Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 2-1 

2. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE 

‘MERCED RIVER PLAN’ 

This chapter describes the purpose and need for the Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive 

Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Merced River Plan/DEIS) and discusses the issues 

and opportunities addressed in the plan. Specifically, this chapter includes: 

 Statements of the purpose and need for taking action 

 The planning context of the plan, including the legal framework, recent legal history, and 

interrelationships with other plans 

 A discussion of issues and opportunities identified during the scoping process and considered in 

preparation of this plan, and issues dismissed from further analysis. 

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

The purpose of the Merced River Plan/DEIS is to preserve the Merced River in free-flowing condition, and 

to protect the water quality and outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs) that make the river worthy of 

designation, for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. In accordance with WSRA 

“the plan shall address resource protection, development of lands and facilities, user capacities, and other 

management practices necessary or desirable to achieve the purposes of this Act” (WSRA Section 3(d)). This 

plan will fulfill the specific direction of the 1987 legislation designating the Merced River as a component of 

the National Wild and Scenic River System (16 U.S.C. Section 1274 (a)(62)(A)) and make appropriate 

revisions to the park’s 1980 General Management Plan. 

The need for the Merced River Plan/DEIS also derives from a 2009 Settlement Agreement under which the 

National Park Service (NPS) agreed to complete a new comprehensive management plan for the Merced 

Wild and Scenic River by July 2013. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) completed plans for the river segments within their jurisdiction. The finished plan for the Yosemite 

segments will complete the management plans needed for the entire Merced Wild and Scenic River. 

LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK 

The management of the NPS is guided by the Constitution, public laws, treaties, proclamations, executive 

orders, regulations, and directives of the Secretary of the Interior and the Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. The NPS Organic Act, passed by the U.S. Congress in 1916, provides fundamental 

management direction for all units of the National Park System. A key management provision in the act is: 

“[The National Park Service] shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national 

parks, monuments, and reservations . . . by such means and measure as conform to the fundamental 

purpose of said parks, monuments and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the 

natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such 

manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” 

Congress amended the Organic Act with the 1970 General Authorities Act (16 USC 1a-1 et seq.), which 

affirms that that all of the nation’s parks—whether they include natural, cultural or historic resources—are 
THE PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ‘MERCED RIVER PLAN’ 

2-2 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

united under the mission, purpose and protection of the Organic Act. The 1978 Redwood National Park 

Expansion Act also amended the Organic Act, re-affirming the mandate and directing the NPS to manage 

park lands in a manner that would not degrade park values. 

In addition to these key management-related statutes, federal management decisions must be consistent 

with national laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, which define the process used to evaluate and make planning-related decisions. 

The following provides more detail on the NPS Organic Act and a summary of additional federal laws most 

relevant to this planning process, including WSRA, the Wilderness Act of 1964, and the 1998 Concessions 

Management Improvement Act. 

National Park Service Organic Act, and National Parks and Recreation Act 

The NPS was created by the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (USC 2-4) for the purpose of 

promoting and regulating a system of national parks. This broad mandate has been translated into an 

extensive set of management policies, which direct all aspects of park management (NPS 2006a). 

The NPS has a specific set of policies in place to implement the requirements of law, fulfill management 

responsibilities under the NPS Organic Act, and guide agency operations. NPS Management Policies (2006) 

is the basic NPS policy document, and the highest level of guidance in the NPS Directives System. Director’s 

Orders are the second level of the Directives System, and they serve as a vehicle to clarify or supplement the 

Management Policies. Reference manuals or handbooks with detailed guidance make up the third level of 

the NPS Directives System. 

Since 1978, the NPS has been required under the National Parks and Recreation Act (16 USC 1a-7) to 

prepare general management plans for all units of the National Park System. The relationship between the 

Merced River Plan and the General Management Plan for Yosemite National Park is described below under 

“Interrelationships with Other Plans and Projects.” 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Requirements 

The segments of the Merced River covered by the Merced River Plan/DEIS were part of Yosemite National 

Park when they were designated as part of Wild and Scenic River System in 1987. As part of the national 

park, these river segments are also managed under the provisions of the laws, policies, and regulations 

applicable to all units of the National Park System. Section 10(c) of WSRA specifies that in case of conflicts 

between the mandates of the two systems, the more restrictive provisions apply. 

The following sections of WSRA are most pertinent to the Merced River Plan/DEIS: 

Section 1: Congressional Declaration of Policy—Explains intent of WSRA in that designated rivers “shall 

be preserved in free-flowing condition, and ... their immediate environments shall be protected for the 

benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations” (16 USC 1271), as quoted in the first paragraph of 

“The Merced Wild and Scenic River” (Chapter 1). 

Section 2: Classifications—Requires the river be classified and administered as “wild,” “scenic,” or 

“recreational” river segments, based on the condition of the river corridor at the time of designation. The 

classification of a river segment indicates the level of development on the shorelines, the level of 

development in the watershed, and the accessibility by road or trail. 
Legal and Policy Framework 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 2-3 

Section 3: Congressionally Designated Components, Establishment of Boundaries, Classifications, 

and Management Plans—Lists rivers that are congressionally designated as National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System components. Section 3 requires the administrating agency to identify corridor boundaries 

and to prepare a comprehensive management plan to “provide for the protection of the river values.” 

Section 7: Restrictions on Hydro and Water Resource Development Projects—Section 7 (16 USC 1278) 

is one of the most vital components of WSRA. This provision directs federal agencies to protect the values 

of designated rivers from adverse effects of “water resources projects” within the bed and banks of the river. 

Section 7 requires a rigorous process to ensure proposed water resources projects, implemented or assisted 

by federal agencies within the bed and banks of designated rivers, do not have a “direct and adverse effect” 

on the values for which the river was designated. It includes procedures to determine whether projects 

above or below the designated river or on its tributary streams would invade the area or unreasonably 

diminish the scenic, recreational, and fish and wildlife values present in the designated corridor. 

Section 10: Management Direction—Section 10 sets forth the management direction for designated river 

segments and includes the following: 

 WSRA shall be administered to protect and enhance a river’s ORVs. Insofar as possible, uses that are 

consistent with this and do not substantially interfere with public enjoyment and use of these values 

should not be limited (16 USC 1281[a]). 

 In administration of a Wild and Scenic River, “primary emphasis shall be given to protecting its 

aesthetic, scenic, historic, archeologic, and scientific features. Management plans may establish 

varying degrees of intensity for its protection and development, based on the special attributes of 

the area” (16 USC 1281[a]). 

 Wild and Scenic River segments inside congressionally designated Wilderness are subject to both 

WSRA and the Wilderness Act. Where the two conflict, the more restrictive (i.e., protective of 

resources) regulation will apply (16 USC 1281[b]). 

 Any component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System administered by the NPS will 

become part of the National Park System and be subject to both WSRA and the acts under which 

the National Park System is administered. In the case of conflict among these acts, the more 

restrictive provisions will apply (16 USC 1281[c]). 

Section 10(e) enables administering federal agencies to enter into cooperative agreements with state and 

local governments to allow them to participate in the planning and administration of components of the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System that include or adjoin state- or county-owned lands. 

Section 12: Management Policies—Section 12 directs the managing agency to take management actions on 

lands under its jurisdiction adjacent to the designated river corridor that may be necessary to protect the 

river according to the purposes of WSRA. 

1982 Final Revised Guidelines for Eligibility, Classification, and Management of 

River Areas (Secretarial Guidelines) 

In 1982, the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Agriculture jointly revised the guidelines for 

implementing WSRA. The revision, called the National Wild and Scenic River System: Final Revised 

Guidelines for Eligibility, Classification and Management of River Areas, is referred to as the Secretarial 

Guidelines. Published in the Federal Register in 1982, the Secretarial Guidelines incorporate changes in 
THE PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ‘MERCED RIVER PLAN’ 

2-4 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

WSRA necessary after more than a decade of use under the original 1970 guidelines1, facilitating greater 

consistency in agency interpretation of WSRA. The Secretarial Guidelines reflect new laws and regulations 

and respond to a 1979 presidential directive to consider river ecosystems in river evaluation and shorten 

river study time. The Secretarial Guidelines clarify the eligibility of free flowing rivers and river segments, 

eliminate minimum length guidelines, revise the definition of sufficient flow, revise water quality 

management, and accelerate the schedule for congressionally authorized studies (USDI and USDA 1982). 

Wilderness Act 

The Yosemite Wilderness was added to the National Wilderness Preservation System by the 1984 California 

Wilderness Act. Segments of the Merced Wild and Scenic River corridor within Yosemite National Park are 

within this congressionally designated Wilderness. 

WSRA specifies that both it and the Wilderness Act apply when a Wild and Scenic River is located in 

designated Wilderness: 

“Any portion of a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System that is within the National 

Wilderness Preservation System, as established by or pursuant to the Act of September 3, 1964 (78 Stat. 

890; 16 U.S.C., ch. 23), shall be subject to the provisions of both the Wilderness Act and this Act with 

respect to preservation of such river and its immediate environment, and in case of conflict between the 

provisions of these Acts the more restrictive provisions shall apply.” 

The National Wilderness Preservation System was established by the Wilderness Act of 1964 (PL 88-577, 16 

USC 1131-1136) to secure for present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of 

wilderness. The Wilderness Act requires that areas of designated Wilderness be managed in ways that 

preserve their wilderness character. A Wilderness area, as defined by the act, is 

“an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a 

visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean... an area... retaining its 

primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is 

protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have 

been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable, 

and (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.” 

Congress has delegated the management of the Yosemite Wilderness to the NPS. The NPS Management 

Policies 2006 requires the superintendent of each park containing wilderness resources to develop a 

wilderness management plan or equivalent planning document to guide the preservation, management, and 

use of these resources. The relationship between the Merced River Plan and the Yosemite Wilderness 

Management Plan is described below under “Interrelationships with Other Plans and Projects.” 

The NPS is required to consider the effects of commercial use in the Yosemite Wilderness as part of its 

delegated responsibility to maintain the wilderness character of the lands under its charge. A “Determination 

of Extent Necessary for Commercial Services in the Wilderness Segments of the Merced Wild and Scenic 

River Corridor” has been prepared as part of this planning for the Merced River (see Appendix L). 

 

1 “Guidelines for Evaluating Wild, Scenic and Recreational River Areas Proposed for Inclusion in the National Wild 

and Scenic Rivers System under Section 2, Public Law 90-542” 
Legal and Policy Framework 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 2-5 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Pursuant to section 102(2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA [42 USC 4341 et 

seq.]), the NPS has prepared a draft environmental impact statement identifying and evaluating six 

alternatives (the No Action and five action alternatives) for the Merced River Plan. Regulations governing 

NEPA compliance are set by the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR Parts 1500-

1508). CEQ regulations establish the requirements and process for agencies to fulfill their obligations under 

the act. This draft environmental impact statement documents compliance with two fundamental NEPA 

requirements: 1) To make a careful, complete, and analytical study of the impacts of any proposal, and 

alternatives to that proposal, if it has the potential to affect the human environment, well before decisions 

are made and 2) To be diligent in involving interested or affected public members in the planning process. 

Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (see below) is integrated into the NEPA 

compliance process, using NHPA criteria for the analysis of impacts on cultural resources. The NEPA 

process is also used to coordinate compliance with other federal laws and regulations applicable to the 

decisions to be made as part of the Merced River Plan/DEIS, including but not limited to the following: 

 Americans with Disabilities Act (42 USC 12101 et seq.) 

 Clean Air Act (as amended, 42 USC 7401 et seq.) 

 Clean Water Act (33 USC 1241 et seq.) 

 Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531 et seq.) 

 Executive Order 11593: Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment 

 Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management 

 Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands 

 Wilderness Act 

National Historic Preservation Act 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA [16 USC 470]) directs federal agencies 

to take into account the effect of any undertaking (a federally funded or assisted project) on historic 

properties. A “historic property” is any district, building, structure, site, or object, including resources that 

are considered by American Indians or other communities to have cultural and religious significance, that is 

eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) because the property is significant at 

the national, state, or local level in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, or culture. 

Section 106 also provides the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and the state historic 

preservation officer (SHPO) an opportunity to comment on assessment of effects by the undertaking. 

Yosemite’s section 106 review process is governed by national and park-specific programmatic agreements 

among the NPS, the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation, and the National Council of Historic 

Preservation Officers or the California state historic preservation officer (NPS, ACHP, and NCSHPO 2008; 

NPS, SHPO, and ACHP 1999). As stated above, compliance with NHPA section 106 is integrated into the 

NEPA compliance process, using NHPA criteria for the analysis of impacts on cultural resources. 

The section 106 review process is also used to coordinate compliance with the following federal laws and 

regulations applicable to the decisions to be made as part of the Merced River Plan. 
THE PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ‘MERCED RIVER PLAN’ 

2-6 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

The Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA [16 USC 470aa- 470ll]) prohibits unauthorized 

excavation of archeological sites on federal land, as well as other acts involving cultural resources, and 

implements a permitting process for excavation of archeological sites on federal or Indian lands (see 

regulations at 43 CFR 7). The act also provides civil and criminal penalties for removal of, or damage to, 

archeological and cultural resources. Historic properties are addressed in Volume 2, Chapter 9. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA [25 USC 3001 et seq. and 

its implementing regulations at 43 CFR 10]) provides for the protection and repatriation of Native American 

human remains and cultural items and requires notification of the relevant Native American tribe upon 

accidental discovery of cultural items. Resources covered by NAGPRA are addressed in Volume 2, 

Chapter 9, and the process for handling these resources is included in the national and park-specific 

programmatic agreements. 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1979 (AIRFA [42 USC 1996]) preserves for American 

Indians and other indigenous groups the right to express traditional religious practices, including access to 

sites under federal jurisdiction. Regulatory AIRFA guidance is lacking, although most land-managing federal 

agencies have developed internal procedures to comply with the act. Access to American Indian traditional 

religious practice sites is addressed in the parkwide programmatic agreement (1999 PA) and will be 

addressed in further detail in the plan-specific programmatic agreement. 

Executive Order No. 13007: Indian Sacred Sites 

Executive Order 13007 directs federal agencies with statutory or administrative responsibility for the 

management of federal lands, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, to accommodate access to and 

ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by American Indian religious practitioners and avoid adversely 

affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites. Access to and ceremonial use of American Indian sacred 

sites is addressed in the parkwide programmatic agreement (1999 PA) and will be addressed in further detail 

in the plan-specific programmatic agreement. 

1998 Concessions Management Improvement Act (Public Law 105-391) 

In 1998, with the objective of improving concessions and increasing competition of contracts, Congress 

enacted the 1998 Concessions Management Improvement Act. Some of the major changes incorporated 

into the 1998 act include reduced preferential right situations, franchise fee distribution changes, new 

competitive bid requirements, and increased accountability and oversight. The 1998 act requires that 

contracts for visitor facilities and services “... be limited to those that are necessary and appropriate for 

public use and enjoyment...” of the national park area in which they are located “... and that are consistent to 

the highest practicable degree with the preservation and conservation of the areas ... .” Title 36 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 51) outlines the requirements for the preservation of the parks and 

administration of commercial service operations. The Merced River Plan/DEIS will establish the extent 
Legal and Policy Framework 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 2-7 

necessary determination for commercial use in Wilderness areas of the river corridor in compliance with 

this act. It will also analyze necessary and appropriate public-use facilities in the river corridor. 

Merced River Plan’s Legal History 

In 2009, the NPS settled a long running lawsuit challenging the adequacy of the two prior versions of the 

Merced River Plan. This section summarizes the history of the lawsuit and the relevance of the 2009 

Settlement Agreement to the development of the 2013 Merced River Plan/DEIS. 

In August 2000, the NPS completed the first iteration of the Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive 

Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement (2000 Merced River Plan). Two organizations—

Friends of Yosemite Valley and Mariposans for the Environment and Responsible Government (formerly 

Mariposans for Environmentally Responsible Growth)—sued the NPS in the U.S. District Court for the 

Eastern District of California alleging that the 2000 Merced River Plan violated both WSRA and NEPA. The 

district court ruled in the NPS’ favor on most issues, and the two plaintiff organizations appealed the case to 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court (Ninth Circuit Court). On appeal, the Ninth Circuit 

Court reversed the decision of the district court. Of particular importance, the Ninth Circuit Court found 

that the 2000 Merced River Plan failed to adequately address user capacities. In its 2003 opinion, the Ninth 

Circuit Court stated that under WSRA, a comprehensive management plan must include “specific 

measurable limits on use;” and that it must “deal with or discuss the maximum number of people that can be 

received” in a Wild and Scenic River corridor. The Ninth Circuit Court also found that the NPS had 

improperly drawn the boundary for the El Portal segment of the river. 

In June 2005, the NPS prepared the Merced Wild and Scenic River Revised Comprehensive Management 

Plan/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (2005 Revised Merced River Plan), in response. Then, in 

November 2005, the same plaintiffs challenged the Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS under WSRA and NEPA. 

In 2006, the district court found that the 2005 Revised Merced River Plan failed to address user capacity in 

accordance with Ninth Circuit Court’s 2003 opinion. The district court also concluded that the 2005 Revised 

Merced River Plan failed to comply with NEPA because it was not prepared as a “self-contained” plan, it did 

not have a true No Action alternative, and because it had an inadequate range of alternatives. 

The NPS appealed the district court’s ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court. In 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court 

issued an opinion upholding the district court ruling. The Ninth Circuit Court found that the 2005 Revised 

Merced River Plan was “reactionary” because it did not describe an actual level of visitor use that will not 

adversely affect the ORVs of the Merced River. In the court’s view, the 2005 Revised Merced River Plan’s 

“Visitor Experience and Resource Protection” framework failed to satisfy the user-capacity mandate of the 

WSRA because the framework did not trigger management action before degradation occurred. The Ninth 

Circuit Court also held that the plan’s interim visitor-use limits were based on current capacities and that 

the NPS did not demonstrate how such limits would protect and enhance river values. Regarding NEPA, the 

court held that the range of actions in the alternatives was unreasonably narrow, that the plan should have 

been prepared as a single, comprehensive document; and that the No Action Alternative should not have 

included elements of the invalid 2000 Merced River Plan. 

The NPS entered into mediation with the plaintiffs in fall 2008 in an effort to resolve the litigation and agree 

upon a schedule for preparing the next version of the Merced River Plan. A court-mediated settlement 

agreement was executed Sept. 29, 2009. The 2009 Settlement Agreement directs that the Merced River Plan 

be completed by July 2013. (The settlement originally called for the plan to be completed by December 
THE PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ‘MERCED RIVER PLAN’ 

2-8 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

2012, but in 2011, the parties extended the deadline by six months.) The settlement agreement provides that 

the NPS will prepare the plan with the assistance of designated user-capacity experts and that there will be 

extensive, frequent and robust public involvement in the development of the plan. The settlement 

agreement acknowledges that the new MRP may include both site-specific and programmatic elements. The 

NPS may also retain the boundaries, classifications and Section 7 process from the 2005 Revised Merced 

River Plan. However, the settlement agreement requires NPS to develop revised outstanding remarkable 

values and a revised user capacity program in accordance with applicable legal directives including the 

Ninth Circuit Court’s opinions discussed above. 

Until the new plan is complete, the settlement agreement limits the types of actions that the NPS can 

conduct in the river corridor. In general, the NPS may undertake routine, intermittent and operational 

actions within the corridor. The NPS cannot construct new roads, parking spaces, bridges, large structures 

or overnight accommodations. The NPS also cannot take actions that would pre-determine user capacity in 

any segments of the river. 

Interrelationships with ‘General Management Plan’ for Yosemite (1980) 

The 1980 General Management Plan for Yosemite National Park (GMP), as amended by the 1992 Concession 

Services Plan, is the overall management document for Yosemite National Park. The Merced River 

Plan/DEIS will amend parts of the GMP, as directed in the 1987 legislation designating the Merced River as a 

Wild and Scenic River. In addition, an appendix to the 2009 Settlement Agreement states that the NPS will 

“define how the Plan/EIS will amend the 1980 Yosemite General Management Plan” in the Merced River 

Plan/DEIS. Appendix A describes the amendments to the GMP proposed in the Merced River Plan/DEIS. 

The Merced River Plan/DEIS reflects the overarching goals and objectives of the GMP. The NPS has 

implemented or partially-implemented many river-related actions of the GMP, and the results of these actions 

are considered elements of the No Action Alternative described in “Alternatives” (Chapter 8). Some GMP 

actions have not been implemented to date, and the NPS considered inclusion of a comprehensive GMP 

alternative that would include all the outstanding GMP actions in the Merced River corridor in the Merced 

River Plan/DEIS. The NPS did not carry this idea forward, as a comprehensive GMP alternative would not be 

feasible as a stand-alone alternative. For example, some GMP actions do not meet the requirements of WSRA, 

as the Congress designated the Merced Wild and Scenic River in 1987 after the GMP was established in 1980. 

A stand-alone “GMP alternative” would be missing some components required in a comprehensive Wild and 

Scenic River management plan (Table 2-1). Instead, outstanding actions of the GMP in the river corridor are 

considered as part of the range of alternatives in the Merced River Plan/DEIS if they are actions that guide river 

protection and public use in the river corridor, protect and enhance river values, and establish a visitor 

capacity that is protective of these values. The NPS used the planning framework described in “Alternatives” 

(Chapter 8) to determine which GMP actions would be included in the alternatives. 

GMP Actions Presented in the ‘Merced River Plan/DEIS’ 

The NPS has implemented many GMP actions that continue to play a substantial role in protecting and 

enhancing Merced River values. In 1982, construction began on a large tertiary sewage treatment plant in 

El Portal, and since that time, the system has had regular upgrades that help to protect the water quality of the 

Merced River. In 1984, Congress designated 95% of Yosemite as part of the National Wilderness Preservation 

System, and about 70% of the Merced River corridor became designated Wilderness. In the years between 
Legal and Policy Framework 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 2-9 

1985 and 1986, the NPS permanently closed the hydroelectric plant and penstock in Segment 3 (the Gorge). 

The Cascades Dam was removed in 2003, and, soon after, a small dam upstream of Happy Isles was removed. 

As a result of these actions to restore the free-flowing condition of the river, the Merced River’s main stem 

from its headwaters to the western border of the El Portal Administrative Site is free of all impoundments. The 

replacement bridge over the South Fork Merced River in Wawona was constructed without in-channel piers, 

enhancing the free-flowing condition of the river. In addition, the NPS restored the Wawona Covered Bridge 

in 1983 to address structural safety hazards. Many river-related ecological restoration actions, including 

removal of underground infrastructure in meadows and the river channel, protect and enhance river values. 

Types of ‘MRP/DEIS’ Actions that Differ from the ‘General Management Plan’ 

A key goal of the GMP is to “markedly reduce traffic congestion,” ultimately leading to removal of private 

vehicles in Yosemite Valley. The Merced River Plan/DEIS examines a range of alternatives that markedly 

reduce traffic congestion and are feasible under current conditions. Alternatives 2-6 propose enhancements 

to circulation and parking, expand the regional public transit system, and propose new service between 

Fresno and Yosemite Valley. These actions reflect the ultimate goals of the GMP. While reducing traffic 

congestion, none of the alternatives proposes the complete removal of private vehicles in Yosemite Valley 

for reasons that include: 

 The infrastructure to support a system to transport all visitors into Yosemite Valley is not in place, 

and the funding required to develop a large internal system is not available. 

 The large amount of buildable land required for satellite parking lots in El Portal, Crane Flat, and 

Wawona (as proposed in the GMP) is not available due to resource constraints and other issues. 

 The complex planning process required to develop an external regional transportation system is 

not possible to complete within the court-mandated timeframe to complete this plan. 

The Merced River Plan/DEIS uses a more detailed approach to address the issues of visitor use and user 

capacity than the GMP. Since establishment of the GMP, a legal record has been established for the Merced 

River, interpreting the mandates of the WSRA and Secretarial Guidelines with regard to the issues of visitor 

use and user capacity. The GMP does not propose limits on the number of day users in the park but 

acknowledges that this may be necessary sometime in the future. The GMP achieves appropriate overnightand day-use levels by limiting the number of overnight accommodations, campsites, and day-use parking 

spaces available. It directs the park to restrict access when the park reaches these capacities. The U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated “although the WSRA does not preclude basing user capacity limits 

on current capacity limits, NPS’ decision to base many of its interim limits on current capacity limits was not 

‘founded on a reasoned evaluation of the relevant factors’ ” (Yosemite I, 348 F.3d at 793). The NPS must 

“adopt specific limits on user capacity” that “describe an actual level of visitor use that will not adversely 

impact” river values. The Merced River Plan/DEIS adopts a process to address user capacity that meets this 

mandate, as described in “Visitor Use and User Capacity” (Chapter 6). 

The 1997 flood was the largest flood in the Merced River corridor since the establishment of the Happy Isles 

Gauging Station in 1916. This flood changed the landscape of the river corridor, making some GMP actions 

infeasible. For example, before the 1997 flood, the GMP prescribed 768 total campsites in Yosemite Valley 

(not counting Backpackers Campground). After the flood, the NPS removed campsites damaged by the flood, 

and 466 campsites remain in Yosemite Valley. The Merced River Plan/DEIS evaluates areas in Yosemite Valley 

for potential new campsites and proposes campsite totals ranging from 450 campsites (Alternative 2) to 
THE PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ‘MERCED RIVER PLAN’ 

2-10 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

739 campsites (Alternative 6). All campsite totals are lower than prescribed in the GMP because some campsite 

locations of the GMP would not protect and enhance river values as directed by WSRA. 

The Merced River Plan/DEIS does not include some GMP actions related to the level of commercial services 

in Yosemite Valley. The Opinion of the Eastern District of California in 20082 refers to levels of facilities and 

services operating within the river corridor, and the need to ensure that all facilities and services protect and 

enhance the river’s unique values. The Merced River Plan/DEIS expands on the GMP objective “to permit 

only those levels and types of accommodations and services necessary for visitor use and enjoyment of 

Yosemite” and meet the mandates of WSRA. The Merced River Plan/DEIS evaluates every major facility in 

the river corridor as to whether it is essential, or necessary to meet the visitor experience desired under each 

alternative (see “Facilities and Services Analysis” Chapter 7). For example, the Merced River Plan’s 

Alternative 5, as well as the GMP, retains 232 units at Housekeeping Camp, but the plan’s Alternative 5 also 

proposes removal of the small grocery store at Housekeeping Camp. 

Some actions prescribed in the GMP ultimately differed after they went through a site-specific NEPA 

planning process. For example, the GMP specifies a parking area with 50 parking spaces at the base of the 

trail to lower Yosemite Falls. In the environmental assessment process to develop a site-specific plan for the 

area, the NPS determined that the parking area would not fit the overall design vision for the area, and 

selected an alternative to relocate the parking and convert the area to natural conditions. Under 

Alternatives 2-6 in the Merced River Plan/DEIS, the Lower Yosemite Falls area remains in its current 

configuration, as described in the No Action alternative. 

The comprehensive alternatives proposed in the Merced River Plan/DEIS integrate GMP actions that meet 

the purpose and need of the plan and integrate additional actions necessary actions to meet the 

requirements of the WSRA. While the GMP is the overarching management document for Yosemite, the 

Merced River Plan/DEIS does not evaluate a stand-alone GMP alternative, as it would not meet the purpose 

and need of the plan and the requirements of the WSRA. In addition, the GMP does not include necessary 

actions to protect and enhance river values, address user capacity issues, or remove facilities that are not 

essential or necessary under WSRA. The Merced River Plan/DEIS will amend the GMP to meet the 

requirements of WSRA, the Secretarial Guidelines, and the legal record. In the future, the Tuolumne River 

Plan and the Wilderness Stewardship Plan are expected to amend additional portions of the GMP. The NPS 

plans to prepare a comprehensive document integrating recent amendments to the GMP, after the 

respective Record of Decisions are signed. 

Interrelationships with other Plans and Projects 

In addition to the complex legal framework of the Merced River Plan/DEIS, the following Yosemite-specific 

plans play a role in the planning framework. 

 Concession Services Plan (1992). This plan supplements the 1980 General Management Plan for 

Yosemite National Park. Revisions to certain concession services action items of the General 

Management Plan are described, and the environmental consequences of those items are evaluated. 

The final plan reduced overall lodging, replaced lodging at Yosemite Lodge with economy cabins 

and cottages rather than motel units, retained 150 tent cabins at Curry Village (rather than 100), and 

increased food service seats, among other actions. 

 

2 Friends of Yosemite v. Kempthorne, 520 F.3d 1024, 1035-36 (Ninth Circuit, 2008) [hereafter FYVIII]. 
Legal and Policy Framework 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 2-11 

 Fire Management Plan (2004). This plan guides a complex fire management program, which 

oversees wildland fire suppression, wildland fire used to achieve natural and cultural resource 

benefits, fire prevention, prescribed fire, fire ecology research, and the use of mechanical methods 

to reduce and thin vegetation in and around communities. Actions prescribed in the Fire 

Management Plan will help achieve natural resource goals of the Merced River Plan/DEIS. 

 Scenic Vista Management Plan (2010). This plan describes a program to document, protect, reestablish, and maintain Yosemite’s important viewpoints that is consistent with the natural 

processes and human influences that created them. The plan is adopted for the viewpoints within 

the Merced River corridor, but the analysis and specific actions related to those viewpoints would 

be directed by the Merced River Plan/Final EIS. 

 Invasive Plant Management Plan Update (2011). This plan updates the 2008 Invasive Plant 

Management Plan to create a more comprehensive and adaptive plan for protecting Yosemite’s 

natural and cultural resources from non-native, invasive plants. This plan may be amended when 

the Tuolumne River and Merced river plans are completed. 

 Ahwahnee Comprehensive Rehabilitation Plan (2012). This plan brings The Ahwahnee into 

compliance with the California Historical Building Code (2010), improves operational efficiencies, 

enhances visitor experience, and protects and preserves the historic integrity of this National 

Historic Landmark. The Ahwahnee is within the Merced River corridor, and proposed 

rehabilitation of the cultural landscape at The Ahwahnee is largely deferred to future site planning 

efforts, pending finalization of the Merced River Plan/DEIS. 

 Curry Village Rock-Fall Hazard Zone Structures Plan (2012). This plan re-aligns the boundary of 

the previous rock-fall hazard zone in Curry Village in response to recent scientific inquiry. To reduce 

rock-fall risk, the NPS closed or repurposed structures within the updated rock-fall hazard zone. 

 Yosemite Wilderness Management Plan (1989). The Yosemite Wilderness was established by the 

California Wilderness Act of 1984. The Committee Report accompanying the 1984 act contains 

recommendations for managing Yosemite Wilderness regarding operational and environmental 

impacts. The Yosemite Wilderness Management Plan responded to those recommendations in 

addition to a number of objectives identified through condition reports and other research. The 

objectives of the Yosemite Wilderness Management Plan that pertain to the Merced River Plan

regard: 1) Human-Induced Change: NPS will impose limits on human-induced change and will 

establish maximum use levels and quotas to accomplish this objective. 2) Wilderness Experience: 

Visitors can find a variety of wilderness experiences in keeping with traditional use patterns and 

select the degree of crowding, solitude, and human impact they wish to experience. 3) Wilderness 

Values: NPS will provide educational and interpretive media and programs to facilitate greater 

understanding and appreciation of wilderness values and to help visitors minimize resource 

impacts. 4) Wilderness Facilities: Facilities, including safety railings, in Yosemite wilderness will be 

limited to those currently present or specifically proposed in this plan. Further facilities would 

compromise NPS responsibilities in wilderness management. 

 Yosemite Wilderness Stewardship Plan (n progress). This plan is in the early stages of data 

collection, and public scoping has not commenced. Decisions made in the Merced River Plan/DEIS

regarding wilderness values, wilderness facilities, use limits, designated camping areas, the Merced 

Lake High Sierra Camp, and restoration activities may be revisited in the forthcoming Yosemite 

Wilderness Stewardship Plan as part of the park’s overall wilderness planning effort. The Merced 

River Plan/DEIS will not constrain the range of alternatives to be considered in the wilderness 

stewardship plan, and Wilderness Stewardship Plan decisions may supersede those made in the 

Merced River Plan. Stewardship strategies developed for the wilderness plan may affect day and 

overnight use of other trails that lead to the Merced River corridor. Such changes could, in turn, 

affect use levels. Any such changes would be evaluated comprehensively in the Yosemite 

Wilderness Stewardship Plan. 
THE PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ‘MERCED RIVER PLAN’ 

2-12 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

 Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan (in progress). The NPS is 

preparing a comprehensive management plan for the Tuolumne River in Yosemite, designated as a 

Wild and Scenic River in 1984. The NPS expects the Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River 

Comprehensive Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement to be released about the 

same time as the Merced River Plan/DEIS. While the two river corridors do not overlap, these two 

plans have a similar approach and organization. 

 Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias Restoration Plan (in progress). The Mariposa Grove of 

Giant Sequoias lies outside the Merced River corridor, but some visitor parking and transit facilities 

that serve the Mariposa Grove are located in the river corridor in Wawona. Decisions in the Merced 

River Plan/DEIS concerning land uses in Wawona would influence the span of decisions made 

during the Mariposa Grove planning process. 

 Half Dome Trail Stewardship Plan (in progress). The purpose of this plan is to respond to an 

urgent need to address safety and wilderness character on the Half Dome trail. Visitor safety and 

Wilderness resource protection are necessary for the management of park operations. While the 

project area of the Half Dome Trail Stewardship Plan is well outside of the Merced River corridor, 

the establishment and management of use standards on the Half Dome trail may affect use patterns 

along trails in the river corridor between Happy Isles and Little Yosemite Valley. The user-capacity 

management for Wilderness areas in the Merced River corridors may affect day and overnight use 

of trails that access Half Dome. The Half Dome Trail Stewardship Plan would be amended if the 

river plans determine that protection and enhancement of river values requires adjustments to the 

use of the Half Dome trail. 

“Cumulative Actions” (Appendix B) describes additional plans related to the Merced River Plan/DEIS. 

Comprehensive Wild and Scenic River Management Plan Requirements 

WSRA and the Secretarial Guidelines direct managing agencies to develop a Comprehensive Wild and 

Scenic River Management Plan for each designated river. Table 2-1 displays the specific elements included 

in the Merced River Plan/DEIS that encompass the Comprehensive Wild and Scenic River Management Plan 

(Figure 1-2). These elements include those mandated in WSRA, the Secretarial Guidelines, and 

recommendations of the Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council (referred to as the 

Interagency Council from this point). The Interagency Council is not a decision-making body, rather its goal is 

to improve interagency coordination in administering WSRA, improving service to the American public and 

enhancing protection of important river resources. The Interagency Council recommends inclusion of the 

following key components in a comprehensive river management plan (Interagency Council 2010): 

 A description of resource conditions including detailed description of river values (free-flowing 

condition, water quality, and ORVs 

 Goals and desired conditions to protect a river’s free-flowing condition, water quality, and ORVs 

 Direction for visitor use and capacity management 

 A framework for future development and activities on federal lands in the river corridor 

 A monitoring strategy specifically related to protecting the river’s free-flowing condition, water 

quality, and ORVs 
Identification of Planning Issues: Public and Internal Scoping 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 2-13 

TABLE 2-1: ELEMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE WILD AND SCENIC RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN

Objective Primary Reference1 Chapter in the 

Draft Merced River Plan/DEIS 

Document river boundaries and classify river 

segments as wild, scenic, or recreational 

 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Section 3 

[d]) 

 Secretaries’ Guidelines (Section II) 

Chapter 3: Merced Wild and Scenic 

Boundaries and Segment Classifications 

Provide a clear process for protection of the 

river’s free-flowing condition in keeping 

with Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act 

 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Section 7) Chapter 4: Section 7 of the Wild and 

Scenic River Act – Determination Process 

for Water Resources Projects 

Clearly describe the river’s outstandingly 

remarkable values (ORVs), which are the 

unique, rare, or exemplary river-related 

characteristics that make the river eligible 

for inclusion in the National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System 

 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

(Section 3[d]) 

 Interagency Council (2010) 

Chapter 5: River Values and Their 

Management 

Establish a management program to 

protect and enhance the river’s 

outstandingly remarkable values, freeflowing condition, and water quality 

 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

(Section 3[d]) 

 Secretarial Guidelines (Section III) 

 Interagency Council (2010) 

Chapter 5: River Values and Their 

Management 

Determine the type and location of lands 

and facilities (both current and future) that 

provide for public use while protecting and 

enhancing river values 

 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

(Section 3[d]) 

 Secretarial Guidelines (Section III) 

Chapter 5: River Values and Their 

Management (Existing Facilities Analysis) 

Chapter 6: Visitor Use and User Capacity

Chapter 8: Alternatives 

Address user capacities; determine the 

quantity and mixture of recreation types 

and other public uses that can be allowed 

without causing adverse effects or 

degradation of river values 

 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

(Section 3[d]) 

 Secretarial Guidelines (Section III) 

 Interagency Council (2010) 

Chapter 6: Visitor Use and User Capacity 

(Note that user capacity determinations 

build on information in Chapter 5) 

Chapter 7: Facilities and Services 

Analysis 

Chapter 8: Alternatives 

1 Secretarial Guidelines – National Wild and Scenic Rivers System: Final Revised Guidelines for Eligibility, Classification and 

Management of River Areas; Interagency Council – Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council 

IDENTIFICATION OF PLANNING ISSUES: PUBLIC AND INTERNAL SCOPING 

The NPS sought to understand and consider input from the public, NPS staff, subject-matter experts, 

culturally-associated American Indian tribes, and other federal, state, and local agencies, as part of an extensive 

public planning process for the Merced River Plan/DEIS. The NPS conducted an open process, referred to as 

“scoping,” to identify and determine the scope of issues to be addressed in the environmental analysis. 

During public scoping periods, the NPS collected written comments and conducted public workshops. The 

NPS considered 1,464 correspondences received since 2007 as part of this current planning process, as well as 

those received during earlier iterations of the Merced River Plan (see “Legal History” section in this chapter). 

Public workshops provide an opportunity for the public, the NPS planning team, and subject-matter experts to 

interact. Since 2007, the NPS has held approximately 40 Merced River Plan public workshops or webinars 

related to the Merced River Plan/DEIS: 

 2007 Public Scoping (three public meetings or webinars) 

 2009 Public Scoping (10 public meetings or webinars) 

 2010 ORV Interim Public Comment Period (seven public meetings or webinars) 
THE PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ‘MERCED RIVER PLAN’ 

2-14 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

 2011 Baseline conditions report interim public comment period (six public meetings or webinars) 

 2011alternative development workshop interim public comment period (six public meetings or 

webinars) 

 2012 preliminary alternative concepts workshops (six public meetings or webinars) 

The NPS will continue facilitating workshops throughout the development of the final Merced River 

Plan/EIS. “Consultation and Coordination” (Chapter 10) includes a complete list of public meetings to date 

and more detail on the plan’s scoping process. 

Internal scoping, including consultation with culturally associated tribes, other public agencies, and park 

staff, began with a comprehensive review of the river’s outstandingly remarkable values, and continued 

through development of this draft plan. The interests and concerns of the tribes and other government 

agencies will continue to be gathered concurrently with the general public process throughout the 

development of the final plan. 

Issues and Opportunities to be Addressed in the ‘Merced River Plan/DEIS’ 

The NPS analyzed public comments submitted in the period from 2007 to 2012 to assist with identification 

of issues and opportunities to be addressed in the Merced River Plan/DEIS. Throughout this time, the 

internal planning process generated additional issues and opportunities. Table 2-2 lists the issues and 

opportunities identified during this period. The NPS integrated the issues, opportunities, and associated 

actions into a range of alternatives. In general, the Merced River Plan/DEIS addresses issues that would 

protect and enhance river values; facilitate appropriate visitor use and associated user capacity in the river 

corridor; and determine appropriate types, sizes, and suitable locations of facilities needed to support visitor 

use. Issues considered outside the scope of this plan are described in the “Issues Beyond the Scope and 

Direction of this Plan” section in this chapter (see Table 2-3). 

TABLE 2-2: ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN PUBLIC SCOPING

General Planning Issues

General 

 The NPS should detail the specifics of project components, such as the types of campgrounds or the location of 

road alignments. 

 The NPS should conduct formal consultation on the Merced River Plan/DEIS with American Indian tribes who 

claim traditional association with Yosemite National Park. 

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values 

General Restoration 

 The NPS should prioritize protection and enhancement of resource-based river values over recreational values. 

 The NPS should not ecologically restore the Merced River corridor to a static snapshot but should protect a dynamic ecological system. 

 The NPS should consider the ecological impacts of removing facilities in the river corridor. 

 The NPS should use a 150-foot riparian buffer for all infrastructure, rather than the 100-year floodplain. 

Biological 

 The NPS should restore the ecological function of Yosemite Valley meadows. 

 The NPS should partially restore Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area (Camp 6) to natural conditions. 

 The NPS should manage conifers in Yosemite Valley to restore views and the ecological function of meadows. 
Identification of Planning Issues: Public and Internal Scoping 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 2-15 

TABLE 2-2: ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN PUBLIC SCOPING

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values (continued) 

 The NPS should examine the impacts of stock use on non-native plant dispersal, water quality, birds, native 

vegetation, and the visitor experience. 

 The NPS should consider additional mitigation measures for continued use of stock animals. 

 The NPS should map critical habitat for recovery of special-status wildlife species and address actions to protect 

and enhance this habitat. 

 The NPS should remove parking at the El Portal Administrative Site from sensitive areas. 

 The NPS should designate river access points and direct visitor use to resilient beach locations. 

 The NPS should allow roadside parking on edges of meadows, with fencing to protect meadow resources. 

Hydrology/Geology/Free-Flowing Condition/Water Quality 

 The NPS should restore riverbanks by removing riprap and restoring riparian vegetation. 

 The NPS should remove Sugar Pine, Ahwahnee, and Stoneman bridges to protect and enhance the free-flowing condition of the river. 

 The NPS should not remove the historic bridges as they provide opportunities for scenic viewing that is protective of other river values. 

 The NPS should consider the use of holding panels to protect bridges and river flow with openings, arches, or 

culverts to accommodate high flow without causing additional impacts to free-flowing condition. 

 The NPS should reduce the number of units at Housekeeping Camp to protect the river. 

 The NPS should remove or relocate campsites that are too close to the river, so as to protect riparian habitat. 

 The NPS should consider the full effects of adding remote parking in El Portal, including the impact on the river. 

 The NPS should remove unnecessary, abandoned, or inappropriate infrastructure, such as the Greenemeyer sand pit, and allow site restoration. 

Scenic and Cultural Resources 

 The NPS should identify goals, measurable objectives, and management prescriptions that explain specifically how 

the agency will define, protect, and enhance the cultural outstandingly remarkable value (ORV). 

 The NPS should retain historic bridges due to their important cultural value and their ability to provide for traffic 

flow on peak days in Yosemite Valley. 

 The NPS should adequately define and collaboratively monitor the ethnographic component of the cultural ORV 

in Yosemite Valley. 

 The NPS should protect and enhance traditional cultural resources (including archeological sites, scenic resources, 

and natural resources with traditional cultural uses) that represent a continuum of cultural heritage connecting 

contemporary people to the archeological sites of their ancestors in the park. 

 The NPS should consider removing the abandoned sewage treatment plant at El Portal but take measures to 

protect the prehistoric burials in the area and consult with traditionally associated American Indians. 

 The NPS should protect archeological resources by removing infrastructure and visitor uses from sensitive areas.

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management 

Facilities and Services 

 The NPS should clearly explain the process for analyzing major facilities in the river corridor. 

 The NPS should remove/relocate obsolete or unnecessary infrastructure. 

 The NPS should not reduce facilities with the assumption that the removal benefits the majority of people. 

The NPS should first identify appropriate visitor facilities and services necessary for the protection and enhancement of ORVs before determining transportation, user capacity, and parking requirements. 

 The NPS should not remove facilities, such as the Wawona Golf Course, if they are located outside the WSRA corridor and the 100-year floodplain. 

 The NPS should not remove, relocate, or re-design facilities, services, or activities that do not have a direct or indirect adverse effect on river values. 

 The NPS should not develop visitor facilities in the west end of Yosemite Valley because development should be 

concentrated in the east end of the Valley. 
THE PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ‘MERCED RIVER PLAN’ 

2-16 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

TABLE 2-2: ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN PUBLIC SCOPING

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management (continued) 

 The NPS should establish a limit for or reduce the amount of rafts on the river. 

 The NPS should allow year-round paddling on all sections of the Merced River, including the South Fork. 

 The NPS should provide more picnic areas in developed areas of the park. 

 The NPS should end use of commercial day rides within Yosemite Valley and close the commercial stables. 

 The NPS should remove or reduce hiker-stock conflicts on trails. 

 The NPS should continue to allow horseback riding in the Merced River corridor. 

 The NPS should continue stock support for trail maintenance. 

 The NPS should maintain the Wawona Impoundment to supply water to the Wawona community. 

 The NPS should consider development of camping, housing, office space, and parking in El Portal. 

 The NPS should not consider construction of administrative facilities in Section 35 in Wawona. 

 The NPS should improve access for people with disabilities. 

Visitor Overnight Services (Campgrounds and Lodging) 

 The NPS should maintain or increase the number of campsites in Yosemite Valley. 

 The NPS should develop increase and improve high-density walk-in camping, such as Camp 4, to reduce the 

sprawling nature of traditional campgrounds and their associated impacts to the natural landscape. 

 The NPS should not decrease the capacity of Yosemite Valley’s Backpackers Campground. 

 The NPS should segregate camping by type (RV, tent, and walk-in campgrounds) to support each person’s 

camping experience to the fullest. 

 The NPS should reduce campsites within the park and not rebuild those lost in the 1997 flood. 

 The NPS should not develop additional campgrounds west of Yosemite Lodge in Yosemite Valley. 

 The NPS should restore Upper and Lower River Campgrounds to natural conditions. 

 The NPS should replace the concessioner stables area in Yosemite Valley with additional camping. 

 The NPS should consider developing more group campgrounds in Yosemite Valley. 

 The NPS should increase camping and decrease lodging to improve access for lower-income families and to 

reduce the operational needs. 

 The NPS should not remove Yosemite Lodge or re-purpose the area as camping because it provides a mid-priced 

lodging opportunity. 

 The NPS should not reduce visitor lodging capacity in the park due to the loss of transient occupancy taxes for 

Mariposa County. 

 The NPS should remove the High Sierra Camps and restore the site. 

 The NPS should retain the High Sierra Camps at their current capacity. 

 The NPS should reduce the capacity of the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp. 

 The Merced Lake High Sierra Camp should be managed to protect its historic value. 

Housing

 The NPS should remove employee housing complexes that are at risk from rock falls. 

 The NPS should consider negative impacts on El Portal’s limited infrastructure, services, and community 

atmosphere before building high-density housing for concession employees. 

Transportation 

 The NPS should articulate how current and proposed transportation strategies affect ORVs. 

 The NPS should support private vehicle access to Yosemite Valley because it is more sustainable than out-of-park public transportation. 

 The NPS should encourage alternative transportation. 

 The NPS should not switch to a shuttle-only transportation system. 

 The NPS should implement a system to allow pedestrians to cross the road safely and not impede traffic. 

The NPS should construct pedestrian underpasses and roundabouts to improve traffic flow in Yosemite Valley. 
Identification of Planning Issues: Public and Internal Scoping 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 2-17 

TABLE 2-2: ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN PUBLIC SCOPING

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management (continued) 

 The NPS should consider an East Yosemite Valley day-use parking permit system. 

 The NPS should not construct pedestrian underpasses or roundabouts. 

 The NPS should use other transportation management tools before using a day-use parking permit system. 

 The NPS should develop parking in West Yosemite Valley. 

 The NPS should use real-time data to educate the visitor on the number of private vehicles allowed on a daily 

basis during the summer peak period. 

 The NPS should expand shuttle service between Wawona and other park locations. 

 The NPS should provide areas other than the Wawona Store for buses to park. 

 The NPS should develop remote parking lots outside of Yosemite Valley. 

 The NPS should develop additional employee parking at the El Portal Warehouse. 

Visitor Experience and User Capacity 

 The NPS should clearly define how user capacity will be determined. 

 The NPS should consider the impact of seasonal and location differences when evaluating user capacity. 

 The NPS should enforce user capacity to enhance the visitor experience and effectively protect resources. 

 The NPS should consider the socioeconomic impact of user capacity on surrounding gateway communities. 

 The NPS should establish a monitoring plan to ensure the effectiveness of use limits. 

 The NPS should maximize the use of the Merced River corridor as a recreational attraction and enable full 

accommodation of increased levels and intensities of visitor use. 

 The NPS should regulate access to sensitive areas within the park. 

 The NPS should not limit access to the park. 

 The NPS should establish user capacity based on vehicles rather than individual park visitors. 

 The NPS should not increase visitation because this would adversely affect the recreational ORV due to additional 

crowding and congestion at specific visitor-use areas. 

 The NPS should address how day use in Wilderness areas affects high-encounter rates and impacts to wilderness 

character. 

 The NPS should reduce the trailhead quotas for Wilderness areas to improve the wilderness experience. 

Issues beyond the Scope and Direction of this Plan 

This section describes the issues raised during public scoping and workshops that the NPS considered 

outside the scope and direction of the Merced River Plan/DEIS. “Alternatives” (Chapter 8) describes 

additional actions that were considered but dismissed in the plan. The NPS removed issues from 

consideration if they were: 

 Outside the scope of the plan 

 Already decided by law, regulation, or other higher-level decision 

 Not relevant to the decision to be made 

 Missing a valid cause and effect relationship 

 Associated with small effects relative to the decision to be made 

 Conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence 

 Unreasonable or infeasible because they would be cost prohibitive, violate law or policy, or 

contribute to other resource concerns or hazards 
THE PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ‘MERCED RIVER PLAN’ 

2-18 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS

 Inconsistent with the facilities and services analysis criteria (See Chapter 7) 

The following issues were considered beyond the scope and direction of the Merced River Plan/DEIS: 

TABLE 2-3: ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN PUBLIC SCOPING BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE ‘MERCED RIVER PLAN/DEIS’

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

 The NPS should design “smokeless campsites” with no fire rings in a portion of all Valley campgrounds to enhance 

the visitor experience for people with aversions to campfire smoke. 

 The NPS should eliminate roadside parking from El Capitan Meadow to enhance views and protect the meadow. 

 The NPS should allow roadside parking on the edges of meadows, which can be fenced to protect meadow 

resources. 

 The NPS should develop seasonal campgrounds in areas that are known to flood annually. 

 The NPS should increase development in Wilderness areas. 

 The NPS should change the Wilderness boundaries within Yosemite. 

 The NPS should consider altering the bridges over the Merced River to accommodate peak flood events and to 

correct unnatural widening of the river channel.

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management 

Facilities and Services 

 The NPS should develop more trails and other recreation opportunities throughout the park to disperse visitor use. 

 The NPS should consider moving administrative offices out of Yosemite Valley to El Portal or Mariposa. 

 The NPS should locate the concessioner general offices and the NPS administrative offices together, whether in 

Yosemite Valley, El Portal, or Mariposa, to maximize collaboration. 

 The NPS should not remove the Curry Village ice rink, Happy Isles snack stand, or Yosemite Lodge and Ahwahnee 

pools. 

 The NPS should encourage bicycle use through a non-profit bicycle exchange or park-run operation offering 

reasonable prices. 

 The NPS should not issue special-use permits for large, private events. 

Visitor Overnight Services (Campgrounds and Lodging) 

 The NPS should develop additional campgrounds outside of the river corridor. 

 The NPS should implement a tiered camping fee structure for its premium campsites. 

Transportation 

 The NPS should construct a remote parking area and visitor center in Foresta. 

 The NPS should increase the frequency and expand shuttle service between Yosemite Valley, Glacier Point, and 

Mariposa Grove. 

 The NPS should partner with local communities to develop remote transit centers and expanded public 

transportation. 

Visitor Experience and User Capacity 

 The NPS should manage permit and reservation systems that cannot be abused by speculative buyers and scalping. 

 The NPS should encourage the use of the larger Sierra Nevada environment surrounding Yosemite. 

 The NPS should address recreational opportunities that are accessed in the Merced River corridor, such as climbing, 

but do not necessarily occur in the river corridor.