Yosemite Valley Plan SEIS, Volume IB Part 2, Chapter 4: Alternative 4

Under this alternative, 165 acres of developed land would be restored to natural conditions, thus improving the scenic quality of Yosemite Valley. Proposed restoration and development (in acres) within each scenic category are found in table 4-97. The primary improvements would be the restoration of a large tract of highly valued resources along the Merced River, primarily in the former Upper and Lower River Campground, North Pines Campground, a portion of Lower Pines Campground, Housekeeping Camp, and Camp 6. Roads would also be removed from Ahwahnee and Stoneman Meadows. These improvements would result in long-term, major, beneficial impacts.

Although there would be a net improvement in the east Valley, 99 acres of new development would occur within the Valley. This new development would primarily be located in the west Valley at Taft Toe near the El Capitan crossover and concentrated at the Taft Toe Visitor/Transit Center facility. This facility would be visible from both Dewey and Taft Points, which are within designated wilderness. The impact of this particular action would be long-term, major, and adverse.

The overall impact of this alternative on scenic resources would be long-term, moderate, and beneficial, due to the large-scale restoration, mostly within the A Scenic category.

Table 4-97 Proposed Restoration and Development by Scenic Category (acres)
Action	A Scenic	B Scenic	C Scenic	Alternative 4 Totals¹	Alternative 1 Totals
Natural Resource Restoration	124 acres	73 acres	1	165 acres²	0
Developed³	67 acres	146 acres	28 acres	240 acres	406 acres
New Development	37 acres	54 acres	6 acres	99 acres³	0
Total Development				339 acres⁴	406 acres
Development Difference				-66 acres

Table 4-98 lists the impacts on each vantage point (vantage points are site-specific locations that have either been designed for or provide specific opportunities for visitors to view the scenery). All impacts would be long term in duration.

Table 4-98 Potential Impacts on Vantage Points
Vantage Point	Major Impacts of this Alternative	Intensity of Impact	Type of Impact
Tunnel View	None	Negligible	Neutral
Bridalveil Fall turnout along Southside Drive	None	Negligible	Neutral
Valley View	None	Negligible	Neutral
Dewey Point	Taft Toe parking and transit facility would be visible.	Major	Adverse
Taft Point	Taft Toe parking and transit facility would be visible.	Major	Adverse
Upper Yosemite Fall	66 acres less development in east Valley. Restoration would principally be located at Camp 6, Upper and Lower River, Lower Pines and North Pines Campgrounds, and Housekeeping Camp. Removal of roads and traffic from Ahwahnee and Stoneman Meadows. Implementation of the River Protection Overlay.	Major	Beneficial
Sentinel Dome	None	None	Neutral
Glacier Point	66 acres less development in east Valley. Restoration would be visible from Glacier Point. New employee housing in Curry Village may be visible. Removal of roads and traffic from Ahwahnee and Stoneman Meadows. Implementation of the River Protection Overlay.	Moderate	Beneficial
El Capitan Meadow	Taft Toe parking and transit facility may be visible.	Moderate	Adverse
Sentinel Meadow turnout along Southside Drive	None	Negligible	Neutral
Sentinel Bridge	None	Negligible	Neutral
Four Mile Trailhead	None	Negligible	Neutral
Columbia Point	Yosemite Falls parking area would be removed. There would be less development in east Valley.	Moderate	Beneficial
Lower Yosemite Fall View	Improved by removal of adjacent vehicles, reduced traffic, and redesign of area.	Minor	Beneficial
Cook’s Meadow	Improved by removal of Superintendent’s House (Residence 1) and reduction of vehicles along the road to the north.	Minor	Beneficial

Table 4-99 lists the impacts on the 11 most important scenic features within the Valley. All impacts would be long-term in duration.

Table 4-99 Potential Impacts on Scenic Features
Scenic Feature	Major Impacts of this Alternative	Intensity of Impact	Type of Impact
Yosemite Falls	Crowding and traffic would be reduced and parking along Northside Drive could be eliminated.	Minor	Beneficial
Sentinel Rock	None	Negligible	Neutral
Glacier Point	Some views would be improved by removal of traffic through Stoneman and Ahwahnee Meadows, the restoration of Camp 6, and the restoration of the following campgrounds: the former Upper and Lower River, Lower Pines and North Pines. The south portion of Yosemite Village may be less visible; however, the new employee housing in Curry Village may be visible.	Moderate	Beneficial
Half Dome	Views would be improved by removal of traffic from Stoneman and Ahwahnee Meadows; the removal of Camp 6 parking and the implementation of the River Protection Overlay.	Negligible	Beneficial
North Dome	None	Negligible	Neutral
Royal Arches	Vistas near Ahwahnee Meadow would be improved by removal of the tennis courts; removal of traffic from Ahwahnee Meadow; foreground restoration of the former Upper and Lower River Campground and the implementation of the River Protection Overlay.	Moderate	Beneficial
El Capitan	The new parking/transit facility would be in the view.	Moderate	Adverse
Bridalveil Fall	None	Negligible	Neutral
Cathedral Rock and Spires	View from El Capitan would include the parking/transit facility at Taft Toe.	Moderate	Adverse
Washington Column	Vistas near Ahwahnee Meadow would be improved by removal of the tennis courts; removal of traffic from Ahwahnee Meadow; foreground restoration of the former Upper and Lower River Campgrounds, and the implementation of the River Protection Overlay.	Moderate	Beneficial
Three Brothers	Traffic would be removed along Northside Drive.	Minor	Beneficial

Under this alternative, three out-of-Valley parking facilities (Badger Pass, El Portal, and South Landing) would be constructed, facilities at each entrance station would be expanded, and housing and administrative facilities in El Portal would be increased. The parking facility at Badger Pass would have a long-term, minor, adverse impact, since a parking facility already exists there. The construction of the South Landing parking facility would not be visible from the Big Oak Flat Road or any scenic turnouts along the road; thus, it would have a localized, long-term, minor, and adverse impact. The impact of relocated parking and administrative facilities in El Portal would be long-term, minor, and adverse, because actions would be visible from Highway 140 as the visitor approaches Yosemite National Park. The expansion of entrance station facilities would be mitigated through design, and the impacts would be long-term, minor, and adverse because they would cause new intrusions to views at already developed locations.

This alternative would have a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on the overall scenic quality of Yosemite Valley. There would be a net decrease of 66 acres in the development footprint within Yosemite Valley. Of the 165 acres of restoration, the majority are within the A Scenic category. The majority of the actions do result in a net improvement of scenic views and vantage points, especially in east Valley, where there is the greatest opportunity for a number of scenic views from individual locations. This alternative would, however, introduce a new scenic impact in an A Scenic area in the west Valley.

Yosemite Valley would remain one of the world’s premier landscapes. The amount of intrusion into Yosemite Valley scenery would be reduced in the east end, but consolidated parking in the west Valley would add an intrusion that does not exist today in this premier landscape. No visual intrusions would occur from the Tunnel View vantage point. Collectively, there would be long-term, adverse, minor impacts in all out-of-Valley locations because intrusions to these locations would be adjacent to previously developed areas. However, impacts in these areas can be directly related to the improvement of the views within the Valley.

Projects approved or planned that could impact scenic resources within Yosemite National Park or close to park boundaries, and the impacts of those projects, would be the same as those described under Alternative 2. Cumulatively, Alternative 4 would result in a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact.

Impacts to archeological resources are considered permanent unless otherwise noted.

As described for Alternative 2, every effort would be made to avoid archeological sites through careful project design and subsequent site-specific environmental compliance. If sites could not be avoided, all data recovery to retrieve important information would be done in accordance with the Yosemite Programmatic Agreement (see Vol. II, Appendix D).

Undertakings proposed in the vicinity of Yosemite Lodge would involve major grading, trenching, and other earthmoving activities that would likely disturb intact deposits at all or portions of four archeological sites (prehistoric/historic American Indian habitation sites with moderate to high data potential). Actions include constructing parking lots and lodging units; realigning access roads and Northside Drive; placing utilities; and rehabilitating natural areas, similar to Alternatives 2 and 3. Data recovery excavations carried out in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement would reduce the intensity of adverse impacts from moderate to minor.

The impacts would be the same as these described for Alternative 2, except that the restroom would be built at the site of the existing parking lot, which would result in additional, direct impacts to one of the two prehistoric/historic American Indian sites with moderate data potential. Data recovery, carried out in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (see Vol. II, Appendix D), would retrieve important information about the site prior to construction, thereby reducing the intensity of the adverse impact from moderate to minor.

Proposed undertakings include redesigning the National Park Service maintenance area; rehabilitating the Yosemite Village housing area; constructing a new collections storage facility adjacent to the visitor center; construction of a new fire station; and removing a picnic area. As described for Alternatives 2 and 3, these actions would involve grading, trenching, and other earthmoving activities that would potentially disturb portions of two prehistoric/historic American Indian habitation sites. Site data potential ranges from low to high. Data recovery, to retrieve important information conducted in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement, would reduce the intensity of adverse impacts from moderate to minor. The burial area in Yosemite Village that is currently paved and used for materials staging would be restored to a natural condition, and protected from future development. All work in the vicinity of the burial area would be carefully designed to avoid disturbance to intact deposits, and would be monitored by archeologists and representatives of culturally associated American Indian tribes (as described in Alternative 2).

Impacts would be the same as in Alternatives 2 and 3. With data recovery excavations, the resultant impact would be minor and adverse.

Impacts would be the same as in Alternatives 2 and 3. With data recovery excavations, the resultant impact would be negligible.

Impacts would be the same as in Alternatives 2 and 3. With data recovery excavations, the resultant adverse impacts would be minor. Beneficial impacts would be minor.

Impacts would be the same as in Alternatives 2 and 3. With data recovery excavations, the resultant impact would be negligible.

Removing Sugar Pine Bridge would involve earthmoving that would possibly disturb some intact deposits at a prehistoric American Indian habitation site with high data potential (as described in Alternatives 2 and 3). In addition, removing Superintendent’s Bridge would potentially impact a historic-era dump with unknown data potential (as described in Alternative 3). If sites could not be avoided, data recovery prior to construction would reduce the intensity of adverse impacts from moderate to minor.

Impacts would be the same as described in Alternatives 2 and 3. With data recovery excavations, the resultant impacts would be minor and adverse or negligible.

Under this alternative, the construction of a major parking facility, vehicle check station, visitor center/transit center, shuttle parking, and light maintenance facility at Taft Toe would disturb or destroy three intact prehistoric/historic American Indian habitation sites (one with high data potential, and two with low data potential). There are also historic-era deposits with unknown data potential. If these sites could not be avoided, data recovery carried out in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement would retrieve important information prior to construction, and reduce the intensity of adverse impacts from moderate to minor or negligible.

As described for Alternatives 2 and 3, widening Southside Drive between El Capitan Bridge and Curry Village (with realignment at the Sentinel Bridge intersection, as well as other minor realignments) would involve grading that would disturb portions of one small prehistoric/historic American Indian habitation site with high data potential, one large prehistoric/historic American Indian habitation site with moderate data potential, and one large prehistoric/historic American Indian and Euro-American site with moderate data potential. Through careful project design every effort would be made to avoid known archeological sites. If these sites could not be avoided, data recovery prior to construction would reduce the intensity of adverse impacts from moderate to minor.

Establishing a new multi-use trail between Swinging Bridge and El Capitan Bridge south of and adjacent to Southside Drive would involve minor grading that would impact portions of two prehistoric and historic American Indian habitation sites (one with Euro-American archeological deposits) with high data potential, as described for Alternatives 2 and 3. Data recovery would reduce the intensity of adverse impacts from moderate to minor.

As described for Alternatives 2 and 3, realigning the multi-use paved trail between Yosemite Village and Mirror Lake would involve minor grading that would disturb portions of one prehistoric/historic American Indian site with high data potential. Data recovery carried out in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement would retrieve important information and reduce the intensity of adverse impacts from moderate to minor.

Establishing a new multi-use paved trail between the northern abutment of Sentinel Bridge and Yosemite Village would involve minor grading that could impact an archeological site exhibiting both prehistoric and historic components with high data potential. The park would strive to avoid adverse impacts by siting the trail in such a way as to avoid impacting the site. However, if such impacts were unavoidable, data recovery, carried out in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement, would retrieve important information and reduce the intensity of adverse impacts from minor to negligible.

Establishing a new multi-use paved trail between The Ahwahnee and the existing bicycle path to Mirror Lake would involve minor grading that would impact four previously recorded archeology sites. All four of these sites contain both prehistoric and historic components. Three of the four have been determined to be of high data potential, while the fourth has moderate data potential. The park would strive to avoid adverse impacts by siting the trail in such a way as to avoid impacting the site. However, if such impacts were unavoidable, data recovery, carried out in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement, would retrieve important information and reduce the intensity of adverse impacts from minor to negligible.

As described for Alternative 2, placement of multi-use paved trails, picnic areas, and campgrounds within the immediate vicinity of known archeological resources could result in long-term, minor, adverse impacts associated with visitor use, including artifact collection, soil compaction, and accelerated erosion. Given the potential for these impacts, sites subject to such visitor use would be monitored according to the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection Program, as described in Chapter 2. Through this monitoring program, threats and disturbances would be noted. Every effort would be made to avoid or reduce adverse impacts through changes in visitor access, relocation of facilities, or archeological data recovery carried out according to stipulations of the Programmatic Agreement.

Impacts would be the same as described for Alternatives 2 and 3. With data recovery, direct impacts would be negligible and adverse. Indirect impacts, with mitigation, would be both minor and beneficial as well as negligible and adverse. Potential adverse impacts to known archeological sites in Yosemite Valley are shown in table 4-100.

The following impact analysis is based on general land-use planning actions for El Portal, as described for Alternatives 2 and 3. The National Park Service would undertake site-specific design studies and environmental review to evaluate options for new housing and administrative facilities in El Portal. These studies would include, as necessary, additional resource surveys (i.e., archeological inventory and testing). The National Park Service would initiate further consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer, the culturally associated American Indian tribes, and the public, as provided for in the Programmatic Agreement. A complete and detailed assessment of impacts to archeological resources would be presented as part of that review.

As described for Alternatives 2 and 3, several actions at Old El Portal and Village Center (e.g., constructing a multi-use paved trail, employee housing, and support facilities), would disturb or destroy portions of up to 14 prehistoric and historic-era archeological sites (11 of the sites have moderate data potential, one has low data potential, and two have unknown data potential). Through careful project design and subsequent site-specific environmental compliance, every effort would be made to avoid known archeological sites. If these sites could not be avoided, data recovery carried out in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement prior to construction would retrieve important information and reduce the intensity of adverse impacts from moderate to minor.

Developing day-visitor and employee parking in the Middle Road area would involve major grading and earthmoving activities, as described for Alternative 2. These actions would disturb major portions of two archeological sites: one prehistoric American Indian habitation site with historic-era deposits containing low data potential, and one historic-era site with unknown data potential. Through careful project design and subsequent site-specific environmental compliance, every effort would be made to avoid known archeological sites. If these sites could not be avoided, data recovery, carried out in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement, would retrieve important information prior to construction, and reduce the intensity of adverse impacts from moderate to minor.

Constructing National Park Service and concessioner administrative facilities at Railroad Flat, as described for Alternatives 2 and 3, would involve major grading, trenching, and excavation, with the potential to disturb archeological deposits at portions of one prehistoric/historic American Indian habitation site with low data potential. Data recovery would retrieve important information, and reduce the intensity of adverse impacts from minor to negligible.

Constructing housing facilities at Hillside East and West, as described for Alternatives 2 and 3, would involve major grading, excavation, and trenching that would destroy major portions of an intact prehistoric and historic American Indian habitation site (with some Euro-American deposits) with high data potential. A site-specific data recovery program, negotiated between the National Park Service, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and local culturally associated American Indian tribes would recover important information, thereby reducing the intensity of adverse impacts from major to moderate.

Constructing housing and related facilities in Rancheria Flat would entail grading, trenching, and excavation that would potentially disturb intact archeological deposits at two archeological sites with moderate data potential. Data recovery, carried out in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement, would retrieve important information, thereby reducing the intensity of adverse impacts from moderate to minor.

Constructing high-density housing and support facilities at Hennessey’s Ranch, as described for Alternative 3, would disturb a prehistoric American Indian habitation site and part of a historic-era ranch, both of which were heavily damaged when the Trailer Village was constructed; data potential of this site is unknown. Data recovery carried out in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement would retrieve important information and reduce the intensity of any adverse impacts.

Removing an abandoned wastewater treatment plant and restoring the area to natural conditions, as described for Alternatives 2 and 3, would be carefully designed to avoid disturbance to intact areas of a prehistoric American Indian habitation site and burial area. Actions would be monitored by archeologists and culturally associated American Indian people, in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement, and negligible impacts to archeological resources would be anticipated. Since surface conditions at this site would be restored to natural conditions, long-term impacts associated with the presence of this facility would be reduced. This would result in a long-term, minor, beneficial impact.

Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, the Johnny Wilson Ranch (Riverside area), previously proposed for high-density housing (NPS 1996a), would not be developed. Instead, these archeological sites and burial area would continue to be relatively inaccessible.

Impacts would be similar to those in Alternative 2, with the exception that no day-visitor parking would be constructed at Foresta. Actions could impact archeological resources of unknown data potential, depending on the design of any road improvements, stables facilities, and the location of proposed housing. Data recovery excavations would reduce the intensity of any adverse impacts.

Under this alternative, constructing day-visitor parking and support facilities at South Landing would have unknown impacts on archeological resources. Through careful project design and subsequent site-specific environmental compliance, every effort would be made to avoid known archeological sites. If archeological sites could not be avoided, data recovery, carried out in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement, would retrieve important information prior to construction and reduce the intensity of adverse impacts.

As described for Alternatives 2 and 3, reconstructing El Portal Road between the intersection of El Portal Road/Big Oak Flat Road and Pohono Bridge would involve widening the road corridor, potentially removing or disturbing a portion of a large prehistoric and historic-era American Indian habitation site with high data potential. Data recovery, carried out in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement, would retrieve important information and reduce the intensity of adverse impacts from major to minor.

Removing four residences at Cascades, as described for Alternatives 2 and 3, would involve minor grading and trenching that could disturb intact deposits at one prehistoric archeological site with unknown data potential. However, the project would be carefully designed to avoid ground disturbance in intact site areas, and would be monitored by archeologists to ensure site protection. By implementing these measures, negligible impacts would result.

Removing the Cascades Diversion Dam would not impact any archeological resources (the same as under Alternatives 2 and 3). Earthmoving and facility removal would be monitored by an archeologist in the event historic archeological features or artifacts associated with construction and use of the dam were discovered during removal.

As described for Alternatives 2 and 3, since the location and design of visitor centers associated with park entrance stations are unknown at this time, it is not possible to predict the potential for impacts to archeological resources. The park would conduct archeological inventory, site evaluation, and data recovery, as necessary, and further environmental review. In accordance with the Programmatic Agreement, the National Park Service would first seek to avoid impacts to any archeological resources, and would retrieve important scientific information at sites that could not be avoided, thereby reducing the intensity of any adverse impacts.

Proposed project activities would have varied impacts on as many as 58 known archeological sites, with intensities of impacts depending on the potential of the sites to yield significant information about prehistoric and historic lifeways, and on the nature and design of proposed development. Descriptions of low, moderate, and high data potential are included in Chapter 3, Cultural Resources.

In all instances, where identified sites could not be avoided and would be disturbed, the park would carry out data recovery excavations in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement to retrieve important scientific information, thereby reducing the intensity of adverse impacts. For some proposed project areas, information regarding the nature and importance of archeological resources is unknown; in these instances, the park would first inventory project areas, test/evaluate the significance of identified sites, and carry out appropriate data recovery excavations as necessary prior to construction disturbance.

Cumulative impacts would be the same as these described for Alternative 2, except this alternative would contribute to the loss of regional archeological resources as a consequence of the disturbance or degradation of as many as 58 additional known archeological sites. To mitigate adverse impacts, important information contained within these sites would be recovered according to stipulations of the Programmatic Agreement. Therefore, with appropriate mitigation, the cumulative adverse impacts associated with implementing this alternative, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would be minor.

Impacts would be the same as in Alternative 2. With mitigation, the resultant adverse impacts would be negligible; and beneficial impacts would be long-term and minor.

Impacts would be the same as in Alternative 2. With mitigation, the resultant adverse impacts would be negligible; and beneficial impacts would be permanent and minor.

As described for Alternatives 2 and 3, rehabilitating the historic district housing area would improve habitat conditions for California black oak, a traditionally gathered resource. Conversely, constructing a new fire station in the historic district housing area would disturb a small portion of the same traditional gathering area, a contributing element of the Valleywide ethnographic landscape, thus causing long-term, minor, adverse impacts. Appropriate mitigating strategies would reduce the intensity of adverse impacts from minor to negligible. With mitigation, the resultant impact would be long-term, negligible, and adverse.

Impacts would be the same as in Alternatives 2 and 3. There would be no impact to ethnographic resource.

Impacts would be the same as in Alternatives 2 and 3. There would be a negligible, beneficial impact to ethnographic resources.

Impacts would be the same as in Alternatives 2 and 3. Actions would result in a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact; and with mitigation, permanent, minor, adverse impacts.

Impacts would be the same as in Alternatives 2 and 3. Actions would result in negligible adverse impacts.

Removing Sugar Pine, Stoneman, Housekeeping, and Superintendent’s Bridges, along with the raised causeway between Sugar Pine and Ahwahnee Bridges, would have long-term, minor, beneficial impacts by partly restoring habitat in a traditional gathering area, a contributing element of the ethnographic landscape, the same as under Alternative 3. This could allow the recovery of traditionally used plants and enhance their availability for procurement.

Impacts would be the same as in Alternatives 2 and 3. Impacts would be long-term, minor, and beneficial.

Constructing a visitor center, transit center, and day-visitor parking at Taft Toe would have long-term, minor, adverse impacts on the ethnographic landscape by disturbing or destroying a traditional gathering area, as described for Alternative 2. The National Park Service would consult with culturally associated American Indian tribes, in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement, regarding sensitive design guidelines and other appropriate mitigation (such as identifying and helping provide access to alternative resource-gathering areas), to reduce the intensity of the impacts from minor to negligible.

Realigning Southside Drive south of Sentinel Bridge would disturb a portion of a historic village area, as described for Alternative 3. This action would result in a permanent, minor, adverse impact on the Valleywide ethnographic landscape. The National Park Service, in consultation with culturally associated American Indian people, and in keeping with the Programmatic Agreement, would develop appropriate mitigating strategies for impacts to ethnographic resources. Such strategies could include recovering important archeological data, and using any other measures identified during consultation, which would reduce the intensity of adverse impacts from minor to negligible.

Widening Southside Drive between El Capitan Bridge and Curry Village, as described for Alternatives 2 and 3, would disturb portions of four historic villages, and possibly disturb resources at one traditional gathering area, although it may be possible to avoid this resource through careful site design. This would result in permanent, minor, adverse impacts to the Valleywide ethnographic landscape. The National Park Service, in consultation with culturally associated American Indian people, and in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement, would develop appropriate mitigation strategies for impacts to ethnographic resources. Such strategies, which could include identifying and helping provide access to alternative resource-gathering areas, continuing to provide access to traditional use or spiritual areas, and screening new development from traditional use areas, would reduce the intensity of adverse impacts from minor to negligible.

As described for Alternatives 2 and 3, actions and related impacts associated with constructing multi-use paved trails in east Valley would not impact any ethnographic resources. Constructing a new multi-use paved trail between Swinging Bridge and El Capitan Bridge could disturb two historic village areas, causing permanent, minor, adverse impacts to the Valleywide ethnographic landscape. The National Park Service, in consultation with culturally associated American Indian tribes and in keeping with the Programmatic Agreement, would develop appropriate mitigation strategies for impacts to ethnographic resources. Such strategies could include recovering important archeological data, as well as using any other measures identified during consultation, which would reduce the intensity of adverse impacts from minor to negligible.

Impacts would be essentially the same as in Alternatives 2 and 3. With mitigation, the resultant impacts would be long-term, minor, and adverse.

The impact analysis presented below is based on general land-use planning actions for El Portal, and is based on incomplete information about the location and significance of ethnographic properties. The National Park Service would undertake site-specific design studies and environmental review to evaluate options for new housing and administrative facilities in El Portal. These studies would include, as necessary, additional resource surveys (i.e., ethnographic resources inventory and evaluation). The National Park Service would initiate further consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office, culturally associated American Indian tribes, and the public, as provided for in the Programmatic Agreement. A complete and detailed assessment of impacts to ethnographic resources would be presented as part of that review.

Constructing single-family homes at Hillside West, studio apartments at Hillside East and West, and employee housing at Village Center, would destroy a large portion of a historic village area, resulting in a permanent, major, adverse impact similar to Alternatives 2 and 3. The portions of this historic village site that are known to contain human burials would be protected from development. As described in Alternatives 2 and 3, mitigation would reduce the intensity of adverse impacts from major to moderate. Constructing single-family homes, apartments, and housing support facilities at Rancheria Flat, Hennessey’s Ranch, and Old El Portal, as well as administrative facilities at Railroad Flat, would disturb or destroy portions of at least three traditional gathering areas, resulting in long-term, minor, adverse impacts. These impacts would be reduced in intensity, as described in Alternatives 2 and 3.

Removing the abandoned wastewater treatment facility would have permanent, moderate, beneficial impacts on a prehistoric village and burial area by eliminating modern, intrusive development (the same as under Alternatives 2 and 3). To ensure protection of intact deposits and burials, this removal would be designed and implemented carefully, and the work would be monitored by an archeologist and representatives from culturally associated American Indian tribes.

Impacts associated with the construction of an access route, parking, and other amenities at South Landing under this alternative are unknown, due to the lack of information regarding the location and significance of ethnographic properties. The National Park Service would undertake site-specific studies and environmental review to evaluate options for where to build the structures. These studies would include, as necessary, additional resource surveys (i.e., ethnographic resources inventory and evaluation). The National Park Service would initiate further consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office, culturally associated American Indian tribes, and the public, as provided for in the Programmatic Agreement. A complete and detailed assessment of impacts to ethnographic resources would be presented as part of that review.

The National Park Service has consulted with the American Indian Council of Mariposa County, Inc., during planning and preliminary design for the reconstruction of El Portal Road. The proposed reconstruction of the easternmost portion of the road, the removal of the Cascades Diversion Dam and screenhouse, and the removal of the four Cascades residences would not impact any known ethnographic resources.

Proposed undertakings would have varied impacts (from potentially major to negligible), depending in part on the nature and design of proposed development and the sensitivity of the different traditional use areas. In Yosemite Valley, proposed actions would disturb or destroy parts of up to eight traditional gathering areas; would add or expand modern development at eight historic village areas; and would add development in at least one area figuring in oral traditions. However, facility removal and ecological restoration would benefit up to five traditional gathering areas by enhancing conditions for plant resources; and would remove modern development from three historic village areas. In general, actions in Yosemite Valley would have long-term, minor, adverse impacts to the Valleywide ethnographic landscape.

In El Portal, proposed actions are designed to maximize administrative, park operations, and residential development. The precise nature and intensity of adverse impacts to ethnographic resources in El Portal, Foresta, McCauley Ranch, South Landing, and other out-of-Valley areas are unknown. In El Portal, however, proposed actions would most likely have permanent, moderate to major, adverse impacts by destroying portions of historic villages and traditional gathering areas, and by adding concentrated residential use in some areas that are currently undeveloped. As in Yosemite Valley and other park areas, known burial areas would be protected from disturbance, and modern facilities in burial areas would be removed. The National Park Service would conduct an ethnographic resources inventory and evaluation for El Portal, as well as other out-of-Valley areas, and would continue consulting with culturally associated American Indian tribes to seek ways to avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential adverse impacts to ethnographic resources. These measures could include setting aside some areas for traditional uses; designing new development to avoid the most sensitive areas; screening development from traditional use areas; and directing visitor and residential use away from sensitive areas.

Cumulative impacts on ethnographic resources would be the same as those described for Alternatives 2 and 3. Minor to moderate cumulative impacts would accrue from implementing this alternative, in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably future undertakings.

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE RESOURCES
(INCLUDING INDIVIDUALLY SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES)

Under Alternative 4, large portions of the natural landscape, which has influenced the physical development in Yosemite Valley, would be rehabilitated and restored to natural conditions. The major focus of this effort would be the long-term restoration of the Merced River corridor and the rehabilitation of eight meadows that are historically significant and contribute to the Valley-wide cultural landscape. California black oak woodlands would be rehabilitated and restored to natural conditions, and general environmental restoration would enhance the historic vegetative mosaic of coniferous forest, oak woodlands, and open meadows. These actions would collectively result in a long-term, beneficial impact on the cultural landscape of the Valley.

Historic land use patterns, which have concentrated visitor services and administration in the east Valley, would be dramatically altered. Construction of day-visitor parking, transit, and visitor facilities at Taft Toe would shift the major focus of arrival and orientation in Yosemite Valley from its historic location at Yosemite Village. This would result in a permanent, major impact in the spatial organization of the cultural landscape. The National Register Historic Districts and properties of Camp Curry, Yosemite Village, The Ahwahnee, and others would remain, and would largely continue to function as they did historically, with the exception of Yosemite Village, as noted above. While camping would remain in the Upper and Lower Pines Campgrounds and Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground), relocating other Valley campgrounds currently situated along the Merced River would be a change in historic land use patterns, resulting in a permanent, minor, adverse impact.

Proposed changes to circulation systems throughout Yosemite Valley would result in removal of one historic road segment, realignment of a portion of Northside Drive, and realignment and widening of a portion of Southside Drive. All three of these historic roads are contributing structures to the proposed Yosemite Valley Cultural Landscape Historic District. The historic road segment currently bisecting Upper and Lower River Campgrounds would be removed. A segment of Northside Drive at Yosemite Lodge would be realigned, and the segment between Yosemite Lodge and El Captain crossover would be closed to motor vehicles. While this would significantly alter the way in which visitors experience this historic "loop" circulation pattern through the Valley, it would not result in any physical changes to this segment of Northside Drive itself. A portion of Southside Drive would be widened to accommodate two-way traffic, and the segment near the Yosemite Chapel would be realigned, changing the physical structure of this contributing element. Other changes in the circulation system consist of adding new multi-use paved trails, rehabilitating or realigning existing multi-use paved trails, and constructing day-visitor parking at Taft Toe near El Capitan crossover. Collectively, these changes would result in a long-term, moderate, adverse impact to historic circulation systems that contribute to the cultural landscape. Impacts resulting from removal or alteration of historic road segments would be mitigated by documentation, thus preserving a historical record (although the resource would be changed or would cease to exist). Impacts resulting from addition of new (and modification of existing) multi-use paved trails and addition of a traffic check station would be partly mitigated by the use of compatible design; thus, the intensity of these adverse impacts would be reduced from moderate to minor. Removing non-contributing roads from Ahwahnee and Stoneman Meadows would have a permanent, minor, and beneficial impact.

In general, changes to physical features and addition of new structures and facilities within the Valleywide cultural landscape would follow design guidelines consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (Secretary’s Standards [USDOI 1983]). In this manner, the potential for impacts resulting from addition of non-historic facilities would be reduced.

Restoration of the Merced River would result in the removal of Sugar Pine and Stoneman Bridges, both listed in the National Register of Historic Places. This would result in the loss of two individually significant historic structures, resulting in a permanent, major, adverse impact. Although the physical structures would be lost, these impacts would be mitigated through documentation and salvage of historic materials, thus reducing the intensity of adverse impacts from major to moderate. Documentation of Sugar Pine and Stoneman Bridges has been completed, thus preserving a historical record of the resources.

The individually significant Superintendent’s House (Residence 1) and its associated garage would be removed. As in Alternative 1, this would result in the loss of the historic structure; therefore there would be no additional adverse impact. However, this action would result in immediate, rather than eventual loss. The structures and their setting have already been documented; thus, although the physical structures would be removed a historical record has been preserved. In addition, the National Park Service would salvage historic materials as stipulated in the Programmatic Agreement.

Other historic structures that are not individually significant but contribute to the Valleywide cultural landscape would be removed. These structures consist of Superintendent’s and Housekeeping Bridges, the concessioner stable and its associated structures, three pedestrian bridges at Lower Yosemite Fall, and riprap, wing, and check dams along the Merced River and its tributaries. In addition, three pedestrian bridges at Lower Yosemite Fall would be rehabilitated or rebuilt, and one would be relocated. These actions would result in the loss or change in contributing elements of the Valleywide landscape, resulting in a permanent, moderate, adverse impact. Although the physical structures would be lost or changed, these impacts would be mitigated through documentation, thus reducing the intensity of adverse impacts from moderate to minor.

Actions at Yosemite Lodge and Housekeeping Camp would not result in the loss of any historic structures, or landscape resources, as there are no historic structures or landscape resources in either of these developed areas. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

Yosemite Village: The historic design and spatial organization of the Yosemite Village area would be rehabilitated, resulting in the preservation of many of the historic structures, removal of non-contributing structures, redevelopment of non-contributing areas within the district, and restoration of some areas to natural conditions. This would result in a permanent, minor, beneficial impact to the design and spatial organization of the district. However, historic land uses would change significantly (e.g., removing primary visitor arrival and orientation, removing National Park Service stable and parkwide administration), although many of the land uses historically associated with the village, such as museum facilities and employee housing, would remain. In addition, the re-establishment of historic viewsheds from within the village and the protection of the California black oak woodland would enhance the historic character of the developed area, resulting in a permanent, minor, beneficial impact.

Natural resource restoration and redevelopment at Camp 6, Yosemite Village, and Ahwahnee Meadow would result in the removal of several historic structures that contribute to the cultural landscape. These buildings consist of the Concessioner Headquarters Building; the Village Garage and associated apartment and three shop buildings; the "Y" apartments; the Ahwahnee Row houses, cottages, converted cabins, laundry room, and garage. These actions would result in the loss of historic structures, resulting in a permanent, moderate adverse impact to the cultural landscape. The loss of the historic structures would be mitigated by HABS/HAER documentation, and salvage of historic materials as stipulated in the Programmatic Agreement. In this manner, a historical record would be preserved even though the structures themselves would cease to exist. The intensity of adverse impacts would thus be reduced from moderate to minor. In cases where historic structures would be lost, the National Park Service would first consider the possibility of relocation and adaptive reuse in another location within the park.

Actions at the National Park Service maintenance area would result in the loss of thirteen historic structures that contribute to the cultural landscape, resulting in a permanent, moderate adverse impact to the cultural landscape (the National Park Service Operations Building [Fort Yosemite] would be retained). The loss of these structures would be mitigated through documentation and salvage of historic materials, as stipulated in the Programmatic Agreement. Thus, although the structures themselves would cease to exist, a historical record would be preserved, reducing the intensity of adverse impacts from moderate to minor. In cases where historic structures would be lost, the National Park Service would first consider the possibility of relocation and adaptive reuse in another location within the park. The area would be redeveloped for district operational needs, resulting in the addition of non-historic facilities adjacent to the Yosemite Village Historic District. The impact associated with this would be mitigated by using compatible design, thus reducing the intensity of impact from minor to negligible.

In the Yosemite Village Historic District, individually contributing structures would be retained, and some would be rehabilitated for adaptive reuse. The National Park Service Administration Building would be rehabilitated for a new use as a natural history museum. The Museum/Valley District Building would be rehabilitated for use solely as a cultural history museum. Rehabilitation of these structures would follow the Secretary’s Standards (USDOI 1983), and thus would have negligible impacts on the historic structures and the district itself. The Visitor Center and auditoriums would be rehabilitated for use as part of the educational function in Yosemite Village (to house the Yosemite Museum collection, including the research library and archives, and provide space for theater productions and special programs). A new fire station would be constructed adjacent to the residential area. This would result in a permanent, minor, adverse impact to the historic district. This impact would be mitigated by designing the new facility to be compatible with the district in terms of scale, massing, materials, orientation, and design. Thus, the intensity of this adverse impact would be reduced to negligible.

Curry Village and the Camp Curry Historic District: Actions proposed for the Curry Village developed area and the Camp Curry Historic District would result in the loss of historic structures; construction of new facilities within the historic district; and construction of an employee housing area adjacent to the historic district. Collectively, these actions would result in permanent, major, adverse impacts, as described below.

The Curry Orchard parking area, 277 historic guest tent cabins, some historic comfort stations, the Tresidder Residence, Cabin 90A/B, and the Huff House would be removed, resulting in a permanent, major, adverse impact to the historic district. The intensity of this impact would be reduced through site design, by retaining to the extent possible, the general configuration of the remaining 150 tent cabins around the central core of the village, in keeping with the historic design and extent of Camp Curry. The intensity of this impact would also be reduced by documentation of historic structures as described in the Programmatic Agreement. In this manner, although the physical structures would be lost, a historical record would be preserved. The resultant intensity of these adverse impacts would therefore be moderate.

Other actions in the historic district would result in the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of several individual historic structures. These structures consist of Mother Curry Bungalow, Stoneman Lodge, the 48 cabins-with-bath, Cottage 819, the Lounge, and the Registration Building. Rehabilitation would be accomplished in keeping with the Secretary’s Standards (USDOI 1983); thus, there would be negligible impact on historic structures.

Construction of new lodging units, a cafeteria, and two new parking areas (one at the west end to serve the bungalows, and one at the east end to serve the tent cabins) would add non-historic facilities within the historic district, resulting in a permanent, major, adverse impact. This impact would be partly reduced through the use of compatible design; retention of original Camp Curry cluster arrangement; and use of compatible materials, thus potentially reducing the intensity of adverse impacts from major to moderate. Construction of employee housing facilities, a fire station, and the campground check station and recreational vehicle dump station would introduce non-historic facilities adjacent to the historic district, potentially resulting in a moderate, adverse impact. This impact would be reduced through use of compatible design and appropriate screening, thus reducing the intensity of the impact from moderate to minor.

The Ahwahnee: Impacts under this alternative would be the same as Alternative 2. With mitigation, the resultant impacts would be negligible.

Actions at Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) would result in the loss of five contributing campsites and the construction of five replacement campsites adjacent to the historic site, resulting in a permanent, minor, adverse impact. These impacts would be mitigated through documentation of resources to be removed, and design of the additional campsites to be compatible with the existing historic site in terms of scale, massing, materials, and orientation. These measures would reduce the intensity of adverse impacts from moderate to minor.

Lamon, Hutchings, and Curry Orchards would neither be removed nor cultivated. Eventually, as in Alternative 1, this would result in the loss of these resources. The loss of these resources would be mitigated through initiation of a genetic conservation program and documentation of the orchards; thus, a historical record and representative plants would be preserved, although the orchards would cease to exist.

The following impact analysis is based on general land-use planning actions for El Portal, as described for Alternatives 2 and 3. The National Park Service would undertake site-specific design studies and environmental review to evaluate options for new housing and administrative facilities. The National Park Service would initiate further consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer, the culturally associated American Indian tribes, and the public, as provided for in the Programmatic Agreement. A complete and detailed assessment of impacts to historic properties would be presented as part of that review.

As described for Alternatives 2 and 3, constructing single-family homes in Old El Portal would not impact any historic resources, nor would constructing housing and a day care center at Rancheria Flat (the three historic National Lead Company residences would be retained).

Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, constructing single-family homes at Hillside West and studio apartments at Hillside East and West would not impact any historic resources. Structures built adjacent to El Portal Chapel (the old school) would be designed to be compatible with the historical setting. Constructing high-density housing and support facilities at Hennessey’s Ranch would not impact any historic structures. Prior to design, the National Park Service would inventory and evaluate the importance of potential cultural landscape features at this location, remnants of Hennessey’s farming operation. If any significant resources could not be avoided in site design, the National Park Service would undertake further environmental review and impact mitigation prior to construction.

Constructing employee and day-visitor parking in the Village Center area, as well as administrative facilities for the National Park Service and concessioner at Railroad Flat and a multi-use paved trail between Rancheria Flat and Village Center (through Hennessey’s Ranch), would not impact any historic structures or cultural landscape resources (as described for Alternatives 2 and 3).

Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, constructing apartments and other community and commercial facilities, as well as the magistrate’s court, at El Portal Village Center, could impact historic resources (such as the El Portal Market, the Railroad residences, the old El Portal Store, and the El Portal Hotel). The precise nature of impacts on historic resources is unknown, pending the siting and design of the facilities, which would be the subject of future, tiered, site-specific environmental compliance. Every effort would be made to avoid or otherwise mitigate adverse impacts such as through sensitive, compatible design, and screening of modern development from historic structures. Should avoidance or adverse impacts prove impossible, documentation stipulated in the Programmatic Agreement would reduce the intensity of the adverse impacts.

As described for Alternatives 2 and 3, the historic El Portal Hotel would be adaptively rehabilitated or removed. Adaptive rehabilitation would be undertaken in accordance with the Secretary’s Standards (USDOI 1983). Because removal of the individually significant structure would be a major adverse impact, the National Park Service would follow stipulations of the Programmatic Agreement reducing the intensity of this adverse impact from major to moderate.

At Foresta, there would be no impact on historic resources as a result of constructing single-family homes and rehabilitating the campground (there are no historic resources in the area). Access improvements through Foresta to McCauley Ranch, with possible replacement of the Crane Creek bridge, could (depending on location and design) adversely impact potential historic resources (the Foresta Road and the Crane Creek bridge) through loss or significant alteration. Under this alternative, constructing concessioner and National Park Service stables, as well as trails maintenance facilities at McCauley, would have unknown impacts on historic resources. Historic properties would be inventoried and evaluated for National Register eligibility, according to stipulations of the Programmatic Agreement. The National Park Service would avoid adverse impacts to the extent possible, and would mitigate any potential adverse impacts.

Impacts would be the same as in Alternative 2. With mitigation, the resultant impacts would be permanent, moderate, and adverse.

Constructing day-visitor parking and support facilities at South Landing under this alternative would have unknown impacts on historic resources. The National Park Service would conduct resource inventories, evaluations for National Register significance, and consultations according to stipulations of the Programmatic Agreement. The National Park Service would avoid adverse impacts to any historic resources to the extent possible, and would mitigate any potential adverse impacts according to stipulations in the Programmatic Agreement.

Constructing new visitor centers at park entrance stations would have an unknown impact on historic resources. These areas would be inventoried for historic structures and landscape resources, according to stipulations of the Programmatic Agreement. The National Park Services would avoid adverse impacts to the extent possible, and would mitigate any potential adverse impacts according to the stipulations of the Programmatic Agreement.

At Badger Pass, establishing day-visitor parking and associated amenities would have no impacts on historic resources. The National Park Service has evaluated the ski lodge complex and found that it has been altered and lacks the integrity necessary for it to be considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NPS 1987a).

Proposed undertakings would have varied impacts on historic sites, structures, and cultural landscape resources. Major to minor, permanent, adverse impacts would result from the removal or modification of historic buildings and structures, or from the introduction of modern facilities and development either within historic districts, or within sight. Designing new facilities to be compatible with historic structures and carrying out standard mitigation measures (e.g., HABS/HAER documentation) under the Programmatic Agreement would reduce the intensity of adverse impacts.

Beneficial impacts would result from measures intended to restore native vegetation communities in patterns more in keeping with the cultural landscape and historic setting. The removal of non-contributing facilities and development from historic areas would also have beneficial impacts. The adaptive use of historic buildings would assist their long-term preservation, and would be carried out in accordance with the Secretary’s Standards (USDOI 1983).

In Yosemite Valley, the new development at Taft Toe under this alternative would result in adverse impacts to many of the significant characteristics of the landscape (similar to Alternative 3), affecting such attributes as patterns of land use, circulation patterns, spatial organization, and response to natural features. In addition, this alternative would result in adverse impacts to individual features, such as Sugar Pine, Stoneman, Superintendent’s, and Housekeeping Bridges, due to ecological restoration of the Merced River corridor. Beneficial impacts to the Valleywide cultural landscape would result from such actions as meadow restoration, removal of non-contributing structures, and ecological restoration of the riparian corridor along Yosemite Creek and the Merced River south of Yosemite Lodge. New development would be designed to be compatible with existing historic districts or settings to the greatest extent possible, and adverse impacts to individual features would be mitigated according to stipulations of the Programmatic Agreement. The impacts to the overall character of the Valleywide cultural landscape, with mitigation, would be reduced from major to moderate.

For some project areas, the impacts on historic properties are unknown until further site-specific historic resource studies are undertaken, and project designs are more fully developed. In these instances, the park would carry out any necessary inventories; evaluations of National Register significance; consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer, culturally associated American Indian tribes and the public; and treatment/mitigation as stipulated in the Programmatic Agreement prior to any construction disturbance.

Cumulative impacts on historic sites, structures, and cultural landscape resources would be the same as under Alternatives 2 and 3. In Yosemite Valley, as well as in a regional context, implementation of this alternative would result in minor, cumulative, adverse impacts in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Impacts to the museum collection under this alternative would be the same as those for Alternative 3. Actions would result in long-term, major, beneficial impacts to the museum collection.

Housing the collection and archival materials in a central facility would have moderate to major, beneficial impacts on the materials, and would significantly improve the park’s effectiveness in managing and protecting these resources. Access to the materials would be enhanced for researchers and others, with ample space to carry out research and other activities. With the proximity of exhibit space and repository facilities, impacts associated with transporting objects is also reduced. The park would be able to comply with the National Park Service Museum Handbook (NPS 1990a) and Director’s Order 28 — Cultural Resource Management Guideline (NPS 1998l), as well as the Draft Director’s Order 24-Standards for National Park Service Museum Collections (NPS 1999e).

Cumulative impacts on the museum collection would be the same as Alternative 3. Implementation of this alternative would have minor, cumulative, beneficial impacts on the museum collection in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

As described for Alternatives 2 and 3, under regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 CFR 800.9) addressing the criteria of effect and adverse effect, undertakings proposed under this alternative 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 carry out HABS/HAER 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.

No effects to the park’s museum collection and archives would result from housing materials in a central facility with adequate environmental and security controls. The rehabilitation and adaptive use of historic buildings, restoration of vegetation contributing to historic settings and the cultural landscape, and the removal of non-contributing structures and landscape elements would also have no adverse effect on historic properties. Rehabilitation would be carried out in accordance with the Secretary’s Standards (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, and recommend avoidance or appropriate treatment/standard mitigation measures prior to construction disturbance.

This assessment is based on the Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan/FEIS (Merced River Plan), and its management elements. The applicable Merced Wild and Scenic River segments are 2 (Yosemite Valley), 3A and 3B (Impoundment and Gorge), 4 (El Portal), and 7 (Wawona). See Vol. Ia, Chapter 3, Affected Environment, for further discussion on the management elements of the Merced River Plan.

Alternatives have been assessed within a river segment with regard to: (1) impacts on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values, which reflect the values for which the river was designated by Congress; (2) compatibility with classifications; (3) compatibility with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Section 7 determination process; (4) consistency with the River Protection Overlay; and (5) consistency with management zoning. The Merced River Plan, which established the River Protection Overlay, management zoning, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Section 7 determination process, and the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection framework (within the wild and scenic river boundaries), is discussed as a cumulative project.

Consistency of the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS alternatives with the Wild and Scenic River boundaries are analyzed indirectly through the analysis of Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS consistency with the Merced River Plan management zoning.

Outstandingly Remarkable Values for this segment are scenic, geologic processes/conditions, recreation, biological, cultural, and hydrologic processes. A description of the Outstandingly Remarkable Values are found in Vol. II, Appendix B. Potential impacts of this alternative to these Outstandingly Remarkable Values are shown in table 4-101 below.

Actions to implement the River Protection Overlay would have beneficial impacts to the scenic, recreation, biological, cultural, and hydrologic processes Outstandingly Remarkable Values. The River Protection Overlay prescription would be an important parameter in implementing the actions listed in table 4-101.

The campground-related actions would have an overall beneficial effect on the scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Values due to restoration of areas visible from the river. These actions would not adversely impact the recreation Outstandingly Remarkable Values because camping opportunities would be retained. The campground-related actions would have an overall beneficial impact on the biological and hydrologic processes Outstandingly Remarkable Values because of restoration of riparian areas, and campsites would be removed from highly valued resources and close proximity to the river.

The Housekeeping Camp-related actions would have a long-term, beneficial effect on the scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Values due to restoration of areas visible from the river. Removal of Housekeeping Camp units could have an adverse effect on cultural Outstandingly Remarkable Values due to potential disturbance of river-related archeological resources. The actions at Housekeeping Camp would have a beneficial impact to the biological and hydrologic processes Outstandingly Remarkable Values because or restoration of riparian areas and because Housekeeping Camp lodging units would be removed from highly valued resources and from close proximity to the river. These actions would not adversely impact the recreation Outstandingly Remarkable Values because Housekeeping units would be retained.

Actions at Yosemite Lodge would have beneficial and adverse impacts on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values. The removal of Yosemite Lodge units and the restoration of the former cabins area and the area between Yosemite Lodge and the Merced River would have a beneficial impact on the biological and hydrologic processes Outstandingly Remarkable Values. The relocation of Northside Drive and construction of parking would have a minor, adverse impact on the hydrologic processes Outstandingly Remarkable Values because they would be placed in the 100-year floodplain and would interfere with the 100-year flood event; they would also have an indirect beneficial impact because lodging units (which impede flood flow more than roads and parking lots) can be constructed outside of the boundary. As described in the Water Resources section of this chapter, impacts to hydrologic processes would be minimal, because flood flow in this area is low velocity, and is not appreciably affected by parking areas or roads. The construction of lodging units would result in minor, adverse radiating impacts on the meadow and riparian communities inside the boundary.

At Curry Village, cultural Outstandingly Remarkable Values could be adversely affected due to potential disturbance of river-related archeological resources during Curry Village redevelopment. There would be no impact to the hydrologic processes Outstandingly Remarkable Values, because Curry Village is located outside of the floodplain. There would be minor, adverse radiating impacts on river-related vegetation due to trampling.

The road-related actions would have an overall beneficial effect on scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Values due to the removal of roads from South Ahwahnee and Stoneman Meadows, and improvements to scenic views from the river due to the conversion of a segment of Northside Drive to a multi-use trail. The road-related actions (the rerouting of Northside Drive in the Yosemite Lodge area is covered above) would have an overall beneficial impact on the biological and hydrologic processes Outstandingly Remarkable Values because some roads would be removed from highly valued resources, and their removal would contribute to the restoration of the natural flood regime. These actions also beneficially impact the cultural Outstandingly Remarkable Value because they contribute to the restoration of the cultural landscape.

Reconstruction of the El Portal Road between Pohono Bridge and Cascades Diversion Dam, and removal of Cascades Diversion Dam (see discussion of dam removal in Segment 3A/3B), would have both beneficial and adverse impacts on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values. The existing road has localized, adverse impacts on the biological Outstandingly Remarkable Value because it displaces river-related vegetation, and to the hydrologic processes Outstandingly Remarkable Values because riprap that supports the road is partially in the river channel. However, since this road segment provides a critical visitor access link, its reconstruction would also be beneficial to the recreation Outstandingly Remarkable Value by maintaining access to Yosemite Valley. [Note: these two actions span river Segments 2, 3A, and 3B.]

Removal of bridges would have both beneficial and adverse impacts on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values. These actions would have beneficial impacts to the biological Outstandingly Remarkable Value because the riverbank can be restored, and substantial beneficial impacts on the hydrologic processes Outstandingly Remarkable Value, because the free-flowing condition of the river would be improved, and the river would have increased ability to meander. These actions would have adverse impacts on the cultural Outstandingly Remarkable Value because they result in the loss of important historic structures, and change historic circulation patterns.

The removal of parking at Camp 6 would have beneficial impacts on the scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Values by eliminating a facility visible from the river; beneficial impact on the hydrologic processes Outstandingly Remarkable Value by eliminating a facility from an area that floods relatively frequently (more frequently than the 100-year flood event); and a beneficial impact on the biological Outstandingly Remarkable Value by permitting restoration of river-related (e.g., riparian and wetland) vegetation communities.

Redevelopment of visitor services and National Park Service operations in the Yosemite Village area, largely outside of the Merced Wild and Scenic River boundary but in close proximity, would have both beneficial and adverse impacts on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Radiating impacts from the density of visitors in the area would have a minor, adverse impact on the biological and hydrologic processes Outstandingly Remarkable Values through trampling of river-related habitats.

A major development would be introduced in west Yosemite Valley with the construction of a parking facility and visitor center at Taft Toe. As a result of the construction of the parking facility, adverse effects on the hydrologic processes and biological Outstandingly Remarkable Values would increase in this area, largely due to the displacement and degradation of riparian vegetation, and radiating impacts associated with visitor use.

Segment-wide, this alternative would be a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on the scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Value because of the removal of many facilities visible from the river or riverbank, and improvement of the scenic interface of river, rock, meadow, and forest via restoration, campground removal, and road removal/relocation. However, for facilities that are to remain or be redeveloped, some adverse scenic impacts would continue, although to a lesser degree than under the No Action Alternative.

Segment-wide, there are no impacts to the geologic processes/conditions Outstandingly Remarkable Value, because of the absence of actions affecting the V-shaped valley, and moraines of Yosemite Valley. Impacts related to the meandering river are discussed in the Water Resources section of this chapter.

Segment-wide, there would be a long-term, moderate beneficial impact on the recreation Outstandingly Remarkable Value, because the diversity of river-related recreational opportunities would be maintained.

Segment-wide, there would be a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on the biological Outstandingly Remarkable Value, because of the reduction of facilities in general, and the restoration of riparian areas and meadows in particular. Although construction of several new facilities (e.g., parking facility, roads, bicycle paths and picnic areas) would pose some adverse, localized impacts on the biological Outstandingly Remarkable Value, these impacts would be outweighed by the substantial restoration actions that would take place throughout this segment.

Segment-wide, there would be a long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impact on the cultural Outstandingly Remarkable Value because of the removal of river-related historic structures, and potential disturbance of river-related archeological resources. The historic structures that would be removed, particularly bridges, would adversely affect the hydrologic processes Outstandingly Remarkable Value, and their removal would have major, long-term, beneficial impacts on the hydrologic processes Outstandingly Remarkable Value, and contribute substantially to the restoration of the free-flowing condition of the river.

Segment-wide, there would be a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on the hydrologic processes Outstandingly Remarkable Value because of the removal of structures that impede flood flow or inhibit the natural meandering of the river, and the restoration of riparian areas in the wild and scenic river corridor. Removal of structures would contribute substantially to the restoration of the free-flowing condition of the river, and would further the policy established by Congress in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to preserve designated rivers in their free-flowing condition. New facilities within the floodplain would have minimal, adverse impacts on the flood regime.

The National Park Service would exert its best efforts to design and reconstruct the El Portal Road between Cascades Diversion Dam and Pohono Bridge with few, if any, additional impacts on the free-flowing condition of the river. If it proves infeasible to design and construct the road in a manner that would avoid direct and adverse impacts to the values for which the river was designated, the National Park Service would report to Congress in accordance with Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. In either case, further site-specific environmental compliance, including compliance with Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, would be undertaken for this project.

Impacts to the Outstandingly Remarkable Values would occur as a result of other past and reasonably foreseeable future actions (see Vol. II, Appendix H for the list of cumulative projects considered in this analysis).

The Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan (NPS) established the River Protection Overlay, management zoning, and the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection framework inside the wild and scenic river boundaries. The River Protection Overlay is implemented through this plan, and its beneficial impacts to the Outstandingly Remarkable Values have been assessed as part of the impacts of this alternative. This project also establishes management zoning, which does not directly impact the Outstandingly Remarkable Values. The Visitor Experience and Resource Protection process was designed to protect resources and the visitor experience, and would have a beneficial impact by focusing on protection of Outstandingly Remarkable Values. The Visitor Experience and Resource Protection framework would have a long-term, moderate beneficial effect on Outstandingly Remarkable Values in this segment.

In 1991, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management developed a joint South Fork and Merced Wild and Scenic River Implementation Plan (USFS and BLM) for the segments of the main stem and South Fork of the Merced River that are under their jurisdiction. The plan is a general management plan with many prescriptive goals and few actions. The South Fork and Merced Wild and Scenic River Implementation Plan does not affect the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of this segment.

The National Park Service proposes to reconstruct the trail from Happy Isles to Vernal Falls (NPS). This project would have a beneficial impact on the recreation Outstandingly Remarkable Value due to the provision of an improved trail between Happy Isles and Vernal Falls, which contributes to a spectrum of river-related recreational activities. The net effect of this project would be a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

The Eagle Creek Ecological Restoration project (NPS) would restore the confluence of Eagle Creek with the Merced River and remove riprap at the confluence and along the creek. This project would have a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on the hydrologic processes and biological Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

The past and reasonably foreseeable future projects would have a long-term, moderate, beneficial effect on Outstandingly Remarkable Values due to the establishment of the Merced River Plan Visitor Experience and Resource Protection framework; improved river-related recreation opportunities from Happy Isles to Vernal Falls; and restored riparian habitat and hydrologic processes at the Eagle Creek and Merced River confluence.

For the actions of this alternative, a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact is described for the Outstandingly Remarkable Values, largely due to the removal of facilities that impede flood flow and inhibit the natural meandering of the river; the restoration of substantial areas of high-value resources in the River Protection Overlay and wild and scenic river corridor; the improvement of the scenic interface of river, rock, meadow, and forest; and the maintenance of the diversity of river-related recreational opportunities. The beneficial impact of this alternative is somewhat offset by the adverse impact on the cultural Outstandingly Remarkable Value resulting from the removal of historic structures, as well as the adverse impacts on biological, cultural, and hydrologic processes Outstandingly Remarkable Values associated with the development of the parking facility at Taft Toe. The cumulative projects would have a long-term, moderate, beneficial effect on Outstandingly Remarkable Values due to the establishment of the Merced River Plan Visitor Experience and Resource Protection framework; improved river-related recreation opportunities from Happy Isles to Vernal Falls; and restored riparian habitat and hydrologic processes at the Eagle Creek and Merced River confluence. When the impacts of all of the past and reasonably foreseeable future actions described above are considered in combination with the expected impacts on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values from this alternative, long-term, moderate, beneficial effects to the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of this segment would likely result.

Similar to Alternative 2, the actions of this alternative in this segment of the Merced Wild and Scenic River would comply with the Merced River Plan and are consistent with its management elements. The collective actions are consistent with the classification of this segment because accessibility by road or trail would be essentially unchanged and the amount of development in the watershed and on the shorelines would not substantially change, although development on the shorelines would be reduced through removal of facilities in the River Protection Overlay. The individual actions that are considered to be water resources projects, such as removal of bridges, would be subject to the Section 7 determination process. The River Protection Overlay would be implemented and individual actions would be compatible with the River Protection Overlay prescription, with many facilities being removed from the River Protection Overlay. The individual actions would be consistent with the respective management zones established in the Merced River Plan. Some actions, such as the removal of infrastructure from the former Rivers Campgrounds, remove existing facilities or uses that do not conform with the corresponding management zone prescription.

Outstandingly Remarkable Values identified for the recreational impoundment segment of the river are geologic processes/conditions and biological. Outstandingly Remarkable Values identified for the scenic gorge segment of the river are scenic, geologic processes/conditions, recreation, biological, cultural, and hydrologic processes.

The impacts of this alternative to the Outstandingly Remarkable Values for this segment would be the same as under Alternative 2 (see Alternative 2, table 4-40, for details).

The impacts of this alternative on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values for this segment would be the same as under Alternative 2. This alternative would have a long-term, moderate to major, beneficial impact on Outstandingly Remarkable Values, largely because the removal of Cascades Diversion Dam and implementation of the River Protection Overlay would substantially improve the free-flowing condition of the river; enhance riparian habitat and rainbow trout movement; and improve views of waterfalls and cliffs. This beneficial impact is somewhat offset by adverse impacts on cultural Outstandingly Remarkable Values associated with the increased risk of damage to historic engineering projects resulting from Cascades Diversion Dam removal, and the removal of Cascades Houses (see Alternative 2 for more details).

Cumulative impacts under this alternative would be the same as under Alternative 2. For the actions of this alternative, a long-term, moderate to major, beneficial impact is described for these Outstandingly Remarkable Values, largely because the removal of Cascades Diversion Dam and implementation of the River Protection Overlay would substantially improve the free-flowing condition of the river; enhance riparian habitat and rainbow trout movement; and improve views of waterfalls and cliffs. The cumulative projects would have a long-term, minor, adverse impact, largely through introduction of stabilization materials and loss of riparian vegetation. When the impacts of all of the past and present actions described above are considered in combination with the anticipated impacts on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values from this alternative, long-term, moderate, beneficial effects on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of these segments would likely result (see Alternative 2 for more details).

The consistency analysis for this alternative would be the same as under Alternative 2. Similar to Alternative 2, the actions of this alternative in this segment of the Merced Wild and Scenic River comply with the Merced River Plan and are consistent with its management elements. The collective actions are consistent with the classification of this segment, because accessibility by road or trail is essentially unchanged, and the amount of development in the watershed and on the shoreline does not substantially change. The removal of the Cascades Diversion Dam is consistent with the recreational classification of the impoundment segment, and would allow this small segment of river to be classified as scenic. The individual actions that are considered to be water resources projects, such as removal of the Cascades Diversion Dam, would be subject to the Section 7 determination process. The River Protection Overlay is being implemented, and individual actions are compatible with the River Protection Overlay prescription, including the removal of the Cascades Diversion Dam. The individual actions are consistent with the respective management zones established in the Merced River Plan.

Outstandingly Remarkable Values identified for this recreational segment of the river are geologic processes/conditions, recreation, biological, cultural, and hydrologic processes.

The impacts of this alternative to the Outstandingly Remarkable Values for this segment would be the same as under Alternative 2 (see Alternative 2, table 4-41, for more details).

The impacts of this alternative to the Outstandingly Remarkable Values for this segment would be the same as under Alternative 2. For the actions of this alternative, a long-term, minor, beneficial impact is described for the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of this segment, largely because implementation of the River Protection Overlay would limit development on the riverbank, and contribute to the restoration of sensitive riparian vegetation communities (e.g., at Hennessey’s Ranch). In addition, the recreation Outstandingly Remarkable Value would be beneficially affected by improved hiking opportunities along the river. The beneficial impact on Outstandingly Remarkable Values for this segment has been offset by the adverse impacts on the cultural Outstandingly Remarkable Value due to possible loss of historic structures, and possible disturbance of archeological sites (standard cultural resource mitigation measures lessen the magnitude of the cultural resources impacts) (see Alternative 2 for more details).

Cumulative impacts under this alternative would be the same as under Alternative 2. For the actions of this alternative, a long-term, minor, beneficial impact is described for the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of this segment, largely because implementation of the River Protection Overlay would limit development on the riverbank, and contribute to the restoration of sensitive riparian vegetation communities (e.g., at Hennessey’s Ranch). In addition, the recreation Outstandingly Remarkable Value would be beneficially affected by improved hiking opportunities along the river. The past and reasonably foreseeable future projects would have a long-term, minor, adverse effect on Outstandingly Remarkable Values because of adverse impacts on biological and cultural Outstandingly Remarkable Values resulting from the Yosemite View Parcel Land Exchange (NPS), largely due to motel construction in close proximity to the river. The adverse impacts resulting from the loss of riparian vegetation associated with the Yosemite View Parcel Land Exchange would outweigh the potential beneficial impact of this alternative resulting from the enhancement/restoration of existing (albeit degraded) riparian habitat in the River Protection Overlay. Consequently, when the impacts of all of the past and reasonably foreseeable future actions described above are considered in combination with the expected impacts on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values from this alternative, long-term, negligible, adverse effects on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of this segment would likely result (see Alternative 2 for more details).

The consistency analysis for this alternative would be the same as under Alternative 2. Similar to Alternative 2, the actions of this alternative in this segment of the Merced Wild and Scenic River comply with the Merced River Plan, and are consistent with its management elements. The collective actions are consistent with the classification of this segment because accessibility by road or trail is essentially unchanged, and the amount of development in the watershed and on the shorelines does not substantially change. The individual actions that are considered to be water resources projects, such as construction of pedestrian bridges, would be subject to the Section 7 determination process. The River Protection Overlay is being implemented and individual actions are compatible with the River Protection Overlay prescription, including the removal of the Cascades Diversion Dam. The individual actions are consistent with the respective management zones established in the Merced River Plan.

Outstandingly Remarkable Values identified for this scenic segment of the river are scenic, recreation, biological, and cultural.

The impacts of this alternative on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values for this segment would be the same as under Alternative 3 (see Alternative 3, table 4-72, for more detail).

The impacts of this alternative on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values for this segment would be the same as under Alternative 3. For the actions of this alternative, long-term, minor, beneficial impacts are described for the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of this segment, due to the continuation of trends to restore riparian areas, pursuant to the River Protection Overlay, and the beneficial effects on the biological and scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Values that would result (see Alternative 3 for more detail).

Cumulative impacts under this alternative would be the same as under Alternative 3. For the actions of this alternative, long-term, minor, beneficial impacts are described for the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of this segment due to the continuation of trends to restore riparian areas, pursuant to the River Protection Overlay, and the beneficial effects on the biological and scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Values that would result. The past and reasonably foreseeable future projects would have a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of this segment due to the implementation of the Merced River Plan Visitor Experience and Resource Protection framework; the reduction of development on the riverbank and restoration of habitat associated with the South Fork Merced River Bridge Replacement (NPS), and the relocation of campsites outside the River Protection Overlay and maintenance of a diversity of river-related recreational activities associated with the Wawona Campground Rehabilitation. When the impacts of all of the past and reasonably foreseeable future actions described above are considered in combination with the expected impacts on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values from this alternative, a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values would result (see Alternative 3 for more details).

Similar to Alternative 2, the actions of this alternative in this segment of the Merced Wild and Scenic River would comply with the Merced River Plan and be consistent with its management elements. The collective actions would be consistent with the classification of this segment because accessibility by road or trail would be essentially unchanged and the amount of development in the watershed and on the shorelines would not substantially change. The individual actions that are considered to be water resources projects would be subject to the Section 7 determination process. The River Protection Overlay would be implemented and individual actions would be compatible with the River Protection Overlay prescription. The individual actions would be consistent with the respective management zones established in the Merced River Plan. Some actions, such as the removal of infrastructure from the former Rivers Campgrounds, remove existing facilities or uses that do not conform with the corresponding management zone prescription.

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.

Access into Yosemite Valley directly by private automobile to parking at Taft Toe would be available only to about 28% of day visitors on a typcially busy day (using 1998 visitation levels). Overnight visitors would continue to have the option of driving into the Valley or traveling on existing tour buses or other modes of travel. Day visitors who could not park in the Valley would ride shuttle buses to the Valley from parking areas at Badger Pass, South Landing, and El Portal, or they could ride tour buses or regional transit. These changes would likely have major adverse impacts to the experience of the majority of day visitors, who would have a reduced ability to make spontaneous stops en route to the Valley, resulting in fewer opportunities for spontaneity, extra travel time, and the inconvenience of moving personal items to and from bus stops.

Alternative 4 would provide transportation facilities and services designed to accommodate peak visitation levels on most summer days. Assuming that future visitation is unchanged from 1998, day-visitor demand would be expected to exceed the capacity of the parking areas on 7 days during the peak season. On these days, some visitors would not be able to find parking in the Valley or at the out-of-Valley parking areas. These visitors would have the option of visiting another part of the park; traveling on regional transit and other alternative transportation modes; or visiting the Valley at a different time of day or on another day. Adequate infrastructure would be in place to accommodate visitor parking in or out of the Valley with a shuttle, in-Valley shuttles, regional transit, and commercial tour buses, as described under Alternatives 2 and 3.

Access to the Valley by private vehicles would be managed through a traveler information and traffic management system. Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative 2. Overall, the average visitor would experience moderate, adverse impacts (compared to Alternative 1) on the time required to travel to the Valley.

As described for Alternatives 2 and 3, reconstructing the segment of El Portal Road between Pohono Bridge and the intersection with Big Oak Flat Road (the major access to the Valley) would cause short-term, minor, adverse impacts such as traffic delays for many visitors during construction. Short-term, adverse impacts associated with constructing Valley access routes and implementing the traveler information and traffic management system would include detours, having to learn new routes, and having to learn new procedures as they were phased in. Compared to Alternative 1, these impacts would be of negligible intensity.

Access by private vehicle to most Valley destinations would be eliminated, as described for Alternatives 2 and 3. Once their vehicles were parked in a day-visitor lot or lodging area, visitors would be encouraged to leave them parked until they left the Valley. Parking would not be provided except at campsites and lodging sites, and under this alternative (as in Alternative 3), at the Taft Toe day-visitor parking facility. Turnouts along Valley roads would be available for short stops only. Compared to Alternative 1, the location of a 550-space day-visitor parking area and visitor/transit center at Taft Toe under this alternative would provide a major, beneficial impact for orientation and trip planning for all day visitors, similar to Alternative 3. However, most day visitors would still need to board shuttle buses to reach desired destinations in the east Valley. The requirement for most day visitors to ride shuttle buses would result in a moderate, adverse impact to day visitors.

Changes in access would affect visitors’ ability or willingness to undertake some recreational activities, as described for Alternatives 2 and 3. These changes would affect a majority of day visitors using regional transit, tour buses, and out-of-Valley shuttle buses to access the Valley. Changes to circulation within the Valley would be similar to those described under Alternatives 2 and 3, except under this alternative, there would only be 550 parking spaces at Taft Toe. Access to the mid- and west Valley would be increased for visitors arriving by shuttle or other forms of transit due to extended shuttle bus service to these areas, resulting in a major, beneficial impact, compared to Alternative 1.

Traffic would be reduced throughout the Valley below present levels at all times of the year (unless seasonal displacement appreciably increases traffic during present slow seasons).

The reduction in private vehicle traffic would result in an overall reduction in vehicle miles of travel in the Valley of 57% from the No Action Alternative. This reduction in traffic would have a long-term, major, beneficial impact on the experience for all visitors because there would be greater opportunities for quiet and contemplative recreational experiences. The overall reduction in traffic would result in improved traffic flow and reduced congestion throughout the Valley, including the mid Valley, where Northside Drive would be closed and Southside Drive would be converted to two-way operation.

Under this alternative, 550 parking spaces would be provided for day visitors in the Valley and approximately 1,590 spaces would be provided in out-of-Valley locations (Badger Pass, South Landing, and El Portal). When the Valley area is full, day visitors would have the option of parking in out-of-Valley lots and riding a shuttle to Taft Toe. The traveler information and traffic management system would inform visitors of the parking status prior to their arrival. Overnight visitors would continue to have the option to drive to the Valley. As described for Alternatives 2 and 3, frequent shuttle service would provide access to Valley attractions.

As described for Alternatives 2 and 3, the appearance of crowding in the Valley would be reduced during peak visitation times for all visitors by eliminating roadside parking, substantially reducing traffic volumes, improving traffic flow, and reducing the visual impact of parked vehicles. The Visitor Experience and Resources Protection program would protect the diversity of visitor experiences as in Alternatives 2 and 3. Both would result in major, beneficial impacts.

Traffic congestion could increase west of El Capitan crossover due to possible unauthorized, long-term parking at the remaining turnouts, and the potential for increased pass-through traffic. As described for Alternatives 2 and 3, these would all have a moderate, adverse impact on perceptions of congestion.

Some of the existing automobile traffic would be replaced with buses, having impacts similar to Alternatives 2 and 3. Notably, the movement of visitors in buses could cause some visitors to feel crowded. Most visitors would travel in larger groups because of the emphasis on bus travel. The overall impact of bus traffic and grouping passengers in buses is expected to have a moderate, adverse impact on the visitor experience, as compared to Alternative 1.

Similar to Alternative 3, this alternative would help relieve visitor anxiety and reduce the time wasted searching for available parking within the Valley as compared to Alternative 1. This alternative would include a traveler information and traffic management system designed to manage parking areas, and visitors would have convenient and frequent access to expanded shuttle service. The overall impact to visitors would be major and beneficial, from the perspective of their being able to rely on the transportation system.

Access and the resulting impacts for visitors with disabilities would be the same as described for Alternatives 2 and 3. Notably, as fully accessible shuttle buses were placed in operation, visitors with disabilities would use the shuttles rather than private vehicles. Some visitors with disabilities would experience a moderate, beneficial impact from the improved accessibility of shuttle services. However, without their private vehicles, other visitors with disabilities would have greater difficulty in moving about the Valley, creating a moderate, adverse impact. Visitors with mobility impairments would not have easy access to locations not directly served by the shuttle bus system. The prescribed universal programmatic accessibility study plan and its implementation would ultimately result in a major, beneficial impact. New accessible trails at popular destination areas would provide access to areas that are not now easily accessible, resulting in moderate, beneficial impacts.

As described for Alternatives 2 and 3, visitor centers and orientation facilities near each principal park entrance would improve the sense of arrival at the park for visitors. As described for Alternative 3, for day visitors parking at Taft Toe, the sense of arrival into the Valley would be indicated by combining parking and access to a visitor/transit center, with increased convenience for orientation and trip planning. However, under this alternative, those visitors parking at out-of-Valley locations would find the arrival experience segmented by having to park, then take a shuttle to the Valley; the first sight of the principal Valley features would still provide a sense of arrival. Their sense of arrival would be similar to what is offered today and to what would occur under Alternative 2: visitors could see significant views en route to the parking facility, but the views would be only marginally interpreted. Impacts of the proposed arrival sequence would affect most visitors, and would be beneficial but negligible in intensity, compared to Alternative 1.

Improvements to signs and circulation would improve wayfinding for visitors, the same as in Alternatives 2 and 3. Notably, improved and consistent signing at shuttle bus stops would help orient many visitors. Day visitors would not need to navigate the Valley’s existing confusing network of roads, and overnight visitors would be directed to their accommodations by improved signs and printed orientation materials. Moderate, beneficial impacts would result for most Yosemite Valley visitors.

As described for Alternatives 2 and 3, visitors would have opportunities to find out about park programs, the availability of services and facilities, directions, permits, reservations, trip-planning services, interpretive themes and a stewardship ethic, and regulations at park entrances as they arrive. Under this alternative (as in Alternative 3), the new Taft Toe Visitor/Transit Center would assist visitors in Valley orientation and trip planning, and in the interpretation of Valley themes, resulting in a major, beneficial impact to the majority of park visitors, compared to Alternative 1.

Overnight visitors would also find orientation exhibits at their lodging or campground. Impacts would be beneficial but moderate in intensity (the same as under Alternatives 2 and 3).

Improvements to exhibits and programs, the Nature Center at Happy Isles, museum collections, and trailside exhibits would be as described under Alternative 3. Museum collections, now split in many locations, would be reorganized and made more accessible to the public. A natural history museum would be developed in the existing NPS Administration Building, and the cultural history museum in the existing Museum/Valley District Building would be expanded. These and other improvements would have a moderate, beneficial impact on the large group of museum-goers and a major, beneficial impact on the small group of researchers.

Impacts on auto touring would be the same as under Alternative 2, except as in Alternative 3, Taft Toe would be the easternmost limit for auto touring by day visitors in the Valley. Visitors would no longer be able to park at most features and facilities for extended periods while exploring. These actions would result in moderate, adverse impacts to a large number of visitors, and major, adverse impacts would occur to the majority of visitors unable to drive their car into the east Valley.

Potential reduced traffic east of Taft Toe could contribute to a sense of more relaxed touring; this could be offset by an increase in the number of buses, resulting in a negligible, beneficial impact. Signs would need to be placed at turnouts throughout the Valley identifying appropriate use (e.g., shuttle bus, Valley Floor Tour, short-term parking); introducing these urban-type elements into the touring experience would have an adverse impact that is negligible in intensity, but would affect most visitors.

Impacts of sightseeing by shuttle bus, as well as impacts to Valley Floor Tours offered by the concessioner, would be the same as described in Alternative 3 (commercial bus passengers would have to transfer to other touring modes east of Taft Toe), resulting in a major, adverse impact, compared to Alternative 1. Notably, Valley Floor Tours offered by the concessioner would lose the use of two segments of Northside Drive including mid-Valley, and thus access to certain views; however, turnouts would be planned where possible to provide views similar to key Northside Drive views, resulting in a negligible, adverse impact to these users.

More Valley trails away from roads would be available, particularly through the former Upper and Lower River Campgrounds and between Yosemite Lodge and El Capitan crossover on the north side of the river; the experience of trail users would be improved as a result of reduced noise, odors, and glare from passing vehicles. Trails not adjacent to roads, increased use, dispersal and displacement of trail users, new one-way hiking opportunities, and conflicts with other users would be the same as described in Alternative 2. Generally, the same trail segments as described in Alternative 3 would be realigned, potentially affecting a large group of park visitors.

The elimination of private stock use in Yosemite Valley under this alternative would result in a beneficial, moderate impact for the large user-group of hikers and walkers. An impact of this alternative that would be neither adverse nor beneficial would be the potential displacement of day hikers out of the Valley or onto wilderness trails. The following trail segments, among others, would be realigned, potentially affecting a large group of park visitors with negligible to minor, adverse impacts:

Bicycling impacts would be similar to those described for Alternatives 2 and 3 (reduced automobile traffic, but increased bus traffic, potential crowding along multi-use trails, new trails, and increased accident risk due to greater use). Notably, reduction in vehicle noise, smell, and presence would result in a major benefit to bicyclists. Moderate benefits would result from removal of motor vehicles from the area of the multi-use trail through the former Upper and Lower River Campgrounds.

The reduction in opportunities for spontaneous access and other aspects of the climbing experience would be similar to Alternative 3. Although changes would not likely reduce climbing on El Capitan, they would adversely affect the experience, resulting in a moderate impact on a moderately sized user group.

Changes in stock trails and facilities, and impacts of those changes, would be essentially the same as under Alternative 2. Notably, compared to Alternative 1, the loss of a complete loop-trip opportunity would result in a moderate, adverse impact. The discontinuance of concession trail rides would be a major, adverse impact to a moderately large group, and the loss of overnight facilities would result in a moderate, adverse impact for a small user group.

The lack of private vehicle access to most picnic sites would result in impacts similar to those described for Alternatives 2 and 3. Similar to Alternative 3, sites at Cathedral Beach near Taft Toe would be expanded, filling a demand for picnicking near the day-visitor parking area and the picnic area at Swinging Bridge would be removed. The Cook’s Meadow and North American Wall (at the base of El Capitan) Picnic Areas would provide new opportunities for picnicking in the east and west Valley. Under Alternative 4, new sites with grills and food storage lockers would be developed at Curry Orchard for Curry Village guests and other east Valley users. Together, these would have negligible and neutral impacts to picnickers, compared to Alternative 1. Many picnic areas would be accessible by shuttle bus, and thus be more accessible to those in the Valley without their private vehicles, resulting in a minor, beneficial impact.

Changes in raft and kayak access, and resulting impacts, would be the same as under Alternatives 2 and 3. Notably, lack of private vehicle access to locations along the river would require the use of buses, which would result in moderate, adverse impacts to a moderately large group of visitors.

Changes in swimming access and availability would be the same as under Alternative 3, resulting in an overall moderate but neutral impact. Swimming would be redirected toward areas able to withstand heavy use, and removal of Housekeeping Bridge would reduce swimming in the area across from Housekeeping Camp.

Changes to fishing quality and access to sites would be the same as under Alternatives 2 and 3. Notably, protection of river banks would result in a moderate, beneficial impact for anglers. A moderate, adverse impact would result from decreased river access.

Changes to winter activities (ice skating and skiing) would be the same as under Alternatives 2 and 3. Increased winter visitation and greater use of the ice rink could result in a negligible, adverse impact compared to that of Alternative 1. Relocation of the ice rink could result in a negligible, beneficial impact.

Impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 2, except less private vehicle use and an absence of roadside parking east of Taft Toe would result in greater opportunities for photographs without vehicles. This would result in an overall moderate, beneficial impact compared to Alternative 1.

This section covers impacts of Alternative 4 on the overall recreational environment for visitors, including night sky and wilderness experience. Impacts of vehicle-related noise, an important element of the recreational environment, are covered under the Transportation section, and impacts to scenic resources (as viewed by the visitor) are covered under Scenic Resources, and under Wilderness Experience below. Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, improvements to natural resources under this alternative would provide a more natural appearance to the Valley, a major and beneficial impact for the visitor, relative to Alternative 1.

As described for Alternative 3, the addition of parking at Taft Toe would cause a demand for light in a currently unlit area. (However, the parking area would be smaller than in Alternative 3, resulting in slightly lower light levels.) This action would still have major, adverse impacts compared to Alternative 1.

Changes in the number of lodging units, the rehabilitation of obsolete architectural lighting, and the relocation of facilities would result in minor, beneficial impacts. Under this alternative, impacts at out-of-Valley parking facilities would be similar to those described in Alternative 2; in general such changes would have moderate to major, adverse impacts to these areas.

Access to wilderness areas would be facilitated under this alternative, similar to Alternative 2. As described for Alternative 3, wilderness trailheads close to Taft Toe in mid-Valley would see a potential increase in use, while other trails may see less use.

Visual impacts perceived by wilderness visitors would be the same as for Alternatives 2 and 3, although the smaller parking area under this alternative could diminish the obtrusiveness of the Taft Toe facility.

Sound impacts would be minor and adverse, similar to those for Alternatives 2 and 3. Clustering of activities within the Valley would have both beneficial and adverse impacts due to decreased and increased noise levels. Improved access to trailheads would result in a moderate, beneficial impact and increased use of trails would result in a negligible, adverse impact.

Campsite quantity would be appreciably below the present level (441 sites under Alternative 4, compared to 475 sites under Alternative 1, about a 7% decrease). Impacts would be similar to Alternative 3, minor and adverse. Alternative 4 would provide the lowest number of campsites of any alternative, with no new sites at Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground).

Improvements in campground conditions due to more separation of user types, the redesign of campsites, and riverbank restoration would largely be the same as those for Alternatives 2 and 3. Centralized campground check-in and camper services would be the same as for Alternatives 2 and 3. Notably, campers would receive moderate, beneficial impacts as a result of segregating camping areas by user type. Moderate, neutral impacts would result from relocating camping areas away from the river, and negligible, neutral impacts would result from relocating the amphitheater.

Impacts resulting from reductions in lodging units, accessibility, and actions in individual lodging areas would generally be the same as under Alternative 3. This alternative would provide 982 lodging units, compared to 1,260 units under Alternative 1 (a 22% reduction); this would be a moderate, adverse impact on a large visitor group (25% of summer visitors stay in Valley lodging).

Substantial increases in economy units with private baths would address the high demand for this type of room. Replacing rustic units with economy units would also provide more comfortable and numerous off-season accommodations. Both actions would result in moderate, beneficial impacts for this large visitor group, compared to Alternative 1.

In Yosemite Valley, the ratio of accessible rooms would be greatly improved, giving visitors with disabilities greater access to the kinds of facilities they need, a moderate and beneficial impact on this small to moderately sized user group. New development would include lodging units, parking, and walkways that would incorporate universal design features to improve and provide accessibility to facilities.

Expanding the number of units at Yosemite Lodge (from 245 to 387, or a 58% increase) would place lodging closer to Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) and increase the developed character of the Lodge area. This would be a minor, adverse impact to Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) campers and Lodge guests, combined, a moderately large group of visitors.

A substantial reduction in the number of units at Housekeeping Camp (from 264 to 52, or 80%) would lead to a much more natural environment, with less overall density. This would have a moderate, beneficial impact to the moderately large group of visitors who choose to use this type of accommodation.

Relocating tent cabins at Curry Village would lead to a more natural environment, with greater privacy and less density. This action would have moderate, beneficial impacts for visitors staying in the remaining cabins, a moderately large group of visitors.

Changes in food and retail services would be substantially the same as those described for Alternative 3. Notably, modifications to the cafeteria at Curry Village would result in a minor, beneficial impact. A negligible, adverse impact would result from discontinued food service in the Happy Isles area. Increases in food facilities and seating at Yosemite Village would result in a moderate, beneficial impact.

Alternative 4 would reduce spontaneity of travel to and through Yosemite Valley, similar to Alternatives 2 and 3. Access into Yosemite Valley would be somewhat more cumbersome than today, with some visitors arriving by car, others by shuttle bus from out-of-Valley parking areas, and still others by commercial and transit buses. Parking in the Valley and at out-of-Valley parking lots would be adequate to meet the needs of day visitors on all but seven days in the summer. With the establishment of a traveler information and traffic management system, visitors would be informed of the status of parking areas at entrance stations and possibly at other sites en route to the park, resulting in a high degree of reliability in the availability of parking. Visitors would not need to search for parking in scattered locations. Once the Taft Toe lot was full, day visitors would be directed to parking at remote lots outside the Valley; these visitors would experience a moderate increase in the time required to travel to the Valley. With a fully developed parking and transit facility at Taft Toe, most visitors would arrive close to principal features and services. Few visitors would be able to walk to destinations in the Valley from Taft Toe. Shuttle services in the Valley would be greatly expanded.

On most days, visitors would find a more tranquil environment, with visitors distributed over a wider area, including the mid-Valley and west Valley. Automobile-based experiences in the Valley would be substantially reduced, while opportunities to experience the Valley without the influence of automobiles would expand. Visitors on foot, bicycle, or horseback would find more places virtually free of motor vehicle traffic, although visitor use of these areas could increase. Opportunities for orientation would be closer to where many visitors seek them, at park entrances and the principal day-visitor parking area, and greater opportunities for participating in interpretive programs in the Valley would be available. Recreation, including touring, would be oriented more toward the shuttle bus system, which would be extended to the west Valley and to out-of-Valley parking facilities, and also to pedestrian and bicycling activities. Opportunities for staying overnight in Yosemite Valley would decrease moderately for camping (to 441 sites, the fewest sites of any alternative) and decrease substantially for lodging (to 982 units, the same as under Alternative 3).

Visitors to Yosemite Valley are varied in their expectations and the individual experiences they seek. Also, the quality of the visitor experience is also dependent on the quality of natural resources, cultural resources, air quality, scenic resources, and other elements of the recreational environment (considered separately in this analysis). Therefore, no determination of a net impact on the visitor experience is attempted here.

Access, Orientation and Interpretation, Recreation, and Recreational Environment

The cumulative impacts described under Alternative 2 for access, orientation and interpretation, recreational opportunities, and recreational environment, would be generally applicable to Alternative 4.

As described for Alternatives 2 and 3, the January 1997 flood and subsequent cleanup actions resulted in the loss of 265 lodging units and 284 campsites within Yosemite Valley, displacing visitors to campgrounds or lodging elsewhere in the park or in neighboring communities. This alternative would intensify this impact by further reducing lodging units by 278 (the same as under Alternative 3) and campsites by 34. Proposed new accommodations in the vicinity of the park and campsites outside Yosemite Valley, as described for Alternative 2, could partially alleviate the impact of the reductions. As in Alternative 2, the reductions in lodging in Alternative 4 would continue to adversely affect the many visitors who want to stay in Yosemite Valley. However, the impacts would remain adverse and moderate.

While additional campsites could be provided at the Yosemite Creek and Tamarack Campgrounds and in the region, as described for Alternatives 2 and 3, the use of new regional sites by Yosemite day visitors would not likely be great; thus, the impacts of this alternative on campground users would likely remain adverse and minor.