of whether they would be beneficial or adverse to visitor experience. Beneficial impacts would enhance visitor participation, quality of visitor experience, and service level. Adverse impacts would be effects that reduce visitor participation, quality of visitor experience, and service level.

For purposes of this analysis, an alternative is assumed to have an impact (adverse or beneficial) on park operations and facilities if it would:

• Result in direct changes to park operations, facilities, or staffing requirements or policies associated with park operations.
  
• Cause indirect effects on park operations, facilities, or staffing, such as effects on utility and roadway infrastructure, flooding, and impacts on provision of utilities, especially potable water and sewer services.

Duration of Impact. Short-term impacts would last only until all action items are completed. Long-term impacts would have a permanent effect on operations.

Intensity of Impact. With negligible impacts, there would not be a measurable difference in staffing compared to existing requirements. With minor impacts, measurable additions or reductions in staffing would be less than 15% of existing requirements. With moderate impacts, additions or reductions in staffing would be between 15% and 30% of existing requirements. With major impacts, additions or reductions in staffing would exceed 30% of existing requirements.

Type of Impact. Adverse impacts represent an increase in staffing requirements. Beneficial impacts represent a decrease in staffing requirements.

Yosemite National Park offers a broad spectrum of recreational opportunities. In addition, every visitor to Yosemite brings unique expectations, and thus each has a unique experience. The environmental assessment identifies, where possible, how the opportunity for recreation would change as a result of the Lower Yosemite Fall Project.

Duration of Impact. A short-term impact on visitor experiences would be temporary in duration and result from construction, restoration, or demolition activities. A long-term impact would have a permanent effect on the visitor experience.

Intensity of Impact. The intensity of impacts are defined as negligible, minor, moderate, and major. Negligible impacts would result in little noticeable change in recreational opportunities. Minor impacts would result in changes in desired recreational opportunities but without appreciably limiting or enhancing critical characteristics. (Critical characteristics are those elements of a recreational activity that are most important to those who pursue it; for example, it may be important to picnickers to be able to drive to a picnic site.) Moderate impacts would change the desired recreational opportunity appreciably (i.e., changes one or more critical characteristics, or appreciably reduces/increases number of participants). Major impacts would eliminate or greatly enhance multiple critical characteristics or greatly reduce/increase participation.

Size of user groups was defined based on a percentage of visitors who participate in a recreational activity in Yosemite Valley:

• Small; less than 1% of visitors, unless Yosemite Valley is a principal destination for this activity that cannot be replaced at other destinations, which moves user group to moderate.
  
• Moderate; 1% to 5% of visitors
  
• Moderately large; 6% to 19% of visitors
  
• Large; 20% to 49% of visitors
  
• Majority; 50% to 74% of visitors
  
• Most; 75% or more of visitors to Yosemite Valley.

Type of Impact. Impacts were evaluated in terms of whether they would be beneficial or adverse to recreation. Beneficial impacts would enhance recreational participation, quality or recreational opportunity. Adverse impacts would be effects that reduce recreational participation, quality of recreational opportunity, and service level.

To evaluate the changes in traffic volumes that would be generated by additional internal bus circulation, internal bus circulation volumes were compared qualitatively with traffic volumes under the No Action Alternative in the Yosemite Valley Plan (see Vol. Ib, pages 4.0-39 and 4.0-40). Internal bus circulation volumes were also compared to the level of service analysis for roadway segments and intersections considered in the Yosemite Valley Plan (see Vol. Ib, page 4.0-41).

Duration of Impact. Short-term impacts would last less than 5 years and would be created during the implementation phase of the alternative actions. A long-term impact would be a permanent change in visitor circulation following the implementation of an action.

Intensity of Impact. The range of impact intensities for bus volumes on Valley roadways is listed below:

• With a negligible impact, there would be no measurable or perceptible change in the number of bus trips or bus vehicle miles traveled on Valley roadways.
  
• With a minor impact, the change in the number of bus trips or bus vehicle miles traveled on Valley roads would be less than 25%.
  
• With a moderate impact, the change in the number of bus trips or bus vehicle miles traveled on Valley roads would be between 26% and 75%.
  
• With a major impact, the change in the number of bus trip or bus vehicles miles traveled on Valley roads would be greater than 75%.

These ranges are higher than the ranges of impact intensity defined for all vehicle miles of travel.

Type of Impact. Changes in the number of bus trips or bus vehicle miles traveled cannot be characterized as beneficial or adverse from a transportation perspective.

Gasoline and diesel are the primary fuels consumed by automobiles, trucks, and buses used in the Yosemite Valley. A California Air Resources Board model (called BURDEN) was used to estimate motor fuel consumption associated with proposed plans, employee commuting patterns, and utilization of National Park Service and concessioner vehicles that operate in the Valley. Annual fuel consumption for heavy trucks, urban buses, and shuttle buses was derived from vehicle-miles-traveled estimates and typical fuel economy values for these vehicle types.

Duration of Impact. The duration of the impact considers whether the impact would occur in the short term or long term. Generally, short-term impacts are temporary in nature, whereas long-term impacts would have a continuing effect on energy consumption. For this analysis, vehicle emissions were quantified for the 15-year (2000-2015) time period and are assumed to continue beyond 2015.

Intensity of Impact. The intensity of an impact was assigned based on whether the impact is judged to be negligible, minor, moderate, or major relative to Alternative 1. For this analysis, impacts that would increase or decrease energy consumption by 5% or less annually would be negligible; by 5% to 20% annually would be minor; by 21% to 50% annually would be moderate; and by more than 50% annually would be major.

Type of Impact. Impacts were considered to be either beneficial or adverse with respect to energy consumption. Beneficial energy impacts would reduce energy consumption, whereas adverse impacts would increase energy consumption.

A cumulative impact is described in regulations developed by the Council on Environmental Quality, Regulation 1508. 7, as follows:

A "cumulative impact" is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.

For the purpose of this environmental assessment, a list of projects within Yosemite Valley was identified so that potential cumulative impacts from the Lower Yosemite Fall Project could be evaluated in the context of these other projects. Appendix C contains the list of cumulative projects included in the cumulative impact analysis. The other Yosemite Valley projects identified included past actions, as well as any planning or development activity currently being implemented or planned for implementation in the reasonably foreseeable future.

These cumulative actions are evaluated in the impact analysis in conjunction with potential impacts of each proposed project alternative to evaluate whether there may be additive effects on a particular natural, cultural, or social resource. Because most of the other projects included in the cumulative analysis are in the early planning stages, the evaluation of cumulative impacts was based on a general description of each project considered.

Pursuant to the 1916 Organic Act, the National Park Service has a management responsibility "to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." Therefore, the National Park Service cannot take an action that would "impair" park resources. The National Park Service Management Policies (NPS 2001a) provides guidance on addressing impairment.

Impairment is an impact that, in the professional judgment of the responsible National Park Service manager, would harm the integrity of park resources or values, including opportunities that otherwise would be present for the enjoyment of those resources or values. An impact would be less likely to constitute an impairment to the extent that it is an unavoidable result from an action necessary to preserve or restore the integrity of park resources or values (NPS 2001a). An impact would be more likely to constitute impairment to the extent that it affects a resource or value whose conservation is:

• Necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park.
  
• Key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the park.
  
• Identified as a goal in the park’s General Management Plan or other relevant National Park Service planning documents.

Impairment of park resources was evaluated on the basis of the type and intensity of impact and in terms of the types of resources affected. In general, beneficial impacts do not constitute impairment. With respect to the intensity of impacts, negligible and minor adverse impacts are not of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment. Moderate and major adverse impacts may constitute impairment, but do not automatically do so. Rather, these impacts must be analyzed with respect to the three bulleted criteria above.

The National Park Service Director’s Order #12 (Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision-Making) requires that impairment be addressed in all environmental assessments and draft and final environmental impact statements, as well as in the decision documents (for example, Finding of No Significant Impact or Record of Decision).

Analysis of Environmental Consequences

The analysis section includes direct and indirect effects for each resource topic, an analysis of cumulative impacts, and impairment of park resources for all alternatives.

• Restroom Location. The existing restroom would continue to be located in its current location, which is not within or near any existing jurisdictional or Cowardin wetlands.
  
• Parking Area. The existing parking area would continue in its current location, which is not near any existing jurisdictional or Cowardin wetlands.
  
• Shuttle Bus Stop. The shuttle bus stop would continue in its current location, which is not located near any existing jurisdictional or Cowardin wetlands. A new shuttle bus stop would not be provided.
  
• Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. The tour buses that park in the existing parking area would continue to not impact existing jurisdictional or Cowardin wetlands.
  
• Trail Alignment. Under Alternative 1, human use and trampling in wetland areas where trails are not well defined may continue to degrade existing jurisdictional or Cowardin wetlands in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Under Alternative 1, human use and trampling in wetland areas where trails are not well defined may continue to degrade existing jurisdictional or Cowardin wetlands in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. All bridges in the Lower Yosemite Fall area have abutments within creek channels classified as Cowardin wetlands. In addition, the abutments of Bridge #5 are located in a jurisdictional wetland. Hydrologic flows that support wetlands would continue to be diverted and constricted by these bridge abutments.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. No trees or vegetation would be removed to maintain view corridors; therefore, no jurisdictional or Cowardin wetlands would be affected.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. The rock-rubble pile would continue in its present location; it would not affect identified jurisdictional or Cowardin wetlands.

Overall, there would be a long-term, minor, adverse impact on wetlands under Alternative 1 resulting from human use and trampling in areas where trails are not well defined as well as from bridge abutments (located within creek channels) that could alter hydrologic flows that support wetlands.

Throughout Yosemite Valley, a net gain of approximately 118 acres of wetland would take place under the adopted Yosemite Valley Plan. About 141 acres of wetlands would be restored, 12 acres of new development in wetlands would take place, and 11 acres of redevelopment in degraded wetlands could take place. Overall, regardless of the continuing impacts to wetlands in the local setting, there would be a long-term, major, beneficial impact on the size of wetlands in Yosemite Valley.

Wetland impacts resulting from Alternative 1 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Relocation. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. The new restroom would be located in the southeast portion of the area currently occupied by the parking lot. This area is not within or near any identified jurisdictional or Cowardin wetlands.
  
• Parking Area Removal and Establishment of Seating/Picnic Area. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. Project activities would not occur within or near any identified jurisdictional or Cowardin wetlands.
  
• New Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. The new shuttle bus stop would not be placed within or near any identified jurisdictional or Cowardin wetlands.
  
• Interim Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Short-term, negligible, beneficial impact. Tour bus unloading, loading, and parking would not occur within or near any identified jurisdictional or Cowardin wetlands.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. None of the trail alignments would occur within any identified jurisdictional or Cowardin wetlands.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. Trail rehabilitation activities would not occur within any identified Cowardin wetlands. These impacts would be slightly detectable and localized throughout the local setting.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. Proposed reconstruction of Bridge #5 would completely span the identified jurisdictional wetland in this area. Negligible amounts of fill would be placed within the Cowardin wetlands at Bridge #3 and Bridge #6 due to the placement of bridge piers. All bridge abutments would be removed from the stream channel to upland areas. Overall, hydrologic flows under the rehabilitated bridges would improve wetland conditions, resulting in local, long-term, minor, beneficial impacts. The two piers at the Yosemite Falls Bridge would be replaced in the same location and result in no new wetland impact. Under Alternative 2, the hydrologic flows and wetland conditions would be improved.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Selected vegetation would be removed in view corridors; however, wetland plant species would be avoided to the extent possible.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. The rock-rubble pile removal would be preceded by studies on wetlands, hydrology, and cultural resources, and appropriate public health and safety measures would be applied.

Overall, there would be a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on wetlands due to the removal of bridge abutments from creek channels.

Cumulative impacts on wetlands are described previously in this chapter for Alternative 1. Alternative 2 would result in long-term, minor, beneficial impacts to wetlands, which in combination with cumulative actions, would contribute to a long-term, major, beneficial cumulative impact on the size and condition of wetlands in the Yosemite Valley.

Wetland impacts resulting from Alternative 2 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Relocation. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. The new restroom would be located in an area adjacent to the trail leading from Northside Drive to Bridge #6. This area is not within or near any identified Cowardin or jurisdictional wetlands.
  
• Parking Area Removal and Establishment of an Informal Seating Area. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. Project activities would not occur within or near any identified Cowardin or jurisdictional wetlands.
  
• New Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. The new shuttle bus stop would not be placed within or near any identified Cowardin wetlands.
  
• Interim Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Short-term, negligible, beneficial impact. Tour bus unloading, loading, and parking would not occur within or near any identified Cowardin or jurisdictional wetlands.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. None of the trail alignments would occur within any identified Cowardin or jurisdictional wetlands.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. Trail rehabilitation activities would not occur within any identified Cowardin or jurisdictional wetlands. These impacts would be slightly detectable and localized throughout the local setting.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. Proposed reconstruction of Bridge #5 would completely span the identified jurisdictional wetland in this area. Negligible amounts of fill would be placed within the Cowardin wetlands at Bridge #3 and Bridge #6 due to the placement of bridge piers. All bridge abutments would be removed from the stream channel to upland areas. Overall, hydrologic flows under the rehabilitated bridges would improve wetlands conditions. The two piers at the Yosemite Falls Bridge would be replaced in the same location, and result in no new wetlands impacts.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Selected vegetation would be removed in view corridors; however, wetland plant species would be avoided to the extent possible.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. The rock-rubble pile would be removed without the benefit of studies on wetlands, hydrology, and cultural resources being performed and appropriate public health and safety measures being applied.

Overall, there would be a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on wetlands resulting from the removal of bridge abutments from creek channels.

Additional cumulative impacts on wetlands have been described previously in this chapter for Alternative 1. In combination with Alternative 3, there would be a long-term, major, beneficial cumulative impact on the size and condition of wetlands in Yosemite Valley.

Wetland impacts resulting from Alternative 3 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Location. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. The restroom would continue to be located in its current location; the facility is classified as a Miscellaneous Structure and is located within the rockfall shadow zone. (See the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, Vol. II, Appendix C, figure C-1 for occupancy categories.) There would be no change in soil erosion at the location of the restroom.
  
• Parking Area. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. The existing parking area would continue in its current location. The facility is classified as "miscellaneous" and is located within the rockfall shadow zone. There would be no change in soil erosion in the area.
  
• Shuttle Bus Stop. There would be no change in rockfall hazards and soil erosion in the area as the result of current shuttle bus stop operations for the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Bus loading, unloading, and parking would continue within the rockfall shadow zone. There would be no change in rockfall hazards. There would be no soil erosion as a result of current tour bus parking.
  
• Trail Alignment. Under Alternative 1, trails would continue in their current alignments. This current alignment may encourage off-trail use by visitors wanting to take more direct routes or shortcuts to access viewing areas. As a result, soils may continue to be disturbed and soil erosion may continue in off-trail areas most heavily used by visitors. There would be no change in rockfall hazards.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Under Alternative 1, trails would continue in their current condition. Where trails are deteriorated or undefined, off-trail use may result. Visitors may continue to wander away from trails to access viewing areas. As a result, soils may be disturbed and soil erosion may continue in off-trail areas most heavily used by visitors. There would be no change in rockfall hazards.
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Under Alternative 1, all bridges in the area would continue in their current condition. Without the rehabilitation, relocation, and installation of certain bridges, human use and trampling of off-trail areas may continue. Stream bank soil erosion may continue in areas where bridges are not accessible for visitors to cross creek channels (e.g., Bridge #6). There would be no change in rockfall hazards.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. No trees or vegetation would be removed to maintain view corridors; therefore, no soils would be affected. There would be no change in rockfall hazards.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Because the rock-rubble pile would not be removed, soils would not be affected. There would be no change in rockfall hazards.

Overall, under Alternative 1 there would be a long-term, negligible, adverse impact on soils from off-trail use that could increase erosion. There would be a long-term, negligible, adverse impact on geology or geologic hazards due to retention of the restroom and the parking area within the rockfall shadow zone.

Past facility development has occurred in areas that are susceptible to damage from geohazards (rockfalls and seismic events) and has contributed to the overall degradation of soil resources in the park. These facilities include lodging, visitor centers, campgrounds, and bridges, with associated roads and parking lots. In addition, facilities required to support park infrastructure, including employee housing, utility facilities, maintenance yards, and supply storage areas, have been developed throughout the Valley.

Rockfall hazards would be reduced through projects that relocate people and facilities away from rockfall hazard zones, such as removal of units at Housekeeping Camp and Curry Village located within the talus slope zone, as identified in the Yosemite Valley Plan. However, other projects could expose additional visitors to the risk of rockfalls, such as the Trail Reconstruction from Happy Isles to Vernal Fall and Happy Isles Site Improvements. Most of the Lower Yosemite Fall area is located in the rockfall shadow zone. The Yosemite Falls Bridge is located in the talus slope zone. In addition, earthquakes are unavoidable and unpredictable, and represent a potentially long-term, adverse impact to public health and safety. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would result in local, long-term, minor, beneficial cumulative impacts to public health and safety from geologic hazards due to an overall reduction in the density of people and facilities in the talus slope zone.

Certain development projects could result in increased degradation of soil resources, such as expansion of campgrounds and construction of lodging and employee housing in Yosemite Valley, as identified in the Yosemite Valley Plan. However, other projects related to habitat restoration, such as removal of roads through Stoneman and Ahwahnee Meadows, and the Merced River at Eagle Creek Ecological Restoration (Yosemite Valley), would have long-term, beneficial effects on soils. Although these types of projects may have slight site-specific, short-term, adverse effects (e.g., potential construction erosion and soil loss), an objective of these projects is to restore and manage natural resources and reduce soil degradation. For example, full implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan would restore approximately 177 acres of soil, of which approximately 136 acres would be high-value resource soils in Yosemite Valley. The cumulative projects would result in local, long-term, minor, beneficial cumulative impacts to soil resources.

Alternative 1 and the cumulative projects would result in a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact to public safety in Yosemite Valley due to the overall reduction in the density of facilities in the talus slope and rockfall shadow zones. The local, long-term, minor, beneficial impacts to soil resources under the cumulative projects would be somewhat diminished by the potential soil erosion and bank destabilization under Alternative 1, resulting in a net local, long-term, negligible, beneficial impact to soil resources.

Geology, geologic hazards, and soil impacts resulting from Alternative 1 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Relocation. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. Soils-specific mitigation measures that would be used during restroom demolition and construction of the new restroom would largely offset adverse impacts to soils from these activities. In addition, the new location of the restroom would be outside the rockfall shadow zone.
  
• Parking Area Removal and Establishment of Seating/Picnic Area. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Soils-specific mitigation measures that would be used during the removal of the parking area and the installation of seating structures would prevent adverse impacts to soils from these activities. There would be a minor risk from geologic hazards (rockfall) as a result of activities under Alternative 2 because the picnic area and seating area would be partly within the rockfall shadow zone.
  
• New Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. Establishment of the new shuttle bus stop would not require soil disturbance because it would be located in a previously paved area. In addition, there would be no increased risk from geologic hazards (rockfall) as a result of activities under Alternative 2.
  
• Interim Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Short-term, negligible, beneficial impact. Establishment of the interim tour bus unloading, loading, and parking area would not result in soil disturbance because it would be located in a previously paved area. There would be a negligible, minor risk from geologic hazards (rockfall) as a result of activities under Alternative 2 because the interim bus loading and unloading and parking would not place facilities inside the rockfall shadow zone.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. The trail alignments to be constructed under Alternative 2 would allow visitors better access to viewing areas while staying on designated paths. As a result, disturbance and erosion of soils in off-trail areas would be reduced. Soils-specific mitigation measures that would be used for trail alignment would prevent adverse impacts to soils from this activity. In addition, there would be no increased risk from geologic hazards (rockfall) as a result of activities under Alternative 2.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. Under Alternative 2, trails would be paved and widened to allow easier access to viewing areas. With better-defined trails, human use and trampling of off-trail areas would be reduced, thereby reducing soil disturbance and erosion. Construction and rehabilitation of trails could bring visitors in proximity to contaminated soils identified at the waste accumulation area within the vicinity of Bridge #7 (to be constructed). Soils-specific and construction-specific mitigation measures that would be used for trail rehabilitation would prevent adverse impacts to soils and exposure to contaminated soils during this activity. In addition, there would be no increased risk from geologic hazards (rockfall and seismic shaking) as a result of activities under Alternative 2.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. Rehabilitation, relocation, and installation of the bridges would help to discourage human use and trampling of off-trail areas. Stream bank soil erosion would be reduced because all bridges in the area would be accessible for visitors to cross creek channels. The construction of Bridge #7 could bring visitors in proximity to contaminated soils identified at the waste accumulation area. The soils-specific and construction-specific mitigation measures that would be used for bridge rehabilitation and construction would prevent adverse impacts to soils and exposure to contaminated soils from these activities. There would be no change in rockfall hazards under Alternative 2.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Short-term, negligible, adverse impact. Selected vegetation would be removed in view corridors. The removal of trees and plants for vista maintenance would represent a slight disturbance to soils in the area; however, these impacts would be negligible. There would be no change in rockfall hazards under Alternative 2.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Short-term, negligible, beneficial impact. The rock-rubble pile removal would be preceded by studies of hydrology, cultural resources, and wetlands, and appropriate public health and safety measures would be applied. There would be a negligible impact to geology, geohazards, or soils.

Overall, there would be a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on soils due to better defined trails that would reduce heavy use in off-trail areas under Alternative 2. There would be a long-term, minor, adverse impact on geology or geologic hazards due to placement of the picnic area and seating area partially within the rockfall shadow zone.

The impacts of cumulative actions are described under Alternative 1. In combination with Alternative 2, there would be no change from Alternative 1 in the cumulative effects on geology, geologic hazards, and soils within the park. There would be a local, long-term, minor, beneficial cumulative impact to public safety in Yosemite Valley due to the overall reduction in the density of facilities in the talus slope and rockfall shadow zones. There would be a local, long-term, negligible, beneficial cumulative impact to soil resources.

Geology, geologic hazards, and soils impacts resulting from Alternative 2 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Relocation. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. Soils-specific mitigation measures that would be used during restroom demolition and construction of the new restroom would prevent adverse impacts to soils from these activities. In addition, the new location of the restroom would be outside the rockfall shadow zone.
  
• Parking Area Removal and Establishment of an Informal Seating Area. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Soils-specific mitigation measures that would be used during the removal of the parking area and the installation of seating structures would largely offset adverse impacts to soils from these activities. There would be a minor risk from geologic hazards (rockfall) as a result of activities under Alternative 3 because the seating area would be partially within the rockfall shadow zone.
  
• New Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. Establishment of the new shuttle bus stop would not require soil disturbance because it would be located in a previously paved area. In addition, there would be no increased risk from geologic hazards (rockfall) as a result of activities under Alternative 3.
  
• Interim Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Short-term, negligible, beneficial impact. Establishment of the interim tour bus unloading, loading, and parking area would not result in soil disturbance because it would be located in a previously paved area. There would be a negligible risk from geologic hazards (rockfall) as a result of activities under Alternative 3, because a portion of the loading and unloading and the interim bus parking would not place structures inside the rockfall shadow zone.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. The trail alignments to be constructed under Alternative 3 would allow visitors better access to viewing areas while staying on designated paths. As a result, disturbance and erosion of soils in off-trail areas would be reduced. Soils-specific mitigation measures that would be used for trail alignment would prevent adverse impacts to soils from this activity. In addition, there would be no increased risk from geologic hazards (rockfall) as a result of activities under Alternative 3.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. Under Alternative 3, trails would be paved and widened to allow easier access to viewing areas. With better-defined trails, human use and trampling of off-trail areas would be reduced, thereby reducing soil disturbance and erosion. Construction and rehabilitation of trails could bring visitors in proximity to contaminated soils identified at the waste accumulation area within the vicinity of Bridge #7 (to be constructed). Soils-specific and construction-specific mitigation measures that would be used for trail rehabilitation would prevent adverse impacts to soils and exposure to contaminated soils during this activity. In addition, there would be no increased risk from geologic hazards (rockfall) as a result of activities under Alternative 3.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. Rehabilitation, relocation, and installation of the bridges would help to discourage human use and trampling of off-trail areas. Stream bank soil erosion would be reduced because all bridges in the area would be accessible for visitors to cross creek channels. The construction of Bridge #7 could bring visitors in proximity to contaminated soils identified at the waste accumulation area. The soils-specific and construction-specific mitigation measures that would be used for bridge rehabilitation and construction would prevent adverse impacts to soils, and exposure to contaminated soils from these activities. There would be no change in rockfall hazards or seismic shaking under Alternative 3.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Short-term, negligible, adverse impact. Selected vegetation would be removed in view corridors. The removal of trees and plants for vista maintenance would represent a slight disturbance to soils in the area; however, these impacts would be negligible. There would be no change in rockfall hazards under Alternative 3.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Short-term, negligible, beneficial impact. The rock-rubble pile would be removed without the benefit of studies on hydrology, cultural resources, and wetlands being performed and appropriate public health and safety protection measures being applied. There would be a negligible impact to geology, geohazards, or soils.

Overall, there would be a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on soils due to more well-defined trails that would reduce heavy use in off-trail areas under Alternative 3. There would be a long-term, minor, adverse impact on geology or geologic hazards due to placement of the seating area partially within the rockfall shadow zone.

The impacts of cumulative actions are described under Alternative 1. In combination with Alternative 3, there would be no change from Alternative 1 in the cumulative effects on geology, geologic hazards, and soils within the park. There would be a local, long-term, minor beneficial impact to public safety in Yosemite Valley due to the overall reduction in the density of facilities in the talus slope and rockfall shadow zones. There would be a local, long-term, negligible, beneficial impact to soil resources.

Geology, geologic hazards, and soil impacts resulting from Alternative 3 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Location. The existing restroom would continue to be located in its current location, which is not within or near any creek channels; therefore, water quality would not be affected.
  
• Parking Area. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. The existing parking area would continue to represent a potential non-point source of pollution with the heavy use and concentrated presence of vehicles in the area. (Non-point source pollution occurs when water runs over land or through the ground, picks up pollutants, and deposits them in surface waters or introduces them into groundwater.) Surface runoff from the parking area could adversely affect the water quality of nearby creeks.
  
• Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Shuttle buses would continue to stop at the northeast corner of the existing parking area. Surface runoff from the parking area would continue to (potentially) adversely affect the water quality of Yosemite Creek.
  
• Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Tour buses would continue to park within the existing parking area. Surface runoff from the parking area would continue to (potentially) adversely affect the water quality of Yosemite Creek.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Under Alternative 1, current trail alignments would continue to encourage human use and trampling in creek channels. This activity would continue to degrade hydrologic processes and water quality of creeks in the area.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Under Alternative 1, human use and trampling in creek areas as the result of poorly defined trails may continue to degrade hydrologic processes and water quality of creeks.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Under Alternative 1, all bridges in the Lower Yosemite Fall area would continue to constrict and alter water flows. This could contribute to accelerated erosion on adjacent riverbanks associated with constricted flows.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. No trees or vegetation would be removed to maintain view corridors; therefore, no creeks would be affected.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. The rock-rubble pile removal would be preceded by studies of hydrology, cultural resources, and wetlands, and appropriate public health and safety measures would be applied.

Overall, there would be a long-term, minor, adverse impact on hydrology and water quality under Alternative 1 due to surface runoff from the parking lot, which could introduce pollutants into nearby creeks.

The Merced River has been previously affected by a variety of projects that have introduced obstructions into the river channel, modified the floodplain, and adversely affected hydrology. Examples of actions that have had adverse effects on the hydrologic processes of the Merced River include lowering of the El Captain moraine; placement of riprap; removal of large woody debris; and construction of bridges, dikes, flood walls, impoundments, dams, and buildings. Conversely, actions such as riverbank restoration projects, removal of impoundments and bridges, and limiting visitor use to particular areas help restore the natural river flow and reduce bank erosion.

Reasonably foreseeable future projects that would have beneficial impacts on hydrologic processes and water quality include such restoration actions as those presented in the Yosemite Valley Plan. Elements of the Yosemite Valley Plan include removal of Sugar Pine Bridge, which constrains flows of the Merced River; restoration to natural conditions of campgrounds located within the floodplain; and removal of facilities from the 100-year floodplain.

Alternatively, adverse impacts could occur by implementing projects called for in the Yosemite Valley Plan, including construction of additional lodging, campsites, and a visitor transit center in the Valley.

Overall, implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan would have a beneficial effect on river hydrologic processes and water quality.

The Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan (Merced River Plan) (NPS 2001b) protects river-related resources through the application of seven management elements. These elements are the River Protection Overlay, management zoning, protection and enhancement of Outstandingly Remarkable Values, Section 7 determination process under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, classifications, boundary delineation, and implementation of a Visitor Experience Resource Protection framework (refer to the Merced River Plan for descriptions of these management elements).

Other future projects include the Happy Isles Bridge Replacement Project, Repair of Flood Damaged Trails at Happy Isles, Merced River at Eagle Creek Ecological Restoration (Yosemite Valley), and the Replacement/Rehabilitation of the Yosemite Valley Main Sewer Line. Cumulatively, these projects are anticipated to have beneficial impacts on hydrologic processes and water quality of the Merced River.

While some of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects along the Merced River in Yosemite Valley would ultimately remove constrictions to streamflows, enhance water quality, rehabilitate eroded streambanks, and reduce degradation of stream characteristics in the Merced River, others would result in adverse water quality impacts and bank erosion. Thus, the cumulative projects would result in a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact to hydrologic processes and water quality.

The past, present, and future projects in Yosemite Valley, considered cumulatively with Alternative 1, would have a local, long-term, minor beneficial effect on hydrologic processes and water quality in Yosemite Valley.

Hydrology and water quality impacts resulting from Alternative 1 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Relocation. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. Hydrology/water quality-specific mitigation measures (including surface-runoff control) that would be used during Alternative 2 restroom demolition and construction would substantially minimize adverse impacts to Yosemite Creek during these activities. Also, a portion of the area would be revegetated, thereby restoring surface hydrology and improving water quality in the long term.
  
• Parking Area Removal and Establishment of Seating/Picnic Area. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. The parking area removal would remove a non-point source of pollution from creeks in the area. The non-point pollution source would be moved to other parking areas where water quality protection measures meet regulations specified in the Clean Water Act. (Note: More detailed mitigation measures are presented in Chapter 2, Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives.) Hydrology/water quality-specific mitigation measures under Alternative 2 (including surface-runoff control) that would be used during parking lot removal and seating/picnic area construction would prevent adverse impacts to creeks during these activities.
  
• New Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. Under Alternative 2, the new shuttle bus stop would be along Northside Drive at a location that is already paved, and where vehicles already stop periodically. Surface runoff would not be affected by any additional pollutant types or amount from the new shuttle bus stop beyond that normally associated with runoff from paved roadways.
  
• Interim Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Short-term, negligible, adverse impact. Under Alternative 2, the interim tour bus unloading and loading zone would be along Northside Drive at a location that is already paved, and where vehicles already stop periodically. Surface runoff could be marginally affected by additional pollutants from tour buses beyond that normally associated with runoff from paved roadways.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. Under Alternative 2, trail alignments would provide visitors with more defined access to viewing areas, thereby discouraging the trampling of creek channels. Overall, this would benefit the hydrologic processes and water quality of creeks in the area. Hydrology/water quality-specific mitigation measures (including surface-runoff control) that would be used during trail alignment would prevent adverse impacts to creeks during these activities.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. Under Alternative 2, trail rehabilitation would provide visitors with more defined access to viewing areas, thereby discouraging the trampling of creek channels. Overall, this would benefit the hydrologic processes and water quality of creeks in the area. Hydrology/water quality-specific mitigation measures (including surface-runoff control) that would be used during trail rehabilitation would prevent adverse impacts to creeks from these activities.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. Under Alternative 2, all bridges would be rehabilitated to accommodate larger flows. Bridge abutments would be moved out of creek channels and located further up on the banks. This would enlarge the opening under each bridge, remove the current constricting abutments, reduce bank erosion associated with the constricted openings, and accommodate more water under the bridge. The piers at Bridges #3 and #6 would cause a slightly perceptible change to creek hydrology. Overall, the bridges would be designed to improve hydrology and accommodate minor shifts in the channel. There would be no change in hydrologic processes at the Yosemite Falls Bridge as a result of its rehabilitation. Hydrology/water quality-specific mitigation measures (including runoff control) that would be used for bridge rehabilitation, relocation, and installation would largely offset adverse impacts to water quality and hydrology from these activities.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Selected vegetation would be removed in view corridors. The removal of trees and plants for maintenance of the Hutchings view corridor would have imperceptible effects to the creek hydrology. Vista maintenance would be conducted with appropriate mitigation measures to largely offset adverse impacts to hydrologic processes and water quality.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. The rock-rubble pile removal would be preceded by studies of hydrology, cultural resources, and wetlands, and appropriate public health and safety measures would be applied. The results of these studies would be used to maximize the potential for hydrologic restoration without adversely affecting public health and safety.

Overall, there would be a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on hydrology and water quality under Alternative 2 due to the removal of the parking lot and removal of the bridge abutments from creek channels to accommodate hydrologic flows.

The cumulative impact analysis for hydrology and water quality in Alternative 2 is the same as described under Alternative 1 earlier in this chapter. The past, present, and future projects in Yosemite Valley, considered cumulatively with Alternative 2, would have a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact on hydrologic processes and water quality in Yosemite Valley.

Hydrology and water quality impacts resulting from Alternative 2 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Relocation. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. Hydrology/water quality-specific mitigation measures (including surface-runoff control) that would be used during restroom demolition and construction would substantially minimize adverse impacts to creeks during these activities. Also, a portion of the area would be revegetated, thereby restoring surface hydrology and improving water quality in the long term.
  
• Parking Area Removal and Establishment of an Informal Seating Area. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. The parking area removal would remove a non-point source of pollution for creeks in the area. Hydrology/water quality-specific mitigation measures (including surface-runoff control) that would be used during parking lot removal and seating area construction (presented in detail in Chapter 2, Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives) would prevent adverse impacts to creeks during these activities.
  
• New Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. The new shuttle bus stop would be along Northside Drive at a location that is already paved, and where vehicles already stop periodically. Surface runoff would not be affected by any additional pollutant types or amount from the new shuttle stop beyond that normally associated with runoff from paved roadways.
  
• Interim Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Short-term, negligible, adverse impact. The interim tour bus unloading and loading zone would be along Northside Drive at a location that is already paved, and where vehicles already stop periodically. Surface runoff could be marginally affected by additional pollutants from tour buses beyond that normally associated with runoff from paved roadways.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. Under Alternative 3, trail alignments would provide visitors with more defined access to viewing areas, thereby discouraging the trampling of creek channels. Overall, this would benefit the hydrologic processes and water quality of creeks in the area. Hydrology/water quality-specific mitigation measures (including surface-runoff control) that would be used during trail alignment would prevent adverse impacts to creeks during these activities.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. Under Alternative 3, trail rehabilitation would provide visitors with more defined access to viewing areas, thereby discouraging the trampling of creek channels. Overall, this would benefit the hydrologic processes and water quality of creeks in the area. Hydrology/water quality-specific mitigation measures (including surface-runoff control) that would be used during trail rehabilitation would prevent adverse impacts to creeks from these activities.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. Under Alternative 3, all bridges would be rehabilitated to accommodate larger flows. Bridge abutments would be moved out of creek channels and located further up on the banks. This would enlarge the opening under each bridge, remove the current constricting abutments, reduce bank erosion associated with the constricted openings, and accommodate more water under the bridge. Overall, the bridges would be designed to improve hydrology and accommodate minor shifts in the channel. There would be no change in hydrologic processes at the Yosemite Falls Bridge as a result of its rehabilitation. Hydrology/water quality-specific mitigation measures (including runoff control) that would be used for bridge rehabilitation, relocation, and installation would largely offset adverse impacts to water quality and hydrology from these activities.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Selected vegetation would be removed in view corridors. The removal of trees and plants for maintenance of the Hutchings view corridor could potentially affect creeks. Vista maintenance would be conducted with appropriate mitigation measures to prevent adverse impacts to hydrologic processes and water quality.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. The rock-rubble pile would be removed without the benefit of studies on hydrology, cultural resources, and wetlands being performed and appropriate public health and safety protection measures being applied.

Overall, there would be a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on hydrology under Alternative 3 due to the removal of the parking lot and removal of bridge abutments from creek channels to accommodate hydrologic flows.

The cumulative impact analysis for hydrology and water quality in Alternative 3 is the same as described under Alternative 1 earlier in this chapter. The past, present, and future projects in Yosemite Valley, considered cumulatively with Alternative 3, would have a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact on hydrologic processes and water quality in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.

Hydrology and water quality impacts resulting from Alternative 3 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

The current level of risk to human life and property would continue as it is today, resulting in negligible impact. Because there would be minor risk to human life and property and no overnight accommodations in the Lower Yosemite Fall area, the following actions would be exempted from the National Park Service’s Floodplain Management Guideline (NPS 1993).

• Restroom Location. Since the restroom would continue to be located in its current location and would not accommodate overnight occupants, there would continue to be no risk to human life or property.
  
• Parking Area. The existing parking area would continue to not accommodate overnight visitors. There would continue to be no risk to human life or property.
  
• Shuttle Bus Stop. Since the shuttle bus stop would continue in its current location and no overnight accommodations would be constructed there, floodplain impacts would not occur.
  
• Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Since tour bus operations would continue within the existing parking area, and no construction would occur, floodplain impacts would not occur.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Trails would remain in their current alignments, and no new structures would be placed in the floodplain; therefore, trail alignment would continue to have minor effects on the floodplain because they would be a single structure used primarily in the daytime.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Since the trails would continue in their current condition, floodplain impacts would not occur.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. The bridges would continue in their current locations and condition; therefore, these few structures would potentially receive slight damage during a flood.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Vegetation would not be removed to enhance identified view corridors, and no new development would occur in the floodplain.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. The rock-rubble pile would continue at its current location, and no new development would occur in the floodplain.

Overall, there would be long-term, minor, adverse floodplain impacts relating to health and safety under Alternative 1.

Historically, the Merced River has been affected by a variety of projects that have introduced obstructions into the river channel and modified the floodplain. Alterations to hydrology have occurred through development and use within the Merced River corridor since Euro-American settlement. Examples of actions that have had adverse effects on the hydrologic processes of the Merced River include placement of riprap; removal of large woody debris; and construction of bridges, dikes, flood walls, impoundments, dams, and buildings. Conversely, actions such as riverbank restoration projects, removal of impoundments and bridges, and limiting visitor use to particular areas help restore the natural river flow and reduce bank erosion.

Reasonably foreseeable future projects that would have beneficial impacts on hydrologic processes and the floodplain include such restoration actions as those presented in the Yosemite Valley Plan. Elements of the Yosemite Valley Plan include removal of Sugar Pine Bridge, which constrains flows of the Merced River; restoration to natural conditions of campgrounds located within the floodplain; and removal of facilities from the 100-year floodplain. Alternatively, adverse impacts could occur by implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan projects, including construction of additional lodging, campsites, and a visitor transit center in the Valley. Overall, implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan would have a beneficial effect on the floodplain.

Floodplain impacts resulting from Alternative 1 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

Under Alternative 2, the only facilities that would be constructed in the Merced River floodplain in the Lower Yosemite Fall area would be exempt from the National Park Service Floodplain Management Guideline because they would not accommodate overnight occupants and would not represent a risk to human life and property.

• Restroom Location. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. The new restroom would remain in the floodplain, but it would not accommodate overnight occupants, nor would it adversely affect human safety or property.
  
• Parking Area. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Removal of the parking area and installation of the seating area and picnic area and trails for day use would be exempt from the National Park Service Floodplain Management Guideline, although these new facilities would remain in the floodplain.
  
• Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. The new shuttle bus stop would be exempt from the National Park Service Floodplain Management Guideline because no overnight occupants of this facility would be expected.
  
• Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. No construction of facilities related to tour bus unloading, loading, and parking would occur in the floodplain; therefore, there would be no risk to public health and safety.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. No structures related to trail alignment would be constructed in the floodplain; therefore, health and safety issues would not occur.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. No structures related to trail rehabilitation would be constructed in the floodplain; therefore, health and safety issues would not occur. A trail boardwalk would be elevated above the creek bed, thus allowing creek hydrology to be restored. The boardwalk would be within the floodplain; however, because it would be used in the daytime only and would be a single structure, impacts would be negligible.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. The bridges to be constructed and rehabilitated would be designed to reduce or eliminate impacts to human health or safety or damage to property.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. Vegetation maintenance activities to maintain view corridors would not place new facilities within the floodplain.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. Removal of the rock-rubble pile would be preceded by studies to ensure that hazards to life and property would not occur.

Overall, there would be long-term, minor, adverse impacts to the floodplain under Alternative 2 due to construction of the new restroom and picnic area and seating area in the 100-year floodplain.

The cumulative impact analysis for floodplains under Alternative 2 is the same as described under Alternative 1.

Floodplain impacts resulting from Alternative 2 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

Under Alternative 3, the only facilities that would be constructed in the Merced River floodplain in the Lower Yosemite Fall area would be exempt from National Park Service Floodplain Management Guidelines because they would not accommodate overnight occupants and would not represent a risk to human life and property.

• Restroom Location. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. The new restroom would remain in the floodplain, but it would not accommodate overnight occupants, nor would it adversely affect human safety or property.
  
• Parking Area. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. Removal of the parking area and installation of the seating area and trails for day use would be exempt from the National Park Service Floodplain Management Guideline, although these new facilities would remain in the floodplain.
  
• Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. The new shuttle bus stop would be exempt from the National Park Service Floodplain Management Guideline because no overnight occupants of this facility would be expected.
  
• Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. No construction of facilities related to tour bus unloading, loading, and parking would occur in the floodplain.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. No structures related to trail alignment would be constructed in the floodplain.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. No structures related to trail rehabilitation would be constructed in the floodplain.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. The bridges to be constructed and rehabilitated would be designed to reduce or eliminate impacts to human health or safety or damage to property.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. Vegetation maintenance activities to maintain view corridors would not place new facilities within the floodplain.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. Removal of the rock-rubble pile would not be preceded by studies to ensure that hazards to life and property would not occur.

Overall, there would be long-term, minor, adverse impacts to the floodplain under Alternative 3 due to the construction of the new restroom and seating area within the 100-year floodplain.

The cumulative impact analysis for floodplains under Alternative 3 is the same as described under Alternative 1.

Floodplain impacts resulting from Alternative 3 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Location. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Under Alternative 1, trampling in the area of the existing restroom would continue to prevent native vegetative understory from being established in the area.
  
• Parking Area. Under Alternative 1, the existing parking area would remain. Vegetation surrounding the parking area would continue to be affected by vehicle emissions and human activity concentrated in the area.
  
• Shuttle Bus Stop. Shuttle buses would continue to stop within the parking area. There would be no additional impact to vegetation from the current shuttle bus stop beyond that created by the parking area.
  
• Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Tour buses would continue to park within the parking area. There would be no additional impact to vegetation from the current shuttle bus stop beyond that created by the parking area.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. The alignment of certain trails within the Lower Yosemite Fall area encourages use of off-trail areas to access viewing areas by more direct routes. As a result, vegetation would continue to be trampled in off-trail areas.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Where trails are not currently well defined, areas of vegetation would continue to be trampled by foot traffic.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Where bridges are not accessible or are in poor condition, areas of vegetation would continue to be trampled by foot traffic. In particular, riparian vegetation along streambanks may be affected.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. Trees and vegetation would not be trimmed; they would continue to obscure view corridors.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. The rock-rubble pile would continue at its current location until studies of hydrology, cultural resources, and wetlands are performed and appropriate mitigation measures applied.

Overall, long-term, minor, adverse impacts to vegetation would continue under Alternative 1 from trampling and heavy foot traffic near the restroom and other off-trail areas (as a result of poorly defined trails and deteriorated bridges) and from heavy exposure to vehicle emissions.

Vegetation in Yosemite Valley has been substantially altered by development and visitor activities. These changes have negatively influenced the size, form, and function of vegetation communities and the plants and wildlife that inhabit them. Cumulative beneficial effects on vegetation would include restoration, rehabilitation projects, and ecosystem management. Cumulative adverse effects would be related to increased facilities and visitor demand.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions within Yosemite Valley would have an overall net benefit to vegetation.

Full implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan would restore approximately 175 acres, of which approximately 160 acres would be high-value resource vegetation in Yosemite Valley. Such proposed actions include removal and restoration of several campgrounds; removal of roads through Stoneman and Ahwahnee Meadows; and natural vegetation restoration actions in several areas. Although certain Yosemite Valley Plan projects have the potential to adversely affect local vegetation, such as construction of new parking and lodging facilities, and expansion of campgrounds in Yosemite Valley, these projects would be designed to ensure the long-term protection of sensitive vegetation communities consistent with the Merced River Plan and the Vegetation Management Plan (NPS 1997b).

The Merced River Plan protects river-related natural resources through the application of seven management elements. These elements are the River Protection Overlay, management zoning, protection and enhancement of Outstandingly Remarkable Values, implementation of a Visitor Experience Resource Protection framework, boundary delineation, classifications, and the Section 7 (of the Wild and Scenic River Act) determination process.

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, in combination with Alternative 1, could have a net long-term, moderate, beneficial effect on vegetation patterns.

Vegetation impacts resulting from Alternative 1 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Relocation. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. A small amount of mixed conifer/California black oak vegetation (less than 800 square feet) would be re-established in the area where the restroom would be removed. In addition, foot traffic and associated trampling would be reduced around the perimeter of the existing restroom. This would allow the currently degraded understory to re-establish in the vicinity of the restroom. There would be no impact on vegetation from the construction of the new restroom because it would be constructed in the existing parking area in an area that does not support vegetation. There would be a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on vegetation as a result of the restroom relocation because there would be a measurable beneficial impact on vegetation within a relatively small area.
  
• Parking Area Removal and Establishment of a Seating/Picnic Area. Long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. About 1 acre of mixed conifer/California black oak woodland would be re-established in the area where the current parking area is located. This would be a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on vegetation because it would cause a beneficial change in the size and continuity of the plant community; however, the impact would be localized. Establishment of the seating area would have no impact on vegetation because it would be within the existing parking area.
  
• New Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Tree and some vegetation removal would be required for the establishment of a new shuttle bus stop; however, the removal would be imperceptible from current conditions.
  
• Interim Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. The planned interim tour bus unloading and loading zone along Northside Drive is already paved. The establishment of bus parking spaces near Camp 4, west of the Lower Yosemite Fall area would not require the removal of trees or vegetation.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. Trail rehabilitation would help to reduce trampling of vegetation in off-trail areas. This would allow plant communities to re-establish in heavily trampled areas and result in a long-term, minor, beneficial impact. Trail widening and hardening may require the removal of individual incense-cedar and ponderosa pine trees (less than 30 trees with a diameter at breast height between 6 and 20 inches). One mature big-leaf maple tree, a riparian species, may be removed to enlarge the viewing area near the base of Lower Yosemite Fall. There would be a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on vegetation as a result of trail alignment because the benefits of reduced trampling in off-trail areas would be reduced by the need to remove trees to widen trails and enlarge the viewing area.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. Trail rehabilitation would help to reduce trampling of vegetation in off-trail areas. This would allow plant communities to re-establish in heavily trampled areas and result in a long-term, minor, beneficial impact. Trail widening and hardening may require the removal of individual incense-cedar and ponderosa pine trees (less than 30 trees with a diameter at breast height between 6 and 20 inches). One mature big-leaf maple tree, a riparian species, may be removed to enlarge the viewing area near the base of Lower Yosemite Fall. There would be a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on vegetation as a result of trail alignment because the benefits of reduced trampling in off-trail areas would be reduced by the need to remove trees to widen trails and enlarge the viewing area.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. Removal of abutments from stream channels would enhance conditions that support riparian vegetation in the vicinity of the bridges. Three mature riparian trees (white alder) may need to be removed in the vicinity of Bridge #3 in order to move the abutments to upland areas. In addition, several young incense-cedar and ponderosa pine trees may need to be removed at Bridges #5 and #6 in order to move the abutments to upland areas. There would be a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on vegetation because the benefits of enhanced riparian conditions in the vicinity of the bridges would be reduced by the removal of mature riparian trees at Bridge #3.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Thinning of the trees and vegetation removal within the two view corridors may result in removal of tree and plant species of varying sizes and health status. However, thinning would be selective and oak trees and riparian species would be retained to the greatest extent possible.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. The rock-rubble pile removal would be preceded by studies of hydrology, cultural resources, and wetlands, and appropriate public health and safety measures would be applied.

Overall, there would be a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on vegetation under Alternative 2 due to the removal of the parking area, revegetation of most of the parking area, relocation of the restroom, and alignment and rehabilitation of the trails.

Under Alternative 2, cumulative impacts to vegetation in the Lower Yosemite Fall area would be the same as described for Alternative 1.

Vegetation impacts resulting from Alternative 2 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Relocation. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. A small amount of mixed conifer/California black oak vegetation (less than 800 square feet) would be re-established in the area where the restroom would be removed. In addition, foot traffic and associated trampling would be reduced around the perimeter of the existing restroom. This would allow the currently degraded understory to re-establish in the vicinity of the restroom. There would be no impact on vegetation from the construction of the new restroom because it would be constructed in the existing parking area in an area that does not support vegetation. There would be a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on vegetation as a result of the restroom relocation because there would be a measurable beneficial impact on vegetation within a relatively small area.
  
• Parking Area Removal and Establishment of an Informal Seating Area. Long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. About 1 acre of mixed conifer/California black oak woodland would be re-established in the area where the current parking area is located. This would be a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on vegetation because it would cause a beneficial change in the size and continuity of the plant community; however, the impact would be localized. Establishment of the seating area would have no impact on vegetation because it would be within the existing parking area.
  
• New Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Tree and some vegetation removal would be required for the establishment of a new shuttle bus stop; however, the removal would be imperceptible.
  
• Interim Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. The planned interim tour bus unloading and loading zone along Northside Drive is already paved. The establishment of bus parking spaces near Camp 4, west of the Lower Yosemite Fall area, would not require the removal of trees or vegetation.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. Trail rehabilitation would help to reduce trampling of vegetation in off-trail areas. This would allow plant communities to re-establish in heavily trampled areas and result in a long-term, minor, beneficial impact. Trail widening and hardening may require the removal of individual incense-cedar and ponderosa pine trees (less than 30 trees with a diameter at breast height between 6 and 20 inches). One mature big-leaf maple tree, a riparian species, may be removed to enlarge the viewing area near the base of Lower Yosemite Fall. There would be a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on vegetation as a result of trail alignment because the benefits of reduced trampling in off-trail areas would be reduced by the need to remove trees to widen trails and enlarge the viewing area.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. Trail rehabilitation would help to reduce trampling of vegetation in off-trail areas. This would allow plant communities to re-establish in heavily trampled areas and result in a long-term, minor, beneficial impact. Trail widening and hardening may require the removal of individual incense-cedar and ponderosa pine trees (less than 30 trees with a diameter at breast height between 6 and 20 inches). One mature big-leaf maple tree, a riparian species, may be removed to enlarge the viewing area near the base of Lower Yosemite Fall. There would be a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on vegetation as a result of trail alignment because the benefits of reduced trampling in off-trail areas would be reduced by the need to remove trees to widen trails and enlarge the viewing area.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. Removal of abutments from stream channels would enhance conditions that support riparian vegetation in the vicinity of the bridges. Three mature riparian trees (white alder) may need to be removed in the vicinity of Bridge #3 in order to move the abutments to upland areas. In addition, several young incense-cedar and ponderosa pine trees may need to be removed at Bridges #5 and #6 in order to move the abutments to upland areas. There would be a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on vegetation because the benefits of enhanced riparian conditions in the vicinity of the bridges would be reduced by the removal of mature riparian trees at Bridge #3.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Thinning of the trees and vegetation removal within the two view corridors may result in removal of tree and plant species of varying sizes and health status. However, thinning would be selective, and oak trees and riparian species would be retained to the greatest extent possible.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. The rock-rubble pile would be removed without the benefit of studies on hydrology, cultural resources, and wetlands being performed and appropriate public health and safety protection measures being applied.

Overall, there would be a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on vegetation under Alternative 3 due to the removal of the parking area, revegetation of most of the parking area, and rehabilitation and realignment of trails.

Under Alternative 3, cumulative impacts to vegetation in the Lower Yosemite Fall area would be the same as described for Alternative 1.

Vegetation impacts resulting from Alternative 3 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

Alternative 1 would result in no further impacts on wildlife species or habitat in the Lower Yosemite Fall area beyond existing conditions. Existing habitat would not be further disturbed.

• Restroom Location. Because the restroom would continue to be located in its current location and a new restroom would not be constructed, no further disturbance of wildlife would occur.
  
• Parking Area. Because the parking area would continue in its current location, further disturbance of wildlife would continue to be avoided.
  
• Shuttle Bus Stop. Because the shuttle bus stop would continue in its current location and a new shuttle bus stop would not be constructed, further disturbance of wildlife would continue to be avoided.
  
• Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Because tour bus operations would continue within the existing parking area, and no construction would occur, further disturbance of wildlife would continue to be avoided.
  
• Trail Alignment. Because the trails would remain in their current alignments, further disturbance of wildlife would continue to be avoided.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Because the trails would remain in their current condition, further disturbance of wildlife would continue to be avoided.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Because the bridges would remain in their current locations and condition, further disturbance of wildlife would continue to be avoided.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Because vegetation would not be removed to enhance identified view corridors, further disturbance of wildlife would continue to be avoided.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Because the rock-rubble pile would remain in its current location, further disturbance of wildlife would continue to be avoided.

Overall, there would be long-term, negligible, adverse impacts to wildlife under Alternative 1 because the existing facilities are impacting wildlife habitat continuity; however, these impacts would be negligible because they would not worsen over time and would not be measurable or perceptible.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions within Yosemite Valley are considered to have an overall net benefit to wildlife. For example, the Merced River Plan protects river-related natural resources through the application of management elements, including the River Protection Overlay, management zoning, protection and enhancement of Outstandingly Remarkable Values, and implementation of a Visitor Experience Resource Protection framework. Full implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan would increase the size, continuity, and integrity of wildlife habitats in Yosemite Valley. Although certain Yosemite Valley Plan projects, such as improving El Portal Road from the El Portal/Big Oak Flat Road intersection to Pohono Bridge and expansion of campgrounds in Yosemite Valley, have the potential to adversely affect local wildlife, these projects must be designed to ensure the long-term protection of sensitive vegetation communities consistent with the Merced River Plan and the Vegetation Management Plan (NPS 1997b). In addition, implementation of the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection framework (included in both the Merced River Plan and Yosemite Valley Plan) will help reduce adverse effects of visitor use on wildlife habitat and patterns.

Wildlife communities have been manipulated almost since the inception 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. Park rangers trapped fur-bearing mammals until 1925; mountain lions were considered dangerous predators and controlled through the 1920s; and black bears were artificially fed as a tourist attraction until 1940. Natural wildland fires, with their generally beneficial effects on wildlife habitat, were routinely suppressed until 1972. Past and ongoing activities include recreational use and construction of bridges, diversion walls, roads, pipelines, riprap, buildings, campgrounds, and other recreational features.

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, in combination with Alternative 1, would have a net local, long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial effect on wildlife patterns.

Wildlife impacts resulting from Alternative 1 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Relocation. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. The relocation of the restroom would not have any measurable effect on the existing wildlife species or habitat. The planned location of the new restroom is already disturbed by existing structures and human activity.
  
• Parking Area Removal and Establishment of a Seating/Picnic Area. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Removal of the parking lot and establishment of a seating area and picnic area would not have any measurable adverse effect on existing wildlife habitat. The current location of the existing parking area is already disturbed by existing structures and human activity. The presence of picnic tables would introduce a new area for exposure of wildlife to human food. However, wildlife-specific mitigation measures, such as signs to deter visitors from feeding wildlife, bear-proof garbage cans, and regular trash collection, would largely offset impacts to wildlife.
  
• New Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Establishment of a new shuttle bus stop would not have any measurable effect on existing wildlife species or habitat because the location of the new shuttle bus stop is already disturbed by pavement and human activity.
  
• Interim Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Short-term, negligible, adverse impact. Establishment of new interim tour bus unloading, loading, and parking locations would not have any measurable effect on existing wildlife species or habitat because the locations are already disturbed by pavement and human activity.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Tree removal due to changes in trail alignments would eliminate some snags and other mature trees that provide habitat for birds, bats, and other small mammals. Currently, the lower forest layers are marginal wildlife habitat because of their proximity to human uses; therefore, the impact to lower canopy wildlife users would be negligible. Higher layers of the canopy, however, are less affected by human uses; therefore, the loss of some mature trees would have a greater impact on wildlife species or habitat. Wildlife-specific mitigation measures would be used to minimize adverse impacts to wildlife species or habitat.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Tree removal due to trail rehabilitation would eliminate some snags and other mature trees that provide habitat for birds, bats, and other small mammals. Currently, the lower forest layers are marginal wildlife habitat because of their proximity to human uses; therefore, the impact to lower canopy wildlife users would be negligible. Higher layers of the canopy, however, are less affected by human uses; therefore, the loss of some mature trees would have a greater impact on wildlife species or habitat. Wildlife-specific mitigation measures would be used to minimize adverse impacts to wildlife species or habitat.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Tree removal due to bridge rehabilitation and construction would eliminate some snags and other mature trees that provide habitat for birds, bats, and other small mammals. Currently, the lower forest layers are marginal wildlife habitat due to their proximity to human uses; therefore, the impact to lower canopy wildlife users would be negligible. Higher layers of the canopy, however, are less affected by human uses; therefore, the loss of some mature trees would have a greater impact on wildlife species or habitat. Wildlife-specific mitigation measures would be used to minimize adverse impacts to wildlife species or habitat.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Tree thinning to maintain the view corridors would eliminate some snags and other mature trees that provide habitat for birds, bats, and other small mammals. Currently, the lower forest layers are marginal wildlife habitat due to their proximity to human uses; therefore, the impact to lower canopy wildlife users would be negligible. Higher layers of the canopy, however, are less affected by human uses; therefore, the loss of some mature trees would have a greater impact on wildlife species or habitat. Wildlife-specific mitigation measures would be used to minimize adverse impacts to wildlife species or habitat.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. The rock-rubble pile removal would preceded by studies of hydrology, cultural resources, and wetlands, and appropriate public health and safety measures would be applied.

Overall, there would be a long-term, negligible, adverse cumulative impact on wildlife species or habitat under Alternative 2 resulting from tree removal associated with trail alignment and rehabilitation, bridge rehabilitation and construction, and view corridor maintenance.

The cumulative impact analysis for wildlife under Alternative 2 is the same as described earlier for Alternative 1. Cumulative actions would have a local, long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial cumulative effect on wildlife species or habitat within Yosemite Valley.

Wildlife impacts resulting from Alternative 2 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Relocation. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. The relocation of the restroom would not have any measurable effect on the existing wildlife habitat. The planned location of the new restroom is already disturbed by existing structures and human activity.
  
• Parking Area Removal and Establishment of an Informal Seating Area. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Removal of the parking lot and establishment of the seating area would not have any measurable adverse effect on existing wildlife habitat. The current location of the existing parking lot is already disturbed by existing structures and human activity. The presence of picnic tables in the seating area would introduce a new area for exposure of wildlife to human food. However, wildlife-specific mitigation measures such as signs to deter visitors from feeding wildlife would prevent adverse impacts to wildlife species or habitat.
  
• New Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Establishment of a new shuttle bus stop would not have any measurable effect on existing wildlife habitat because the location of the new shuttle bus stop is already disturbed by pavement and human activity.
  
• Interim Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Short-term, negligible, adverse impact. Establishment of a new interim tour bus unloading, loading, and parking locations would not have any measurable effect on existing wildlife species or habitat, because the locations are already disturbed by pavement and human activity.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Tree removal resulting from trail realignments would eliminate some snags and other mature trees that provide habitat for birds, bats, and other small mammals. Currently, the lower forest layers are marginal wildlife habitat due to their proximity to human uses; therefore, the impact to lower canopy wildlife users would be negligible. Higher layers of the canopy, however, are less affected by human uses; therefore, the loss of some mature trees would have a greater impact on wildlife species or habitat. Wildlife-specific mitigation measures would be used to minimize adverse impacts to wildlife species or habitat.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Tree removal due to trail rehabilitation would eliminate some snags and other mature trees that provide habitat for birds, bats, and other small mammals. Currently, the lower forest layers are marginal wildlife habitat due to their proximity to human uses; therefore, the impact to lower canopy wildlife users would be negligible. Higher layers of the canopy, however, are less affected by human uses; therefore, the loss of some mature trees would have a greater impact on wildlife species or habitat. Wildlife-specific mitigation measures would be used to minimize adverse impacts to wildlife species or habitat.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Tree removal due to bridge rehabilitation and construction would eliminate some snags and other mature trees that provide habitat for birds, bats, and other small mammals. Currently, the lower forest layers are marginal wildlife habitat due to their proximity to human uses; therefore, the impact to lower canopy wildlife users would be negligible. Higher layers of the canopy, however, are less affected by human uses; therefore, the loss of some mature trees would have a greater impact on wildlife species or habitat. Wildlife-specific mitigation measures would be used to minimize adverse impacts to wildlife species or habitat.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Tree thinning to maintain the view corridors would eliminate some snags and other mature trees that provide habitat for birds, bats, and other small mammals. Currently, the lower forest layers are marginal wildlife habitat due to their proximity to human uses; therefore, the impact to lower canopy wildlife users would be negligible. Higher layers of the canopy, however, are less affected by human uses; therefore, the loss of some mature trees would have a greater impact on wildlife species or habitat. Wildlife-specific mitigation measures would be used to minimize adverse impacts to wildlife species or habitat.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. The rock-rubble pile would be removed without the benefit of studies of hydrology, cultural resources, and wetlands being performed and appropriate public health and safety measures being applied.

Overall, there would be a long-term, negligible, adverse impact on wildlife species or habitat under Alternative 3 due to tree removal associated with trail alignment and rehabilitation, bridge rehabilitation and construction, and view corridor maintenance.

The cumulative impact analysis for wildlife under Alternative 3 is the same as presented earlier for Alternative 1. Cumulative actions would have a local, long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial cumulative effect on wildlife within Yosemite Valley.

Wildlife impacts resulting from Alternative 3 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

All Alternative 1 Elements. Fourteen special-status species may be present in the Lower Yosemite Fall area (including ten bat species). Additional species were considered in the evaluation for this project but were found to be absent in the Lower Yosemite Fall area (see Appendix B and the Methodology section in this chapter). The impacts of all Alternative 1 elements were evaluated for the following species:

• Bald Eagle (Federal Threatened Species, California Endangered Species) and Harlequin Duck (Federal Species of Concern, California Species of Special Concern). The bald eagle and harlequin duck are not known to nest in Yosemite Valley and have not been observed in the Lower Yosemite Fall area in recent years. The area of effect would be limited and the presence of these species in the area is unlikely.
  
• American Peregrine Falcon (California Endangered Species). The American peregrine falcon may forage in the Lower Yosemite Fall area but it does not nest in the area. Important habitat features would be retained, and a large area of suitable unaffected habitat would remain in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Wawona Riffle Beetle (Federal Species of Concern). Under Alternative 1, bridge rehabilitation and removal of bridge abutments, which could enhance potential habitat for the Wawona riffle beetle by improving natural river flow dynamics, would not be undertaken. Likewise, pier construction, which could remove a small amount of potential habitat for the Wawona riffle beetle, would not be undertaken.
  
• Special-Status Bat Species. The pallid bat, small-footed myotis bat, long-eared myotis bat, long-legged myotis bat, and greater mastiff bat roost and forage in forested areas. The Townsend’s big-eared bat, spotted bat, fringed myotis bat, and Yuma myotis bat forage in forested areas. Special-status species-specific mitigation measures would be used to minimize impacts to bat species. Bridge rehabilitation, trail relocation, and restroom relocation activities would not be undertaken and, therefore, these actions would not affect bats and roosting sites. Important habitat features would be retained, and a large area of suitable, unaffected habitat would remain in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.

Overall, there would be long-term, negligible, adverse impacts to special-status species or their habitat under Alternative 1.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions within Yosemite Valley are considered to have an overall net benefit to special-status species. For example, the Merced River Plan protects river-related natural resources through the application of seven management elements. Those elements are the River Protection Overlay, management zoning, protection and enhancement of Outstandingly Remarkable Values, implementation of a Visitor Experience Resource Protection framework, classifications, delineation of boundaries, and the Section 7 determination process. Full implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan would increase the size, continuity, and integrity of habitats (especially meadow, riparian, California black oak, and upland habitats) for special-status species in Yosemite Valley.

Although certain projects set forth in the Yosemite Valley Plan, such as construction of new lodging and parking facilities, and expansion of campgrounds in Yosemite Valley, have the potential to adversely affect local special-status species, these projects must be designed to ensure the long-term protection of special-status species consistent with the Merced River Plan and the Endangered Species Act. In addition, implementation of the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection framework (included in both the Merced River Plan and Yosemite Valley Plan) would help reduce adverse effects of visitor use on special-status species.

Cumulative actions would have a local, long-term, moderate, beneficial cumulative effect on special-status species within Yosemite Valley.

Special-status species impacts resulting from Alternative 1 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

All Alternative 2 Elements. Fourteen special-status species may be present in the Lower Yosemite Fall area (including ten bat species). Additional species were considered in the evaluation for this project, but were found to be absent in the Lower Yosemite Fall area (see Appendix B and the Methodology section in this chapter). The impacts of all Alternative 2 elements were evaluated for the following species:

• Bald Eagle (Federal Threatened Species, California Endangered Species) and Harlequin Duck (Federal Species of Concern, California Species of Special Concern). Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. The bald eagle and harlequin duck are not known to nest in Yosemite Valley and have not been observed in the Lower Yosemite Fall area in recent years. The area of effect would be limited and the presence of these species in the area is unlikely.
  
• American Peregrine Falcon (California Endangered Species). Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. The American peregrine falcon may forage in the Lower Yosemite Fall area but it does not nest in the area. Important habitat features would be retained, and a large area of suitable unaffected habitat would remain in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Wawona Riffle Beetle (Federal Species of Concern). Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. Bridge rehabilitation and removal of bridge abutments could enhance potential habitat for the Wawona riffle beetle by improving natural river flow dynamics. This would be a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. However, pier construction could remove a small amount of potential habitat for the Wawona riffle beetle. The adverse impact from removal of potential habitat would offset the beneficial impact to a minor level.
  
• Special-Status Bat Species. Short-term, negligible, adverse impact. The pallid bat, the small-footed myotis bat, the long-eared myotis bat, long-legged myotis bat, and the greater mastiff bat roost and forage in forested areas. The Townsend’s big-eared bat, spotted bat, fringed myotis bat, and Yuma myotis bat forage in forested areas. Selected thinning in the view corridors could remove potential roost sites and foraging habitat for bats. Special-status species-specific mitigation measures would be used to minimize impacts to bat species. Bridge rehabilitation, trail relocation, and restroom relocation activities would not be expected to affect bats and roosting sites. Important habitat features would be retained, and a large area of suitable, unaffected habitat would remain in the project area.

Overall, there would be long-term, minor, beneficial impacts under Alternative 2 to the Wawona riffle beetle from improved river flow dynamics.

Cumulative impacts on special-status species are described under Alternative 1. Cumulative actions, in particular actions prescribed in the Merced River Plan and the Yosemite Valley Plan, would have a local, long-term, moderate, beneficial effect on special-status species in Yosemite Valley.

Special-status species impacts resulting from Alternative 2 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

All Alternative 3 Elements. Fourteen special-status species may be present in the Lower Yosemite Fall area (including ten bat species). Additional species were considered in the evaluation for this project, but were found to be absent in the Lower Yosemite Fall area (see Appendix B and Methodology, this chapter). The impacts of all Alternative 3 elements were evaluated for the following species:

• Bald Eagle (Federal Threatened Species, California Endangered Species) and Harlequin Duck (Federal Species of Concern, California Species of Special Concern). Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. The bald eagle and harlequin duck are not known to nest in Yosemite Valley and have not been observed in the Lower Yosemite Fall area in recent years. The affected area would be limited, and the presence of these species in the area is unlikely.
  
• American Peregrine Falcon (California Endangered Species). Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. The American peregrine falcon may forage in the Lower Yosemite Fall area, but it does not nest in the area. Important habitat features would be retained, and a large area of suitable unaffected habitat would remain in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Wawona Riffle Beetle (Federal Species of Concern). Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. Bridge rehabilitation and removal of bridge abutments could enhance potential habitat for the Wawona riffle beetle by improving natural river flow dynamics. This would be a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. However, pier construction could remove a small amount of potential habitat for the Wawona riffle beetle. The adverse impact from removal of potential habitat would offset the beneficial impact to a minor level.
  
• Special-Status Bat Species. Short-term, negligible, adverse impact. The pallid bat, small-footed myotis bat, long-eared myotis bat, long-legged myotis bat, and greater mastiff bat roost and forage in forested areas. The Townsend’s big-eared bat, spotted bat, fringed myotis bat, and Yuma myotis bat forage in forested areas. Selected thinning in the view corridors could remove potential roost sites and foraging habitat for bats. Special-status species-specific mitigation measures would be used to minimize impacts to bat species. Bridge rehabilitation, trail relocation, and restroom relocation activities are not expected to affect bats and roosting sites. Important habitat features would be retained, and a large area of suitable, unaffected habitat would remain in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.

Overall, there would be long-term, minor, beneficial impacts under Alternative 3 to the Wawona riffle beetle from improved river flow dynamics.

Cumulative impacts on special-status species are described under Alternative 1. Cumulative actions, in particular actions prescribed in the Merced River Plan and the Yosemite Valley Plan, would have a local, long-term, moderate, beneficial effect on special-status species in Yosemite Valley.

Because impacts to special-status species would be negligible under Alternative 3, this alternative would not result in impairment of park resources.

• Restroom Location. The existing restroom would continue to have no effect on air quality in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Parking Area. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Private automobiles and commercial buses would continue to access and park in the parking area. Emissions from these buses and automobiles would continue to adversely affect air quality in the area although, as older vehicles are replaced with newer, cleaner vehicles, emissions would decrease. The existing parking area would not be removed; therefore, there would be no emissions from motorized construction equipment. No additional cars or buses would be attracted to the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Shuttle Bus Stop. There would be no additional impacts from the emissions of shuttle buses that currently park in the parking lot beyond those from private automobiles. Shuttle buses are not allowed to idle in the parking area for long periods of time.
  
• Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. There would be no additional impacts from the emissions of tour buses that currently park in the parking area. Tour buses are not allowed to idle in the parking area for long periods of time.
  
• Trail Alignment. The existing trail alignments would continue to have no effect on air quality in the area.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. The existing condition of trails would continue to have no effect on air quality in the area.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. The existing condition of the bridges would continue to have no effect on air quality in the area.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. No trees or vegetation would be removed to maintain view corridors. The lack of vista maintenance in the area would not affect air quality.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. The rock-rubble pile would continue in its current location.

Overall, there would be a long-term, negligible, adverse impact to air quality under Alternative 1 due to the concentration of vehicle emissions in the existing parking area.

Although cumulative growth in the region would tend to adversely affect air quality, implementation of ongoing state and federal mobile-source control programs would ameliorate this effect to a degree. Considered with the adverse impacts associated with regional air quality influences, the cumulative projects in combination with Alternative 1 would have a local, long-term, moderate, beneficial effect on air quality in Yosemite Valley.

Air quality impacts resulting from Alternative 1 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Relocation. Short-term, negligible, adverse impact. Air-quality-specific mitigation measures (e.g., dust abatement) would be used during restroom demolition and construction to largely offset adverse impacts to air quality from these activities.
  
• Parking Area Removal and Establishment of Seating/Picnic Area. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Under Alternative 2, the parking area would be relocated and day tour buses would be redirected to an area near Camp 4 west of Yosemite Lodge. Cars would ultimately be directed to a 550-space parking area in Yosemite Village. Localized air quality impacts associated with these vehicles would shift from the Lower Yosemite Fall area to these new locations. However, air quality impacts would be largely offset because there would be no change in the number of tour buses. Air-quality-specific mitigation measures (e.g., dust abatement) would be used during parking removal and seating area construction to prevent adverse impacts to air quality from these activities.
  
• New Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Under Alternative 2, shuttle buses would stop for a short time to load and unload passengers at a new location along Northside Drive. However, no additional impact to air quality would result from shuttle buses stopping at this location because Northside Drive is already a major thoroughfare for vehicles and buses and the number of shuttle buses would be the same as under Alternative 1. Shuttle buses would not be allowed to idle for long periods of time.
  
• Interim Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Short-term, negligible, adverse impact. Under Alternative 2, tour buses would be temporarily parked at an area near Camp 4 west of Yosemite Lodge. Localized air quality impacts associated with these vehicles would shift from the Lower Yosemite Fall area to this new location. However, there would be a negligible impact to air quality from tour buses because there would be less than 200 additional vehicle miles traveled per day by the buses, the road is already a major thoroughfare for vehicles and buses, and tour buses would not be allowed to idle for long periods of time.
  
• Trail Alignment. Short-term, negligible, adverse impact. Air-quality-specific mitigation measures (e.g., dust abatement) would be used during trail alignment activities to largely offset adverse impacts to air quality.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Short-term, negligible, adverse impact. Air-quality-specific mitigation measures (e.g., dust abatement) would be used during trail rehabilitation activities to largely offset adverse impacts to air quality.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Short-term, negligible, adverse impact. Air-quality-specific mitigation measures (e.g., dust abatement) would be used during bridge rehabilitation and construction to largely offset adverse impacts to air quality from these activities.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Tree and vegetation removal for vista maintenance would not have a measurable effect on air quality in the area.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. The rock-rubble pile removal would be preceded by studies of hydrology, cultural resources, and wetlands, and appropriate public health and safety measures would be applied.

Overall, there would be a long-term, minor, adverse impact on air quality under Alternative 2 because vehicle emissions would remain unchanged but shift from the Lower Yosemite Fall area to other areas in Yosemite Valley.

Although cumulative growth in the region would tend to adversely affect air quality, implementation of ongoing state and federal mobile-source control programs would ameliorate this effect to a degree. With respect to particulate matter, conditions in the Valley would be determined by both regional sources and local sources, and could be beneficial or adverse. Considered with the adverse impacts associated with regional air quality influences, the cumulative projects would have a local, long-term, moderate, beneficial effect on air quality in Yosemite Valley.

Alternative 2 and the cumulative projects would result in local, long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts on air quality.

Air quality impacts resulting from Alternative 2 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Relocation. Short-term, negligible, adverse impact. Air-quality-specific mitigation measures (e.g., dust abatement) would be used during restroom demolition and construction to largely offset adverse impacts to air quality from these activities.
  
• Parking Area Removal and Establishment of Seating/Picnic Area. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Under Alternative 3, the parking area would be relocated and day tour buses would be redirected to an area near Camp 4 west of Yosemite Lodge. Cars would ultimately be directed to a 550-space parking area in Yosemite Village. Localized air quality impacts associated with these vehicles would shift from the Lower Yosemite Fall area to these new locations. However, air quality impacts would be largely offset because there would be no change in the number of tour buses. Air-quality-specific mitigation measures (e.g., dust abatement) would be used during parking removal and seating area construction to largely offset adverse impacts to air quality from these activities.
  
• New Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Under Alternative 3, shuttle buses would stop for a short time to load and unload passengers at a new location along Northside Drive. No additional impact to air quality would result from shuttle buses stopping at this location because Northside Drive is already a major thoroughfare for vehicles and buses and the number of shuttle buses would be the same as for Alternative 1. Shuttle buses would not be allowed to idle for long periods of time.
  
• Interim Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Short-term, negligible, adverse impact. Under Alternative 3, tour buses would be temporarily parked at an area near Camp 4 west of Yosemite Lodge. Localized air quality impacts associated with these vehicles would shift from the Lower Yosemite Fall area to this new location. However, there would be a negligible impact to air quality from tour buses because there would be less than 200 additional vehicle miles traveled per day by the buses, the road is already a major thoroughfare for vehicles and buses, and tour buses would not be allowed to idle for long periods of time.
  
• Trail Alignment. Short-term, negligible, adverse impact. Air-quality-specific mitigation measures (e.g., dust abatement) would be used during trail alignment activities to largely offset adverse impacts to air quality.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Short-term, negligible, adverse impact. Air-quality-specific mitigation measures (e.g., dust abatement) would be used during trail rehabilitation activities to largely offset adverse impacts to air quality.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Short-term, negligible, adverse impact. Air-quality-specific mitigation measures (e.g., dust abatement) would be used during bridge rehabilitation and construction to largely offset adverse impacts to air quality from these activities.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Tree and vegetation removal for vista maintenance would not have a measurable effect on air quality in the area.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Removal of the rock-rubble pile would not affect air quality. The rock-rubble pile would be removed without the benefit of studies on hydrology, cultural resources, and wetlands being performed and appropriate public health and safety protection measures being applied.

Overall, there would be a long-term, minor, adverse impact on air quality under Alternative 3 because vehicle emissions would remain unchanged but shift from the Lower Yosemite Fall area to other areas in Yosemite Valley.

Although cumulative growth in the region will tend to adversely affect air quality, implementation of ongoing state and federal mobile-source control programs would ameliorate this effect to a degree. With respect to particulate matter, conditions in the Valley would be determined by both regional sources and local sources, and could be beneficial or adverse. Considered with the adverse impacts associated with regional air quality influences, the cumulative projects would have a local, long-term, moderate, beneficial effect on air quality in Yosemite Valley.

Alternative 3 and the cumulative projects would result in local, long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts on air quality.

Air quality impacts resulting from Alternative 3 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Location. The existing restroom would not be removed. The limited number of fixtures at the current restroom would continue to contribute to the amount of time visitors may congregate and wait in the area to use restroom services. Human activity in the area would continue to contribute to noise levels in the area.
  
• Parking Area. Private automobiles would continue to access and park in the parking area. Visitors would continue to congregate and create noise at the south approach to the western trail. Vehicle noise and human activity would continue to contribute to noise levels in the area.
  
• Shuttle Bus Stop. Shuttle buses would continue to stop in the parking area, with visitors congregating at the south approach to the western trail. Vehicle noise and human activity would continue to contribute to noise levels in the area.
  
• Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Private automobiles would continue to access and park in the parking area, with visitors congregating at the south approach to the western trail. Vehicle noise and human activity would continue to contribute to noise levels in the area.
  
• Trail Alignment. The current alignment of trails in the area would continue to have no effect on noise levels.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. The current condition of trails in the area would continue to have no effect on noise levels.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. The current condition of bridges in the area would continue to have no effect on noise levels.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. No trees or vegetation would be removed; therefore, there would continue to be no noise generated from vista maintenance activities.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Removal of the rock-rubble pile would continue not to affect noise levels.

Overall, there would be a long-term, minor, adverse impact on noise levels under Alternative 1 as a result of vehicles accessing and parking in the parking area.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions proposed for Yosemite Valley could have beneficial or adverse impacts on noise. For example, the National Park Service’s Shuttle Bus Replacement Project could have a net beneficial effect on the ambient noise environment by improving the attractiveness of alternative modes of transportation, thereby reducing private automobile trips. Although the Shuttle Bus Replacement Project would have localized, short-term, adverse noise effects, the general goal of the project is to relieve congestion and provide for alternative means of transportation within Yosemite Valley. To the extent that transportation-related projects 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. Overall, general sound levels associated with traffic along most roadways in the Valley would be reduced, thus representing a long-term, beneficial impact.

Other reasonably foreseeable future National Park Service projects not anticipated to have a net adverse or beneficial effect on the ambient noise environment (except for short-term, localized impacts during construction) include the Replacement/Rehabilitation of Yosemite Valley Main Sewer Line, Merced River at Eagle Creek Ecological Restoration (Yosemite Valley), Trail Reconstruction from Happy Isles to Vernal Fall, Repair Flood Damaged Trail Bridges at Happy Isles, and Happy Isles Site Improvements.

Noise impacts resulting from Alternative 1 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Relocation. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Removal of the existing restroom would reduce the amount of noise at the southern approach to the western trail, but this noise source would be relocated elsewhere. Noise-specific mitigation measures used during restroom demolition and construction would largely offset short-term, adverse impacts to noise levels from these activities.
  
• Parking Area Removal and Establishment of Seating/Picnic Area. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Under Alternative 2, the parking area would be removed and cars and buses would be redirected to the Yosemite Lodge parking area (overnight buses and cars) and an area near Camp 4 west of Yosemite Lodge (day tour buses). The noise generated from these vehicles would be eliminated from the Lower Yosemite Fall area, but would be relocated to the replacement parking area at Yosemite Village. The seating area would provide a quiet setting for visitors to enjoy views of Yosemite Falls. Noise-specific mitigation measures used during parking area removal and seating/picnic area construction would largely offset adverse impacts to noise levels from these activities.
  
• New Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. The replacement of the current shuttle bus stop with a new stop along Northside Drive would further reduce the amount of vehicle and human activity noise at the south approach of the western trail. Shuttle buses stopping at the new location would not have a measurable effect on noise levels along Northside Drive because this road already experiences noise from current traffic levels.
  
• Interim Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Short-term, minor, adverse impact. Under Alternative 2, tour buses that currently unload and board passengers in the parking area would be redirected to the interim dropoff and pickup zone along Northside Drive (for loading and unloading passengers) and to an area near Camp 4 west of Yosemite Lodge (for interim parking). The noise generated from these vehicles would be eliminated from the Lower Yosemite Fall area, but would temporarily increase noise levels in the Camp 4 area during certain times of the day (i.e., mid-day). The addition of the tour bus unloading and loading zone would not have a measurable effect on noise levels along Northside Drive because this road already experiences noise from current traffic levels.
  
• Trail Alignment. Short-term, negligible, adverse impact. Noise-specific mitigation measures used during trail alignment would largely offset adverse impacts to noise levels from this activity.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Short-term, negligible, adverse impact. Noise-specific mitigation measures used during trail rehabilitation would largely offset adverse impacts to noise levels from these activities.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Short-term, negligible, adverse impact. Noise-specific mitigation measures used during bridge rehabilitation and construction would largely offset adverse impacts to noise levels from these activities.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Tree and vegetation removal for vista maintenance would not have a measurable effect on noise levels in the area.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Short-term, negligible, adverse impact. The rock-rubble pile removal would be preceded by studies of hydrology, cultural resources, and wetlands, and appropriate public health and safety measures would be applied. Noise-specific mitigation measures used during removal of the rock-rubble pile would largely offset adverse impacts to noise levels from this activity.

Overall, there would be long-term, minor, adverse impacts on noise levels in the Lower Yosemite Fall area under Alternative 2 due to the removal of the parking area and associated cars and buses, but some of these impacts would be shifted to other areas in the Valley.

The cumulative impacts analysis under Alternative 2 is the same as presented earlier for Alternative 1.

Noise impacts resulting from Alternative 2 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Relocation. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Removal of the existing restroom would reduce the amount of noise from human activity at the southern approach to the western trail, but this noise would be shifted elsewhere. However, placement of the new restroom near the trail leading from Northside Drive to Bridge #6 would increase noise levels in this area. The adverse impact from noise generated at the new restroom location would mitigate the long-term, minor, beneficial impact from noise reduction in the existing restroom area to a negligible level. Noise-specific mitigation measures used during restroom demolition and construction would largely offset short-term, adverse impacts to noise levels from these activities.
  
• Parking Area Removal and Establishment of an Informal Seating Area. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Under Alternative 3, the parking area would be removed and cars and buses would be redirected to the Yosemite Lodge parking area (overnight buses and cars) and an area near Camp 4 west of Yosemite Lodge (day tour buses). The noise generated from these vehicles would be eliminated from the Lower Yosemite Fall area but relocated to the replacement parking area in Yosemite Village. The seating area would provide a quiet setting for visitors to enjoy views of Yosemite Falls. Noise-specific mitigation measures used during parking lot removal and seating area construction would largely offset adverse impacts to noise levels from these activities.
  
• New Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. The replacement of the current shuttle bus stop with a new one along Northside Drive would further reduce the amount of vehicle and human activity noise at the south approach to the western trail. Shuttle buses stopping at the new location would not have a measurable effect on noise levels along Northside Drive because this road already experiences noise from current traffic levels.
  
• Interim Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Short-term, minor, adverse impact. Under Alternative 3, tour buses that currently unload and board passengers in the parking area would be redirected to the interim dropoff and pickup zone along Northside Drive (for loading and unloading passengers) and to an area near Camp 4 west of Yosemite Lodge (for parking). The noise generated from these vehicles would be eliminated from this area but would temporarily increase noise levels near Camp 4. The addition of the tour bus unloading and loading zone would not have a measurable effect on noise levels along Northside Drive because this road already experiences noise from current traffic levels.
  
• Trail Alignment. Short-term, negligible, adverse impact. Noise-specific mitigation measures used during trail alignment activities would largely offset adverse impacts to noise levels.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Short-term, negligible, adverse impact. Noise-specific mitigation measures used during trail rehabilitation would largely offset adverse impacts to noise levels.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Noise-specific mitigation measures used during bridge rehabilitation and construction would largely offset adverse impacts to noise levels from these activities.
• View Corridor Maintenance. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Tree and vegetation removal for vista maintenance would not have a measurable effect on noise levels in the area.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Short-term, negligible, adverse impact. The rock-rubble pile would be removed without the benefit of studies on hydrology, cultural resources, and wetlands being performed and appropriate public health and safety protection measures being applied. Noise-specific mitigation measures used during removal of the rock-rubble pile would largely offset adverse impacts to noise levels from this activity.

Overall, there would be a long-term, minor, adverse impact on noise levels in the Lower Yosemite Fall area under Alternative 3 resulting from the removal of the parking area and associated cars and buses, but some of these impacts would be shifted to other areas.

The cumulative impacts analysis for Alternative 3 is the same as presented for Alternative 1.

Noise impacts resulting from Alternative 3 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Location. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Although the restroom would remain in its current location, it would continue to present a long-term, minor, adverse impact to archeological site CA-Mrp-240/303/H.
  
• Parking Area. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Although the parking area would remain in its current location, it would continue to present a long-term, minor, adverse impact to archeological site CA-Mrp-240/303/H.
  
• Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Although the shuttle bus stop would remain in its current location, it would continue to present a long-term, minor, adverse impact to archeological site CA-Mrp-240/303/H.
  
• Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Although tour bus operations would remain within the existing parking area, they would continue to present a long-term, minor, adverse impact to archeological site CA-Mrp-240/303/H.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. The trails would remain in their current alignments, presenting a long-term, minor, adverse impact to the Hutchings sawmill and Camp Lost Arrow site.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Since the trails would remain in their current condition, including normal maintenance and repair, no disturbance of archeological resources would occur.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Since the bridges would remain in their current locations and condition, including normal maintenance and repair (including Bridge #6, which is currently collapsed and would therefore be rebuilt), no disturbance of archeological resources would occur.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Since vegetation would not be removed to enhance identified view corridors, no disturbance of archeological resources would occur.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Since the rock-rubble pile would remain in its current location, no disturbance of archeological resources would occur.

Overall, there would be long-term, minor, adverse impacts to archeological resources under Alternative 1 due to the existing restroom location, parking area location, and trail alignments.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions proposed in the region that could have an adverse cumulative effect on archeological resources in Yosemite Valley include development-related projects, such as implementing the Yosemite Valley Plan, the Replacement/Rehabilitation of Yosemite Valley Main Sewer Line, and the Merced River at Eagle Creek Ecological Restoration. The extensive grading and ground disturbance likely required for these projects could disturb individual archeological resources. Each of these projects is near the main stem of the Merced River, which is an archeologically sensitive area. Implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan would have a local, long-term, minor, adverse cumulative effect on cultural resources in Yosemite Valley resulting from possible disturbance associated with earth-moving, construction, and demolition projects. The National Park Service would follow guidelines of the 1999 Programmatic Agreement and avoid adverse effects to archeological resources to the greatest extent feasible. In combination with Alternative 1, the other projects within and in the vicinity of the Lower Yosemite Fall area would have no further cumulative impact on archeological resources beyond those analyzed in the Yosemite Valley Plan.

Archeological resource impacts resulting from Alternative 1 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Relocation. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Long-term, moderate, adverse impacts to archeological site CA-Mrp-240/303/H would occur through the grading and removal of intact cultural deposits. This impact would be reduced to the extent possible through archeological data recovery excavations and site-specific construction monitoring. Thus, the adverse impact to this site would be reduced in intensity from moderate to minor.
  
• Parking Area Removal and Establishment of Seating/Picnic Area. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Long-term, minor, adverse impacts to archeological site CA-Mrp-240/303/H would occur through the careful grading and potential removal of cultural deposits. These impacts would be reduced to the extent possible through archeological data recovery excavations and site-specific construction monitoring. Thus, the adverse impacts to this site would be reduced in intensity from minor to negligible.
  
• New Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Long-term, moderate, adverse impacts to archeological site CA-Mrp-749 would occur through the grading and removal of intact cultural deposits. These impacts would be reduced to the extent possible through archeological data recovery excavations and site-specific construction monitoring. Thus, the adverse impacts to this site would be reduced in intensity from moderate to minor.
  
• Interim Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Negligible impact. Because no ground disturbing activities would be required with this action, archeological deposits would not be disturbed.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Long-term, moderate, adverse impacts to archeological sites CA-Mrp-240/303/H, CA-Mrp-749, YC-5, YC-12, and the Rock Ring could occur through the grading and removal of intact cultural deposits. These impacts would be reduced to the extent possible through avoidance, archeological data recovery excavations, and site-specific construction protection and monitoring. Thus, the adverse impacts to these sites would be reduced in intensity from moderate to minor.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Long-term, moderate, adverse impacts to archeological sites CA-Mrp-240/303/H, CA-Mrp-749, YC-5, and YC-12 could occur through the grading and removal of intact cultural deposits. These impacts would be reduced to the extent possible through archeological data recovery excavations and site-specific construction monitoring. Thus, the adverse impacts to these sites would be reduced in intensity from moderate to minor.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Long-term, moderate, adverse impact to archeological site YC-5 would occur through the grading and removal of intact cultural deposits. This impact would be reduced to the extent possible through archeological data recovery excavations and site-specific construction monitoring. Thus, the adverse impacts to this site would be reduced in intensity from moderate to minor.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Negligible impact. As view corridor maintenance would not occur within the boundaries of archaeological sites, cultural deposits would not be disturbed.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Negligible impact. The rock-rubble pile is not situated within the confines of a known archeological resource. As such, the removal of the pile would not disturb archaeological deposits.

Overall, there would be local, long-term, minor, adverse impacts to archeological resources under Alternative 2 due to the restroom location, new shuttle bus stop location, trail alignments, and bridge rehabilitation.

The effects of cumulative actions on archeological resources have been described previously for Alternative 1. The cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of the Lower Yosemite Fall area would result in a local, long-term, minor, adverse impact on archeological resources as a result of the potential disturbance of such resources. In combination with Alternative 2, these impacts would be increased to a moderate level of intensity.

Archeological resource impacts resulting from Alternative 2 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Relocation. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Long-term, moderate, adverse impacts to archeological sites CA-Mrp-240/303/H and CA-Mrp-749 would occur through the grading and removal of intact cultural deposits. These impacts would be reduced to the extent possible through archeological data recovery excavations and site-specific construction monitoring. Therefore, the adverse impacts to these sites would be reduced in intensity from moderate to minor.
  
• Parking Area Removal and Establishment of an Informal Seating Area. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Long-term, moderate, adverse impacts to archeological site CA-Mrp-240/303/H would occur through the grading and removal of intact cultural deposits. These impacts would be reduced to the extent possible through capping the site with dirt, archeological data recovery excavations, and site-specific construction monitoring. Thus, the adverse impacts to this site would be reduced in intensity from moderate to minor.
  
• New Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Long-term, moderate, adverse impacts to archeological site CA-Mrp-749 would occur through the grading and removal of intact cultural deposits. These impacts would be reduced to the extent possible through archeological data recovery excavations and site-specific construction monitoring. Thus, the adverse impacts to this site would be reduced in intensity from moderate to minor.
  
• Interim Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Negligible impact. As no ground disturbing activities are required with this project component, archeological deposits would not be disturbed.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Long-term, moderate, adverse impacts to archeological sites CA-Mrp-240/303/H, CA-Mrp-749, YC-5, YC-12, and the Rock Ring could occur through the grading and removal of intact cultural deposits. In addition, the eastern trail would go over the millrace feature on site YC-5 (Hutchings sawmill site). These impacts would be reduced to the extent possible through archeological data recovery excavations and site-specific construction monitoring. Thus, the adverse impacts to these sites would be reduced in intensity from moderate to minor.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Long-term, moderate, adverse impacts to archeological sites CA-Mrp-240/303/H, CA-Mrp-749, YC-5, and YC-12 could occur through the grading and removal of intact cultural deposits. These impacts would be reduced to the extent possible through archeological data recovery excavations and site-specific construction monitoring. Thus, the adverse impacts to these sites would be reduced in intensity from moderate to minor.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Long-term, moderate, adverse impacts to archeological site YC-5 would occur through the grading and removal of intact cultural deposits. These impacts would be reduced to the extent possible through archeological data recovery excavations and site-specific construction monitoring. Thus, the adverse impacts to this site would be reduced in intensity from moderate to minor.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Negligible impact. Because view corridor maintenance would not occur within the boundaries of archaeological sites, cultural deposits would not be disturbed.
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Negligible impact. The rubble-pile is not situated within the confines of a known archeological resource. As such, the removal of the pile would not disturb archaeological deposits.

Overall there would be local, long-term, minor, adverse impacts to archeological resources under Alternative 3 from the restroom location, parking area removal, new shuttle bus stop, trail alignments, and bridge rehabilitation.

The effects of cumulative actions on archeological resources have been described previously for Alternative 1. The cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of the Lower Yosemite Fall area would result in a local, long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impact on archeological resources as a result of the potential disturbance of such resources. In combination with Alternative 3, these impacts would be increased to a moderate level of intensity.

Archeological resource impacts resulting from Alternative 3 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Location. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Although the restroom would remain in its current location, it would continue to present a long-term, minor, adverse impact on the Koom-I-ne and bedrock milling feature resources.
  
• Parking Area. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Although the parking area would remain in its current location, it would continue to present a long-term, minor, adverse impact to the Koom-I-ne and bedrock milling feature resources.
  
• Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Although the shuttle bus stop would remain in its current location, it would continue to present a long-term, minor, adverse impact to the Koom-I-ne and bedrock milling feature resources.
  
• Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Although tour bus operations would remain within the existing parking area, and no construction would occur, they would continue to present a long-term, minor, adverse impact to the Koom-I-ne and bedrock milling feature resources.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Since the trails would remain in their current alignments, the existing designated trails, network of undesignated trails (social trails), and the existing Valley Loop trail would continue to cause disturbance of ethnographic resources.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Since the trails would remain in their current condition except for normal maintenance and repair, disturbance of ethnographic resources would occur due to construction; however, because trails through ethnographic resources would remain in their current condition, no barriers would prevent additional disturbance to these resources.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Since the bridges would remain in their current locations and condition (except for normal maintenance and repair such as rebuilding Bridge #6, which recently collapsed), no disturbance of ethnographic resources would occur.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Since vegetation would not be removed to enhance identified view corridors, no disturbance of ethnographic resources would occur.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Since the rock-rubble pile would remain in its current location, no disturbance of ethnographic resources would occur.

Overall, there would be long-term, minor, adverse impacts to ethnographic resources under Alternative 1 from the locations of the existing restroom, parking area, and shuttle bus stop.

Ethnographic resources and their traditional cultural associations have been lost or damaged in Yosemite Valley 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 main stem of the Merced River are the result of thousands of years of human occupation. Development of facilities within Yosemite Valley has disturbed or destroyed numerous ethnographic resources and compromised the integrity of numerous other such resources, which has had an adverse cumulative effect on ethnographic resources.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions proposed in the Yosemite Valley Plan within the local area and the region could have a beneficial cumulative impact on ethnographic resources at the Lower Yosemite Fall area (see the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, Vol. Ib, Chapter 4, page 4.2-143).

Another example of a reasonably foreseeable future project that could beneficially affect ethnographic resources in Yosemite Valley is the Merced River at Eagle Creek Ecological Restoration project. This project could restore 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 areas was continued. Other projects in Yosemite Valley would result in a local, long-term, minor, adverse cumulative impact on ethnographic resources as a result of the disturbance of such resources. Alternative 1 would not contribute to this impact.

Ethnographic resource impacts resulting from Alternative 1 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Relocation. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. The relocation of the restroom within the boundaries of the former Koom-I-ne village site would result in a local, long-term, minor, adverse impact to this resource.
  
• Parking Area Removal and Establishment of Seating/Picnic Area. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. The removal of the parking area, which would lessen the degree of development within the boundaries of the former Koom-I-ne village site, would result in a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact to this resource.
  
• New Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. The placement of the facility within a grove of California black oaks would result in a long-term, minor, adverse impact to this traditional gathering area. Increased visitor use would also result in a long-term, minor, adverse impact.
  
• Interim Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Short-term, minor, adverse impact. The temporary parking of buses adjacent to the Indian Cultural Center, a traditional use area, could result in a short-term, minor, adverse impact to this resource by increasing the degree of non-traditional activities in the area. Buses will park elsewhere prior to establishment of the Indian Cultural Center.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, moderate, adverse impact. The trail alignment would impact ethnographic resources such as the former Koom-I-ne village site, the helli mushroom-gathering area, California black oaks, and bracken fern. However, these impacts could be reduced by further consultation with culturally associated American Indian tribes to develop appropriate mitigating strategies (e.g., trail design elements that encourage visitors to stay on defined trails, thus minimizing trampling of vegetation). Such strategies could include identification of and assistance in providing access to alternative resource-gathering areas, continuing to provide access to traditional use or spiritual areas, and screening new development from traditional use areas.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, moderate, adverse impact. The rehabilitation of trails would impact ethnographic resources such as the former Koom-I-ne village site, the helli mushroom-gathering area, California black oaks, and bracken fern. However, these impacts would be reduced by further consultation with culturally associated American Indian tribes to develop appropriate mitigating strategies. Such strategies would include identification of and assistance in providing access to alternative resource-gathering areas, continuing to provide access to traditional use or spiritual areas, and screening new development from traditional use areas.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Ground-disturbing activities, as well as the establishment/relocation of facilities within traditional gathering areas (mushrooms, bracken fern, California black oaks), would result in long-term, minor, adverse impacts to these ethnographic resources.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Negligible impact. Because view corridor maintenance would not occur within the boundaries of an ethnographic resource, ethnographic resources would not be impacted.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Negligible impact. Because the rubble pile is not situated within the boundaries of an ethnographic resource, ethnographic resources would not be impacted.

Overall, there would be local, long-term, moderate, adverse impacts to ethnographic resources under Alternative 2 due to trail realignments and trail and bridge rehabilitation efforts.

The cumulative effects of actions on ethnographic resources are described previously for Alternative 1. The cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of the Lower Yosemite Fall area would result in a local, long-term, minor to negligible, adverse impact on ethnographic resources as a result of the potential disturbance of such resources. In combination with Alternative 2, these impacts would be increased to a moderate level of intensity.

Ethnographic resource impacts resulting from Alternative 2 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Relocation. Long-term, moderate, adverse impact. The placement of the restroom within the boundaries of a traditional gathering area (mushrooms) would result in a local, long-term, moderate, adverse impact to this resource.
  
• Parking Area Removal and Establishment of an Informal Seating Area. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. The removal of the parking area from within the boundaries of the former Koom-I-ne village site would result in a local, long-term, minor, beneficial impact to this resource.
  
• New Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. The placement of the facility within a grove of California black oaks could result in a long-term, minor, adverse impact to this traditional gathering area. Increased visitor use could also result in a long-term, minor, adverse impact.
  
• Interim Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Short-term, minor, adverse impact. The temporary parking of buses adjacent to the Indian Cultural Center, a traditional use area, could result in a short-term, minor, adverse impact to this resource.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, moderate, adverse impact. The trail alignment may impact ethnographic resources such as the former Koom-I-ne village site, the helli mushroom-gathering area, California black oaks, and bracken fern. However, these impacts could be reduced by further consultation with culturally associated American Indian tribes to develop appropriate mitigating strategies (e.g., trail design elements that encourage visitors to stay on defined trails, thus minimizing trampling of vegetation). Such strategies could include identification of and assistance in providing access to alternative resource-gathering areas, continuing to provide access to traditional use or spiritual areas, and screening new development from traditional use areas.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, moderate, adverse impact. The rehabilitation of trails may impact ethnographic resources such as the former Koom-I-ne village site, the helli mushroom-gathering area, California black oaks, and bracken fern. However, these impacts could be reduced by further consultation with culturally associated American Indian tribes to develop appropriate mitigating strategies. Such strategies could include identification of and assistance in providing access to alternative resource-gathering areas, continuing to provide access to traditional use or spiritual areas, and screening new development from traditional use areas.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Ground-disturbing activities, as well as the establishment/relocation of facilities within traditional gathering areas (mushrooms, bracken fern, California black oaks), may result in long-term, minor, adverse impacts to these ethnographic resources.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Negligible impact. Because view corridor maintenance would not occur within the boundaries of an ethnographic resource, ethnographic resources would not be impacted.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Negligible impact. Because the rubble pile is not situated within the boundaries of an ethnographic resource, ethnographic resources would not be impacted.

Overall, there would be local, long-term, moderate, adverse impacts to ethnographic resources due to trail realignments and rehabilitation of trails and bridges under Alternative 3.

The cumulative effects of actions on ethnographic resources are described previously for Alternative 1. The cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of the Lower Yosemite Fall area would result in a local, long-term, minor to negligible, adverse impact on ethnographic resources as a result of the potential disturbance of such resources. In combination with Alternative 3, these impacts would be increased to a moderate level of intensity.

Ethnographic resource impacts resulting from Alternative 3 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Parking Area. Because the parking area would remain in its current location, no disturbance of cultural landscape resources would occur.
  
• Shuttle Bus Stop. Because the shuttle bus stop would remain in its current location and a new shuttle bus stop would not be constructed, no disturbance of cultural landscape resources would occur.
  
• Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Because tour bus operations would remain within the existing parking area, and no construction would occur, no disturbance of cultural landscape resources would occur.
  
• Trail Alignment. The Lost Arrow Trail and Valley Loop Trail, both of which are contributing elements of the Yosemite Valley cultural landscape, would remain in their current alignments and not be affected.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Because the trails would remain in their current condition, no disturbance of cultural landscape resources would occur.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Because the bridges would remain in their current locations and condition, no disturbance of cultural landscape resources would occur.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Long-term, moderate, adverse impact. Vegetation would continue to grow within the identified view corridors, thereby obscuring views to Yosemite Falls, a significant characteristic of a landscape resource.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Because the rock-rubble pile would remain in its current location, no disturbance of cultural landscape resources would occur.

Overall, there would be a long-term, moderate, adverse impact to cultural landscape resources in the Lower Yosemite Fall area under Alternative 1 because view corridor maintenance would not occur.

Many cultural landscape resources have been lost or damaged in Yosemite Valley through past development, visitor use, and natural events, resulting in adverse cumulative impacts to the cultural landscape. Disappearing structures and sites areas include homestead cabins, barns, road and trail segments, bridges, mining complexes, railroad and logging facilities, historic tourist facilities, blazes, and campsites. These resources are reminders of the Valley’s ranching, grazing, lumbering, and mining history and early tourism.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions proposed in the region that could affect the remaining cultural landscape resources include Yosemite Valley campground rehabilitation projects. Implementation of projects called for in the Yosemite Valley Plan would result in the removal, relocation, or modification of historic buildings and structures, and the introduction of modern facilities and development within historic districts and contributing portions of the cultural landscape. The Yosemite Valley Plan would also restore native vegetation communities to patterns more in keeping with the cultural landscape and historic setting of the Valley. Overall, implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan would adversely affect the cultural landscape. Alternative 1, combined with other projects in Yosemite Valley, would result in a local, long-term, negligible, adverse cumulative impact on cultural landscape resources.

Cultural landscape resource impacts resulting from Alternative 1 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Relocation. Negligible impact. The placement of the restroom within the proposed location would not significantly alter the historic setting of any of the five identified cultural landscape resources.
  
• Parking Area Removal and Establishment of Seating/Picnic Area. Negligible impact. The placement of the seating/picnic area would not significantly alter the historic setting of the seven cultural landscape resources identified within the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• New Shuttle Bus Stop. Negligible impact. The placement of the shuttle bus stop would not significantly alter the historic setting of the seven identified cultural landscape resources.
  
• Interim Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Short-term, negligible, adverse impact. The placement of the interim tour bus operations would temporarily add an incompatible use (bus parking) in front of Camp 4, but the impact would be barely perceptible.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Modifications to the trail alignments would impact the following cultural landscape resources by altering their historic alignments: Hutchings Orchard, Hutchings sawmill/Camp Lost Arrow site, Lost Arrow Trail, Auto Road, and Valley Loop Trail. These impacts would be perceptible and measurable but would remain localized and confined to a single contributing element of a larger pending National Register district.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, moderate, adverse impacts. Rehabilitation of the trails would impact the following cultural landscape resources by altering their historic setting: Hutchings Orchard, Hutchings sawmill/Camp Lost Arrow site, Lost Arrow Trail, Auto Road, and Valley Loop Trail.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, moderate, adverse impacts. Rehabilitation of the bridges be perceptible and measurable but would remain localized and confined to a single contributing element of a larger pending National Register district. The following cultural landscape resources would be affected by altering their historical alignments and setting: Hutchings Orchard, Hutchings sawmill/Camp Lost Arrow site, and Lost Arrow Trail.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. Regular removal of vegetation that obscures views to Yosemite Falls would significantly restore views of this cultural landscape feature.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Negligible impact. Neither removal nor retention of the rock-rubble pile would significantly alter the historic setting of the seven identified cultural landscape resources.

Overall, there would be local, long-term, moderate, adverse impacts to cultural landscape resources under Alternative 2 due to trail realignments and bridge rehabilitation.

The effects of cumulative actions on cultural landscape resources have been described previously for Alternative 1. Combined with the cumulative projects in Yosemite Valley, Alternative 2 would result in a local, long-term, minor, adverse impact on cultural landscape resources.

Cultural landscape resource impacts resulting from Alternative 2 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Relocation. Negligible impact. The placement of the restroom within the proposed location would not significantly alter the historic setting of any of the seven identified cultural landscape resources.
  
• Parking Area Removal and Establishment of an Informal Seating Area. Negligible impact. The placement of the seating/picnic area would not significantly alter the historic setting of the seven cultural landscape resources.
  
• New Shuttle Bus Stop. Negligible impact. The placement of the shuttle bus stop would not significantly alter the historic setting of the seven identified cultural landscape resources.
  
• Interim Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Short-term, negligible, adverse impact. The placement of the interim tour bus operations would temporarily add an incompatible use (bus parking) in front of Camp 4, but the impact would be barely perceptible.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Modifications to the trail alignments would impact the following cultural landscape resources by altering their historical alignments: Hutchings Orchard, Hutchings sawmill/Camp Lost Arrow site (under this alternative, the majority of the sawmill site, including the millrace, would be disturbed), Lost Arrow Trail, Auto Road, and Valley Loop Trail.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, moderate, adverse impact. Rehabilitation of the trails would impact the following cultural landscape resources by altering their historic setting: Hutchings Orchard, Hutchings sawmill/Camp Lost Arrow site (under this alternative, the majority of the sawmill site, including the millrace, would be disturbed), Lost Arrow Trail, Auto Road, and Valley Loop Trail.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, moderate, adverse impact. Rehabilitation of the bridges would impact the following cultural landscape resources by altering their historic setting: Hutchings Orchard, the millrace feature of the Hutchings sawmill site, and Lost Arrow Trail.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. Periodic vegetation removal (less frequently that would occur under Alternative 2) would also restore views to Yosemite Falls, although the effect would be less noticeable than it would be under Alternative 2.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Negligible impact. Neither removal nor retention of the rock-rubble pile would significantly alter the historic setting of the seven identified cultural landscape resources.

Overall, there would be local, long-term, moderate, adverse impacts to cultural landscape resources under Alternative 3 as a result of trail realignments, and bridge and trail rehabilitation efforts.

The effects of cumulative actions on cultural landscape resources have been described previously for Alternative 1. Combined with the cumulative projects in Yosemite Valley, Alternative 3 would result in a local, long-term, minor, adverse impact on cultural landscape resources.

Cultural landscape resource impacts resulting from Alternative 3 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Location. Long-term, moderate, adverse impact. The existing restroom in the Lower Yosemite Fall area would continue to intrude on the view of Yosemite Falls along the Western Trail view corridor.
  
• Parking Area. The existing parking area would remain in its current location and condition, but would not obscure the view of Yosemite Falls.
  
• Shuttle Bus Stop. The shuttle bus stop in the existing parking area would continue in its current location but would not obscure the view of Yosemite Falls.
  
• Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Long-term, moderate, adverse impact. The tour buses that park in the current parking lot would continue to obstruct the view along the Western Trail view corridor.
  
• Trail Alignment. No trail alignments would be changed. Currently trail alignments do not obscure the view corridors.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. The current condition of the trails does not detract from the view corridors in the Lower Yosemite Fall area because no structures are present.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. None of the existing bridges obscure views of Yosemite Falls.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Long-term, moderate, adverse impact. The two historic view corridors through the Lower Yosemite Fall area would not be maintained through vegetation management. Vegetation would continue to grow in these view corridors, thus obscuring historic views. This situation will worsen over time.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Although the existing rock-rubble pile would remain, it does not intrude into any identified view corridor.

Overall, there would be a long-term, moderate, adverse impact to scenic resources under Alternative 1 because view corridor maintenance would not occur.

Scenic resources have been affected by numerous past actions since the inception of Yosemite National Park. Primary among these is the alteration of natural communities resulting from Euro-American settlement in the park. For example, agricultural activities and the development of tourism resulted in the drying out of the Valley by breaching the glacial moraine and controlling naturally occurring fires, which affected vegetation patterns in the Lower Yosemite Fall area. Broad-leaved trees along the streambanks were displaced by the comparatively dense stands of conifers that exist today. These events have resulted in a local, long-term, adverse effect on scenic resources, because the conifers now block views of visually important landscape features that were visible throughout the Valley before the vegetation patterns were changed.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions that would have a net beneficial cumulative effect on scenic resources include those that improve the general health of ecosystems viewable from or within the Lower Yosemite Fall area. Development-related projects could have an adverse effect on scenic resources if they obscure views to A Scenic resources as presented in the Yosemite Valley Plan (see the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS, Vol. IB, page 4.0-21 for a description of scenic resource categories), with the exception of the redevelopment of Yosemite Lodge as called for in the Yosemite Valley Plan.

Other projects within and in the vicinity of the Lower Yosemite Fall area would result in a local, long-term, major, beneficial cumulative impacts on scenic resources in Yosemite Valley because of the overall emphasis on maintaining view corridors and restoring disturbed or developed land to natural conditions within Yosemite Valley. However, the intensity of this impact would be reduced to moderate because of the long-term, minor, adverse impact of having the existing restroom within the Western Trail view corridor of the Lower Yosemite Fall area. Alternative 1, combined with other projects in Yosemite Valley, would not result in any additional cumulative impacts to scenic resources in the Valley beyond the impacts evaluated above.

Scenic resource impacts resulting from Alternative 1 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Relocation. Long-term, minor, beneficial, impact. Demolition of the current restroom under Alternative 2 would remove an intrusion from the foreground of the Western Trail view corridor. This intrusion would be minor because it would be localized within a relatively small area. The new restroom would be placed outside the Western Trail view corridor.
  
• Parking Area Removal and Establishment of Seating/Picnic Area. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. No structures would be placed within any identified view corridor, and the cars and buses would be removed from the Western Trail view corridor.
  
• New Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. The new shuttle bus stop would not be placed within any identified view corridor.
  
• Interim Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Short-term, negligible, adverse impact. Although the buses would unload and board passengers adjacent to the Hutchings view corridor, they would pass through it upon departure. Passing through the view corridor would be imperceptible when compared with Alternative 1.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. No structures would be placed in the view corridors.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Even when rehabilitated, trail rehabilitation would not result in placement of structures within the view corridors.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Even when rehabilitated, the bridges would not result in placement of structures within the view corridors.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. Selective tree-thinning and vegetation removal in both the Hutchings view corridor and the Western Trail view corridor would greatly enhance the current condition of the view towards Yosemite Falls, which is categorized as an A Scenic resource by the Yosemite Valley Plan.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. The existing rock-rubble pile does not intrude into any identified view corridor.

Overall, there would be local, long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts to scenic resources under Alternative 2 due to the maintenance of important view corridors.

The effects of cumulative actions on scenic resources are described previously in this chapter for Alternative 1. In combination with Alternative 2, the cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of the Lower Yosemite Fall corridor would result in a local, long-term, major, beneficial cumulative impact on scenic resources in Yosemite Valley.

Scenic resource impacts resulting from Alternative 2 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Relocation. Long-term, minor, beneficial, impact. Demolition of the current restroom under Alternative 3 would remove an intrusion from the foreground of the Western Trail view corridor. This intrusion would be minor because it would be localized within a relatively small area. The new restroom would be placed outside both the Western Trail and Hutchings view corridors.
  
• Parking Area Removal and Establishment of an Informal Seating Area. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. No structures would be placed within any identified view corridor, and the cars and buses would be removed from the Western Trail view corridor.
  
• New Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. The new shuttle bus stop would not be placed within any identified view corridor.
  
• Interim Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Short-term, negligible, adverse impact. Although buses would unload and board passengers adjacent to the Hutchings view corridor, they would pass through it upon departure. Passing through the view corridor would be imperceptible when compared with Alternative 1.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. No trails would impact or change the view corridors.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Even when rehabilitated, the trails would not impact or change the view corridors.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Even when rehabilitated, the bridges would not result in placement of structures within the view corridors.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. The two historic view corridors through the Lower Yosemite Fall area would be maintained sporadically through vegetation management. Efforts to maintain the views would be localized and slightly detectable.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. The existing rock-rubble pile does not intrude into any identified view corridor.

Overall, there would be a long-term, minor, beneficial impact to scenic resources under Alternative 3 due to the sporadic maintenance of view corridors.

The effects of cumulative actions on scenic resources have been described previously in this section for Alternative 1. In combination with Alternative 3, the cumulative projects within and in the vicinity of the Lower Yosemite Fall corridor would result in a local, long-term, major, beneficial cumulative impact on scenic resources in Yosemite Valley.

Scenic resource impacts resulting from Alternative 3 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Location. Long-term, moderate, adverse impact. The limited number of restroom fixtures, its inaccessibility to physically impaired visitors, and the state of deterioration at the restroom would continue to substantially degrade the visitor experience at the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Parking Area. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Keeping the parking area in its current location continues to provide convenience for the limited number of vehicles that can park in the area. Overall, the parking area is so small it does not meet the current demand. Many visitors drive to the parking area only to find it is full, thus requiring them to drive elsewhere in search of parking. This causes frustration and some confusion for visitors.
  
• Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. In its current location, the shuttle bus stop is not clearly visible to visitors, nor is it obvious from the trails. These conditions would continue.
  
• Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Since tour bus loading, unloading, and parking would continue to occur in the existing parking area, the noise, visual intrusion, and confusion would continue.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Without rehabilitation and realignment, the poorly defined eastern trail would continue to hinder visitor accessibility to the base of Lower Yosemite Fall. The lack of well-delineated and signed trails would continue to create confusion for visitors.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Without rehabilitation and realignment, the eastern trail would continue to hinder visitor accessibility to the base of Lower Yosemite Fall.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Without rehabilitation and realignment, some bridges would continue to hinder visitor accessibility to the base of Lower Yosemite Fall. The intermittently crowded conditions caused by the limited amount of viewing area space at Yosemite Falls Bridge may also adversely impact visitor experience at the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Long-term, moderate, adverse impact. Since the principal visitor use of the Lower Yosemite Fall area is viewing Yosemite Falls, visitor experience is hindered by the lack of maintenance of the two view corridors in the area. Vegetation would continue to grow in these view corridors, thus obscuring historic views.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. The existing rock-rubble pile would cause little noticeable change to the quality of visitor experience and/or service level at the Lower Yosemite Fall area.

Overall, there would be long-term, moderate, adverse impacts to visitor experience due to the lack of restroom relocation, trail alignment, rehabilitation of trails, rehabilitation of bridges, and view corridor maintenance under Alternative 1.

Implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan would enhance the quality of the visitor experience in Yosemite Valley by reducing automobile congestion, limiting crowding, and expanding orientation and interpretation services. It also calls for traffic management systems and options for the size and placement of parking areas, both within and outside of Yosemite Valley. Parking areas outside the Valley could be used to intercept day visitors and shift those visitors to Valley-bound shuttle buses.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions that would have a beneficial cumulative effect on visitor use and experience are those that could increase the number of facilities accessible to the visitors, as well as enhance the condition of these facilities to add to visitor enjoyment of the park.

Visitor experience impacts resulting from Alternative 1 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Relocation. Long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. The new restroom to be constructed under Alternative 2 would have an adequate number of toilet fixtures. This would be an increase from the seven toilet fixtures available in the existing restroom, would provide visitors greater restroom access with a shorter waiting period for use, and would meet federal accessibility standards.
  
• Parking Area Removal and Establishment of Seating/Picnic Area. Long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. Removal of the parking area would help to enhance the quiet setting for enjoyment of the Lower Yosemite Fall area by eliminating noise and pollution from cars and buses. This would enhance visitor use and experience as well as public safety. Visitor services and facilities such as a small picnic and seating area, bicycle racks, and a drinking fountain would further enhance the visitor experience.
  
• New Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. The new location of the shuttle bus stop would provide a higher level of visitor access to the Lower Yosemite Fall area because it would be located in a somewhat less congested area along Northside Drive.
  
• Interim Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Short-term, minor, adverse impact. With the removal of the parking area, tour buses would load and unload visitors along Northside Drive, a short distance from the current location. This would not cause an appreciable limit on critical characteristics of the visitor experience. The tour buses would then be parked further west along Northside Drive. Buses parked for the interim on Northside Drive west of Yosemite Lodge would be visible and audible during mid-day to visitors at Camp 4. Because buses would be parked during the middle of the day, when visitors are likely to be elsewhere in the park, the impact on visitors using Camp 4 would be minimal.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. Realignment of the trails would allow for easier wayfinding and greater access to the trail system for visitors with disabilities. The eastern trail would also be more clearly delineated and meet accessibility guidelines. Improved educational exhibits along the trails would serve to enhance the enjoyment of the Lower Yosemite Fall area by providing visitors more information about the area.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. Rehabilitation of the trails would allow for easier wayfinding and greater access to the trail system for visitors with disabilities, thereby appreciably changing the desired experience for these visitors. The eastern trail would also be more clearly delineated and meet accessibility guidelines. Improved educational exhibits along the trails would serve to enhance the enjoyment of the Lower Yosemite Fall area by providing visitors more information about the area. Expansion of the viewing area at the base of Lower Yosemite Fall would help to alleviate crowding conditions during peak times of visitation.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. In all cases, the bridges would meet federal accessibility standards, which none currently meet. Currently, one bridge is closed because of partial collapse and several are in a state of disrepair. The rehabilitated bridges would be safer for visitors. Improved educational exhibits along the trails would serve to enhance the enjoyment of the Lower Yosemite Fall area by providing visitors with more information about the area. At Yosemite Falls Bridge at the base of Lower Yosemite Fall, the width of the bridge deck would be increased, thus allowing more visitors to enjoy the view from the bridge. Greater visitor access and dispersion of people at the base of Lower Yosemite Fall would further enhance visitor experience. In summary, all of these actions would appreciably change the desired experience for visitors.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. Since the principal visitor use of the Lower Yosemite Fall area is viewing Yosemite Falls, visitor experience would be enhanced by the comprehensive maintenance of the two view corridors in the area. Selective tree-thinning and vegetation removal in both the Hutchings and Western Trail view corridors would greatly enhance the current condition of these view corridors.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. The existing rock-rubble pile would cause little noticeable change to the quality of visitor experience and/or service level at the Lower Yosemite Fall area.

Overall, there would be a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact to the visitor experience under Alternative 2 because of the rehabilitation of trails and bridges and maintenance of view corridors.

The effects of cumulative actions on visitor experience are described previously for Alternative 1. Actions under Alternative 2 would contribute to the local, long-term, major, beneficial cumulative impact on visitor use and experience in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.

Visitor experience impacts resulting from Alternative 2 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Relocation. Long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. The new restroom to be constructed under Alternative 2 would have an adequate number of toilet fixtures. This would be an increase from the seven toilet fixtures available in the existing restroom, would provide visitors greater access to a restroom with a shorter waiting period for use, and would meet federal accessibility standards.
  
• Parking Area Removal and Establishment of an Informal Seating Area. Long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. Removal of the parking area would help to enhance the quiet setting for enjoyment of the Yosemite Falls area by eliminating noise and pollution from cars and buses. This would enhance visitor use and experience, as well as public safety. Visitor services and facilities such as a new informal seating area, bicycle racks, and a drinking fountain would further enhance the visitor experience.
  
• New Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. The new location of the shuttle bus stop would provide a slightly higher level of visitor access to the Lower Yosemite Fall area because it would be located in a somewhat less congested area along Northside Drive.
  
• Interim Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Short-term, minor, adverse impact. With the removal of the parking area, tour buses would board and unload visitors along Northside Drive, a short distance from their current location. This would not cause an appreciable change in critical characteristics of the visitor experience. The tour buses would then be parked further west along Northside Drive. Buses parked for the interim on Northside Drive west of Yosemite Lodge would be visible and audible during mid-day to visitors at Camp 4. Because buses would be parked during the middle of the day, when visitors are likely to be elsewhere in the park, the impact on visitors using Camp 4 would be minimal.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. Realignment of the trails would allow for easier wayfinding and greater access to the trail system for visitors with disabilities, thereby appreciably changing the desired experience for those visitors. The eastern trail would also be more clearly delineated and meet accessibility guidelines. Improved educational exhibits along the trails would serve to enhance the enjoyment of the Lower Yosemite Fall area by providing visitors with more information about the area.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. Rehabilitation of the trails would allow for easier wayfinding and greater access to the trail system for visitors with disabilities, thereby appreciably changing the desired experience for those visitors. The eastern trail would also be more clearly delineated, and would meet accessibility guidelines. Improved educational exhibits along the trails would serve to enhance the enjoyment of the Lower Yosemite Fall area by providing visitors more information about the area. Expansion of the viewing area at the base of Lower Yosemite Fall would help to alleviate crowding conditions during peak times of visitation.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. In all cases, the bridges would meet federal accessibility standards, which none currently meet. Currently, one bridge is closed because of partial collapse and several are in a state of disrepair. The rehabilitated bridges would be safer for visitors. Improved educational exhibits along the trails would serve to enhance the enjoyment of the Lower Yosemite Fall area by providing visitors with more information about the area. At Yosemite Falls Bridge at the base of Lower Yosemite Fall, the width of the bridge deck would be increased, thus allowing more visitors to enjoy the view from the bridge. Greater visitor access and dispersion of people at the base of Lower Yosemite Fall would further enhance visitor experience. In summary, all of these actions would appreciably change the desired experience for visitors
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. Since the principal visitor use of the Lower Yosemite Fall area is viewing Yosemite Falls, visitor experience would be enhanced by sporadic maintenance of the two view corridors in the area. Intermittent tree-thinning and vegetation removal in both the Hutchings and the Western Trail view corridors would greatly enhance the current condition of these view corridors.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. The existing rock-rubble pile would cause little noticeable change to the quality of visitor experience and/or service level at the Lower Yosemite Fall area.

Overall, there would be a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact to the visitor experience at the Lower Yosemite Fall area under Alternative 3 due to the rehabilitation of trails and bridges and restroom relocation.

The effects of cumulative actions on visitor experience are described previously for Alternative 1. Actions under Alternative 3 would contribute to the local, long-term, major, beneficial cumulative impact on visitor use and experience in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.

Visitor experience impacts resulting from Alternative 3 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Location. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. The existing restroom would continue to require frequent upkeep and maintenance because of its age and current state of disrepair.
  
• Parking Area. Retaining the parking area in its current location would continue to have no effect on the demand for park operations services and facilities.
  
• Shuttle Bus Stop. Retaining the shuttle bus stop in its current location would continue to have no effect on the demand for park operations services and facilities.
  
• Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Continuing the current tour bus operations in the existing parking area would not affect the demand for park operations and facilities.
  
• Trail Alignment. The current trail alignments would continue to have no effect on the demand for park operations services and facilities.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. The existing trails would continue to require frequent upkeep and maintenance because of their age and current state of disrepair.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. The existing bridges would continue to require frequent upkeep and maintenance because of their age and current state of disrepair.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. No maintenance of view corridors would be undertaken.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. The rock-rubble pile would be retained, and would not change park operations.

Overall, there would be long-term, minor, adverse impacts to park operations and facilities under Alternative 1 resulting from maintenance of existing restroom, bridges, and trails.

The extent to which past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects could have a cumulative impact on park operations and facilities, when combined with Alternative 1, is determined largely by whether such projects would affect park facilities or the demand for park operations services and facilities. Projects that affect park facilities themselves or the demand for facilities management, resource management, and maintenance of utility systems services in particular would have the potential for cumulative effects with the Lower Yosemite Fall area.

Park operations and facilities have been affected by numerous past National Park Service management decisions and projects since the inception of the park. Reasonably foreseeable future projects include Repair of Flood Damaged Trail Bridges at Happy Isles, Happy Isles Site Improvements, Merced River Plan, and implementation of portions of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Overall, there has been negligible impact from past actions on park operations and facilities.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions that would have a beneficial cumulative effect on park operations and facilities are those that could reduce the number or amount of facilities within the park, or reduce long-term maintenance activities. An example is the Replacement/Rehabilitation of the Yosemite Valley Main Sewer Line. Although this project would have short-term, adverse impacts associated with planning, construction, replacement, and rehabilitation, its overall effect would be to reduce long-term maintenance. Therefore, this project would have a long-term, beneficial cumulative impact on park operations and facilities.

Examples of reasonably foreseeable future projects that would have an adverse effect on park operations and facilities are actions called for in the Merced River Plan and the Yosemite Valley Plan. Implementation of these plans would 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, and restoration of large areas of Yosemite Valley to natural conditions). Implementation of these plans is expected to have local, short- and long-term, moderate to major, adverse impacts on park operations and facilities. However, in combination with Alternative 1, these cumulative impacts could be increased to long-term and major because of the ongoing maintenance requirements presented by the existing condition of the restroom, trails, and bridges in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.

Park operations and facilities impacts resulting from Alternative 1 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Relocation. Long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. Service and emergency vehicles would have direct access to the new restroom location from Northside Drive, and only limited service vehicle travel on pedestrian trails would be required to service the restroom. Construction of the new restroom under Alternative 2 would decrease the frequency of maintenance required for facilities and structures in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Parking Area Removal and Establishment of Seating/Picnic Area. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. Construction of the new picnic and seating area would not require measurable staffing level increases to perform required maintenance for facilities and structures in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• New Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. Construction of the new shuttle bus stop would not require measurable staffing level increases to perform required maintenance for facilities and structures in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Interim Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Short-term, minor, adverse impact. There may be indirect effects on park staffing to ensure that bus operations (loading, unloading, and parking) do not delay traffic on Northside Drive.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. Realignment of trails into upland areas would decrease the frequency of maintenance required for trails in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. Realignment of trails into upland areas would decrease the frequency of maintenance required for trails in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. Rehabilitation of bridges and relocating bridge abutments to upland areas would decrease the frequency of maintenance required for bridges in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. National Park Service staff would be required to selectively trim and cut vegetation within view corridors to ensure that historic views remain unobstructed. Such trimming would be conducted in accordance with the park’s Vegetation Management Plan.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Removal of the rock-rubble pile would be preceded by technical studies to ensure that it would not cause direct or indirect impacts on park operation.

Overall, there would be long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts to park operations and facilities under Alternative 2 as a result of the decreased frequency of maintenance for new facilities (restroom, bridges, and trails).

The effects of cumulative actions on park operations and facilities are described previously for Alternative 1. Alternative 2 might diminish local, long-term, major, adverse cumulative impacts on park operations and maintenance in the Yosemite Valley area to moderate adverse impacts due to the reduced need for maintenance of Lower Yosemite Fall area facilities, trails, and bridges.

Park operations and facilities impacts resulting from Alternative 2 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Relocation. Long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts. Service and emergency vehicles would have direct access to the new restroom location from Northside Drive, and only limited service vehicle travel on pedestrian trails would be required to service the restroom. Construction of the new restroom under Alternative 3 would decrease the frequency of maintenance required for facilities and structures in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Parking Area Removal and Establishment of Informal Seating Area. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impacts. Construction of the new seating area would not require measurable staffing level increases to perform required maintenance for facilities and structures in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• New Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impacts. Construction of the new shuttle bus stop would not require measurable staffing level increases to perform required maintenance for facilities and structures in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Interim Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Short-term, minor, adverse impacts. There may be indirect effects on park staffing to ensure that bus operations (loading, unloading, and parking) do not delay traffic on Northside Drive.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impacts. Construction of new trails would decrease the frequency of maintenance required for trails in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts. Construction of new trails would decrease the frequency of maintenance required for trails in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts. Construction of new trails would decrease the frequency of maintenance required for bridges in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. National Park Service Staff would be required to selectively trim and cut vegetation within view corridors to ensure that historic views remain unobstructed. Such trimming would be conducted in accordance with the park’s Vegetation Management Plan.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Removal of the rock-rubble pile would not cause direct or indirect impacts on park operation.

Overall, there would be long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts to park operations and facilities under Alternative 3 due to the decreased frequency of maintenance of new facilities (restroom, trails, and bridges).

The effects of cumulative actions on park operations and facilities have been described previously for Alternative 1. Alternative 3 might diminish local, long-term, major, adverse cumulative impacts on park operations and maintenance in the Lower Yosemite Fall area to moderate, adverse impacts due to the reduced need for maintenance of Lower Yosemite Fall area facilities, trails, and bridges.

Park operations and facilities impacts resulting from Alternative 3 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Location. Continuing the restroom in its current location would not inhibit recreational opportunities in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Parking Area. Continuing the parking area in its current location would not inhibit recreational opportunities in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Shuttle Bus Stop. Continuing the shuttle bus stop in its current location would not inhibit recreational opportunities in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Tour bus operations would continue to use the existing parking area, and recreational opportunities in the Lower Yosemite Fall area would continue to be adversely impacted by the intrusion of noise and visual distractions.
  
• Trail Alignment. Retaining the current trail alignments would inhibit recreational opportunities in the Lower Yosemite Fall area for those with mobility impairments.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Retaining the trails in their current condition would inhibit recreational opportunities in the Lower Yosemite Fall area for those with mobility impairments.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Retaining the bridges in their current condition would not inhibit recreational opportunities in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Continuing to not maintain the identified view corridors would not inhibit recreational opportunities in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Retaining the rock-rubble pile in its current condition would not inhibit recreational opportunities in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.

Overall, there would be a long-term, negligible impact to recreation under Alternative 1 because there would be little noticeable change in recreational opportunities.

Recreation is considered an Outstandingly Remarkable Value by the Merced River Plan. This value is protected by the maintenance of a diversity of recreational opportunities in the Yosemite Valley. There are a variety of recreational opportunities available throughout the Yosemite Valley, including Lower Yosemite Fall. Alternative 1 would not inhibit these opportunities.

Recreation impacts resulting from Alternative 1 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Relocation. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Relocating the restroom would not inhibit recreational opportunities in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Parking Area Removal and Establishment of Seating/Picnic Area. Long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. Under Alternative 2, buses would be removed from the local setting and the parking area would be removed. The addition of picnic tables in a portion of this area, as called for in Alternative 2, would enhance the diversity of recreational opportunities in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• New Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Relocating the shuttle bus stop would not inhibit recreational opportunities in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Interim Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Short-term, negligible, adverse impact. Relocating the tour bus operations from the Lower Yosemite Fall area would not inhibit recreational opportunities in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. Realignment of the trails would expand recreational opportunities in the Lower Yosemite Fall area for those with mobility impairments.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. Rehabilitation of the trails would expand recreational opportunities in the Lower Yosemite Fall area for those with mobility impairments.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. Rehabilitation of the bridges would expand recreational opportunities in the Lower Yosemite Fall area for those with mobility impairments.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. View corridor maintenance through routine vegetation clearance would cause a noticeable change in sightseeing opportunities in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. The presence or absence of the rock-rubble pile would not inhibit recreational opportunities in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.

Overall, there would be a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact to recreation under Alternative 2 due to the establishment of a picnic/seating area and maintenance of view corridors.

Recreation is considered an Outstandingly Remarkable Value by the Merced River Plan. This value is protected by the maintenance of a diversity of recreational opportunities in the Yosemite Valley. A variety of recreational opportunities are available throughout the Yosemite Valley, including Lower Yosemite Fall. The addition of picnic tables, as called for in Alternative 2, would enhance the diversity of recreational opportunities in the Yosemite Valley.

Recreation impacts resulting from Alternative 2 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Relocation. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Relocating the restroom would not inhibit recreational opportunities in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Parking Area Removal and Establishment of an Informal Seating Area. Long-term, moderate, beneficial impact. Under Alternative 3, buses would be removed from the local setting and the parking area would be removed. The addition of an informal seating area in a portion of this area, as called for in Alternative 3, would enhance the diversity of recreational opportunities in the Yosemite Valley.
  
• New Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Relocating the shuttle bus stop would not inhibit recreational opportunities in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Interim Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Relocating the tour bus operations from the Lower Yosemite Fall area would not inhibit recreational opportunities in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. Realignment of the trails would expand recreational opportunities in the Lower Yosemite Fall area for those with mobility impairments.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. Rehabilitation of the trails would expand recreational opportunities in the Lower Yosemite Fall area for those with mobility impairments.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. Rehabilitation of the bridges would expand recreational opportunities in the Lower Yosemite Fall area for those with mobility impairments.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Long-term, minor, beneficial impact. View corridor maintenance through sporadic vegetation clearance would cause little noticeable change in recreational opportunities in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. The presence or absence of the rock-rubble pile would not inhibit recreational opportunities in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.

Overall, there would be a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact to recreation under Alternative 3 due to the establishment of a seating area.

Recreation is considered an Outstandingly Remarkable Value by the Merced River Plan. This value is protected by the maintenance of a diversity of recreational opportunities in the Yosemite Valley. A variety of recreational opportunities are available throughout the Yosemite Valley, including Lower Yosemite Fall. The addition of an informal seating area, as called for in Alternative 3, would enhance the diversity of recreational opportunities in the Yosemite Valley.

Recreation impacts resulting from Alternative 3 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Location. Retaining the restroom in its current location would continue to have no influence on traffic circulation patterns.
  
• Parking Area. Long-term, minor, adverse impact. Retaining the parking area in its current location would continue to encourage visitors to drive through the area to attempt to park. This currently causes a change in the number of vehicle trips of less than 25% and contributes to congestion at the Lower Yosemite Fall area-Yosemite Lodge intersection and the recirculating traffic influence on traffic circulation patterns.
  
• Shuttle Bus Stop. Continuing the shuttle bus stop in its current location does not influence traffic circulation patterns.
  
• Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Continuing the tour bus operation in its current location would continue to cause tour groups to walk back and forth to Yosemite Lodge, thus contributing to traffic congestion at the Lower Yosemite Fall area-Yosemite Lodge intersection.
  
• Trail Alignment. Continuing the trail alignments in their current location would not influence traffic circulation patterns.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Retaining the trails in their current condition would continue to have no influence on traffic circulation patterns.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Retaining the pedestrian bridges in their current location and condition would not influence traffic circulation patterns.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. There would be no actions to maintain view corridors; there would be no transportation implications to this lack of maintenance.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. The rock-rubble pile would remain in its current condition; there are no transportation implications to this action.

Overall, there would be long-term, minor, adverse impacts to transportation under Alternative 1 because the parking area would be retained, and local circulation patterns on Northside Drive would not change.

The cumulative transportation impacts would be unchanged from the analysis presented in the Yosemite Valley Plan. That information is summarized below. Alternative 1, in combination with other projects in Yosemite Valley, would have no further cumulative impacts to transportation in the Valley beyond those analyzed in the Yosemite Valley Plan.

Under the Yosemite Valley Plan, the average travel time to access Yosemite Valley would increase by 20 to 21 minutes over present conditions, representing a moderate adverse impact to visitors. Many visitor trips to and within the Valley would be shifted to transit from private vehicles. There would be a major decrease in traffic volumes and a major improvement in traffic flow within the Valley compared to present conditions. Traffic volumes on roads would be reduced by 50%, resulting in a major, long-term beneficial impact. Bus trips entering the Valley at the Yosemite Chapel would increase by 285 per day. All bus trips into the Valley would travel as far as Yosemite Village, and the shuttle service in the Valley would be greatly expanded, with the resulting bus miles traveled increasing to 4,949 miles per day. Traffic congestion would be reduced at the intersections of Sentinel Road with Northside Drive and Southside Drive. There would be major, long-term beneficial impacts from improved traffic flow, particularly on El Portal Road between its intersection with Big Oak Flat Road and Pohono Bridge, and on Northside Drive, between Yosemite Lodge and Yosemite Village.

Transportation impacts resulting from Alternative 1 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Relocation. Long-term, negligible, adverse impacts. The new restroom location would not alter traffic circulation patterns in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Parking Area Removal and Establishment of Seating/Picnic Area. Long-term, minor, beneficial impacts. Removal of parking at the Lower Yosemite Fall area would remove the incentive for visitors to drive to this prominent feature in Yosemite Valley; this would reduce vehicle trips and congestion.
  
• New Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. The new shuttle bus stop location is close to the existing shuttle bus stop, which would shorten the shuttle bus circulation pattern.
  
• Interim Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Short-term, minor, adverse, impacts. Removing tour buses from the Lower Yosemite Fall area would have a negligible impact on transportation. Providing interim bus loading and unloading on Northside Drive would have a short-term, minor, adverse impact due to the mixed use along the roadside. Providing interim bus parking along Northside Drive west of Yosemite Lodge would cause short-term, minor, adverse impacts due to the need to maintain one lane of outbound traffic slightly further west of Yosemite Lodge.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, negligible, adverse impacts. The new trail alignments would not alter traffic circulation patterns in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, negligible, adverse impacts. Rehabilitation of the trails would not alter traffic circulation patterns in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, negligible, adverse impacts. Rehabilitation of the pedestrian bridges would not alter traffic circulation patterns in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Long-term, negligible, adverse impacts. Maintenance of the view corridors would not alter traffic circulation patterns in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Long-term, negligible, adverse impacts. Removal of the rock-rubble pile would not alter traffic circulation patterns in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.

Overall, there would be long-term, minor, beneficial impacts to transportation under Alternative 2 due to the removal of the parking area (as well as cars and buses).

The cumulative transportation impacts would be unchanged under Alternative 2 from the analysis presented in the Yosemite Valley Plan and are summarized previously for Alternative 1.

Transportation impacts resulting from Alternative 2 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Relocation. Long-term, negligible, adverse impacts. The new restroom location would not alter traffic circulation patterns in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Parking Area Removal and Establishment of Informal Seating Area. Long-term, minor, beneficial impacts. Removal of the parking area would eliminate the cars and buses coming into the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• New Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impact. The new shuttle bus stop location is close to the existing shuttle bus stop, which would shorten the shuttle bus circulation pattern.
  
• Interim Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Short-term, minor, adverse impacts. Removing tour buses from the Lower Yosemite Fall area would have a negligible impact on transportation. Providing interim bus loading and unloading on Northside Drive would have a short-term, minor, adverse impact due to the mixed use along the roadside. Providing interim bus parking along Northside Drive west of Yosemite Lodge would cause short-term, minor, adverse impacts due to the need to maintain one lane of outbound traffic slightly further west of Yosemite Lodge.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, negligible, adverse impacts. The new trail alignments would not alter traffic circulation patterns in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, negligible, adverse impacts. Rehabilitation of the trails would not alter traffic circulation patterns in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, negligible, adverse impacts. Rehabilitation of the pedestrian bridges would not alter traffic circulation patterns in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Long-term, negligible, adverse impacts. Maintenance of the view corridors would not alter traffic circulation patterns in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Long-term, negligible, adverse impacts. Removal of the rock-rubble pile would not alter traffic circulation patterns in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.

Overall, there would be long-term, minor, beneficial impacts to transportation under Alternative 3 due to the removal of the parking area (along with cars and buses).

The cumulative transportation impacts would be unchanged under Alternative 3 from the analysis presented in the Yosemite Valley Plan. That information is summarized previously for Alternative 1.

Transportation impacts resulting from Alternative 3 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Location. No construction would occur; therefore, corresponding use of fossil fuels would not increase.
  
• Parking Area. The parking area would continue at its current location, and no additional buses or cars would be attracted to the site.
  
• Shuttle Bus Stop. The shuttle bus stop would continue at its current location, thereby consuming no additional energy.
  
• Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Tour bus operations would continue to use the existing parking area.
  
• Trail Alignment. No construction would occur; therefore, use of fossil fuels would continue at its present rate.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. No construction would occur; therefore, corresponding use of fossil fuels would continue at its present rate.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. No construction would occur; therefore, corresponding use of fossil fuels would continue at its present rate.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. No vegetation removal would occur; energy consumption would continue at its present rate.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. No construction would occur; therefore, corresponding use of fossil fuels would not increase.

Overall, there would be a negligible impact to energy consumption under Alternative 1 because consumption would be affected by 5% or less, annually.

Alternative 1, combined with other projects described in the Yosemite Valley Plan, would have a local, long-term, moderate, beneficial effect on energy consumption in Yosemite Valley. That information is summarized below.

Employee housing space-heating consumption would decrease in the Valley, but would increase at El Portal and Wawona during the 2000-2015 time frame. Overall, there would be a minor increase in total housing units under the Yosemite Valley Plan and an associated long-term, minor, adverse impact on home energy consumption.

The reduction in gasoline consumption in 2015 relative to Alternative 1 reflects the shift by park visitors from private vehicles to shuttle buses, as well as a fleet turnover to vehicles with improved fuel economy over time. The increase in shuttle fuel consumption would be attributable to the deployment of diesel or alternatively fueled shuttle buses for visitors and employees. The combined fuel consumption savings under the Yosemite Valley Plan in the years 2005, 2010, and 2015 would represent a moderate, long-term, beneficial impact.

Energy consumption impacts resulting from Alternative 1 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Relocation. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. The new restroom would replace the existing restroom, and no net increase of consumption of energy would be anticipated.
  
• Parking Area Removal and Establishment of Seating/Picnic Area. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Under Alternative 2, buses would be relocated from the local area and the parking area would be removed. This would result in a slight overall increase in energy consumption, because tour buses need to be driven for a longer duration than under Alternative 1 to park and pick up passengers at the interim drop-off/pickup zone.
  
• New Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. The new restroom would replace the existing restroom, and no net increase of consumption of energy would be anticipated.
  
• Interim Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Short-term, negligible, adverse impact. Relocating the tour buses from the Lower Yosemite Fall area to a location along Northside Drive would result in a slight overall temporary increase in energy consumption because tour buses would need to be driven for a slightly longer duration than under Alternative 1 to park and pick-up passengers at the interim loading and unloading zone.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. No net increase of consumption of energy is anticipated from the realignment of pedestrian trails.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. No net increase of consumption of energy is anticipated from the rehabilitation of pedestrian trails.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. No net increase of consumption of energy is anticipated from the rehabilitation of pedestrian trails.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. View corridor maintenance through periodic vegetation clearance would not result in a net increase in energy consumption.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. The presence or absence of the rock-rubble pile would not result in a net increase in energy consumption.

Overall, there would be a long-term, negligible, adverse impact to energy consumption under Alternative 2 because the parking area and buses would be removed, but replaced elsewhere in the park.

Although cumulative growth in the region would tend to adversely affect energy consumption, implementation of ongoing state and federal energy consumption programs will ameliorate this effect to a degree. Considered with the adverse impacts associated with regional energy consumption, Alternative 2 and projects in Yosemite Valley would have a long-term, negligible, beneficial, cumulative impact on energy consumption.

Energy consumption impacts resulting from Alternative 2 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

• Restroom Relocation. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. The new restroom would replace the existing restroom, and no net increase of consumption of energy would be anticipated.
  
• Parking Area Removal and Establishment of Informal Seating Area. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Under Alternative 3, buses would be relocated from the local area and the parking area would be removed. This would result in a slight overall increase in energy consumption, because tour buses would need to be driven for a longer duration than under Alternative 1 to park and pick up passengers at the interim drop-off/pickup zone.
  
• New Shuttle Bus Stop. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. The new restroom would replace the existing restroom, and no net increase of consumption of energy would be anticipated.
  
• Interim Tour Bus Unloading, Loading, and Parking. Short-term, negligible, adverse impact. Relocating tour buses from the Lower Yosemite Fall area to a location along Northside Drive would result in a slight overall temporary increase in energy consumption because tour buses need to be driven for a slightly longer duration than under Alternative 1 to park and pick up passengers at the interim drop-off/pickup zone.
  
• Trail Alignment. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. No net increase of consumption of energy would be anticipated from the realignment of pedestrian trails.
  
• Rehabilitation of Trails. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. No net increase of consumption of energy would be anticipated from the rehabilitation of pedestrian trails.
  
• Rehabilitation, Relocation, and Installation of Bridges. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. No net increase of consumption of energy would be anticipated from the rehabilitation of bridges.
  
• View Corridor Maintenance. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. View corridor maintenance through periodic vegetation clearance would not result in a net increase in energy consumption.
  
• Removal of Human-Built Rock-Rubble Pile. Long-term, negligible, adverse impact. The presence or absence of the rock-rubble pile would not result in a net increase in energy consumption.
  

Overall, there would be a long-term, negligible, adverse impact to energy consumption under Alternative 3 due to the parking area and buses being removed but replaced elsewhere in the park.

Although cumulative growth in the region would tend to adversely affect energy consumption, implementation of ongoing state and federal energy consumption programs will ameliorate this effect to a degree. Considered with the adverse impacts associated with regional energy consumption, Alternative 3 and projects in Yosemite Valley would have a local, long-term, negligible, beneficial, cumulative impact on air quality in the Lower Yosemite Fall area.

Energy consumption impacts resulting from Alternative 3 would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute impairment.

Main | Superintendent's Letter | Abstract | Executive Summary | Table of Contents | Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3
Chapter 4 | Chapter 5 | Chapter 6 | Chapter 7 | Chapter 8 | Chapter 9 | Tables | Figures | Appendices