Yosemite Valley Plan SEIS, Volume IB Part 2, Chapter 4: Alternative 5

Under this alternative, 130 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 4-126. The primary improvements would be restoration along the Merced River, primarily within the River Protection Overlay. This would result in long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts.

A total of 68 acres of new development would occur. The new development would be principally in the Camp 6 and Curry Village areas, and would have a long-term, moderate, adverse impact. In the west Valley, a traffic check station at El Capitan crossover on Southside Drive would be constructed. This facility would be constructed such that it would not obstruct scenic vistas and vantage points.

This alternative would result in a relatively small amount of restoration, and a small net decrease in development. As a result, this alternative would have an overall impact on scenic resources that is long-term, minor, and beneficial.

Table 4-126 Proposed Restoration and Development by Scenic Category (acres)
Action	A Scenic	B Scenic	C Scenic	Alternative 5 Totals¹	Alternative 1 Totals
Natural Resource Restoration	109 acres	54 acres	0	130 acres²	0
Developed³	82 acres	165 acres	28 acres	275 acres	406 acres
New Development	26 acres	35 acres	7 acres	68 acres	0
Total Development				343 acres	406 acres
Development Difference				-63 acres

Table 4-127 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 4-127 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	El Capitan crossover traffic check station may be visible.	Minor	Adverse
Taft Point	El Capitan crossover traffic check station may be visible.	Minor	Adverse
Upper Yosemite Fall	63 acres less development in east Valley; the parking at Yosemite Village would be more visible. Implementation of the River Protection Overlay.	Moderate	Beneficial
Sentinel Dome	None	None	Neutral
Glacier Point	63 acres less development in east Valley; the parking at Yosemite Village would be more visible. Implementation of the River Protection Overlay.	Minor	Beneficial
El Capitan Meadow	Less crowding and the removal of parking	Minor	Beneficial
Sentinel Meadow turnout along Southside Drive	None	Negligible	Neutral
Sentinel Bridge	Parking at Yosemite Village may be visible.	Minor	Adverse
Four Mile Trail	None	Negligible	Neutral
Columbia Point	Removal of the Yosemite Falls parking lot, and less development visible 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).	Minor	Beneficial

Table 4-128 lists the impacts on the 11 most important scenic features within the Valley. All impacts would be long term in duration.

Table 4-128 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; parking along Northside Drive could be eliminated.	Minor	Beneficial
Sentinel Rock	None	Negligible	Neutral
Glacier Point	None	Negligible	Neutral
Half Dome	Camp 6 parking and campground check-in station could be visible.	Minor	Adverse
North Dome	None	Negligible	Neutral
Royal Arches	Vistas near Ahwahnee Meadow would be improved by removal of the tennis courts; foreground restoration of the former Upper and Lower River Campground and the implementation of the River Protection Overlay would improve the scene. Camp 6 parking and campground check-in station could be visible.	Minor	Beneficial
El Capitan	None	None	Neutral
Bridalveil Fall	None	Negligible	Neutral
Cathedral Rock and Spires	The view from the El Capitan crossover could include the traffic check station.	Minor	Adverse
Washington Column	Vistas near Ahwahnee Meadow would be improved by removal of the tennis courts; foreground restoration of the former Upper and Lower River Campground and the implementation of the River Protection Overlay would improve the scene. Camp 6 parking and campground check-in station could be visible.	Minor	Beneficial
Three Brothers	None	Negligible	Neutral

Under this alternative, three out-of-Valley parking facilities (Henness Ridge, El Portal, and Foresta) would be constructed, facilities at each entrance station would be expanded, housing at Wawona would be increased, and housing and administrative facilities in El Portal would be increased. The parking facility at Henness Ridge would have only a long-term, minor, adverse impact, as it would not be visible from the Wawona Road. The development of Foresta as an out-of-Valley parking location would have a long-term, minor, and adverse impact on the landscape when viewing from the Big Meadow overlook on the Big Oak Flat Road, and various locations along the Big Oak Flat Road. Increased housing in the Wawona area would have a long-term, minor, adverse impact because it would be visible only from immediately adjacent areas. The impact of placing relocated parking and administrative facilities In El Portal would be minor, long-term, 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 imperceptible changes to views at each location.

This alternative would have a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on the overall scenic quality of Yosemite Valley. There would be a net decrease of 63 acres in the development footprint within Yosemite Valley. The majority of the areas to be restored are within the A Scenic category, but the majority of the actions would not result in a substantial improvement of scenic vistas and vantage points, as no large contiguous tract of highly valued resources would be restored.

Yosemite Valley would remain one of the world’s premier landscapes. The amount of intrusion into the scenery of Yosemite Valley would be reduced and consolidated in the east Valley.

Additionally, the development of Foresta as an out-of-Valley parking location would have a minor, adverse impact on the landscape when viewing from the Big Meadow overlook on the Big Oak Flat Road, and a long-term, moderate, adverse impact when viewing from within Foresta. No visual intrusions would occur within the Tunnel View vantage point. Collectively, there would be long-term, minor, and adverse impacts in all out-of-Valley locations; however, impacts in these areas contribute directly to the improvement of the scenery within the Valley.

Alternative 5, in conjunction with the impacts of reasonably foreseeable areawide projects, would result in a long-term, minor, beneficial, and cumulative impact, primarily due to the restoration of A Scenic and B Scenic resources in the Valley.

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).

Impacts under this alternative would be the same as for Alternative 2. With data recovery excavations, the resultant impacts would be permanent, minor, and adverse, as well as long-term, minor, and beneficial.

Impacts under this alternative would be the same as for Alternative 2. With data recovery excavation, resultant adverse impacts would be minor or negligible. Beneficial impacts would be minor.

Proposed undertakings include redesigning the National Park Service maintenance area; rehabilitating the Yosemite Village housing area; constructing a new fire station; removing picnic areas; and constructing a day-visitor parking lot and a transit facility. 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. As described for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, the burial area in Yosemite Village 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 designed to avoid disturbing intact deposits, and would be monitored by archeologists and representatives of culturally associated American Indian people.

Surface conditions on a portion of one site would be restored to natural conditions with the implementation of this action. As such, long-term impacts associated with the visitor use would be avoided or reduced. This would ultimately result in a minor and beneficial impact.

Impacts under this alternative would be the same as under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. With archeological data recovery, the resultant impact would be minor and adverse.

Under this alternative, removal of some of the units from Housekeeping Camp would involve grading and trenching that would potentially disturb intact deposits at a prehistoric/historic American Indian habitation site with moderate data potential. Careful project design and data recovery to retrieve important information, conducted in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement, would reduce the intensity of adverse impacts from minor to negligible.

As described for Alternative 2, intact archeological deposits at ten sites would be potentially disturbed by grading, trenching, and other earthmoving activities associated with redeveloping Lower Pines and Upper Pines Campgrounds; constructing a new amphitheater at the location of the concessioner stable parking lot; constructing new walk-in, backpacker, and group campgrounds; and removing the existing Backpacker and Group Campgrounds and restoring these areas to natural conditions. These sites consist of prehistoric and historic American Indian habitation sites and campsites, ranging in data potential from low to high. Careful site design and data recovery to retrieve important information, conducted in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement, would reduce the intensity of adverse impacts from moderate to minor.

Surface conditions at two of these sites and on a portion of a third would be restored to natural conditions with the implementation of this action. As such, long-term impacts associated with visitor use would be reduced, ultimately resulting in minor, beneficial impacts to these resources.

Placement of campground facilities within the immediate vicinity of known archeological resources could result in long term, minor, adverse impacts associated with visitor use, including artifact collection and accelerated soil loss. Given the potential for these impacts, sites subject to these actions would be monitored according to the Visitor Experience and Resource Protections Program as outlined 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 the stipulations of the Programmatic Agreement.

Impacts under this alternative would be the same as for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. With archeological data recovery, resultant impacts would be negligible.

Removing Sugar Pine and Ahwahnee Bridges under this alternative would involve earthmoving activities that would possibly disturb a prehistoric American Indian habitation site with high data potential. If sites could not be avoided, 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.

Depending on final project design, realigning or reconstructing the roads and utilities through Bridalveil, El Capitan, and Cook’s Meadows under this alternative would involve grading and trenching that would potentially disturb portions of up to four prehistoric American Indian sites (one with a historic-period American Indian component) and three other historic sites. The data potential of the prehistoric sites ranges from low to high, and the data potential of the historic sites is unknown. 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 or negligible.

As described for Alternative 2, constructing a vehicle check station near El Capitan crossover would involve grading that would disturb portions of a prehistoric and historic American Indian habitation site with high data potential, including historic-era deposits with unknown data potential. Through careful project design and subsequent site-specific environmental compliance, every effort would be made to avoid known archeological sites. Should this prove impossible, data recovery, carried out in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement, would retrieve important information prior to construction and would thereby reduce the intensity of adverse impacts from moderate to minor.

Realigning a portion of Southside Drive at its approach to Sentinel Bridge would involve grading that would impact a portion of a prehistoric American Indian habitation site and historic Euro-American village with moderate data potential. Data recovery, carried out in accordance with stipulations of the Programmatic Agreement, would reduce the intensity of adverse impacts from moderate to minor.

Realigning the multi-use paved trail between Yosemite Village and Mirror Lake, as described for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, would involve minor grading that would disturb a portion 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 could impact four archeological sites. All four of these sites contain both prehistoric and historic components. Three of the four have high data potential, while the fourth has moderate data potential. The park would strive to locate the trail in such a way as to avoid impacts on 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.

Placement of multi-use paved trails within the immediate vicinity of known archeological resources could result in long-term, minor, adverse impacts associated with visitor use, including artifact collection and accelerated soil loss. Given the potential for these impacts, sites subject to these actions would be monitored according to the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection Program as outlined 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 the stipulations of the Programmatic Agreement.

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative 2, except no group picnicking facilities would be provided at Sentinel Beach. With data recovery excavations, the resultant impact would be negligible.

In addition, developing Yellow Pine Campground for public use under this alternative would not result in any impacts to archeological resources, because no archeological resources are known in the area. Potential adverse impacts to known sites in Yosemite Valley are shown in table 4-129.

The following impact analysis is based on general land-use planning actions for El Portal. As described for the other action alternatives, the National Park Service would undertake site-specific design studies and environmental review to evaluate options for new housing and administrative facilities. 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, 3, and 4, several actions at Old El Portal and Village Center (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 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, would retrieve important information prior to construction, and thereby reduce the intensity of adverse impacts from moderate to minor or negligible.

As described for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, day-visitor and employee parking would be located in the Middle Road area and would involve major grading and earthmoving activities. These actions would disturb major portions of two archeological sites, one prehistoric American Indian habitation site that also contains historic-era deposits with 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 thereby reduce the intensity of adverse impacts from moderate to minor or negligible.

Under this alternative, constructing National Park Service and concessioner administrative facilities, as well as museum collection facilities at Railroad Flat, would involve major grading, trenching, and excavation, which could 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 (similar to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4).

Constructing housing facilities at Hillside East and West would involve major grading, excavation, and trenching that would destroy major portions of an intact prehistoric/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 California State Historic Preservation Officer, and local culturally associated American Indian tribes would recover important information, thereby reducing the intensity of adverse impacts from major to moderate.

Constructing single-family homes and a day care center in Rancheria Flat would entail grading, trenching, and excavation that would potentially disturb intact archeological deposits at two archeological site with moderate 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.

Constructing high-density housing and support facilities at Hennessey’s Ranch would disturb a prehistoric American Indian habitation site and part of a historic-era ranch, both of which were heavily disturbed 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, 3, and 4) would be carefully designed to avoid disturbance to intact areas of a prehistoric American Indian habitation site and burial area. These actions would be monitored by archeologists and representatives from culturally associated American Indian tribes, in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement, and negligible impacts to archeological resources would be expected.

Similar to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, 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.

As described for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, grading and trenching associated with construction as replacement for 14 homes destroyed in the 1990 A-Rock Fire at Foresta could possibly disturb intact resources, depending on location. Rehabilitation of the Foresta Campground would also disturb archeological deposits at a portion of an intact American Indian habitation site. Data recovery, carried out in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement, would reduce the intensity of any adverse impacts. Constructing a day-visitor parking lot at Foresta would not impact any known archeological resources.

Constructing National Park Service and concessioner stables, and National Park Service parkwide trails operational facilities to McCauley Ranch would disturb archeological deposits at a portion of a large prehistoric site and historic-era ranch with unknown data potential. Improving access through Foresta to McCauley Ranch and replacing Crane Creek Bridge would possibly disturb five intact prehistoric sites and one historic dump site, all with unknown data potential. If these sites could not be avoided, data recovery, carried out in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement prior to construction, would reduce the intensity of adverse impacts.

Establishing day-visitor parking at Henness Ridge under this alternative would disturb two intact historic linear resources: a logging railroad grade, and a historic road. Data recovery would reduce the intensity of adverse impacts from minor to negligible.

As described for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, 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 would reduce the intensity of adverse impacts from moderate to minor.

As described for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, removing residences at Cascades 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 areas, and would be monitored by archeologists, as stipulated in the Programmatic Agreement, to ensure site protection. By implementing these measures, negligible impact to archeological resources would result.

Removing the Cascades Diversion Dam would not impact any known archeological resources (the same as under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4). 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, 3, and 4, since the location and design of visitor centers associated with park entrance stations is unknown at this time, it is not possible to predict the potential for impacts to archeological resources. The park would conduct archeological inventories, site evaluations, 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 undertakings would have varied impacts on as many as 59 known archeological sites, depending on the potential of the archeological sites to yield significant information regarding prehistoric and historic lifeways, and on the nature and design of proposed development. See Chapter 3, Cultural Resources, for descriptions of low, moderate, and high data potential.

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 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 described under 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 59 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 implementation of this alternative, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would be minor.

Impacts under this alternative would be the same as for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. With mitigation, the resultant adverse impacts would be negligible; and beneficial impacts would be long-term and minor.

Impacts under this alternative would be the same as for Alternative 2, 3, and 4. With mitigation, the resultant adverse impacts would be negligible; and beneficial impacts would be permanent and minor.

As described for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, rehabilitating the historic district housing area would improve habitat conditions for California black oak, a traditionally gathered resource, resulting in a negligible impact. Constructing day-visitor parking at Yosemite Village could disturb or destroy two small gathering areas, contributing resources in the Valleywide ethnographic landscape, depending on design. 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 identifying and assisting in providing access to alternative resource-gathering areas; continuing to provide access to traditional use or spiritual areas; and screening new development from traditional use areas, as well as careful site design and data recovery.

Removing facilities at the Church Bowl Picnic Area, as described for Alternative 2, would remove non-historic facilities from a historic village site, resulting in minor beneficial impacts to ethnographic resources. Removing some facilities and redesigning the National Park Service Maintenance area would restore a known burial area to natural conditions, resulting in minor, beneficial impacts to ethnographic resources.

Impacts under this alternative would be the same as for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. There would be no impact to ethnographic resources.

Impacts under this alternative would be the same as for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. There would be negligible impact.

Redesigning Lower and North Pines Campgrounds would perpetuate development and visitor use in traditional gathering areas. Constructing new Backpacker and Group Campgrounds and a concessioner stable would bring new development to an area figuring in oral traditions as home to spirits, a contributing element of the Valleywide ethnographic landscape. Constructing a new walk-in campground near Tenaya Creek, as in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, would disturb or destroy a portion of one traditional gathering area, also a contributing element of the Valley-wide landscape. These actions would result in long-term, moderate, adverse impacts. The National Park Service, in consultation with culturally associated American Indian tribes, and in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement, would develop appropriate mitigation strategies for impacts to ethnographic resources. Such strategies 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 to reduce the intensity of adverse impacts from moderate to minor or negligible.

Impacts under this alternative would be the same as for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Impacts would be negligible.

Removing Ahwahnee and Sugar Pine Bridges, as well as the raised causeway between these bridges, would have minor, beneficial impacts by partly restoring habitat in a traditional gathering area, a contributing element of the ethnographic landscape. This could allow for the recovery of traditionally used plants and enhance their availability for procurement.

Impacts under this alternative would be the same as for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Impacts would be long-term, minor, and beneficial.

Constructing a traffic check station near El Capitan crossover would have minor, adverse impacts on the ethnographic landscape by disturbing a portion of a historic village area, as described for Alternative 2. Realigning Southside Drive south of Sentinel Bridge would also disturb a portion of a historic village area, as described for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. These actions would result in minor, adverse impacts to the Valleywide ethnographic landscape. The National Park Service, in consultation with culturally associated American Indian tribes and in accordance 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.

Actions and related impacts associated with construction of multi-use paved trails in eastern Yosemite Valley would not impact any ethnographic resources.

Removing parking lots and constructing multi-use paved trails and some group picnic sites at Sentinel, El Capitan and Cathedral Picnic Areas (the same as for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) would concentrate visitor use near and possibly disturb part of a traditional site for gathering, which is a contributing element of the Valleywide ethnographic landscape. These actions would result in a long-term, minor, adverse impact. Establishing a new picnic area in the vicinity of El Capitan would add facilities and increase visitor use in proximity to a historic village site, resulting in permanent, minor, adverse impacts to the Valleywide ethnographic landscape. The National Park Service, in consultation with culturally associated American Indian tribes and in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement, would develop appropriate mitigation strategies to reduce impacts to ethnographic resources. Such strategies could include identifying and helping provide access to alternative resource-gathering areas; continuing to provide access to traditional use areas; careful site designing and screening; recovering important archeological data; and using any other measures identified during consultation. Mitigation would reduce the intensity of adverse impacts from minor to negligible.

Developing Yellow Pine Campground under this alternative for public group campsites would increase development at a traditional use area, potentially resulting in a long-term, minor, adverse impact. The National Park Service, in consultation with culturally associated American Indian tribes and in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement, would develop appropriate mitigation strategies to reduce the intensity of impacts to ethnographic resources, from minor to negligible. Such strategies could include identifying and helping provide access to alternative resource-gathering areas.

As described for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, the following impact analysis 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 (ethnographic resources inventory and evaluation). The National Park Service would initiate further consultation with the State Historical 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 studio apartments at Hillside West, apartments or studios at Hillside East, and employee housing at Village Center would destroy a large portion of a historic village area, resulting in a permanent, major, adverse impact. The portions of this historic village site that are known to contain human burials would be protected from development. As described in Alternative 2, mitigation would reduce the intensity of adverse impact 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 and museum collection facilities at Railroad Flat, would disturb or destroy portions of at least three traditional gathering areas, resulting in long-term, minor adverse impacts. With mitigation, the resultant impacts would be negligible. Removing the abandoned wastewater treatment facility would have beneficial impacts on a prehistoric village and burial area by eliminating modern, intrusive development. 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.

The proposed undertakings in Foresta, McCauley Ranch, Wawona, Henness Ridge, and park entrance stations would have unknown impacts on ethnographic resources, since there is not enough information about the location and significance of ethnographic resources to assess the nature and intensity of impacts. All proposed undertakings would be the subject of future site-specific environmental compliance. The National Park Service, in consultation with culturally associated American Indian tribes and in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement, would develop appropriate mitigating strategies for impacts to ethnographic resources.

As described for Alternatives 2 and 3, the National Park Service 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, 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 adverse and beneficial 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; add or expand modern development at eight historic village areas; and add development in at least one area figuring in oral tradition. However, facility removal and ecological restoration would benefit up to five traditional gathering areas by enhancing conditions for plant resources; would remove modern development from three historic village areas; and would re-establish American Indian traditional uses at an individually significant historic village site. In general, actions in Yosemite Valley would have 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, Wawona, Foresta, McCauley, and other out-of-Valley areas is 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, 3, and 4. Minor to moderate cumulative, adverse impacts would result from implementing this alternative, in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future undertakings.

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

Under Alternative 5, the general pattern of development throughout the Valley and the historic relationship between the natural and built environment would be retained. 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 to the cultural landscape of the Valley.

Historic land use patterns concentrating visitor services and administration in the east Valley would continue. The National Register Historic Districts and properties of Camp Curry, Yosemite Village, The Ahwahnee, and others would remain and continue to function as they did historically. 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 minor, adverse impact.

Proposed changes to circulation systems throughout Yosemite Valley would result in alterations to both Northside and Southside Drives, both contributing structures to the proposed Yosemite Valley Cultural Landscape Historic District. The proposed changes include the realignment of portions of Northside and Southside Drives, and the conversion of portions of both Northside and Southside Drives into a one-lane vehicle route and bicycle lane. A segment of Northside Drive at Yosemite Lodge would be realigned, resulting in a permanent, minor, adverse impact. The segment of Northside Drive between the east end of Yosemite Valley and El Capitan crossover would be converted to a one-lane vehicle route and bicycle lane. Since this would not change the physical road structure there would be no impact. This would not result in any physical changes to this segment of Northside Drive. The portion of Southside Drive segment near the Yosemite Chapel would be realigned, resulting in a permanent, minor, adverse impact. The portion of Southside Drive between the east end of the Valley and El Capitan crossover would be converted to a one-lane vehicle route and bicycle lane. However, this would not result in any physical changes to this road segment, and there would be no resultant impact. The minor, adverse impacts associated with realigning portions of contributing roadways would be mitigated by documentation, according to the Programmatic Agreement, reducing the intensity of adverse impacts from minor to negligible.

Removing non-contributing roads from Ahwahnee and Stoneman Meadows would have a minor, beneficial, and permanent 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 Ahwahnee 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 Ahwahnee 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 of this resource 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 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, four pedestrian bridges at Lower Yosemite Fall would be rehabilitated or rebuilt. 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.

Yosemite Village: The historic design and spatial organization of the Yosemite Village area would be rehabilitated, resulting in the preservation of many historic structures, and redevelopment of non-contributing areas within the district. Many non-contributing structures would be removed or redesigned to be more compatible with the historic character of Yosemite Village, based on design guidelines developed in keeping with the Secretary’s Standards (USDOI 1983). This would result in a permanent, moderate, beneficial impact. Some existing land uses would change (e.g., removing NPS stable and parkwide administration), but the types of land use historically associated with the village, such as visitor services, education, museum, and employee housing, would remain. In addition, the reestablishment 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.

Construction of day-visitor parking, a transit center, and a fire station would introduce non-historic facilities adjacent to the Yosemite Village Historic District, and would require the removal of historic structures (Concessioner Headquarters Building, Village Garage and associated apartment, and the Ahwahnee Row houses and apartments) that contribute to the cultural landscape. These actions would result in the loss of historic structures and introduction of non-historic facilities, a permanent, moderate, adverse impact on the cultural landscape and the adjacent Yosemite Village Historic District. The loss of the historic structures would be mitigated by 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. 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. In this manner, the intensity of adverse impacts would be reduced from moderate to minor. The potential impacts associated with introducing non-historic facilities would be reduced or avoided through the use of compatible design, scale, massing, and material, and appropriate screening.

Actions at the National Park Service maintenance area would result in the loss of the National Park Service Operations Building (Fort Yosemite) and thirteen additional historic structures that contribute to the cultural landscape. The loss of these structures would result in a moderate, adverse impact to the Valleywide landscape that 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 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.

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 as well as construction of new facilities within the historic district; collectively, these actions would result in a permanent, major, adverse impact that would be reduced in intensity as described below.

The historic Curry Orchard, the Curry Orchard parking area, 277 historic guest tent cabins, Tresidder Residence, Huff House, Cabin 90 A/B, and some historic comfort stations would be removed, resulting in a permanent, major, adverse impact to the historic district. The intensity of this impact would 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 Curry Village developed area 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 to historic structures.

Construction of 204 new cabins-with-bath 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 materials, thus potentially reducing the intensity of adverse impacts from major to moderate. Construction of a 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: Removal of the historic Ahwahnee tennis courts and restoration of the California black oak woodland in this area would result in the loss of a contributing element of The Ahwahnee National Register property; a minor adverse impact. This would be partly mitigated by documentation as specified in the Programmatic Agreement, thus reducing the intensity of impact from minor to negligible. Redevelopment of the existing parking lot would result in a negligible impact. Rehabilitation of the employee dormitory would be carried out in keeping with the Secretary’s Standards (USDOI 1983), resulting in a negligible impact.

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

The removal of Curry Orchard would result in the loss of this resource, similar to Alternative 1, therefore there would be no additional adverse impact. However, this action would result in this immediate (rather than eventual) loss. The loss of this resource would be mitigated through initiation of a genetic conservation program and documentation of the orchard; thus, a historical record and representative plants would be preserved, although the orchards would cease to exist. Maintaining Lamon and Hutchings Orchards would result in a minor, beneficial impact on the Valleywide cultural landscape.

As described for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, the following impact analysis is based on general land-use planning actions for El Portal area. 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. The National Park Service would initiate further consultation with the State Historical Preservation Office, culturally associated American Indian tribes, and the public, as provided for in the Programmatic Agreement. A complete and detailed assessment of impacts on historic properties would be presented as part of that review.

As described for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, 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 in El Portal (the three historic National Lead Company residences would be retained).

Similar to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, the construction of 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.

The construction of employee and day-visitor parking in the Village Center area, as well as administrative and museum collection facilities at Railroad Flat and a multi-use trail between Rancheria Flat and Village Center (through Hennessey Ranch), would not impact any historic structures (the same as under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4).

Constructing apartments and other community and commercial facilities 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. Every effort would be made to avoid or otherwise mitigate adverse impacts, (e.g., through sensitive, compatible design and the screening of modern development from historic structures). Should avoidance of adverse impacts be impossible, documentation stipulated in the Programmatic Agreement would reduce the intensity of the adverse impacts.

As described for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, 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 historic structure would be a major, adverse impact, the National Park Service would follow stipulations of the Programmatic Agreement to reduce the intensity of the adverse impact from major to moderate.

At Foresta, there would be no impact to historic resources as a result of establishing day-visitor parking and constructing single-family homes. Access improvements through Foresta to McCauley Ranch, with possible replacement of the Crane Creek Bridge, could (depending upon location and design) adversely affect potential historic resources (i.e., the Foresta Road and Crane Creek Bridge) as a result of loss or significant alternation. Constructing National Park Service stables, as well as National Park Service wilderness utilities and trails maintenance facilities at McCauley, would have unknown impacts on historic resources. The National Park Service would conduct resource inventory and evaluation studies, 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 according to stipulations in the Programmatic Agreement.

Impacts under this alternative would be the same as for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. With mitigation, the resultant impacts would be permanent, moderate, and adverse.

As described for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, the construction of new visitor centers at the park entrance stations would have an unknown impact on historic resources. The National Park Service would conduct inventory and evaluation studies, 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 according to the stipulations of the Programmatic Agreement.

At Wawona, constructing single-family homes would have no impacts on historic resources because there are no historic structures, sites, or landscape resources in the area proposed for housing construction.

Establishing day-visitor parking at Henness Ridge would disturb two intact historic linear resources: a logging railroad grade, and a historic road. The precise nature of impacts on the 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 (through sensitive, compatible design). If avoidance of adverse impacts was impossible, documentation stipulated in the Programmatic Agreement would reduce the intensity of the adverse impacts.

Undertakings in Alternative 5 would have major to minor, beneficial and adverse impacts to the cultural landscape and historic structural resources in Yosemite Valley. Adverse impacts would result from the removal of historic structures, or from the introduction of modern facilities and development either within or adjacent to historic districts; however, new facilities would be designed to be compatible with historic structures and districts.

Many of the actions proposed in this alternative would result in an overall beneficial impact to the large-scale natural systems that historically defined the Valley floor, the Merced River Corridor, and the pattern of open meadows, California black oak woodlands, and coniferous forests. Beneficial impacts would also result from the rehabilitation of existing developed areas, particularly through rehabilitation of the Yosemite Village Historic District. This rehabilitation would incorporate adaptive use of historic structures, removal of non-contributing structures, and new development based on design guidelines to ensure compatibility with the historic district. In general, adaptively using historic buildings would enhance their long-term preservation and would be carried out in accordance with the Secretary’s Standards (USDOI 1983).

There would be minor, adverse impacts to the Valleywide historic land use patterns as a result of changes such as relocating the river-related campgrounds from the Merced River corridor to Upper and Lower Pines, and changes within the two historic districts.

Changes proposed to the historic circulation system (minor realignments and conversion of one lane of part of Northside and Southside Drives to multi-use paved trail) in the Valley would result in a minor, adverse impact to the cultural landscape. However, the intensity of this impact would be reduced by the use of design guidelines for compatible treatment based on the Secretary’s Standards (USDOI 1983).

The loss of individually significant historic structures and historic structures that contribute to the significance of the Valleywide cultural landscape would result in permanent, major, adverse impacts. Carrying out standard mitigation measures (e.g., HABS/HAER documentation and salvage of historic materials) under the Programmatic Agreement would reduce the intensity of adverse impacts. In addition, in some cases where historic structures would be removed, the National Park Service would first consider relocation and adaptive reuse in another location within the park.

For some project areas, the impacts on historic properties are unknown until further site-specific historic resource studies have been undertaken, and project designs have been more fully developed. In these instances, the park would carry out any necessary inventories, and evaluations of National Register significance; consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office and 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 resources would be the same as under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. In Yosemite Valley and 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.

Under this alternative, the museum collection, research library, and archives would be moved to a new facility in the El Portal area. This facility would be constructed to meet applicable environmental and security control standards for museum collection preservation. This action would benefit the collection by locating them in one geographic area, making them easier to manage, in a facility specifically designed for collection management and preservation. Access to these materials (including ample study space) would be enhanced specifically for researchers, rather than all park visitors, since this location would be somewhat remote for general park visitors. Professional staff would not be readily available to answer the questions of casual visitors, as they are now available to do. There would be some potential for damage and loss to the collection resulting from movement in and out of storage to exhibit areas in Yosemite Valley. Overall, however, these measures would have moderate to major, beneficial impacts on the collections and public/staff use.

Housing the museum, archival, and library collections in a new, central, rehabilitated 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, with adequate space to carry out research. The park would be able to achieve compliance with the protection and preservation guidelines and standards prescribed by the National Park Service Museum Handbook (NPS 1990a) and Director’s Order 28 — Cultural Resource Management (NPS 1998l), as well as the Draft Director’s Order 24 - Standards for NPS Museum Collections Management (NPS 1999e). While in transit from storage to exhibit in Yosemite Valley, the objects would be exposed to risk of damage.

This alternative would have minor, cumulative, beneficial effects on the museum collection and archival materials in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Housing the resources in a central facility with adequate environmental and security control systems would assist their protection and long-term preservation. No adverse impacts to the resources would be expected other than when the objects are in transit. It is not reasonable to compare the Yosemite museum collection with that of other repositories or sites, because of the extent and unique nature of these collections. Facility upgrades and improved management of museum collections and archives within the park would incrementally add to the overall effectiveness of regional curation efforts.

As described for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, 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 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; the salvage of historic materials; 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 adverse effects to the park’s museum collections and archives would result from housing materials in a central facility with adequate environmental and security controls, other than while collections are in transit and are at risk. 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 the management elements of the Merced River Plan. 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 their: (1) impacts on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values, 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 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 are shown in table 4-130.

Actions to implement the River Protection Overlay would have beneficial impacts on 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 4-130.

The campground-related actions would have both beneficial and adverse impacts on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values. The campground-related actions would have an overall beneficial effect on the scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Value due to restoration of areas visible from the river. These actions would have a beneficial impact on the recreational Outstandingly Remarkable Value because camping opportunities would be retained. There would be a beneficial impact on the hydrologic processes Outstandingly Remarkable Value because of restoration of riparian areas, and because campsites would be removed from close proximity to the river. New campsites within the 100-year floodplain (e.g., Yellow Pines, North Pines, and Upper Pines Campgrounds) would be located outside of the River Protection Overlay and would have minimal, adverse impacts on the flood regime. There would be a beneficial impact on the biological Outstandingly Remarkable Value because restoration of river-related vegetation would occur within the River Protection Overlay, but also an adverse impact because radiating impacts from the campgrounds would degrade the quality of this habitat, and some river-related vegetation outside the River Protection Overlay would continue to be displaced by campsites.

The Housekeeping Camp-related actions would have a long-term, beneficial effect on the scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Value 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 on the biological and hydrologic processes Outstandingly Remarkable Values because restoration of riparian areas and because Housekeeping Camp lodging units would be removed from close proximity to the river. These actions would not adversely impact the recreational Outstandingly Remarkable Value because Housekeeping Camp lodging units would be retained.

Actions at Yosemite Lodge have beneficial and adverse impacts on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values. The removal of Yosemite Lodge units, and 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 Value because they would be placed in the 100-year floodplain, and would alter the 100-year flood event. Also, an indirect beneficial impact would occur 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 on the hydrologic processes Outstandingly Remarkable Value, because Curry Village is located outside of the floodplain. There would be minor, adverse radiating impacts on river-related vegetation due to trampling.

Reconstruction of the El Portal Road between Pohono Bridge and Cascades Diversion Dam and removal of Cascades Diversion Dam would have both beneficial and adverse impacts on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values (see discussion of dam removal in Segment 3A/3B). 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 Value 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 on 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 continuation of parking at Camp 6 would have both beneficial and adverse impacts on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Removal of parking from close proximity to the river would result in a beneficial impact on the scenic, biological, and hydrologic processes Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Expansion of parking in an area that is already disturbed would have adverse impacts on the biological and hydrologic processes Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

Actions at Yosemite Village would have adverse effects on scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Values because redevelopment activities would be visible from the river. Hydrologic Outstandingly Remarkable Values would be adversely affected due to redevelopment of a small area of Yosemite Village (not including Camp 6) in the 100-year floodplain. There would be radiating impacts on river-related vegetation due to density of visitor use in the area.

Development of a traffic check station at Taft Toe would have adverse impacts on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Construction of a traffic check station would have an adverse effect on the cultural Outstandingly Remarkable Value, since it would damage river-related archeological deposits and traditional gathering areas.

There would continue to be an absence of major development in west Yosemite Valley. Development would be limited to existing roads and parking areas, trails, and a few picnic areas. As a result, limited adverse effects on Outstandingly Remarkable Values would occur in this area, including loss of vegetation and intrusion of new facilities on scenic views, and potential disturbance of river-related cultural resources.

Segment-wide, this alternative would have a long-term, minor, 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 U-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, minor, 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., campsites, roads, multi-use paths, and picnic areas) would pose some adverse, localized impacts on the biological Outstandingly Remarkable Value, these impacts are outweighed by the substantial restoration actions that would take place throughout this segment.

Segment-wide, there would be 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 are being removed, particularly bridges, adversely affect the hydrologic processes Outstandingly Remarkable Value, and their removal would have major, 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 long-term, minor, 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 areas in the Merced 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 on 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 rip-rap 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, minor, 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 highly valued 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 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 recreational 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 on 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 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, 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 Campground, remove existing facilities or uses that do not conform with the corresponding management zone prescriptions.

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. A description of the Outstandingly Remarkable Values is found in Vol. II, Appendix B.

The impacts of this alternative on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values for this segment would be the same as under Alternative 2 (see Alternative 2, table 4-40, for more 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 past and present 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 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 would comply with the Merced River Plan, and would be 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 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 due to the 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 to 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 would be 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 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 Cascades Diversion Dam. The individual actions are consistent with the respective management zones established in the Merced River Plan. Some actions, such as the removal of infrastructure from the former Rivers Campground, remove existing facilities or uses that do not conform with the corresponding management zone prescriptions.

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 2 (see Alternative 2, table 4-42, for more details).

The impacts of this alternative on 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 would result for the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of this segment due to the beneficial effects of implementing the River Protection Overlay, including restoration of damaged riparian habitat; improvement of scenic views of Wawona Dome from the river; enhanced public enjoyment of restored resources; and protection of cultural resources. The beneficial effects of implementing the River Protection Overlay have been somewhat offset by the adverse effects associated with the construction of new employee housing in Wawona (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 would result for the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of this segment due to the beneficial effects of implementing the River Protection Overlay, including restoration of damaged riparian habitat; improvement of scenic views of Wawona Dome from the river; enhanced public enjoyment of restored resources; and protection of cultural resources. 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 (NPS). When the impacts of all of the past and reasonably foreseeable future actions described above are considered in combination with the expected impacts to the Outstandingly Remarkable Values from this alternative, a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values would result (see Alternative 2 for more details).

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 to Yosemite Valley by private automobile to east Valley parking would be available to only about 30% of day visitors on a typically busy day (using 1998 visitation levels). Overnight visitors would continue to have the option of driving into the Valley or traveling on tour buses or other modes of travel. Under this alternative, day visitors who could not park in the Valley would have the option to ride shuttle buses to the Valley from parking areas at Henness Ridge, Foresta, or El Portal, or they would ride tour buses or regional transit. Major, adverse impacts to the experiences of a majority of day visitors would result from a reduction in the ability to make spontaneous stops en route to the Valley, extra travel time, and the inconvenience of moving personal items to and from bus stops.

Alternative 5 would provide facilities and services designed to accommodate visitation levels on the majority of summer days. However, day-visitor demand would exceed the capacity of the parking areas on 10 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 existing regional transit and other transportation modes; or visiting the Valley at a different time or on another day. Adequate infrastructure would be in place to accommodate visitor parking in the Valley, in-park shuttles, regional transit, and commercial tour buses, as described for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4.

Access to the Valley by private vehicles would be managed through a traveler information and traffic management system. Impacts would be the same as for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Overall, the average visitor would experience a minor increase in the time required to travel to the Valley, compared to Alternative 1.

As described for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, 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 many Valley destinations would be eliminated, as described for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. 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. Compared to Alternative 1, the location of day-visitor parking and the transit center in Yosemite Village would provide a major, beneficial impact for orientation and trip planning for all day visitors because of its location in the Village. 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, 3, and 4. These changes would affect a large number of day visitors using regional transit, tour buses, and shuttle buses to access the Valley. Changes to circulation within the Valley would largely be the same as described for Alternative 2, except Northside Drive and Southside Drive would continue as one-way roads with one lane converted to a multi-use paved trail from El Capitan crossover to Sentinel Bridge and from Yosemite Lodge to the crossover. Access to the west Valley would be increased for visitors arriving by transit and others due to extending shuttle bus service to the west Valley, resulting in a major, beneficial impact, compared to Alternative 1.

Traffic would be reduced below existing levels throughout the Valley at all times of the year (unless seasonal displacement appreciably increases traffic during existing slow seasons). Alternative 5 would reduce the volume of daily vehicle traffic associated with travel into and out of the Valley. On typically busy days, the volume of daily vehicle miles traveled would be reduced by 31% (compared to Alternative 1), a minor, beneficial impact on the experience for all visitors because there would be more opportunities for quiet and contemplative recreational experiences. The overall reduction in traffic would result in somewhat improved traffic flow and moderately reduced congestion throughout most of the Valley. Segments of Northside Drive and Southside Drive in the mid-Valley would be reduced to one lane; therefore, traffic flow would be similar to Alternative 1, but with an improvement on Southside Drive during the inbound peak hour.

Under this alternative, 550 day-visitor parking spaces would be provided in the Valley at Yosemite Village. In addition, up to approximately 1,365 spaces would be provided at out-of-Valley locations (Henness Ridge, Foresta, and El Portal). 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. Day visitors would be directed to parking areas in the Valley or to out-of-Valley parking areas and ride a shuttle to the Valley. Visitors would experience a minor increase in the time required to travel to the Valley, since many would need to use shuttle buses. As described for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, frequent shuttle service would provide access to Valley attractions. Similarly, some visitors would experience decreases in overall time required to travel within the Valley, and shuttles could be delayed by slightly greater numbers of private vehicles, compared to Alternative 1.

Like Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, the appearance of crowding in the Valley would be reduced by eliminating roadside parking. Under this alternative, however, moderately lower traffic volumes, improved traffic flow, and reductions in the visual impact of parked vehicles would have a moderate, beneficial impact on the perceived level of crowding and congestion during peak visitation times for all visitors.

Traffic congestion west of El Capitan crossover could increase due to long-term parking at the remaining turnouts, and the potential for increased pass-through traffic, the same as under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4.

Some existing automobile traffic would be replaced with buses, having the same impacts described in Alternative 2. 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.

The Visitor Experience and Resources Protection program would protect the diversity of visitor experiences, as in Alternatives 2 and 3, a major, beneficial impact, compared to Alternative 1.

Similar to Alternative 2, this alternative would help relieve visitor anxiety and 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 for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, except motorized access to Northside Drive would remain available, eliminating a minor, adverse impact of those alternatives. 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, 3, and 4, visitor centers and orientation facilities near each principal park entrance would provide some visitors with an improved sense of arrival at the park. For day visitors parking at Yosemite Village under this alternative, the sense of arrival in the Valley would be similar to that offered today, with a moderate walk to reach the visitor center. Visitors parking at out-of-Valley areas would find the arrival experience less well-defined (although views of principal Valley features would provide a sense of arrival). Their sense of arrival in both cases is similar to that offered today–visitors could see significant views en route to the parking facility, but the views would only be marginally interpreted. Impacts of the proposed arrival sequence under Alternative 5 would affect most visitors, and are beneficial but negligible in intensity, compared to Alternative 1.

Improvements to signs and circulation would improve wayfinding for visitors, the same as under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. 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, 3, and 4, 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, day visitors parking at Yosemite Village would have to walk a moderate distance to the visitor center in Yosemite Village. These impacts would be of major benefit to the majority of park visitors who would like to take advantage of exhibits, museums, trip planning, and other interpretive programs, compared to Alternative 1.

Similar to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, overnight visitors would find orientation exhibits at their lodging or campground, a beneficial impact, but moderate in intensity.

Impacts to exhibits and programs, the Nature Center at Happy Isles, museum collections, and trailside exhibits would be similar to those described under Alternatives 2 and 3, except research access to the consolidated museum collection and library would be available in El Portal rather than the Valley, making it less convenient for casual visitors. The present visitor center would be refurbished with new exhibits. 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.

Sightseeing in the Valley currently takes place by private vehicle for almost 88% of visitors (Gramann 1992). The current auto touring experience would be altered by less ability to make spontaneous stops, by possible reduction in available turnouts, and by reduction of traffic lanes from two to one on segments of Northside and Southside Drives in the mid-Valley, although the current one-way road system would remain in place. Auto touring that involves parking for extended periods while exploring would be eliminated with the removal of parking at most features and facilities. These actions would result in moderate, adverse impacts on most visitors. However, it should be noted that about 80% of all private vehicle users have indicated support for adopting such measures as means of bringing about benefits discussed elsewhere (for example, reduced traffic and noise; see Gramann 1992).

Reduced traffic east of El Capitan crossover could result in more relaxed touring, which would be offset by the reduction of one-way traffic lanes from two to one on portions of Northside and Southside Drives, and an increase in the number of buses. This would result in a negligible, positive impact for most visitors, compared to Alternative 1. Signs would need to be placed at turnouts throughout the Valley to identify appropriate uses (e.g., shuttle bus, Valley Floor Tour, short-term parking). Compared to Alternative 1, introducing these urban elements into the auto-touring experience would be an adverse impact that is negligible in intensity and affects most visitors.

Impacts of sightseeing by shuttle bus would be the same as described for Alternative 2, except that Valley Floor Tours offered by the concessioner and commercial bus tours would continue to have access to Northside Drive (but only one lane would be open for vehicle travel between Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) and El Capitan crossover, so buses would still be unable to travel slowly or to make spontaneous stops). This would result in major, adverse impacts compared to Alternative 1.

More Valley trails would be available, particularly through the Upper River and Lower River Campgrounds area and adjacent to Northside and Southside Drives in mid-Valley, with impacts similar to those described under Alternative 2. The trail immediately adjacent to Northside and Southside Drive, however, would not be free of direct impacts from automobile traffic. Impacts from potential increased trail usage and dispersal, conflicts with other users, and greater opportunities for one-way hiking trips, would be the same as under Alternative 2, except that trail rides would continue to be offered, resulting in conflicts similar to Alternative 1. Overall, compared to Alternative 1, impacts would be a moderate benefit to a large group of visitors.

Rerouting the trail segment north of the river at Ahwahnee and Sugar Pine bridges would result in a slightly different path, loss of traditional views, and loss of historic elements due to bridge removal (a negligible, adverse impact, for what is likely to be a moderately sized group).

A new multi-use trail using one existing traffic lane on Northside and Southside Drives in mid-Valley would provide greater recreational opportunities for bicyclists, a major and beneficial impact for this moderately large group (currently 11% of park visitors) (Gramann 1992). Reduced private vehicle traffic and increased bus traffic would reduce noise and traffic views; advanced technology buses would be used for shuttle services, when available, potentially further reducing noise and air quality impact of motorized transportation; this would result in a moderate, beneficial impact compared to Alternative 1.

The adverse impacts of potential crowding (moderate) along multi-use trails and increased accident risk (negligible) would be the same as under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4.

The reduction in opportunities for spontaneous access and other aspects of the climbing experience, and related impacts, would be the same as under Alternative 2.

The concessioner stable operation would be relocated under this alternative, and guided stock trips would continue, resulting in negligible, neutral impacts to visitors who take trail rides, compared to Alternative 1.

The Valley Loop Trail would be segmented by closing the trail to horse traffic from the Yosemite Lodge to the Mirror Lake Road. This closure would result in the loss of a Valleywide loop trip opportunity, for a moderate and adverse impact for private stock users. Relocating the concessioner stable would result in negligible, adverse impacts on private stock users.

The lack of private vehicle access to most picnic sites (except near Yosemite Village) would result in the same impacts as described under Alternative 2.

The Swinging Bridge and Church Bowl Picnic Areas would be removed and the North American Wall, Curry Village, and Lower River Picnic Areas would provide new opportunities for picnicking, resulting in negligible and neutral impacts.

Changes in raft and kayak access and resulting impacts would be the same as under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. 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 2. Locations for swimming would be reduced with the revegetation of many riverbanks, and swimmers would be redirected to areas more able to withstand heavy use, creating a minor, adverse impact to this large visitor group (25% of summer visitors) (Gramann 1992). Two areas popular with swimmers–Cathedral Beach and Sentinel Beach–are retained as picnic areas and would be serviced by shuttle buses; a moderate and beneficial impact. Shuttle bus access would tend to redistribute swimming activity around the Valley, a negligible and neutral impact.

Changes to fishing quality and access to sites would be the same as under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Notably, protection of riverbanks would result in a moderate, beneficial impact for anglers. A moderate, adverse impact would result from decreased river access.

Ice skating would remain largely unchanged from current conditions, since the ice rink would remain in its current location. Increased winter visitation and greater use of the ice rink could result in a negligible, adverse impact compared to that of Alternative 1.

Impacts to photographers would be the same as described for Alternative 2; less private vehicle use and a reduction of roadside parking would result in greater opportunities for photographs without vehicles. This would result in an overall moderate, beneficial impact, compared with Alternative 1.

This section covers impacts of Alternative 5 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 in the Noise section of this chapter. Impacts to scenic resources (as viewed by the visitor) are covered under the Scenic Resources section of this chapter. In general, improvements to natural resources under this alternative would provide a more natural appearance to the Valley, a major and beneficial impact for visitors, compared to Alternative 1.

Concentrated parking at Yosemite Village under this alternative would result in increased lighting needs in an area that is currently unlit. These actions would generally have impacts as in Alternative 2, resulting in a moderate impact relative to Alternative 1.

The addition of out-of-Valley parking areas (Henness Ridge, Foresta, and El Portal) would increase the need for lighting in these areas. These actions would generally have adverse impacts that are moderate to major in intensity.

Changes in the number of lodging units would result in minor, beneficial impacts largely the same as under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Adding new housing units at Yosemite Lodge, and reducing housing at Curry Village, would result in minor, adverse, and beneficial impacts, respectively, on the night sky in these areas. Other changes in lighting, including the rehabilitation of obsolete architectural lighting and the relocation of facilities, would be similar to those under Alternative 2 and result in minor, beneficial impacts, relative to Alternative 1. Shifts in camping and changes to the concession stable area would result in moderate but neutral impacts. Potentially adding a check station in mid-Valley could have a major, adverse impact there, though this would be much less than the impact caused by the full parking and transit facility at Taft Toe called for in Alternatives 3 and 4.

Access to wilderness areas would be facilitated under this alternative, as described under Alternative 2. Visual impacts would be similar to those described in Alternative 2. Sound impacts would be minor and adverse, similar to those for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. 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.

The number of campsites would be substantially above current levels (585 campsites compared to 475 sites under Alternative 1, about a 23% increase), resulting in a moderate, beneficial impact.

Improvements in campground conditions due to greater separation of user types, the redesign of campsites, and riverbank restoration would result in largely the same minor to moderate, beneficial impacts as for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Camper services would be similar to Alternative 2.

Minor, adverse impacts on river access would result from relocating camping areas away from the river, and negligible, adverse impacts would result from relocating the amphitheater.

Compared to existing conditions, there would be fewer opportunities for overnight lodging in the Valley (1,012 lodging units, compared to 1,260 units under Alternative 1, a 20% reduction). This reduction would be the least of the action alternatives, resulting in a moderate, adverse impact on this large visitor group (25% of summer visitors typically 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, relative to Alternative 1.

Impacts of other actions, including increasing accessibility of units to visitors with disabilities, would be similar to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4.

At Yosemite Lodge, adding 124 beds (from 245 to 369, or an 50% increase) and the continued use of the area for employee housing could place lodging and housing closer to Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground). An increase in the developed character of the Lodge area would be a minor, adverse impact to campers as well as Lodge visitors, a moderately large group.

Reducing the number of units at Housekeeping Camp from 264 to 100 (or 62%) would lead to a more natural environment. This would be a moderate, beneficial impact for the moderately large group of visitors who would choose to use this type of accommodation.

At Curry Village, reducing the number of cabins would lead to a more natural environment, with greater privacy and less density. This would have moderate, beneficial impacts for visitors staying in the remaining cabins.

Changes in food and retail services would be substantially the same as those described for Alternative 2, except that the Village Store would remain in its current location, a public service station (for gasoline and other automotive needs) would be constructed in Yosemite Village, and a snack stand would be rebuilt at Happy Isles, resulting in minor, beneficial impacts (relative to Alternative 1) to most park visitors. The addition of lodging would also provide more convenient opportunities to involve more well-known artists in Art Activity Center programs, a beneficial but minor impact on a small visitor group, compared to Alternative 1. Impacts associated with an employee cafeteria would be the same as described in Alternative 2, except it would be located at Yosemite Lodge.

Like Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, Alternative 5 would reduce the spontaneity of travel to and through Yosemite Valley. Access into Yosemite Valley would be more cumbersome than today, with some visitors arriving by car, others by park shuttle bus from out-of-Valley parking areas, and still others by tour or regional transit buses. Under this alternative, day visitors would be directed to the Yosemite Village parking area in the Valley; once this lot was filled, visitors would be directed to lots at Henness Ridge, Foresta, and El Portal, and would ride a shuttle to the Valley. Overall, visitors would experience a minor, adverse impact on the time required to travel to the Valley. On 10 days during the summer, the parking in the Valley and at out-of-Valley locations would not be adequate to meet the needs of day visitors. The traveler information and traffic management system would inform visitors of the parking status prior to their arrival. Overnight visitors would continue to drive to the Valley. Visitors would experience a minor increase in the time required to travel to the Valley. With the day visitor parking and transit facility at Yosemite Village, all visitors would arrive in the Valley close to principal features and facilities. As described for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, frequent shuttle service would provide access to Valley attractions. Some visitors would experience decreases in overall time required to travel within the Valley.

On most days, visitors would find a more tranquil environment, with somewhat fewer visitors in the east Valley and more visitors in the mid-Valley. Automobile-based experiences in the Valley would be reduced. Visitors on foot and bicycle would find more trails, particularly in mid-Valley. Opportunities for orientation at park entrances would be closer to where many visitors seek them, and greater opportunities would be available for visitors to participate in interpretive programs in the Valley. Recreation, including touring, would be oriented more toward the shuttle bus system, which would be extended to mid-Valley and to out-of-Valley parking areas, and pedestrian and bicycling activities. Opportunities for staying overnight in Yosemite Valley would increase moderately for camping (to 585 sites) and decrease for lodging (to 1,012 beds).

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 Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 for traffic, congestion, access, orientation and interpretation, recreational opportunities, and recreational environment would be equally applicable to Alternative 5.

As described for the other alternatives, 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 by 248 units, but would somewhat alleviate it by restoring 110 campsites to the Yosemite Valley inventory. Proposed new accommodations in the vicinity of the park and campsites outside Yosemite Valley may also partially alleviate the impact of the reductions, as described for the other alternatives. The reductions in lodging in Alternative 5 would have moderate impacts for the many visitors who would want to stay in Yosemite Valley. The benefit of increases in out-of-park lodging would reduce impacts to visitors, but they would remain adverse and moderate.

The number of campsites in the region and at Yosemite Creek and Tamarack Campgrounds is expected to increase, but the use of the new regional sites by Yosemite day visitors would likely not be great. However, because the increase in number of campsites in Yosemite Valley under this alternative would be a moderate benefit to visitors, the cumulative impact on campground users would likely remain moderate and beneficial.