Yosemite National Park National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Merced Wild and Scenic River 

Final Comprehensive Management Plan 

and Environmental Impact Statement 

Volume 1: Chapters 1–8 

February 2014 Providing Access and Protecting Resources 

This page intentionally left blank
Merced Wild and Scenic River

Final Comprehensive Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement

Yosemite National Park

Lead Agency: National Park Service

ABSTRACT

This Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement is 

intended to guide the management of the Merced Wild and Scenic River within the boundaries of Yosemite 

National Park for the next 20 or more years. The plan and its environmental impact statement, which evaluates the 

potential impacts of the plan and its range of alternatives, are integrated in this document and are referred to 

collectively as the Final Merced River Plan / EIS. 

The Final Merced River Plan directs the protection of the river’s free-flowing condition and the values that make it 

worthy of designation and will: 

• Establish the boundaries and segment classifications (as wild, scenic, or recreational) of the Merced Wild 

and Scenic River (see Chapter 3) and provide a clear process for protection of the river’s free-flowing 

condition in keeping with WSRA Section 7 (see Chapter 4).

• Refine descriptions of 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 and document the conditions of the ORVs, water quality, and free-flowing condition 

of the river (see Chapter 5). 

• Identify management objectives for the river and specific actions and/or programs that will be 

implemented to achieve the objectives, and commit to a program of ongoing studies and monitoring to 

ensure that river values are protected and enhanced over the life of the plan (see Chapter 5).

• Determine the type and location of lands and facilities (both current and future) that provide for public 

use and enjoyment of the river resource while protecting and enhancing river values (See Chapter 7).

• Establish a user-capacity program that addresses the kinds and amounts of public use that the river 

corridor can sustain while protecting and enhancing the river’s outstandingly remarkable values (see 

Chapters 6 and 7).

• 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 Final Merced River Plan / EIS presents and analyzes six alternatives. Alternative 1 (No Action) would continue 

current management and trends in the condition of river values. Action Alternatives 2-6 would protect and 

enhance river values by improving conditions that threaten sensitive meadows, archeological resources, and scenic 

vistas. The action alternatives vary primarily in the degree of restoration and the amount of visitor use that could be 

accommodated by the commensurate level of facilities and services necessary to protect river values under each 

scenario. 

This document is available for public inspection online at http://www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/mrp.htm. If you 

have questions regarding this document, please contact: Superintendent, Yosemite National Park, ATTN: Merced

River Plan, P.O. Box 577, Yosemite, California 95389. To request a printed copy or CD of this document (available 

in limited quantity), please email Yose_Planning@nps.gov.
This page intentionally left blank
Merced Wild and Scenic River 

Final Comprehensive Management Plan 

and Environmental Impact Statement 

Volume 1: Executive Summary & Chapters 1-8 

February 2014 

Yosemite National Park 

National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 
Cover photos:

Right: The Merced Wild and Scenic River reflects Yosemite Falls on a winter day. Photo copyright by 

Christine White Loberg

Top left: Park Ranger Erin Davenport talks to young visitors about archeological resources in 

Yosemite National Park. NPS photo

Center left: Park Ranger/Indian Cultural Demonstrator Ben Cunningham-Summerfield plays the flute 

in the Museum. NPS photo

Bottom left: Backpackers follow the Mist Trail across the Merced River. NPS photo by Jim Donovan
MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER

FINAL COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

Volume 1: Executive Summary and Chapters 1-8 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... ES-1 

Legal and Policy Framework .............................................................................................. ES-1 

Document Overview........................................................................................................... ES-2 

Alternative 5 (Preferred) Overview................................................................................... ES-4 

Summary of Changes Between Draft and Final Plan....................................................... ES-5 

1. THE MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER 1-1 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act............................................................................................ 1-2 

Regional Setting.................................................................................................................... 1-2 

Goals of the Final Merced River Plan / EIS.......................................................................... 1-3 

This Document’s Organization ............................................................................................ 1-4 

2. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE FINAL MERCED RIVER PLAN / EIS 2-1 

Purpose of and Need for the Plan ....................................................................................... 2-1 

Legal and Policy Framework ................................................................................................ 2-1 

Identification of Planning Issues: Public and Internal Scoping ....................................... 2-11

Issues and Opportunities to be Addressed in the Final Merced River Plan/EIS ................... 2-12

Issues beyond the Scope and Direction of this Plan.......................................................... 2-15 

3. MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER BOUNDARIES AND SEGMENT 

CLASSIFICATIONS 3-1

River Corridor Boundaries.................................................................................................... 3-1 

Wild and Scenic River Classifications .................................................................................. 3-2 

4. DETERMINATION PROCESS FOR WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS 4-1 

The Section 7 Determination Process................................................................................... 4-1

Federal Projects within the Bed and Banks of Tributaries to a Wild and Scenic River ...................4-2

Steps in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Section 7 Determination Process ...................................4-2

Flowcharts to Illustrate WSRA Section 7 Determination Process..................................................4-3

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS i 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

5. RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT 5-1 

Mandate to Protect and Enhance River Values .................................................................. 5-1 

The River Values of the Merced Wild and Scenic River..................................................... 5-1 

Free-Flowing Condition ..................................................................................................... 5-1 

Water Quality.................................................................................................................... 5-2 

Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) .......................................................................... 5-2 

Protecting and Enhancing River Values .............................................................................. 5-5 

Key Concepts for River Management under WSRA........................................................... 5-6 

River Value Condition, Protection, and Enhancement..................................................... 5-10

River Value: Free-flowing Condition................................................................................. 5-11

River Value: Water Quality ................................................................................................ 5-14

Biological ORVs ................................................................................................................... 5-19

Biological ORV 1—High-Elevation Meadows and Riparian Habitat................................... 5-20

Biological ORV 2—Mid-Elevation Meadows and Riparian Habitat .................................... 5-36

Biological ORV 3—Sierra Sweet Bay (Myrica hartwegii) .................................................... 5-58 

Geological and Hydrological ORVs.................................................................................... 5-61 

Geological/Hydrological ORV 4—Glacially-carved Canyon in Upper Merced River 

Canyon ........................................................................................................................ 5-62 

Geological/Hydrological ORV 5—“Giant Staircase” ......................................................... 5-63 

Geological/Hydrological ORV 6—A Rare, Mid-Elevation Alluvial River .............................. 5-64 

Geological/Hydrological ORV 7—Boulder Bar in El Portal ................................................. 5-68 

Cultural ORVs ...................................................................................................................... 5-68 

Cultural ORV 8—Yosemite Valley American Indian Ethnographic Resources.................... 5-70

Cultural ORV 9—Yosemite Valley Archeological District................................................... 5-78 

Cultural ORV 10—Yosemite Valley Historic Resources ..................................................... 5-86 

Cultural ORV 11—El Portal Archeological District ............................................................ 5-92 

Cultural ORV 12—Regionally Rare Archeological Features, including Rock Rings ............. 5-94 

Cultural ORV 13—Wawona Archeological District........................................................... 5-99 

Cultural ORV 14—Wawona Historic Resources.............................................................. 5-103 

Scenic ORVs ....................................................................................................................... 5-108 

Scenic ORV 15—Scenic Views in Wilderness.................................................................. 5-108 

Scenic ORV 16—Iconic Scenic Views in Yosemite Valley ................................................ 5-110

Scenic ORV 17—Scenic Views in the Merced River Gorge.............................................. 5-117 

Scenic ORV 18—Scenic Wilderness Views along the South Fork Merced River............... 5-120

Recreational ORVs............................................................................................................. 5-121

Recreational ORV 19—Wilderness Recreation above Nevada Fall ................................... 5-122

Recreational ORV 20—River-Related Recreation in Yosemite Valley ............................... 5-130

Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 5-139 

6. USER CAPACITY AND VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT 6-1 

Introduction and Background.............................................................................................. 6-1 

User Capacities for the Merced River Corridor................................................................... 6-4 

Units of Use....................................................................................................................... 6-4 

Location of Use ................................................................................................................. 6-4 

Timing of Use.................................................................................................................... 6-5 

Segment 1 (Wild): Merced River Above Nevada Fall........................................................... 6-5 

Segment 2A (Recreational) and Segment 2B (Scenic): Yosemite Valley............................. 6-11

Segment 3 (Scenic): Merced Gorge.................................................................................. 6-26

ii Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Table of Contents – Volume 1 

6. USER CAPACITY AND VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT (continued)

Segment 4 (Recreational): El Portal .................................................................................. 6-27 

Segment 5 (Wild): South Fork Merced River Above Wawona........................................... 6-29

Segments 6 and 7 (Recreational) Wawona Impoundment and Wawona.......................... 6-31 

Segment 8 (Wild): South Fork Merced River Below Wawona ........................................... 6-34 

7. DEVELOPMENT OF LANDS AND FACILITIES 7-1 

Legal Requirements Governing Development and Facilities ............................................ 7-1 

Segment Classifications and Facilities................................................................................. 7-1 

Limits on Major Public-use facilities.................................................................................... 7-2 

Judicial Opinions ............................................................................................................... 7-2 

Process Used to Evaluate Public-Use Facilities in this Plan................................................ 7-3 

Feasibility ........................................................................................................................... 7-3 

Necessary for Public Use or Resource Protection ................................................................ 7-3 

Adverse Impacts................................................................................................................ 7-6 

Results: Necessary Facilities for the Merced River Corridor.............................................. 7-6 

Relationship of this Analysis with other Chapters............................................................... 7-7 

8. ALTERNATIVES 8-1 

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 8-1 

The Process Used to Develop the Alternatives.................................................................... 8-1 

How the Alternatives are Organized .................................................................................. 8-6 

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative................................................................................... 8-9 

Overview........................................................................................................................... 8-9 

Maps................................................................................................ ..........8-15

Detailed Description of Alternative 1 (No Action)............................................................. 8-25 

Necessity of Major Public-use Facilities and Services......................................................... 8-38

Conceptual Site Drawings ............................................................................................... 8-39

Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6 ................................................................................ 8-47

Ecological Restoration Goals............................................................................................ 8-47

Ecological Restoration Actions Common To Alternative 2 – 6 .......................................... 8-47

Maps ............................................................................................................................... 8-51

Detailed Description of Actions Common To Alternative 2 – 6 ......................................... 8-63

Conceptual Site Drawings and Details Common To Alternative 2 – 6 .............................. 8-79

Alternative 2: Self-Reliant Visitor Experiences and Extensive Floodplain Restoration.... 8-87

Overview......................................................................................................................... 8-87

Maps....................................... ................................................................................ 8-93

Detailed Description of Alternative 2 by Segment.......................................................... 8-103

Conceptual Site Drawings ............................................................................................. 8-114

Alternative 3: Dispersed Visitor Experience And Extensive Riverbank Restoration... 8-123

Overview....................................................................................................................... 8-123

Maps............................................................................................................................. 8-129

Detailed Description of Alternative 3 by Segment.......................................................... 8-139

Conceptual Site Drawings ............................................................................................. 8-151 

Alternative 4: Resource-Based Visitor Experiences and Targeted Riverbank 

Restoration ........................................................................................................................ 8-159

Overview....................................................................................................................... 8-159

Maps............................................................................................................................. 8-167

Detailed Description of Alternative 4 by Segment.......................................................... 8-177

Conceptual Site Drawings ............................................................................................. 8-189

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

8. ALTERNATIVES (continued)

Alternative 5 (Preferred Alternative): Enhanced Visitor Experience and Essential 

River Bank Restoration..................................................................................................... 8-197

Overview....................................................................................................................... 8-197

Maps............................................................................................................................. 8-203

Detailed Description of Alternative 5 (Preferred) by Segment......................................... 8-213 

Summary of Changes between Draft and Final Plans..................................................... 8-226

Conceptual Site Drawings ............................................................................................. 8-227

Alternative 6: Diversified Visitor Experiences and Selective Riverbank Restoration.... 8-235 

Overview....................................................................................................................... 8-235 

Maps............................................................................................................................. 8-241

Detailed Description of Alternative 6 by Segment.......................................................... 8-251

Conceptual Site Drawings ............................................................................................. 8-263 

The Environmentally Preferable Alternative.................................................................. 8-271 

Legal Mandates............................................................................................................. 8-271 

Conformance ................................................................................................................ 8-271 

Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Further Analysis .................................... 8-273 

Cost Comparisons for the Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive 

Management Plan............................................................................................................. 8-275 

Anticipated Total Project Costs...................................................................................... 8-277 

Operational (or non-Facility) Costs................................................................................. 8-278 

Comparison of User Capacities and Alternatives Actions ............................................. 8-279 

Comprehensive River Value Analysis .............................................................................. 8-283

River Value – Free-flowing Condition (All Segments)...................................................... 8-283

River Value – Water Quality (All Segments).................................................................... 8-284

ORV 1 (Biological) – High-elevation Meadows and Riparian Habitat............................... 8-285

ORV 2 (Biological) – Mid-elevation Meadows and Riparian Habitat................................ 8-287

ORV 3 (Biological) – Sierra sweet bay............................................................................. 8-294

ORV 4 (Geological/Hydrological) – Glacially-carved Canyon in the 

Upper Merced River Canyon ................................................................................... 8-294

ORV 5 (Geological/Hydrological) – The “Giant Staircase” .............................................. 8-294

ORV 6 (Geological/Hydrological) – Rare, Mid-elevation Alluvial River.............................. 8-295

ORV 7 (Geological/Hydrological) – Boulder Bar in El Portal............................................. 8-300

ORV 8 (Cultural) – Yosemite Valley American Indian Ethnographic Resources................ 8-300

ORV 9 (Cultural) – Yosemite Valley Archeological District .............................................. 8-302

ORV 10 (Cultural) – Yosemite Valley Historic Resources................................................. 8-303

ORV 11 (Cultural) – The El Portal Archeological District .................................................. 8-304

ORV 12 (Cultural) – Regionally Rare Archeological Features........................................... 8-304

ORV 13 (Cultural) – Wawona Archeological District....................................................... 8-305

ORV 14 (Cultural) – Wawona Historic Resources............................................................ 8-306

ORV 15 (Scenic) – Wilderness Views .............................................................................. 8-307

ORV 16 (Scenic) – Iconic Views in Yosemite Valley......................................................... 8-307

ORV 17 (Scenic) – Views along the Merced River Gorge ................................................ 8-308

ORV 18 (Scenic) – Wilderness Views along the South Fork Merced River........................ 8-308

ORV 19 (Recreational) – Wilderness Recreation above Nevada Fall................................. 8-308

ORV 20 (Recreational) – River-related Recreation in Yosemite Valley.............................. 8-314

iv Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Table of Contents – Volume 1 

LIST OF FIGURES

1-1 Merced Wild and Scenic River Overview Map.......................................................................... 1-1 

1-2 MRP/EIS Document Organization ............................................................................................ 1-4 

1-3 MRP/EIS Appendix Organization.............................................................................................. 1-4 

3-1 Merced Wild and Scenic River Segment Boundaries and Classifications................................... 3-2 

4-1 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Section 7 Determination Process Flowchart ................................... 4-4 

4-2 Section 7 Determination: Flowchart for a Water Resources Project Within a Wild and 

Scenic River Corridor............................................................................................................ 4-5 

4-3 Section 7(a) Flowchart for a Water Resources Project Outside of a Wild and Scenic River 

Corridor............................................................................................................................... 4-6 

5-1 Informal Trails in Stoneman Meadow in 1978 and 2011....................................................... 5-28

5-2 Mean Relative Abundance of Five Riparian Focal Species in 2010-2011 in Relation to 

Percentage of Riparian Habitat (Black Cottonwood Temporarily Flooded Forest Alliance 

and Shining Willow Riparian Scrub) in eight Geomorphic Reaches in Yosemite Valley........ 5-51 

5-3 Point Count Locations (n = 24) within the Merced River Corridor in Yosemite Valley............. 5-54

5-4 Boundaries of the Two Stands for the Black Oaks ORV Indicator........................................... 5-75

5-5 Sample Contrast Analysis Rating Sheet ............................................................................... 5-114

5-6 Segment 1 Trail Segments for Monitoring Encounter Rates................................................. 5-127

5-7 Summer Visitor Activity Participation................................................................................... 5-132 

6-1 Segment 1 River Corridor and Wilderness Zones..................................................................... 6-8 

6-2 El Capital Cross-over Traffic Diversion ................................................................................... 6-25

6-3 Segment 5 River Corridor and Wilderness Zones................................................................... 6-31

8-1 Creating Alternatives for Merced River Plan............................................. ........... .........8-2 

8-2 Components of the Final Merced River Plan/EIS Alternatives................................ ..... ......8-7 

8-3 Segment 1 River Corridor Wilderness Zones.......................................................................... 8-26

8-4 Comparison of meadow condition after installing fences and redirecting use ....................... 8-67

8-5 Impacts of stock trail through riparian habitat....................................................................... 8-68

8-6 River access point at Lower Pines Campground to be restored..............................................8-68

8-7 Existing river access point at Swinging Bridge (left) and new access point (right)................... 8-69

8-8 Roadside parking along Cook’s Meadow to be removed and restored .................................. 8-70

8-9 Remaining asphalt in closed portion of Lower Pines Campground......................................... 8-70

8-10 Existing river access point at Lower Pines Campground (left) and new access points 

(middle and right) ............................................................................................................. 8-71

8-11 Existing conditions at Greenemeyer Sandpit (left) and target conditions 

(middle and right)...................................................... ................................ ..........8-77

MAPS

Alternative 1: No Action: Curry Village and Campgrounds.................................................................. 8-15

Alternative 1: No Action: Yosemite Village and Housekeeping Camp.................................................. 8-19

Alternative 1: No Action: Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4....................................................................... 8-21

Alternative 1: No Action: El Portal, West Yosemite Valley.................................................................... 8-23

Alternative 1: No Action: Merced Lake High Sierra Camp and Wawona.............................................. 8-25

Common to All Action Alternatives: Curry Village and Campgrounds ................................................. 8-51

Common to All Action Alternatives: Yosemite Village and Housekeeping Camp ................................. 8-53

Common to All Action Alternatives: Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4...................................................... 8-55

Common to All Action Alternatives: West Yosemite Valley.................................................................. 8-57

Common to All Action Alternatives: Merced Lake High Sierra Camp and El Portal............................... 8-59

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS v 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Maps (continued)

Common to All Action Alternatives: Wawona..................................................................................... 8-61

Alternative 2: Curry Village and Campgrounds.................................................................................... 8-93

Alternative 2: Yosemite Village and Housekeeping Camp ................................................................... 8-95

Alternative 2: Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4 ........................................................................................ 8-97

Alternative 2: El Portal, West Yosemite Valley ..................................................................................... 8-99

Alternative 2: Merced Lake High Sierra Camp and Wawona ............................................................. 8-101

Alternative 3: Curry Village and Campgrounds.................................................................................. 8-129

Alternative 3: Yosemite Village and Housekeeping Camp ................................................................. 8-131

Alternative 3: Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4 ...................................................................................... 8-133

Alternative 3: El Portal, West Yosemite Valley ................................................................................... 8-135

Alternative 3: Merced Lake High Sierra Camp and Wawona ............................................................. 8-137

Alternative 4: Curry Village and Campgrounds.................................................................................. 8-167

Alternative 4: Yosemite Village and Housekeeping Camp ................................................................. 8-169

Alternative 4: Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4 ...................................................................................... 8-171

Alternative 4: El Portal, West Yosemite Valley ................................................................................... 8-173

Alternative 4: Merced Lake High Sierra Camp and Wawona ............................................................. 8-175

Alternative 5: Curry Village and Campgrounds.................................................................................. 8-203

Alternative 5: Yosemite Village and Housekeeping Camp ................................................................. 8-205 

Alternative 5: Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4 ...................................................................................... 8-207 

Alternative 5: El Portal, West Yosemite Valley ................................................................................... 8-209 

Alternative 5: Merced Lake High Sierra Camp and Wawona ............................................................. 8-211 

Alternative 6: Curry Village and Campgrounds.................................................................................. 8-241 

Alternative 6: Yosemite Village and Housekeeping Camp ................................................................. 8-243 

Alternative 6: Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4 ...................................................................................... 8-245 

Alternative 6: El Portal, West Yosemite Valley ................................................................................... 8-247 

Alternative 6: Merced Lake High Sierra Camp and Wawona ............................................................. 8-249 

CONCEPTUAL SITE DRAWINGS

Alternative 1 (No Action): Curry Village............................................................................................... 8-39

Alternative 1 (No Action): Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area....................................................... 8-41

Alternative 1 (No Action): Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4...................................................................... 8-43

Alternative 1 (No Action): Yosemite Valley Maintenance Area............................................................. 8-45

Alternatives 2–6: Yosemite Valley Maintenance Area .......................................................................... 8-83

Alternatives 2–6: Wawona Maintenance Area..................................................................................... 8-85

Alternative 2: Curry Village ............................................................................................................... 8-117

Alternatives 2 and 3: Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area ............................................................ 8-119

Alternative 2: Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4 ...................................................................................... 8-121

Alternative 3: Curry Village ............................................................................................................... 8-153

Alternatives 2 and 3: Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area ............................................................ 8-155

Alternative 3: Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4 ...................................................................................... 8-157

Alternative 4: Curry Village ............................................................................................................... 8-191

Alternative 4: Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area ....................................................................... 8-193

Alternative 4: Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4 ...................................................................................... 8-195

Alternative 5: Curry Village ............................................................................................................... 8-229

Alternative 5: Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area ....................................................................... 8-231 

Alternative 5: Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4 ...................................................................................... 8-233 

Alternative 6: Curry Village ............................................................................................................... 8-265

Alternative 6: Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area ....................................................................... 8-267

Alternative 6: Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4 ...................................................................................... 8-269

vi Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Table of Contents – Volume 1 

LIST OF TABLES

Chapter 2

2-1 Elements of the Comprehensive Wild and Scenic River Management Plan ............................. 2-11 

2-2 Issues Identified in Public Scoping .......................................................................................... 2-12 

2-3 Issues Identified in Public Scoping Beyond the Scope of the Final Merced River Plan/EIS ......... 2-16 

Chapter 3

3-1 Segment Classifications for the Merced Wild and Scenic River ................................................. 3-4 

Chapter 4

4-1 Determining the Need for a Section 7 Determination under WSRA.......................................... 4-2 

Chapter 5

5-1 Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) of the Merced Wild and Scenic River in Yosemite..... 5-3 

5-2 Management Actions and Trigger Points to Maintain Desired Conditions for Water Quality... 5-17

5-3 Current Condition of Water Quality ....................................................................................... 5-18

5-4 Biological ORVs and Associated Indicators.............................................................................. 5-19

5-5 Bare Soil Cover Values for Ecological Condition Classes among Sierra Nevada Meadow Types..... 5-22

5-6 Management Actions and Trigger Points To Maintain Desired Conditions for Highelevation Meadows (Bare Soil) ............................................................................................ 5-25 

5-7 Current Condition of High-elevation Meadows, Bare Soil Indicator........................................ 5-26 

5-8 Management Actions and Trigger Points to Maintain Desired Conditions for High-elevation 

Meadows (Meadow Fragmentation) ................................................................................... 5-29

5-9 Current Condition of High-elevation Meadow and Riparian Complex Based on Monitoring 

of Largest Patch Index-5 (LPI5)............................................................................................ 5-31 

5-10 Management Actions and Trigger Points to Maintain Desired Conditions for High-elevation 

Riparian Habitat (Streambank Stability) ............................................................................... 5-35 

5-11 Streambank Stability Ratings by Monitoring Site and Segment Averages................................ 5-35

5-12 Management Actions and Trigger Points to Maintain Desired Conditions for Mid-elevation 

Meadows (Meadow Fragmentation) ................................................................................... 5-41 

5-13 Current Condition of Mid-elevation Meadow and Riparian Complex Based on Monitoring 

of Largest Patch Index-5 (LPI5)............................................................................................ 5-42 

5-14 Management Standards for the Status of Riparian Habitat Indicator ...................................... 5-45 

5-15 Management Actions and Trigger Points to Maintain Desired Conditions for Mid-elevation 

Riparian Habitat (Status of Riparian Habitat) ....................................................................... 5-46 

5-16 Current Condition of Mid-elevation Status of Riparian Habitat............................................... 5-47 

5-17 Riparian Bird Assemblage in Yosemite Valley Segment and Guild Assignments...................... 5-49 

5-18 Species-specific Annual Abundances...................................................................................... 5-52 

5-19 Management Actions and Trigger Points to Maintain Desired Conditions for Riparian Bird 

Indicator ............................................................................................................................. 5-55 

5-20 Current Condition of Mid-elevation Abundance of Riparian Birds .......................................... 5-56

5-21 Management Actions and Trigger Points to Maintain Desired Conditions for Sierra Sweet 

Bay ..................................................................................................................................... 5-60

5-22 Current Condition of Sierra Sweet Bay (Myrica hartwegii) ...................................................... 5-61

5-23 Geological/Hydrological ORVs and Associated Indicators........................................................ 5-61 

5-24 Cultural ORVs and Associated Indicators................................................................................ 5-69 

5-25 Management Actions and Trigger Points to Maintain Desired Conditions for California 

Black Oak Indicator............................................................................................................. 5-77 

5-26 Current Condition of California Black Oak ............................................................................. 5-77 

5-27 Management Actions and Trigger Points to Maintain Desired Conditions for the Yosemite 

Valley Archeological District (Condition of District).............................................................. 5-84 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES (continued)

5-28 Current Condition of Archeological Sites in Yosemite Valley Based on Monitoring of 

Aggregate Condition of Sites.............................................................................................. 5-85 

5-29 Management Actions and Trigger Points to Maintain Desired Conditions for Yosemite 

Valley Historic Resources (FMSS Condition Assessment)...................................................... 5-90

5-30 Current Condition of Yosemite Valley Historic Resources....................................................... 5-90

5-31 Current Condition of Archeological Sites in El Portal Based on Monitoring of Aggregate 

Condition of Sites............................................................................................................... 5-93 

5-32 Management Actions and Trigger Points to Maintain Desired Conditions for Regionally 

Rare Archeological Features (Individual Rock Ring Sites)...................................................... 5-97 

5-33 Current Condition of Regionally Rare Archeological Features................................................. 5-98 

5-34 Current Condition of Archeological Sites in Wawona Based on Monitoring of Aggregate 

Conditions of Sites............................................................................................................ 5-102 

5-35 Management Actions and Trigger Points to Maintain Desired Conditions for Wawona 

Historic Resources ORV (FMSS Condition Assessment) ...................................................... 5-107 

5-36 Current Condition of Wawona Historic Resources................................................................ 5-107 

5-37 Scenic ORVs and Associated Indicators................................................................................. 5-109 

5-38 Parallels between WSRA classifications and VRM classes...................................................... 5-113 

5-39 Management Actions and Trigger Points to Maintain Desired Conditions for Iconic Scenic 

Views in Yosemite Valley (Visual Resources Management) ................................................ 5-116 

5-40 Current Condition of Scenic Values in Yosemite Valley Based on Visual Resource 

Management System........................................................................................................ 5-116 

5-41 Current Condition of Scenic Values in Merced River Gorge Based on Visual Resource 

Management System........................................................................................................ 5-119 

5-42 Recreational ORVs and Associated Indicators ....................................................................... 5-122 

5-43 Wilderness Permit Quotas for Selected Trailheads (1987) ..................................................... 5-123 

5-44 Trail Encounter Standards for Trail Sections in Segment 1 .................................................... 5-126 

5-45 Management Actions and Trigger Points to Maintain Desired Conditions for Wilderness 

Recreation Above Nevada Fall (Encounter Rates)............................................................... 5-129 

5-46 Current Condition of River-Related Recreation in Segment 1 ............................................... 5-130

5-47 Conversions from Visitor-Informed “Acceptable” and “Displacement” PAOT to Visitor Densities 5-134 

5-48 Site-Level Standards for the Recreation ORV Visitor Density Indicator................................... 5-135 

5-49 Management Actions and Trigger points to Maintain desired Conditions for River-related 

Recreation in Yosemite Valley (Visitor Densities)................................................................ 5-137 

5-50 Current Condition of River-related Recreation in Yosemite Valley......................................... 5-138 

Chapter 6

6-1 Summary of User Capacities by Alternative: Merced River Above Nevada Fall (Segment 1)....... 6-6 

6-2 Summary of Boating Capacities Across Alternatives ............................................................... 6-10

6-3 Trail Encounter Standards for Trail Sections in Segment 1 ...................................................... 6-11 

6-4 Summary of User Capacities by Alternative: Yosemite Valley segments.................................. 6-14

6-5 Self-reported Activity Participation Rates from 2009 Summer Visitor Survey........................... 6-15

6-6 Management Standards for the Biological ORV in Segment 2 ................................................ 6-16

6-7 Comparison of Structural Improvements to Manage Visitor Use............................................. 6-18

6-8 Visitor Evaluations of Acceptable and Displacement Densities at Key Locations...................... 6-19

6-9 Site-Level Standards for Monitoring Locations: Yosemite Valley Recreational ORV.................. 6-20

6-10 Current/Projected Visitor Use Densities for Monitoring Locations: Yosemite Valley ................. 6-22 

6-11 Allowable Vehicles at One Time: Yosemite Valley Segments................................................... 6-24 

6-12 Summary of User Capacities by Alternative: Merced Gorge (Segment 3) ................................ 6-27 

6-13 Summary of User Capacities by Alternative: El Portal (Segment 4).......................................... 6-29

6-14 Summary of User Capacities for All Alternatives: South Fork Merced 

above Wawona (Segment 5).................................................................................................. 6-30

6-15 Summary of User Capacities by Alternative: Wawona (Segment 7)......................................... 6-32 

viii Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Table of Contents – Volume 1 

LIST OF TABLES (continued)

6-16 Summary of User Capacities for All Alternatives: S. Fork Merced below Wawona 

(Segment 8)........................................................................................................................ 6-35

Chapter 7

7-1 Evaluation of Facilities within the River Corridor by River Segment ........................................... 7-9 

7-2 Major Public Use Facilities Removed in GMP that are Retained in the MRP ............................. 7-24

7-3 Major Public Use Facilities Retained in GMP that are Removed in the MRP ............................. 7-26

7-4 Major Public Use Facilities Provided within the River Corridor – Alternatives Comparison ....... 7-27

7-5 Summary of Facilities Removed or Relocated Outside the River Corridor Common to 

Alternatives 2-6 .................................................................................................................. 7-34

Chapter 8: Alternative 1: No Action

8-1 Examples of Actions to Protect and Enhance Biological Values – Alternative 1 (No Action)....... 8-9 

8-2 User Capacities by Use Type and Location – Alternative 1 (No Action).................................... 8-11 

8-3 Camping Facilities – Alternative 1 (No Action)........................................................................ 8-12 

8-4 Lodging – Alternative 1 (No Action) ....................................................................................... 8-12 

8-5 Day-use Parking Areas – Alternative 1 (No Action) ................................................................. 8-13 

8-6 Wilderness Zone Capacities – Alternative 1 (No Action).......................................................... 8-26

8-7 Transit Options – Alternative 1 (No Action) ............................................................................ 8-32 

8-8 Wilderness Zone Capacities – Segment 5 ............................................................................... 8-35

Chapter 8: Common to Alternatives 2-6 

8-9 Summary of Major Actions for Protecting and Enhancing River Values – 

Common to Alternatives 2-6 .............................................................................................. 8-49

Chapter 8: Alternative 2

8-10 Additional Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values – Alternative 2 ................................. 8-89

8-11 User Capacities by Use Type and Location – Alternative 2 ...................................................... 8-90 

8-12 Camping Facilities – Alternative 2 .......................................................................................... 8-91 

8-13 Lodging Facilities – Alternative 2 ............................................................................................ 8-91

8-14 Number of Day-use Parking Spaces by Segment – Alternative 2............................................. 8-92

8-15 Wilderness Zone Capacities – Alternative 2 .......................................................................... 8-104

8-16 Transit Options – Alternative 2............................................................................................. 8-109

Chapter 8: Alternative 3

8-17 Additional Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values, Alternative 3 ................................. 8-125

8-18 User Capacities by Use Type and Location – Alternative 3 .................................................... 8-125

8-19 Camping Facilities – Alternative 3 ........................................................................................ 8-127

8-20 Lodging Facilities – Alternative 3 .......................................................................................... 8-128

8-21 Number of Day-use Parking Spaces in Segments – Alternative 3 .......................................... 8-128

8-22 Wilderness Zone Capacities – Alternative 3 .......................................................................... 8-140 

8-23 Transit Options – Alternative 3............................................................................................. 8-145 

Chapter 8: Alternative 4

8-24 Additional Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values, Alternative 4 ................................. 8-161 

8-25 User Capacities by Use Type and Location – Alternative 4 .................................................... 8-162 

8-26 Camping Facilities – Alternative 4 ........................................................................................ 8-163 

8-27 Lodging Facilities – Alternative 4 .......................................................................................... 8-164 

8-28 Number of Day-use Parking Spaces in Segments – Alternative 4 .......................................... 8-165 

8-29 Wilderness Zone Capacities – Alternative 4 .......................................................................... 8-178 

8-30 Transit Options – Alternative 4............................................................................................. 8-184

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Chapter 8: Alternative 5

8-31 Additional Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values – Alternative 5 (Preferred) .............. 8-199

8-32 User Capacities by Use Type and Location – Alternative 5 (Preferred) ................................... 8-199

8-33 Camping Facilities – Alternative 5 (Preferred) ....................................................................... 8-201 

8-34 Lodging Facilities – Alternative 5 (Preferred)......................................................................... 8-202 

8-35 Number of Day-use Parking Spaces in Segments – Alternative 5 (Preferred) ......................... 8-202 

8-36 Wilderness Zone Capacities – Alternative 5 (Preferred) ......................................................... 8-214 

8-37 Transit Options – Alternative 5 (Preferred)............................................................................ 8-219

8-38 Changes to Alternative 5 (Preferred) between DEIS and FEIS.........................................8-226

Chapter 8: Alternative 6

8-39 Additional Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values – Alternative 6 ............................... 8-237 

8-40 User Capacities by Use Type and Location – Alternative 6 .................................................... 8-238 

8-41 Camping Facilities – Alternative 6 ........................................................................................ 8-239 

8-42 Lodging Facilities – Alternative 6 .......................................................................................... 8-240

8-43 Number of Day-use Parking Spaces in Segments – Alternative 6 .......................................... 8-240

8-44 Wilderness Zone Capacities – Alternative 6 .......................................................................... 8-252 

8-45 Transit Options – Alternative 6............................................................................................. 8-257

Chapter 8: Cost Comparisons

8-46 Project Costs Common to Alternatives 2-6 ........................................................................... 8-275

8-47 Alternative Project Costs...................................................................................................... 8-276 

8-48 Total Project Costs............................................................................................................... 8-276 

8-49 Additional Operational (non-Facility) Costs........................................................................... 8-278 

Chapter 8: Alternative Summary Comparison 

8-50 Merced Wild and Scenic River Plan Alternative Summary Comparison Table ........................ 8-281

Chapter 8: Comprehensive River Value Analysis

8-51 Segment 1 Actions and Implications for Biological ORV 1 by Alternative ............................... 8-286

8-52 Segments 2A and 2B Actions and Implications for Biological ORV 2 (Alt 2) ........................... 8-289

8-53 Segments 2A and 2B Actions and Implications for Biological ORV 2 (Alt 3) ........................... 8-290

8-54 Segments 2A and 2B Actions and Implications for Biological ORV 2 (Alt 4) ........................... 8-291

8-55 Segments 2A and 2B Actions and Implications for Biological ORV 2 (Alt 5) ........................... 8-292

8-56 Segments 2A and 2B Actions and Implications for Biological ORV 2 (Alt 6) ........................... 8-293

8-57 Segments 2A and 2B Actions and Implications for Geological/Hydrological ORV 6 (Alt 2) ..... 8-296

8-58 Segments 2A and 2B Actions and Implications for Geological/Hydrological ORV 6 (Alt 3) ..... 8-297

8-59 Segments 2A and 2B Actions and Implications for Geological/Hydrological ORV 6 (Alt 4) ..... 8-298

8-60 Segments 2A and 2B Actions and Implications for Geological/Hydrological ORV 6 (Alt 5) ..... 8-299

8-61 Segments 2A and 2B Actions and Implications for Geological/Hydrological ORV 6 (Alt 6) ..... 8-299

8-62 Segments 2A and 2B Actions and Implications for Cultural ORV 8 (Alts 2-6)......................... 8-302

8-63 Segment 7 Actions and Implications for Cultural ORV 13 (Alts 2-6)....................................... 8-306

8-64 Segment 1 Actions and Implications for Recreational ORV 19 (Alt 2)..................................... 8-309

8-65 Segment 1 Actions and Implications for Recreational ORV 19 (Alt 3)..................................... 8-310

8-66 Segment 1 Actions and Implications for Recreational ORV 19 (Alt 4)..................................... 8-311

8-67 Segment 1 Actions and Implications for Recreational ORV 19 (Alt 5)..................................... 8-312

8-68 Segment 1 Actions and Implications for Recreational ORV 19 (Alt 6)..................................... 8-313

8-69 Segments 2A and 2B Actions and Implications for Recreational ORV 20 (Alt 2)..................... 8-315

8-70 Segments 2A and 2B Actions and Implications for Recreational ORV 20 (Alt 3)..................... 8-316

8-71 Segments 2A and 2B Actions and Implications for Recreational ORV 20 (Alt 4)..................... 8-318

8-72 Segments 2A and 2B Actions and Implications for Recreational ORV 20 (Alt 5)..................... 8-320

8-73 Segments 2A and 2B Actions and Implications for Recreational ORV 20 (Alt 6)..................... 8-322

x Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

The Merced Wild and Scenic River originates at the crest of the Sierra Nevada in Yosemite National Park, 

descending almost 10,000 feet on its 81-mile journey through the park and the El Portal Administrative Site. 

The U.S. Congress designated the Merced River in Yosemite as a component of the National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System in 1987 (Public Law 100-149). As the Merced Wild and Scenic River leaves National 

Park Service jurisdiction, the remaining 41 miles are managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of 

Land Management. 

LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) requires comprehensive planning for a Wild and Scenic River to 

provide for the protection of the river’s free-flowing condition, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable 

values, collectively referred to as “river values.” This Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive 

Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (Final Merced River Plan/EIS) describes how the 

National Park Service will fulfill this mandate. The plan accomplishes the following:

• Establishes the boundaries and segment classifications (wild, scenic, or recreational) of the Merced 

Wild and Scenic River. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires federal agencies to establish legal 

boundaries for each federally-administered river in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

Chapter 3 explains the legal requirements for establishing a river corridor boundary and classifying

its segments. The chapter defines the river corridor boundary for the Merced River in Yosemite 

National Park and describes the eight segments within the corridor and their classifications.

• Establishes a formal process for protecting the river’s free-flowing condition, in keeping with 

WSRA Section 7. Section 7 is a key provision of WSRA that restricts water resources projects, 

projects within the bed and banks of the Merced River, or projects that affect the river’s freeflowing condition. Chapter 4 explains the legal requirements for protecting the river’s free-flowing 

condition and describes the process that will be used to fulfill that requirement.

• Refines descriptions of the river’s outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs), which are the riverrelated rare, unique, or exemplary characteristics that make the river worthy of inclusion in the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The plan identifies 20 outstandingly remarkable values 

(ORVs) for the Merced River. Chapter 5 provides an orientation to the river values and the 

concepts of management standards, adverse impact, and degradation.

• Documents the condition of river values, including water quality, free-flowing condition, and 

outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs), and establishes a management program to protect and 

enhance these values. Chapter 5 discusses each river value in detail, including a summary of its 

current condition, associated management concerns, and specific actions needed for its 

protection.The chapter describes in detail the monitoring program the NPS will use to ensure that

all river values remain protected and enhanced. 

• Establishes a user-capacity program that addresses the kinds and amounts of public use that the 

river corridor can sustain while protecting and enhancing the river’s outstandingly remarkable 

values. Carrying capacity, a term used interchangeably with user capacity, is defined as “the 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS ES-1 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

quantity of recreation use which an area can sustain without adverse impact on the outstandingly 

remarkable values and free-flowing character of the river area, the quality of recreation experience, 

and public health and safety.”1 Chapter 6 describes how key components of the Final Merced River 

Plan/EIS work together to meet the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requirement to address user 

capacities when preparing a comprehensive river management plan. 

• Defines the size and location of the facilities (both current and future) needed to provide for public 

use and enjoyment of the river resource, consistent with the protection and enhancement of river 

values. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) requires that management plans prepared for 

rivers designated under the act will address the “development of lands and facilities” in the river 

area. WSRA and its implementing guidelines provide direction on the types of facilities that may be 

maintained within a river area. Chapter 7 describes how the information provided in Chapter 5 was 

used to evaluate the existing and proposed major public use facilities in the river corridor. It also

identifies the facilities that will be removed or relocated under each alternative.

Other Applicable Laws and Policies

In addition to complying with the WSRA requirements outlined above, the Final Merced River Plan/EIS

complies with all other applicable statutes and management policies. The Final Merced River Plan/EIS

documents the results of planning processes required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and other legal mandates governing National Park Service (NPS)

decision-making. 

DOCUMENT OVERVIEW

The Final Merced River Plan/EIS is organized into two volumes and supported by 20 appendices. Volume 1 

contains Chapters 1-8, which provide the analytical framework for the alternatives as well as a detailed 

description of each alternative. Chapters 1–3 describe the Merced Wild and Scenic River, discuss the 

purpose and need for comprehensive planning under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and define the 

boundaries and segments of the Merced Wild and Scenic River. Chapter 4 describes the Section 7 

determination process. Chapter 5 documents river value conditions and explains the monitoring and 

management program that will ensure they remain protected. Chapter 6 explains how user capacities were 

established and how they will be managed. Chapter 7 includes an assessment of all facilities and services in 

order to determine their necessity and potential impact to river values. Chapter 8 describes six alternatives 

(five action alternatives and one “No Action” alternative). Volume 2 contains Chapters 9-13. Chapter 9 

discloses the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. Chapter 10 summarizes the 

extensive consultation and coordination efforts conducted for the plan. Chapters 11–13 provide a list of 

preparers, a glossary and list of acronyms, and references. Appendices A-T provide additional supporting 

analyses for the actions proposed in the Final Merced River Plan/EIS. 

Purpose and Need for the Merced River Plan

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to describe the purpose and need 

for agency actions. The purpose and need for the Final Merced River Plan/EIS is to preserve the Merced River 

in free-flowing condition and to protect the river’s water quality and outstandingly remarkably values for the 

1 National Wild and Scenic Rivers System: Final Revised Guidelines for Eligibility, Classification and Management of River 

Areas (Secretarial Guidelines)

ES-2 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS

 
Document Overview

benefit of present and future generations. Chapter 2 describes the purpose and need for the plan, the legal and 

policy framework, the major planning issues identified during internal and public scoping, and the relationship 

of this plan to other plans and projects.

Alternatives

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) also requires federal agencies to rigorously explore a range 

of reasonable alternatives when planning for a major federal action. Chapter 8 presents the six alternatives 

considered in the Final Merced River Plan/EIS. All of the action alternatives meet the mandates of the legal 

and policy framework for the plan. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) represents a continuation of current management practices and provides a 

baseline from which to compare the action alternatives. Alternatives 2-6 feature a wide range of visitation

levels, desired visitor experiences, and restoration objectives based on public feedback received throughout 

the planning process. Across the alternatives, peak visitation for Yosemite Valley ranges from a low of 

13,200 people per day (Alternative 3) to a high of 21,800 people per day (Alternative 6). Alternatives 2 and 3 

explored a Yosemite with a smaller development footprint and fewer visitor services, resulting in a more 

self-reliant visitor experience. Alternative 4 examined a Yosemite with a smaller number of lodging units

and a significant increase in camping opportunities. Alternative 5 (Preferred) proposes essential restoration 

within 100 feet of the river, moderate increases in camping, and visitation at levels seen in recent years. A 

description of Alternative 5 (Preferred) and how it has changed in response to public and agency comment 

is included in subsequent sections. Alternative 6 explored expanding visitor services to support future 

increases in visitation. Complete descriptions of the alternatives are provided in Chapter 8.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

“Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences” (Chapter 9) identifies and describes the natural 

and cultural resources and values potentially affected by the alternatives presented in Chapter 8 and 

evaluates the impacts of each alternative in comparison to the No Action Alternative. Chapter 9 examines 

the environmental consequences associated with implementing each of the alternatives.

Consultation and Coordination

Throughout the Merced River planning process, an extensive effort was made to involve professionals from 

all aspects of river and park management, and was done so in consultation with traditionally associated 

American Indian tribes and groups, elected officials, agency partners, local communities, park visitors, and 

private citizens. Chapter 10 summarizes the consultation and coordination efforts undertaken for the Final 

Merced River Plan/EIS. The plan was developed in accordance with the NEPA implementing regulations

issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which require diligence in involving any interested 

or affected members of the public in the planning process (40 CFR 1508.22). Compliance with the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) was completed on a parallel track, using the NHPA Section 106 review 

process to coordinate the evaluation of impacts to cultural resources. The final plan represents a strong 

commitment to public engagement; the alternatives and analyses included in the plan have been shaped by 

approximately 30,000 public comments, as well as by significant consultation with traditionally associated 

American Indian tribes and groups, agency partners, and other key stakeholders.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS ES-3 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ALTERNATIVE 5 (PREFERRED) OVERVIEW

Enhanced Visitor Experience and Essential River Bank Restoration 

The Final Merced River Plan/EIS proposes actions that will improve the visitor experience in the park. 

Alternative 5 (Preferred) proposes to accommodate peak visitation at a level similar to recent years—

approximately 20,100 people per day in East Yosemite Valley. Visitors to Yosemite Valley will see marked

improvements in circulation, parking availability, and traffic flow. Coupled with enhancements to meadows, 

improvements to river access, and extensive riverbank restoration, the visitor experience would be 

significantly improved. Visitors to Yosemite Village will experience an enhanced “sense of arrival” to the 

heart of Yosemite Valley, as the primary day-use parking area would be fully integrated with pathways to 

visitor services, restrooms, and food service. Families will enjoy expanded camping opportunities in East 

Yosemite Valley, with new walk-in, drive-in, and group camping sites provided at several locations.

Recreational activities such as rafting, bicycling, and ice skating will continue, with rental facilities and 

services provided at locations outside the river corridor. Boaters would be able to float new and challenging 

river reaches, framed by views of El Capitan and Half Dome. 

The Final Merced River Plan/EIS improves the visitor experience while ensuring that the river and Yosemite 

National Park are “protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations.”2 Chapter 8

outlines a number of actions common to all alternatives that will protect and enhance river values. Such 

actions include restoration of riparian areas, removal of riverbank riprap, relocation of camping and parking 

areas away from the river, restoration of meadow areas, and the removal of abandoned infrastructure in the 

river corridor. Collectively, the actions proposed in Alternative 5 (Preferred) will enhance river values by 

restoring 189 acres of habitat, mostly in meadow and riparian areas. Restored riparian and meadow habitats 

will protect water quality and enhance the interconnected river values, both natural and cultural, of the 

Merced River. Alternative 5 (Preferred) is the “environmentally preferred” alternative for the Final Merced

River Plan/EIS. 

Proposed actions in Alternative 5 (Preferred) would:

• Restore 189 acres of meadow and riparian habitat. 

• Significantly increase the campsite inventory in all river segments (+36%) and in Yosemite Valley 

(+37%).

• Slightly increase available lodging corridorwide (+3%) and in Yosemite Valley (+5%). 

• Increase parking for Yosemite Valley day use (+8%). 

• Make significant changes to the traffic circulation pattern in Yosemite Valley to meet ecological 

restoration goals while reducing traffic congestion. 

• Establish a user capacity of 18,710 people at one time for Yosemite Valley, with peak visitation 

estimated at 20,100 visitors per day. 

• Manage user capacity for East Yosemite Valley by rerouting traffic at the El Capitan Traffic 

Diversion prior to reaching established limits. 

2 16 U.S.C. Section 1271(b)

ES-4 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS

 
Summary of Changes between Draft and Final Plan

SUMMARY OF CHANGES BETWEEN DRAFT AND FINAL PLAN 

The Final Merced River Plan/EIS has been shaped by coordination and consultation with members of the 

public, traditionally associated American Indian tribes and groups, agency partners, and other stakeholders. 

Many of the changes between the draft and final plans were the direct result of comments raised during 

public meetings or consultation efforts. This collaboration has produced a final plan that will improve 

visitor experience and better protect the Merced River’s unique values. 

Alternative 5 (Preferred), as presented in the Final Merced River Plan/EIS, includes several changes made in 

response to public comment and consultation. New development previously proposed for West Yosemite 

Valley has been eliminated, bicycle and raft rentals are relocated rather than removed, and proposed 

changes to lodging at Curry Village have been revised to better preserve historic resources. The primary 

changes to the draft preferred alternative are as follows:

• Increase the number of campsites proposed for Upper and Lower River Campgrounds to provide a 

total of 72 sites (60 walk-in, 10 auto sites, and two group sites). 

• Increase total number of lodging units at Curry Village to 482 to account for units recently 

relocated from the rock-fall hazard zone.

• Relocate the Curry Village ice skating rink from within the river corridor to its original 1929 

location at the south end of the Curry Overnight Parking area.

• Retain bicycle rentals in Yosemite Valley by moving the Curry Village and Yosemite Lodge rental 

facilities to locations outside of the river corridor.

• Provide raft rentals at a location outside of the river corridor.

• Eliminate the 100 parking spaces originally proposed for West Valley and increase the size of the El 

Portal Remote Parking Area to 300 spaces. Provide shuttle service from the El Portal parking lot to 

Yosemite Valley.

• Eliminate the Eagle Creek Campground originally proposed for West Valley. 

• Eliminate the proposed 164-bed dormitory at the Huff House temporary employee housing area; 

retain the historic Huff House and 10 canvas tent cabins; add employee housing to locations 

outside the river corridor in Yosemite Valley and El Portal.

• Reduce the size of the Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area to provide 750 parking spaces (from 

the 850 originally proposed) and provide 189 day-use parking spaces at the Curry Village Day-use 

Parking Area (the site of Huff House temporary employee housing). 

• Retain Sugar Pine Bridge. Conduct further hydrologic impact study to determine the effects of the 

bridge on the river’s alluvial nature. Consideration of bridge removal would involve tiered NEPA 

compliance and Section 106 Consultation. 

• Remove Superintendent’s House (Residence 1) and Garage.

• Retain the Ahwahnee and Yosemite Lodge swimming pools.

• Retain 50 historic canvas tents and 14 non-historic cabin-without-bath units at Boys Town and 

construct 52 new hard-sided cabin-with-bath units.

• Retain the Housekeeping Camp Store.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS ES-5 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This page intentionally left blank

ES-6 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
1. THE MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER

The U.S. Congress designated the Merced River in Yosemite National Park as a component of the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System in 1987 (Public Law 100-149). This action amended the 1968 Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act (WSRA) (16 USC 1271), which states: 

“It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that certain selected rivers of the Nation 

which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, 

geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing 

condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and 

enjoyment of present and future generations.” 

The Merced River (Figure 1-1) originates in Yosemite at the crest of the Sierra Nevada and descends almost 

10,000 feet in elevation on its 81-mile journey through the park. The river has been central to this dramatic 

landscape for tens of thousands of years, and it continues to shape riparian and meadow communities and 

support a diverse suite of wildlife. The river corridor was home to American Indians for millennia, and cultural 

traditions associated with the river continue to the present day. The Merced River is also a focus for millions of 

Yosemite visitors who enjoy opportunities for recreation, education, reflection, and inspiration in its sublime 

beauty.

Figure 1-1: Merced Wild and Scenic River Overview Map

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 1-1 
THE MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER

The National Park Service (NPS) is the managing agency for the portions of the Merced Wild and Scenic River

in Yosemite and the El Portal Administrative Site. As part of this responsibility, the NPS must develop a Wild 

and Scenic River comprehensive management plan to guide long-term management and public use in the river 

corridor. The NPS has developed the plan in accordance with the mandates of the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), including an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and forthcoming Record of Decision.

This document presents the comprehensive river management plan and associated EIS, collectively referred to 

as the Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan and Environmental Impact 

Statement (Final Merced River Plan/EIS). 

In addition to complying with the NEPA planning process, the Final Merced River Plan/EIS addresses the 

required elements of WSRA, the National Historic Preservation Act, and other legal mandates that govern 

decision making and planning in the NPS. The NPS expects the plan to have a lifespan of at least 20 years. The 

plan also fulfills the public review requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act for plan 

actions that will require issuance of a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification by the California 

Regional Water Quality Control Board. 

THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT

Congress passed the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) to counterbalance decades of dam building and riverrelated development in the country. WSRA requires the protection of some outstanding rivers in their natural, 

free-flowing state. A Wild and Scenic River has “outstandingly remarkable values” (ORVs) that make it worthy 

of special protection for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. Federal land managers 

must protect and enhance these values. Today, WSRA protects 12,598 miles of 203 rivers as units of the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Two Wild and Scenic Rivers are located within Yosemite: the Merced 

River (designated in 1987) and the Tuolumne River (designated in 1984). The Merced River is one of 23 Wild 

and Scenic Rivers in California and one of six Wild and Scenic Rivers on the western slope of the Sierra 

Nevada.

REGIONAL SETTING

Within the Sierra Nevada range of California, the Merced River is one of 15 major river systems. Originating in 

Yosemite’s alpine peaks, the Merced River flows west for 145 miles to its confluence with the San Joaquin River

outside the park in the Central Valley, encompassing a drainage basin of 1,700 square miles. The first 122 miles 

of the Merced River are designated as Wild and Scenic; the NPS manages 81 miles of the river through 

Yosemite and El Portal, including both the Merced River’s main stem and the South Fork Merced River. Within 

Yosemite, the river reaches contain some of the world’s most admired scenery, including grand waterfalls and 

large, mid-elevation meadows. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

manage the 41 miles of the Wild and Scenic River outside of Yosemite (Public Law 102-432). The remaining 23 

miles of the Merced River below Lake McClure and the New Exchequer Dam, located in the Central Valley, do 

not have Wild and Scenic River status. 

The headwaters of the main stem of the Merced River originate in Yosemite in several watersheds: the Lyell 

Fork, Triple Peak Fork, Merced Peak Fork, and Red Peak Fork. These watersheds are at the far eastern side of 

the Merced River watershed. The Tuolumne, Mono, and San Joaquin River watersheds are to the north, east, 

and south. From its headwaters, the main stem of the Merced River flows freely through a wilderness landscape 

of alpine peaks, glacially carved valleys, and high-elevation meadows. The river makes a dramatic entry into 

Yosemite Valley, rushing over towering cliffs in prominent waterfalls. As the gradient lessens, the Merced River 

1-2 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
The Merced Wild and Scenic River 

meanders through the rich meadow and riparian habitat of Yosemite Valley. At the west end of Yosemite

Valley, the canyon narrows and the river becomes a cascade of continuous rapids through the Merced Gorge. 

The gradient changes abruptly at the park boundary, where the river continues through El Portal on its journey 

through the Sierra Nevada foothills to the Central Valley of California.

The South Fork Merced River originates at the Sierra crest from the southwestern slopes of Triple Divide Peak 

and the west-facing slopes of Gale Peak and Sing Peak. The South Fork Merced River flows southwest through 

Yosemite Wilderness (south of the Clark Range) and the community of Wawona. The South Fork Merced 

River exits the park less than a mile below the Wawona Campground and then flows through the Sierra 

National Forest to the confluence with the main stem of the Merced River, west of El Portal. 

The Merced River’s main stem and the South Fork Merced River will be collectively referred to as the Merced 

River in this document. 

GOALS OF THE FINAL MERCED RIVER PLAN / EIS

The 1980 General Management Plan for Yosemite National Park provides long-range management direction for 

Yosemite. The Final Merced River Plan/EIS will amend parts of the General Management Plan related to the 

Merced River corridor, as directed in the 1987 legislation designating the Merced River as a component of the 

National Wild and Scenic River System. In this legislation, Congress directed that: 

“appropriate revisions to the general management plan for the park, and the boundaries, classification, 

and development plans for such portions need not be published in the Federal Register. Such revisions 

to the general management plan for the park shall assure that no development or use of park lands 

shall be undertaken that is inconsistent with the designation of such river segments (16 U.S.C. 

Section 1274 (a)(62)(A)).”

Appendix A summarizes the actions in the Final Merced River Plan/EIS that would amend the General 

Management Plan. 

The overall goal of the Final Merced River Plan/EIS is to provide for public use and enjoyment of the river

resource while protecting and enhancing the values for which the Merced River was designated a Wild and 

Scenic River. The NPS developed goals that are more specific for the Final Merced River Plan/EIS after analysis 

of public scoping comments. These specific goals of the plan are to:

• Protect and Enhance Ecological and Natural Resource River Values: Promote the ability of the 

Merced River to shape the landscape by reducing impacts to hydrological / geological processes, 

restoring floodplains and meadows, and protecting water quality.

• Provide Opportunities for Direct Connection to River Values: Support opportunities for people to 

experience and develop direct connections to the Merced River and its unique values as a place of cultural 

association, education, recreation, reflection, and inspiration.

• Establish a User Capacity Management Program: Establish a user capacity management program that 

provides for public use and enjoyment of the river resource while protecting and enhancing natural and 

cultural river values today and into the future.

• Determine Land Uses and Associated Developments: Provide clear direction on land uses, facilities, 

and services within the river corridor that are necessary for public use and provide for the protection of 

river values.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 1-3 
THE MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER

1-4 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 

THIS DOCUMENT’S ORGANIZATION 

The Final Merced River Plan/EIS is a three-volume set, 

with appendices provided on CD or on the park’s website at http://www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/mrp.htm. 

Figures 1-2 and 1-3 display the organization of the plan 

and the sections that comprise the Merced Wild and 

Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan/ 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

FIGURE 1-3: MRP/EIS APPENDIX ORGANIZATION

FIGURE 1-2: MRP/EIS ORGANIZATION
2. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE 

FINAL MERCED RIVER PLAN / EIS

This chapter describes the purpose and need for the Final Merced River Plan/EIS 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 for 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 Final Merced River Plan/EIS is to preserve the Merced River in free-flowing condition 

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

of designation. 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 Final Merced River Plan/EIS also stems 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 and the process to follow in doing so. 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 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 wildlife therein and to provide for the 

enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the 

enjoyment of future generations.”

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

affirms that all of the nation’s parks—whether they include natural, cultural or historic resources—are

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

Expansion Act also amended the Organic Act, reaffirming the mandate and directing the NPS to manage 

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

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 2-1 
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE FINAL MERCED RIVER PLAN / EIS

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 

Final Merced River Plan/EIS 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 Merced Wild and Scenic River’s headwaters begin in Yosemite National Park and the river flows 

through the El Portal Administrative Site. As part of the lands administered by the National Park Service, the 

Merced River is 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 Final Merced River Plan/EIS: 

Section 1: Congressional Declaration of Policy—Explains the 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. 

Designated river segments are classified in one of the three categories depending on the extent of 

development and accessibility along each section.

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 

2-2 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Legal and Policy Framework

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

Section 7: Restrictions on Water Resources Projects—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, one of the most vital components of WSRA, requires a rigorous process to ensure that 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. 

Section 10: Management Direction—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—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 Secretaries of the Interior and 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 incorporated changes in WSRA necessary after more 

than a decade of use under the original 1970 guidelines, facilitating greater consistency in agency

interpretation of WSRA.1 The Secretarial Guidelines reflected new laws and regulations and responded 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 

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”

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

 
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE FINAL MERCED RIVER PLAN / EIS

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 (the same act that established the Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River, parts of which are also 

in Yosemite). Segments of the Merced Wild and Scenic River corridor are within congressionally designated 

Wilderness in Yosemite National Park. 

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 designated 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 Final Merced River Plan/EIS 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 components of the 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Corridor has been prepared for the Final Merced River Plan/EIS (see 

Appendix L).

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 prepared and released a draft environmental impact statement in January 2013, identifying 

2-4 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Legal and Policy Framework

and evaluating six alternatives (the No Action and five action alternatives). 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 final environmental impact statement has been completed in compliance with two fundamental 

NEPA requirements: 1) make a careful, complete, and analytical study, well before decisions are made, of 

the impacts of any proposal, and alternatives to that proposal, if it has the potential to affect the human 

environment, and 2) be diligent in involving interested or affected members of the public in the planning 

process.

Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (see below) is coordinated with the NEPA 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 Final Merced River Plan/EIS, 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). Such properties have been found to 

be 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 for the Final Merced River Plan/EIS 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). A full description of 

the consultation process for the Final Merced River Plan/EIS can be found in: “Consultation and 

Coordination” (Chapter 10) and Appendix J. 

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 Final Merced River Plan/EIS. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 2-5 
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE FINAL MERCED RIVER PLAN / EIS

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, “Affected Environment 

and Environmental Consequences” (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 Cooperative Agreements between the National Park Service 

(Department of the Interior), Yosemite National Park and traditionally-associated American Indian tribes 

and groups.

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 Cooperative Agreements between the National Park Service (Department of the 

Interior), Yosemite National Park and traditionally-associated American Indian tribes and groups.

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

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

2-6 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Legal and Policy Framework

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

administration of commercial service operations. In Yosemite, several entities operate pursuant to 

concessions contracts, including the park’s current primary concessioner, Delaware North, Inc. 

Section 418 of the Concessions Management Improvement Act also allows the National Park Service to 

issue Commercial Use Authorizations for appropriate uses of park lands. Typical activities authorized under 

Commercial Use Authorizations include guided recreational trips and other guide services. 

Legal History of the Merced River Plan

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.

In August 2000, the NPS completed the first 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 favor of the NPS 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 again challenged the 2005 Revised Merced River Plan 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 the 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 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 

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 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 2-7 
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE FINAL MERCED RIVER PLAN / EIS

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. 

In fall 2008, the NPS entered into mediation with the plaintiffs 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 September 29, 2009. The 2009 Settlement Agreement directed that the Merced River 

Plan be completed by July 2013 (The settlement originally called for the plan to be completed by December 

2012, but in 2011, the parties extended the deadline by six months. More recently, the settlement agreement 

was revised again to extend the deadline to March 31, 2014.). 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 Merced River Plan 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 required NPS to develop revised 

outstandingly 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 was completed, the settlement agreement limited the types of actions that the NPS could

conduct in the river corridor. In general, the NPS could only undertake routine, intermittent and 

operational actions within the corridor. The NPS could not construct new roads, parking spaces, bridges, 

large structures, or overnight accommodations. The NPS also could not take actions that would predetermine user capacity in any segment of the river.

Interrelationship with the 1980 Yosemite General Management Plan

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

Plan, is the overall management document for Yosemite National Park. The Final Merced River Plan/EIS

amends the 1980 GMP regarding decisions within the river corridor in accordance with the 1987 legislation 

designating the Merced River as a Wild and Scenic River. Appendix A describes the amendments to the 

1980 GMP proposed in the Final Merced River Plan/EIS. 

The Final Merced River Plan/EIS reflects the overarching goals and objectives of the 1980 GMP. The NPS has 

implemented or partially implemented many actions called for in the 1980 GMP; these are considered 

elements of the No Action alternative described in “Alternatives” (Chapter 8). 

Specific changes to the 1980 GMP as amended by the Final Merced River Plan/EIS can be found in Appendix A.

Relationship to Other Planning Documents

In addition to the complex legal framework of the Final Merced River Plan/EIS, the following Yosemitespecific plans are part of the planning framework. 

• Concession Services Plan (1992). This plan supplements the 1980 Yosemite General 

Management Plan. 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, 

and increased food service seating, among other actions. 

2-8 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Legal and Policy Framework

• 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 Final Merced River 

Plan/EIS. 

• Scenic Vista Management Plan (2010). This plan describes a program to document, protect, 

reestablish, and maintain Yosemite’s important viewpoints consistent with the natural 

processes and human influences that created them. The plan identifies viewpoints within the 

Merced River corridor. The Final Merced River Plan/EIS adopts these . 

• 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 improves fire and seismic 

safety, operational efficiencies, and enhances visitor experience while protecting and 

preserving the historic integrity of this National Historic Landmark. Because The Ahwahnee is 

located within the Merced River corridor, the proposed rehabilitation actions for the 

Ahwahnee Comprehensive Rehabilitation Plan are deferred to future site-specific planning 

and design efforts following a Record of Decision for the Final Merced River Plan/EIS. 

• 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 Final Merced River Plan/EIS 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, and 4) Wilderness Facilities: 

Facilities, including safety railings, in Yosemite wilderness will be limited to those currently 

present or specifically proposed in this plan. 

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

collection, and public scoping has not commenced. Decisions made in the Final Merced River 

Plan/EIS regarding wild segments, river-related wilderness recreational values, facilities in 

potential wilderness additions, capacities, 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 a more comprehensive Wilderness planning effort. However, any 

revisions made in the forthcoming Wilderness Stewardship Plan to actions in the river corridor 

must be protective of river values and ensure that use levels in the corridor are consistent with 

the requirements of WSRA. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 2-9 
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE FINAL MERCED RIVER PLAN / EIS

• 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 Final Comprehensive Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement to be released 

shortly after the Final Merced River Plan/EIS. While the two river corridors do not overlap, 

these two plans have a similar approach and organization.

• Restoration of the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias (in progress). The Mariposa Grove of 

Giant Sequoias is located outside the Merced River corridor in the south portion of the park. 

Transportation facilities and public transit opportunities for visitors traveling through the area 

included in the Final Merced River Plan/EIS have been integrated into planning for the 

Mariposa Grove FEIS. 

• Half Dome Trail Stewardship Plan (2012). The NPS will retain the Half Dome cable system 

and implement day-use limits through a permit system. While the project area for the Half Dome 

Trail Stewardship Plan is outside of the Merced River corridor, the use management 

prescribed for the Half Dome Trail may affect use patterns along trails located within Segment 

1 of the Merced River corridor between Happy Isles and Little Yosemite Valley. 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.

• Appendix B describes additional plans related to the Final Merced River Plan/EIS. 

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 Final Merced River Plan/EIS that encompass the Comprehensive Wild and Scenic River Management 

Plan requirements. These elements include those mandated in WSRA, the Secretarial Guidelines, and 

recommendations of the Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council (Interagency Council). 

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 (freeflowing 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

2-10 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Identification of Planning Issues: Public and Internal Scoping

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

Objective Primary Reference1

Chapter in the 

Merced River Plan/EIS

Document river boundaries and classify river 

segments as wild, scenic, or recreational

• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Section 3 [d])

• Secretarial Guidelines (Section II)

“Merced Wild and Scenic River 

Boundaries and Segment 

Classifications” (Chapter 3) 

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)

“Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act – Determination Process for 

Water Resources Projects” (Chapter 4) 

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)

“River Values and Their Management” 

(Chapter 5) 

Establish a management program to protect 

and enhance the river’s outstandingly 

remarkable values, free-flowing condition, 

and water quality

• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Section 3[d])

• Secretarial Guidelines (Section III)

• Interagency Council (2010)

“River Values and Their Management” 

(Chapter 5) 

“User Capacity” (Chapter 6)

“Alternatives” (Chapter 8)

Determine the type and location of lands and 

facilities (both current and future) that 

provide for public use and enjoyment of the 

river resource while protecting and 

enhancing river values

• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Section 3[d])

• Secretarial Guidelines (Section III)

“River Values and Their Management” 

(Chapter 5) 

“Major Public Facilities” (Chapter 7)

“Alternatives” (Chapter 8) 

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)

“River Values and Their Management” 

(Chapter 5) 

“User Capacity” (Chapter 6) 

“Alternatives” (Chapter 8) 

NOTE: 

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 input from the public, NPS staff, subject-matter experts, culturally-associated American 

Indian tribes and groups, and other federal, state, and local agencies as part of an extensive public 

planning process for the Final Merced River Plan/EIS. The NPS conducted project “scoping” to identify 

issues to be addressed during plan development.

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 provided 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 development of the Draft Merced River Plan/EIS: 

• 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)

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 2-11
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE FINAL MERCED RIVER PLAN / EIS

• 2011 Baseline Conditions Report Interim Public Comment Period (six public meetings or 

webinars)

• 2011 Alternative Development Workshop Interim Public Comment Period (six public 

meetings or webinars)

• 2012 Preliminary Alternative Concepts Workshops (six public meetings or webinars)

The NPS continued 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 and the review and comment period on the draft plan. 

Internal scoping—including consultation with culturally associated American Indian tribes and groups, 

other public agencies, and park staff— began with a comprehensive analysis of the river’s outstandingly 

remarkable values and continued through development of the alternatives. 

Issues and Opportunities to be Addressed in the Final Merced River Plan/EIS

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 Final Merced River Plan/EIS. Table 2-2 summarizes the 

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

actions into a range of alternatives, as appropriate. In general, the Final Merced River Plan/EIS addresses 

issues that would protect and enhance river values, provides for public use and enjoyment of the river 

resource while protecting river values, establishes user capacities, and determines appropriate types and 

amounts of major public facilities necessary to support public 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. 

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 draft Merced River Plan/EIS 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.

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

vegetation, and the visitor experience.

2-12 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Identification of Planning Issues: Public and Internal Scoping

TABLE 2-2: ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN PUBLIC SCOPING

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values (continued) 

• 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. 

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

Hydrology/Geology/Free-Flowing Condition/Water Quality

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

• The NPS should alter or remove Sugar Pine, Ahwahnee, and Stoneman bridges to protect and enhance the freeflowing 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, relocate, or re-design facilities, services, or activities that do not have a direct or 

indirect adverse effect on river values. 

• 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.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 2-13
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE FINAL MERCED RIVER PLAN / EIS

TABLE 2-2: ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN PUBLIC SCOPING

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management (continued) 

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

• The NPS should address 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, and parking in El Portal.

• 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 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 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 reduce or remove the High Sierra Camps and restore the sites. 

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

• 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.

2-14 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Identification of Planning Issues: Public and Internal Scoping

TABLE 2-2: ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN PUBLIC SCOPING

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management (continued) 

• 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.

• The NPS should not construct pedestrian underpasses or roundabouts.

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

• 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 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 

beyond the scope of this plan. “Alternatives” (Chapter 8) describes additional actions that were 

considered but dismissed in the plan. The NPS removed issues from consideration if they were:

• Already decided by law, regulation, or other higher-level decisions 

• 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

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 2-15
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE FINAL MERCED RIVER PLAN / EIS

The following issues were considered beyond the scope of the plan: 

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

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 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. 

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 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 encourage bicycle use through a non-profit bicycle exchange or NPS 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 from the Merced River corridor but do not 

necessarily occur in the river corridor, such as climbing.

2-16 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
3. MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER BOUNDARIES 

AND SEGMENT CLASSIFICATIONS

RIVER CORRIDOR BOUNDARIES

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) requires federal agencies to establish river corridor boundaries for 

each federally administered river in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. In accordance with WSRA

(Section 3[b]), boundaries may include an average of not more than 320 acres of land per mile, measured 

from the ordinary high-water mark on both sides of the river.

1 The National Park Service (NPS) used U.S. 

Geological Survey 7.5-inch topographic quadrangle data to calculate a Wild and Scenic River corridor 

boundary that encompasses all land within a quarter-mile of the ordinary high-water mark of the Merced 

River, the maximum area allowed under WSRA.2 This includes the land below the ordinary high-water 

mark, which is not included in the acreage limitation. The NPS applies this boundary consistently to the 

Merced River in Yosemite National Park and the El Portal Administrative Site, including the main stem 

Merced River, South Fork Merced River, Red Peak Fork, Merced Peak Fork, Triple Peak Fork, and Lyell 

Fork tributaries.

The NPS has presented and refined the boundaries and classifications of the Merced Wild and Scenic River 

throughout the legal and planning history of the Merced Wild and Scenic River. In 2003, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the 2000 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management 

Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement was deficient with regard to the river boundary in the El Portal 

segment, which was delineated as the 100-year floodplain along with adjacent wetlands, or a 100-foot buffer 

from the ordinary high-water mark, whichever was greater. The court found that this river corridor did not 

fully account for the location of river values in the area and directed the NPS to “reevaluate the river 

corridor boundary based on the precise location of outstandingly remarkable values.” 

The 2005 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact 

Statement revised the corridor boundary in El Portal to include all land within a quarter-mile of each side of 

the river, consistent with the rest of the river corridor. This Final Merced River Plan/EIS establishes the same

river corridor boundary for the Merced Wild and Scenic River: a quarter-mile of land measured from each 

side of the river’s ordinary high-water mark throughout all segments of the river (Figure 3-1). This action is 

common to all action alternatives included in this plan.

1 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers defines the ordinary high water mark as “ that line on the shore established by the 

fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, 

shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or 

other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.” 2 This acreage designation does not limit the protection of river values, which must be protected whether they are 

inside or outside the corridor boundary.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 3-1 

 
MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER BOUNDARIES AND SEGMENT CLASSIFICATIONS

Figure 3-1: Merced Wild and Scenic River Segment Boundaries and Classifications

WILD AND SCENIC RIVER CLASSIFICATIONS

WSRA (Section 2 [b]) directs managing agencies to classify and administer designated rivers as one of the 

following, depending on the type and intensity of development existing at the time of designation: 

Wild: Rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundment and generally inaccessible except by 

trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and water unpolluted. These represent vestiges 

of primitive America.

Scenic: Rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still 

largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads. 

Recreational: Rivers or sections of rivers readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have some 

development along their shorelines, and may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the 

past. 

These definitions provide important guidance on the type and intensity of development that is allowable in 

river segments, depending upon the segment’s classification.3 As is evident, the Act and the Guidelines 

describe development that may exist in the river areas in terms of a continuum, with the least amount of 

3 16 U.S.C. Section 1273(b).

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

 
Wild and Scenic River Classifications

development tolerated in wild segments. “Wild” segments are to be managed as “vestiges of primitive 

America,” containing little or no evidence of human activity, although a few inconspicuous structures are 

permissible. These areas generally do not contain roads and are free of impoundments. “Scenic” river 

segments may contain more discernible development. A scenic segment retains its overall natural character 

but may have structures or concentrations of structures in short reaches of the total area. Scenic segments 

may be accessible in places by roads. Finally, “recreational” segments, such as East Yosemite Valley, are 

defined as being readily accessible by road and may have roads paralleling the river on one or both banks as 

well as bridge crossings. Recreational segments may also have some residential, commercial or similar 

development, and may have evidence of impoundment or diversion.4

Although each classification permits 

some existing nonconforming

development to remain, “the criteria do 

not imply that additional inconsistent 

development is permitted in the 

future.”5 

According to WSRA requirements, this 

plan divides the Merced River into 

segments and classifies each segment as 

wild, scenic, or recreational as 

portrayed in Figure 3-1 and Table 3-1. 

This classification system is common to 

all alternatives proposed in this plan. If 

the NPS removes the Wawona 

Impoundment from the river channel at 

some time in the future, Segment 6 

would be reclassified as scenic, based 

on a reduced level of development and 

the associated enhancement to the 

river’s free-flowing condition.

The classification of a river segment 

provides a general framework for the 

type and intensity of land management 

activities that may take place in the 

future (IWSRCC 2002). A 

comprehensive management plan may allow different levels of use and development based on how a 

segment is classified. The classifications of each river segment guide the range of actions proposed in this 

plan. All proposed actions were analyzed to ensure they are compatible with the classification for each river 

segment.

4 47 Fed. Reg. 39457-58.

5 47 Fed. Reg. at 39456-57.

Merced River Classifications vs. ORVs

Throughout the Final Merced River Plan/EIS, references are 

made to river classifications, as discussed here, and to 

outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs), as discussed in 

Chapter 5.

The Final Merced River Plan/EIS has both “scenic” river 

classifications and Scenic outstandingly remarkable values 

(ORVs). A scenic river classification refers to a river, or 

segment of a river, that is free of impoundments, with 

shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive, and 

shorelines largely undeveloped but accessible in places by 

roads. A Scenic ORV, however, refers to the rare and 

exemplary river-related scenery that warrants special 

protection for the benefit and enjoyment of present and 

future generations. For example, the Merced Gorge 

(Segment 3) is classified as a scenic segment, and there is 

also a Scenic ORV in this segment. 

Similarly, references are made to “recreational” river 

classifications and Recreational ORVs. A river, or segment 

of a river, that is classified as a recreational segment is 

readily accessible by road or railroad, may have some 

development along the shorelines, and may have had 

some impoundment or diversion in the past. A 

Recreational ORV refers to the rare and exemplary, riverrelated recreational opportunities that warrant special 

protection. For example, Yosemite Valley (Segment 2) is

classified as a recreational segment, and there is also a 

Recreational ORV in this segment.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 3-3 

 
MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER BOUNDARIES AND SEGMENT CLASSIFICATIONS

TABLE 3-1: SEGMENT CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER

Segment Classification Location Justification

1 Wild Merced River Above Nevada 

Fall

This segment is in designated Wilderness, with exceptional 

water quality and no impoundments. Access is only by 

trail, with minimal structures present (trail bridges, the 

Merced Lake High Sierra Camp, and the Merced Lake 

Ranger Station). This segment is a vestige of primitive 

America. 

2A Recreational East Yosemite Valley: Top of 

Nevada Fall to Sentinel Beach

This segment is readily accessible by roads, trails, and bike 

trails, with exceptional water quality and no 

impoundments. Recreational infrastructure is present, 

including lodges, campgrounds, administrative facilities, 

and other developments typical of a heavily-visited 

destination.

2B Scenic

West Yosemite Valley: Sentinel 

Beach to junction of El Portal 

Road and Big Oak Flat Road

This segment is free of impoundments and has exceptional 

water quality, with its shorelines largely primitive and 

undeveloped (only picnic areas, parking lots, and some 

restrooms are present). Roads parallel the river on both 

sides. 

3 Scenic

Merced Gorge: Junction of El 

Portal and Big Oak Flat Roads 

to western Yosemite National 

Park boundary at Parkline

This segment is free of impoundments and has exceptional 

water quality, with its shorelines largely primitive and 

undeveloped (only a picnic area, some small parking lots, 

some restrooms, and the Arch Rock Entrance Station are 

present). A road parallels the river on its north bank.

4 Recreational

El Portal: Western Yosemite 

National Park boundary at 

Parkline to El Portal 

Administrative Site boundary

This segment is readily accessible by road with exceptional 

water quality and no impoundments. Administrative 

infrastructure is present, typical of a national park 

headquarters area.

5 Wild

South Fork Merced River 

Above Wawona: Headwaters 

to top of pool at Wawona 

Impoundment

This segment is in designated Wilderness, with exceptional 

water quality and no impoundments. Access is only by 

trail, with no structures present. This segment is a vestige 

of primitive America.

6 Recreational

Wawona Impoundment: Top 

of pool at Wawona 

Impoundment to 200 feet 

below dam

This small segment is readily accessible by road and has a 

small, historic impoundment and exceptional water quality. 

7 Recreational

Wawona: 200 feet below 

Wawona Impoundment to 

Squirrel Creek 

This segment is readily accessible by road and trail with 

exceptional water quality and no impoundments. 

Recreational infrastructure is present, including a lodge, a 

campground, administrative facilities, and other 

developments typical of a popular visitor destination.

8 Wild

South Fork Merced River 

Below Wawona: Squirrel 

Creek to western park 

boundary 

This segment is managed to provide primitive recreational 

opportunities, with exceptional water quality and no 

impoundments. No trails or structures are present. This 

segment is a vestige of primitive America. 

3-4 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
4. DETERMINATION PROCESS FOR WATER 

RESOURCES PROJECTS

The U.S. Congress enacted the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) in 1968 to end decades of damming, 

dredging, and diversion of some of the nation’s most spectacular waterways. Section 7 is a key provision of 

WSRA that restricts water resources projects, or those that are within the bed and banks of the Merced 

River or affect the river’s free-flowing condition. Section 7 requires a rigorous and consistent interagency 

process for protecting river resources. This chapter describes the process used to protect the free-flowing 

condition of the Merced River when a proposed a water resources project triggers a review and 

determination under Section 7 of WSRA. Water resources projects include, but are not limited to, dams, 

water diversion projects, fisheries habitat and watershed restoration/enhancement projects, bridge and 

other roadway construction/reconstruction projects, bank stabilization projects, channelization projects, 

levee construction, recreation facilities such as boat ramps and fishing piers, and activities that require a 

Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

1

While no new dams will be proposed on the Merced River in the future due to its status as a Wild and Scenic 

River, other potential water resources projects along the Merced Wild and Scenic River could be proposed, 

including projects with the purpose of enhancing the hydrological/geological processes and the biological 

values of the river. The National Park Service (NPS) will conduct a “Section 7 Determination Process” as 

described in the next section of this chapter for all proposed projects that require review under Section 7 of 

WSRA. Any proposed project that meets the following conditions must undergo an initial review, as 

depicted in Table 4-1, to confirm whether the proposed project is subject to the Section 7 Determination 

process: 

• Proposed projects in the bed or banks of the Merced River, or

• Proposed projects in the bed or banks of a tributary to the main stems of the Merced River 

The next section in this chapter describes the “Section 7 Determination Process.” 

The NPS will conduct a Section 7 Determination for the Selected Action and present the results as an 

appendix to the Record of Decision for the plan (Appendix T). 

THE SECTION 7 DETERMINATION PROCESS

Any federally assisted water resources project that would have a “direct and adverse effect” on the values for 

which a river was added to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System is prohibited. The NPS is responsible for 

making the final determination as to whether a proposed water resources project would have a direct and 

adverse impact on river values in the portion of the Merced River within Yosemite National Park and the 

El Portal Administrative Site. The NPS must coordinate the Section 7 Determination process with other

agencies that are required to review and comment on the project. Depending on the type and location of the

1 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires that a permit is obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, prior to 

beginning any non-exempt activity involving the placement of dredged or fill material in waters of the e United States,

including wetlands.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 4-1 

 
DETERMINATION PROCESS FOR WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

project, such agencies might include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Environmental Protection 

Agency, the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Review of projects subject to a Section 7 Determination will be coordinated with other environmental 

review processes such as those required under the National Environmental Policy Act. In accordance with 

WSRA, potential water resources projects that could have a direct and adverse impact on the values of a 

designated river must be: (1) redesigned and resubmitted for a subsequent Section 7 Determination, 

(2) abandoned, or (3) reported to the Secretary of the Interior and Congress.

 

TABLE 4-1: DETERMINING THE NEED FOR A SECTION 7 DETERMINATION UNDER WSRA

When is a Determination under Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Required?

IF IF

• The project is proposed in the bed or banks of a 

designated river or congressionally authorized study river

• The project is proposed in the bed or banks of tributary to a 

designated river or congressionally authorized study river

AND AND

• The project is proposed by a federal agency or it requires 

some type of federal assistance such as a permit, license, 

grant, or loan

• The project is proposed by a federal agency or it requires some 

type of federal assistance such as a permit, license, grant, or 

loan

AND

• The project is likely to result in effects within a designated river 

or congressionally authorized study river

THEN THEN

A Section 7 Determination is required when both of the 

above conditions exist.

A Section 7 Determination is required when 

all of the above conditions exist.

Federal Projects within the Bed and Banks of Tributaries to a Wild and 

Scenic River

Proposed non-hydroelectric projects with federal assistance that would take place within the bed and banks 

of tributaries to Wild and Scenic Rivers have a slightly different evaluation standard than projects proposed 

directly in the bed and banks of a Wild and Scenic River. These projects must not “invade the area or 

unreasonably diminish” Wild and Scenic River values. 

Steps in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Section 7 Determination Process

The following WSRA Section 7 Determination process is adapted from a technical report by the Interagency 

Council (IWSRCC 2004). In conformance with the guidance contained in that report, the NPS will 

undertake the following steps as part of its Section 7 Determination process for non-emergency projects:

• Describe the purpose and need for the proposed project and its location, duration, magnitude, and 

relationship to past and future management activities.

4-2 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
The Section 7 Determination Process

• Analyze the potential impacts of the proposed project on the values for which the river was 

designated Wild and Scenic. This analysis will follow the guidelines provided by the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act, Section 7 Technical Report of the Interagency Council (2004), and other applicable 

guidance.

• Define the likely duration of the projected impacts.

• Use this analysis to make a WSRA Section 7 Determination. This determination will document the 

effects of the proposed activity, including any direct and adverse effects on the values for which the 

river was designated Wild and Scenic. 

• Redesign and resubmit any water resources projects found to have a direct and adverse impact on 

the values of this designated river for a subsequent Section 7 Determination. In the event that a 

project cannot be redesigned to avoid direct and adverse impacts on the values for which the river 

was designated, the NPS will either abandon the project or advise the Secretary of the Interior in 

writing and report to Congress in writing in accordance with WSRA Section 7(a). 

• Follow WSRA Section 7 procedures to determine if projects within the bed and banks of a tributary 

would invade the area or unreasonably diminish the scenic, recreational, and fish and wildlife 

values present in the designated corridor.

Emergency projects, such as repairing a broken sewer line in or near the river, may temporarily proceed 

without a Section 7 Determination. However, a Section 7 Determination must be completed in a timely 

manner upon completion of the project. Emergency water resources projects that are later determined to 

have a direct and adverse impact on the river values shall be mitigated based on the findings of the Section 7 

determination.

Flowcharts to Illustrate WSRA Section 7 Determination Process

The Interagency Council’s Wild and Scenic Rivers Act: Section 7 Technical Report (IWSRCC 2004) suggests 

procedures to evaluate the effects of proposed water resources projects. The Interagency Council website 

also includes examples of Section 7 Determinations for common types of water resources projects.

2 The

Interagency Council developed three flowcharts to guide managers in determining whether a proposal is 

subject to review under Section 7(a) and, if so, which standard and evaluative procedure applies. These 

flowcharts, as illustrated in Figure 4-1, Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3 also reference the appropriate detailed

evaluative process in the Interagency Council’s Section 7 technical report. The flowcharts would be the 

basis of the Section 7 Determination process for the Merced River Plan Record of Decision. 

Using the flowcharts, managers would follow the track for proposed water resources projects located either 

within the Merced River corridor or outside (upstream, downstream, or on a tributary to) the Merced River 

corridor (Figure 4-1). Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3 provide a more detailed explanation of the process. Figure 

4-2 can be used for water resources projects that would be located within a designated river corridor, and 

Figure 4-3 can be used for water resources projects that would be located outside a designated river 

corridor. 

2 http://www.rivers.gov/rivers/documents/section7/flowchart-introduction.pdf

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 4-3 

 
4‐4																																																																																																																														Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS Figure 4-1: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Section 7 Determination Process Flowchart WRP3 assisted by federal agency Any construction4 that affects a WSR’s free-flowing condition WRP2 licensed by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) “Construction of any dam, water conduit, reservoir, powerhouse, transmission line, or other project works under the Federal Power Act (FPA)” Evaluative Standard: “On or directly affecting” Evaluative Standard: “Direct and adverse effects” Standard prohibits any hydropower project works licensed under FPA within WSR corridor. Standard requires evaluation of project effects on free-flowing condition, water quality and each outstandingly remarkable value. Use procedure outlined in Appendix C of Council’s Section 7 technical report. WRP assisted by 

Any construction wit

banks upstream, dow

tributary 

Evaluativ

“Invade 

unreasona

Requires:  License or exemption by FERC  Project works within bed, banks 

or corridor 

Requires: Assistance5 by a federal agency 

 Within bed or banks6

Requires: Assistance by fed Within bed or ba

downstream or o

 Potential to affec

scenery, recreatiovalues present w

Standard requires eeffects on free-flowinscenery, recreation, fipresent in the WSR at designation. Use the pAppendix D of the Cotechnical report.	

Water Resources Project (WRP) within a 

Wild and Scenic River1 

(“Within” Flowchart) 

Water Resource

outside a Wild a

(“Outside” 
The Section 7 Determination Process

Figure 4-2: Section 7 Determination: Flowchart for a Water Resources Project

Within a Wild and Scenic River Corridor1

NO NO

NO

YES

NO

Does project5

involve construction 

in a Wild and Scenic 

River’s bed or 

banks6 (below 

ordinary high water 

mark)?

Project not 

subject to 

Section 7(a)

Project not

subject to 

Section 7(a)

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

prohibits any project works 

licensed under Part I of the 

FPA within a Wild and Scenic 

River corridor.

Project not 

subject to 

Section 7(a)

Transmit finding to FERC. Transmit finding to federal assisting agency.

Is project federally assisted2 construction3 (loan, grant, 

license or other assistance)?

YES

YES

Evaluate water resources project under “direct 

and adverse effect” standard.

Determine project effects on free-flowing 

condition, water quality and each 

outstandingly remarkable value. Use the 

procedure outlined in Appendix C of the 

Council’s Section 7 technical report.

YES

Is project located within a Wild and Scenic River 

corridor?

Is project4 licensed by the 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC) under 

Federal Power Act (FPA)?

“Any dam, water conduit, 

reservoir, powerhouse, 

transmission line, or other 

project works under FPA”

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 4-5 
DETERMINATION PROCESS FOR WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

Figure 4-3: Section 7(a) Flowchart for a Water Resources Project Outside

of a Wild and Scenic River Corridor

YES

NO

NO

Is project4 located within river’s bed or banks5

upstream, downstream, or on a tributary to a Wild 

and Scenic River corridor? Project not subject to 

Section 7(a)

Project not subject to 

Section 7(a)

Is project federally assisted2 construction3 (loan, 

grant, license or other assistance)?

YES

Project not subject to 

Section 7(a)

Does water resources project6 have potential to 

affect free-flow or scenery, recreation, fish or 

wildlife values present within a Wild and Scenic 

River?

NO

YES

Evaluate under “invade the area or unreasonably 

diminish” standard. Use procedure outlined in 

Appendix D of the Council’s technical report.

Transmit finding to federal assisting agency.

4-6 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
The Section 7 Determination Process

FLOWCHART FOOTNOTES (For Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3) 

1 A Wild and Scenic River includes the river channel and adjacent areas within the Wild and Scenic River 

boundaries pursuant to Section 3(a) or 2(a) (ii) of WSRA. 

2 A water resources project (i.e., a hydropower project licensed under the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission) refers to construction of any dam, water conduit, reservoir, powerhouse, transmission line, or 

other project work under the hydropower provisions (license and exemption) of the Federal Power Act (Part I), 

as amended (41 Stat. 1063; 16 USC 791a et seq.). Other facilities licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission under the Federal Power Act (e.g., interstate power transmission lines or natural gas pipelines) 

are not prohibited outright. They are subject to review under Section 7(a) only if they include construction as 

described in Footnote 6. 

3 A water resources project is federally assisted construction that would affect a designated river’s freeflowing characteristics, as defined in Section 16(b) of WSRA (see footnote 6). Examples of water resources 

projects include, but are not limited to: fisheries habitat and watershed restoration/enhancement projects; 

water diversion projects; transmission lines and pipelines; bridge and other roadway 

construction/reconstruction projects; dams; water conduits; bank stabilization projects; channelization 

projects; powerhouses; levee construction; reservoirs; recreation facilities such as boat ramps or fishing piers; 

or dredge and fill projects that require a federal permit, such as from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as 

required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). 

4 Construction refers to any action carried out with federal assistance that would affect the free-flowing 

characteristics of a Wild and Scenic River.

5 Assistance refers to any loan, grant, license, or other assistance in the construction of any water resources 

project.

6 Bed or banks is limited to the area within the ordinary high-water mark of the river. The ordinary high-water 

mark is defined in 33 CFR Part 328.3(e) as “...that line on the shore established by fluctuations of water and 

indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in 

the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other 

appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.” 

7 Requires a nexus between the proposed tributary project and the Wild and Scenic River or such project is not 

a water resources project for purposes of a Section 7 Determination. Projects that have the potential to affect 

the river’s free-flowing condition or the scenery, recreation, fish, or wildlife values of a Wild and Scenic River 

are dams, upstream diversion structures, and projects that can be seen from the Wild and Scenic River, as 

they have the potential to affect these characteristics and values in the designated river.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 4-7 
DETERMINATION PROCESS FOR WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

This page intentionally left blank

4-8 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
5. RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

This chapter begins with a brief orientation to the river values identified for the Merced Wild and Scenic 

River, and the concepts of management standard, adverse impact, and degradation integral to protection. 

The bulk of the chapter discusses each river value in detail, including a summary of its current condition, 

associated management concerns and specific actions to protect the river value, and the monitoring 

program the National Park Service (NPS) will use to protect river values from adverse impact or 

degradation in the future. The monitoring program described in this chapter and the associated actions to 

protect river values are common to all alternatives. Further actions designed to enhance river values vary by 

alternative (see “Alternatives” Chapter 8).

MANDATE TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE RIVER VALUES

The Merced River was added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System in acknowledgement of the 

river’s (1) free-flowing condition, (2) water quality, and (3) outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs). 

Collectively, these qualities are referred to as river values. Section 10(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

(WSRA) provides the following broad direction related to river management:

Each component of the national wild and scenic rivers system shall be administered in such 

manner as to protect and enhance the values which caused it to be included in said system 

without, insofar as is consistent therewith, limiting other uses that do not substantially 

interfere with public use and enjoyment of these values. In such administration primary 

emphasis shall be given to protecting its aesthetic, scenic, historic, archaeologic, and 

scientific features. Management plans for any such component may establish varying 

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

the area.

Under the Final Merced River Plan/EIS, protection and enhancement of river values is accomplished by a 

series of initial actions to address immediate concerns and a commitment to a monitoring program to 

ensure that river values remain protected over time. In addition, all action alternatives in the plan include a 

number of site-specific actions directed toward the general improvement of conditions in the river corridor, 

thereby enhancing river values and fulfilling the goals of the WSRA. 

THE RIVER VALUES OF THE MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER

This section describes the river values of the Merced Wild and Scenic River. There are 20 outstandingly 

remarkable values (ORVs) in addition to the river’s free-flowing condition and water quality, which the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act stipulates must be protected for all Wild and Scenic Rivers.

Free-Flowing Condition

A river must be in a free-flowing state to be eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System. Once a river is designated, the managing agency is required to preserve it in its free-flowing 

condition for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-1 
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

Water Quality

Another goal of the WSRA is to protect the water quality of designated rivers. Water quality in the Merced 

River is exceptionally high, and far superior to federal and state standards.

Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs)

Section 1(b) of WSRA describes other values to be protected with wild and scenic river designation:

“It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that certain selected rivers of the 

Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, 

recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall be 

preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be 

preserved for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations”. 

The Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council (Interagency Council or IWSRCC) was 

formed in 1995 to assist those federal and state agencies charged with administering designated wild and 

scenic rivers.1 The council’s mission is to make recommendations that will foster consistency in the 

interpretation and implementation of WSRA. The council has issued specific guidance and criteria for 

identifying ORVs (IWSRCC 1999):

• To be considered an ORV, a value must be river-related or river-dependent, [which means that] a 

value must be located in the river or on its immediate shorelands (generally within 0.25 mile on 

either side of the river); contribute substantially to the functioning of the river ecosystem; and/or 

owe its location or existence to the presence of the river.

• To be considered an ORV, a value must be rare, unique, or exemplary in a regional or national 

context, [which means that] a value should be a conspicuous example from among a number of 

similar values that are themselves uncommon or extraordinary.

The council described additional criteria for assessing each category of ORVs listed in the WSRA, noting 

that these criteria may be modified to make them more meaningful to a particular river. The council also 

notes that while no specific national evaluation guidelines have been developed for the “other similar 

values” mentioned in WSRA, agencies may assess additional river-related values, including but not limited 

to hydrology, paleontology, and botany resources, consistent with the guidance provided (IWSRCC 1999).

The NPS described and refined ORVs for the Merced River several times during the planning history for the 

river. As noted above, ORVs for the Merced were discussed in the river’s eligibility study (1986), the 1996

Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan, and previous river plans (2000 and 2005) that were ultimately 

invalidated by legal decisions. The major changes in the ORVs through time were: 

• Air quality was listed as an ORV in the 1996 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan. Air quality was not 

listed as an ORV in the 2000 Merced River Plan/EIS and subsequent plans because it was 

inconsistent with IWSRCC criteria, and because it is not river-related or river-dependent.

• “Scientific resources” were removed as an ORV because the topic was considered vague, and the 

resource was inherent in all ORVs.

• Two ORVs, geology and hydrology, were merged in 2010. In the view of subject-matter experts, 

these interdependent ORVs are difficult to address separately in the context of the Final Merced 

River Plan/EIS. 

1 See http://rivers.gov/council.html. 

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

 
The River Values of the Merced Wild and Scenic River

In 2010, the NPS conducted six workshops to consult with members of the public, academia, tribes, and 

other governmental agencies regarding ORVs for the Final Merced River Plan/EIS. At the public workshops, 

the NPS described the ORVs to date and asked three questions: 

1. Do you have any specific knowledge of locations with river-related or river-dependent features or 

resources not addressed by the NPS ORV report? 

2. Do you have any knowledge or observations regarding the conditions of river features and values 

that should be addressed? 

3. How should the NPS protect and enhance river resources and values? 

The NPS also accepted written input on ORVs, and more than 30 people or organizations submitted letters. 

With input from other agencies, tribes, and members of the public, Yosemite park staff used the best 

available science and their professional judgment to refine and finalize the list of river-related values for the 

Final Merced River Plan/EIS (Table 5-1). The Sierra Nevada region was the primary region of comparison 

for determining rare, unique or exemplary status. More detail about each of the Merced River ORVs is 

provided in this chapter.

TABLE 5-1: OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE VALUES (ORVS) OF THE MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER IN YOSEMITE

Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Merced Wild and Scenic River

in Yosemite National Park and the El Portal Administrative Site

Biological ORVs

Segments 1 and 5 – Merced River Above Nevada Fall and South Fork Merced River Above Wawona

1. The Merced River sustains numerous small meadows and riparian habitat with high biological integrity. 

Segments 2A and 2B – Yosemite Valley

2. The meadows and riparian communities of Yosemite Valley comprise one of the largest mid-elevation meadowriparian complexes in the Sierra Nevada.

Segments 7 and 8 – Wawona and South Fork Merced River below Wawona 

3. Sierra sweet bay (Myrica hartwegii) is a rare plant found on river banks of the South Fork Merced River.

Geological/Hydrological ORVs

Segment 1 – Merced River Above Nevada Fall

4. The upper Merced River canyon is a textbook example of a glacially-carved canyon.

Segments 2A and 2B – Yosemite Valley

5. The “Giant Staircase,” which includes Vernal and Nevada Falls, is one of the finest examples in the western 

United States of stair-step river morphology.

6. The Merced River from Happy Isles to the west end of Yosemite Valley provides an outstanding example of a 

rare, mid-elevation alluvial river.

Segment 4 – El Portal

7. The boulder bar in El Portal was created by changing river gradients, glacial history, and powerful floods. These 

elements have resulted in accumulation of extraordinarily large boulders, which are rare in such deposits. 

Cultural ORVs

Segments 2A and 2B – Yosemite Valley

8. Yosemite Valley American Indian ethnographic resources include a linked landscape of specifically mapped 

traditional-use plant populations as well as the ongoing traditional cultural practices that reflect the intricate 

continuing relationship between indigenous peoples of the Yosemite region and the Merced River in Yosemite 

Valley. 

9. The Yosemite Valley Archeological District is an unusually rich and linked landscape that contains dense 

concentrations of resources that represent thousands of years of human settlement.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-3 
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

TABLE 5-1: OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE VALUES (ORVS) OF THE MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER IN YOSEMITE

Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Merced Wild and Scenic River

in Yosemite National Park and the El Portal Administrative Site

Cultural ORVs (continued)

Segments 2A and 2B – Yosemite Valley (continued)

10. The Yosemite Valley Historic District represents a linked landscape of river-related or river-dependent, rare, 

unique or exemplary contributing resources that bear witness to the historical significance of the river system. 

Segment 4 – El Portal

11. The El Portal Archeological District contains dense concentrations of resources that represent thousands of 

years of occupation and evidence of continuous, far-reaching traffic and trade. This segment includes some of 

the oldest deposits in the region and the archeological remains of the Johnny Wilson Ranch, a regionally rare 

historic-era American Indian Homestead.

Segment 5 – South Fork Merced River Above Wawona

12. This segment includes regionally rare archeological features representing indigenous settlement and use along 

the South Fork Merced River at archeological sites with rock ring features.

Segments 5, 6, 7, and 8 – South Fork Merced River Above Wawona, Wawona Impoundment, Wawona, 

South Fork Merced River Below Wawona

13. The Wawona Archeological District encompasses numerous clusters of resources spanning thousands of years 

of occupation, including evidence of continuous far-reaching traffic and trade. Segment 7 includes the remains 

of the U.S. Army Cavalry Camp A.E. Wood documenting the unique Yosemite legacy of the African American 

Buffalo Soldiers and the strategic placement of their camp near the Merced River.

14. The Wawona Historic Resources ORV includes one of the few covered bridges in the region and the National 

Historic Landmark Wawona Hotel complex, which is one of the largest existing Victorian hotel complex in a 

national park and one of the few remaining in the United States with this high level of integrity.

Scenic ORVs

Segment 1 – Merced River Above Nevada Fall

15. Visitors to this Wilderness segment experience exemplary views of serene montane lakes, pristine meadows, 

slickrock cascades, and High Sierra peaks.

Segments 2A and 2B – Yosemite Valley

16. Visitors to Yosemite Valley experience views of some of the world’s most iconic scenery, with the river and 

meadows forming a placid foreground to towering cliffs and waterfalls.

Segment 3 – The Merced Gorge

17. The Merced River drops 2,000 feet over 14 miles, a continuous cascade under exemplary Sierra granite 

outcrops and domes.

Segments 5 and 8 – South Fork Merced River Above and Below Wawona

18. The South Fork Merced River passes through a vast area of exemplary and wild scenic beauty.

Recreational ORVs

Segment 1 – Merced River Above Nevada Fall

19. Visitors to federally designated Wilderness in the corridor engage in a variety of river-related activities in an 

iconic High Sierra landscape, where opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation, self-reliance, or

solitude shape the experience.

Segments 2A and 2B – Yosemite Valley

20. Visitors to Yosemite Valley enjoy a wide variety of river-related recreational activities in the Valley’s 

extraordinary setting along the Merced River.

5-4 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Protecting and Enhancing River Values

PROTECTING AND ENHANCING RIVER VALUES

At the direction of the President in 1982, the Secretaries of the Interior and of Agriculture jointly promulgated 

regulations (hereafter referred to as the guidelines2) implementing WSRA. The guidelines interpret the 

“protect and enhance” directive of WSRA as a “nondegradation and enhancement mandate for all designated 

river areas, regardless of classification.” Under the guidelines, rivers must be “managed to protect and enhance 

the values for which the river was designated, while providing for public recreation and resources uses which 

do not adversely impact or degrade those values.” To do so, agencies are instructed to address the kinds and 

amounts of public use that the river area can sustain without adverse impact to river values. Guidance is also 

provided on the location of major public-use facilities with regard to the river corridor, and agencies are 

instructed to ensure that any such development does not adversely impact river values.3

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the Ninth Circuit) has interpreted WSRA and its 

implementing guidelines to mean that a comprehensive river management plan must contain provisions 

designed to prevent any adverse impacts or degradation from occurring. Specific thresholds must be stated 

for mandatory management action that will occur ahead of any such impacts or degradation. In addition, a 

comprehensive river management must address “both past and ongoing degradation.”4

In its technical report on managing wild and scenic rivers, the Interagency Council recommends that managers 

should document and eliminate adverse impacts on ORVs, free flow, and water quality, “including activities 

that were occurring on the date of designation.”5 According to the council, any past degradation or adverse 

impacts in existence as of the date of designation should be carefully assessed, and the managing agency should 

establish “a positive trajectory for any value that was in a degraded condition.”6

In order to assess the health of river values at the date of designation and to ensure that no further 

degradation or adverse impact occurs, the Interagency Council recommends “the river administering 

agency should document baseline resource conditions and monitor changes to these conditions.”7

According to the council, this baseline:

“...serves as the basis from which the degree/intensity of existing and future impacts can be 

measured. All future activities are to be measured from this baseline to ensure continued high 

quality conditions and to eliminate adverse impacts (protect) or improve conditions (enhance) 

within the river corridor. If a thorough resource assessment that includes a baseline description of 

the outstandingly remarkable values is not completed at the time of designation, this assessment 

should be included in the river management plan. The river management plan then establishes the 

baseline conditions at the time of designation—including a description of any degradation—and 

proposes management actions that will be taken to improve conditions until they meet the 

requirement to protect and enhance the river’s values.” 

2 National Wild and Scenic River System; Final Revised Guidelines for Eligibility, Classification and Management of 

River Areas, 47 FR 39454 (1982).

3 Id. at 39458-9. In order to be located within the river area, major public use facilities such as visitor centers, 

administrative facilities, and developed campgrounds, must be (1) necessary for public use or resource protection; (2) 

infeasible to move outside the river area; and (3) have no adverse impacts on River Values. 4 Friends of Yosemite v. Kempthorne, 520 F.3d 1024, 1035-36 (Ninth Circuit, 2008) [hereafter FYVIII].

5 IWSRCC, “Wild and Scenic River Management Responsibilities,” page 26 (2002), available at http://www.rivers.gov/

publications/management.pdf. 6 IWSRCC, “A Compendium of Questions and Answers Relating to Wild & Scenic Rivers,” page 69 (2011), available at 

http://rivers.gov/publications/q-a.pdf. 7 IWSRCC, “Wild and Scenic River Management Responsibilities,” page 22 (2002), available at http://rivers.gov/

publications/management.pdf.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-5 

 
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

By assessing baseline conditions, past adverse impacts or degradation can be identified and corrected.8 In 

addition, any downward trends that could lead to adverse impacts or degradation can be identified and 

addressed at an early stage. The river management plan then responds to the management situation described 

in the baseline condition report. The plan identifies management actions needed to correct situations where 

river values are threatened and proposes additional actions to enhance river values, where possible. 

The WSRA program embodied in the river management plan includes the following steps, each of which is 

important in carrying out the act’s mandate: 

1. Identify and define river values

2. Define the terms “adverse impact,” “degradation,” “enhancement,” “management standard,”

“management concern,” and “localized concern” as they are used to describe the condition of river

values

3. Assess the baseline condition of all river values, including both the current state and, to the extent

possible, the condition at the time of designation (1987)

4. Select measurable indicators for each river value, and set metrics for the associated management

standard and triggers for management concerns as well as thresholds for adverse impact and

degradation

5. Assess each river value for the presence of adverse impacts, degradation and/or management

concerns, as defined in steps 2 and 4

6. Describe and commit to management actions needed to mitigate or eliminate adverse impacts,

degradation and management concerns

7. Implement a monitoring program for each indicator, with pre-determined conditions that will

trigger specific management actions needed to ensure that river values remain protected and

enhanced over time.

In April 2011, the NPS produced a draft baseline conditions report of river values both at the time of the 

Merced River’s 1987 designation and 2010. The September 2012 version of the Merced Wild and Scenic River 

Values Baseline Conditions Report incorporates the findings of scientific studies conducted specifically for 

the Merced River planning effort. 

KEY CONCEPTS FOR RIVER MANAGEMENT UNDER WSRA

The following sections provide definitions of “adverse impact” and “degradation” in the context of WSRA 

requirements, which are not to be confused with similar terminology used for the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) analysis included in “Volume II” of this EIS or the analysis completed in accordance with 

the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). For purposes of WSRA, an adverse impact to a river value is 

not synonymous with an adverse impact under NEPA or an adverse effect to a historical property under NHPA. 

In this chapter, adverse impacts under WSRA pertain specifically to river values and are defined according to 

measurable thresholds determined at a segmentwide scale. Adverse impacts documented in NEPA for this 

plan are resource-specific and may be observed at a smaller scale. Thus, the adverse impacts reported in 

Volume II do not necessarily equate to adverse impacts/effects under WSRA/NHPA. 

8 According to the Interagency Council, adverse impacts to river values “must be identified in development of the 

CRMP, with appropriate strategies detailed for their resolution.” IWSRCC, “Wild and Scenic River Management 

Responsibilities,” page 22 (2002), available at http://rivers.gov/publications/management.pdf. 

5-6 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Key Concepts for River Management under WSRA

Just as clarity is needed when defining the ORVs, it is necessary to define a number of terms in order to 

know how to translate the protection and enhancement mandate of WSRA into management activities. 

Enhancement 

Enhancement is defined as actions taken to improve the condition of a river value. This definition is based 

upon guidance provided by the Interagency Council: “Enhance rivers by seeking opportunities to improve 

conditions.”9 Such actions improve the conditions of a river value to the point where the river value’s 

condition meets or exceeds the management standard (defined below). These actions where possible 

correct past and present degradation. The state of enhancement is the best possible condition for a river 

value. Both Chapters 5 and 8 address opportunities to enhance river values. 

Management Standard

A management standard is defined as the desired condition of a river value. Under this plan, all river 

values will be protected and enhanced in accordance with WSRA and the Secretaries’ Guidelines for River 

Areas. The management standard is the desired condition of a river value attainable given current trends 

and influences beyond NPS control. As discussed in more detail below, most river values are currently in a 

condition that is better than the management standard. Enhancement actions included in the plan will serve 

to increase river value quality above the management standard; in other words, the management standard is

a protected state, but enhancement actions may still be possible.

Protection

Recent guidance by the Interagency Council (IWSRCC 2011) equates protection under WSRA with the 

elimination and/or avoidance of adverse impacts. It is, therefore, important to define adverse impact in 

order to know what constitutes a “protected” state. 

Adverse Impact (WSRA)

Adverse impact is defined as a substantial reduction in the condition of a river value in relation to the 

management standard as a result of public use or development. An adverse impact is a segmentwide

condition and requires immediate attention by the agency. It may be detected by periodic monitoring or by 

other means. When more than one indicator is monitored for any river value, an adverse impact associated 

with any one of the indicators constitutes an adverse impact on the value as a whole.

Under WSRA, the NPS must protect the river area against those impacts that “substantially interfere” with 

river values.10 Like “degradation” (defined below) “adverse impact” is not explicitly defined in WSRA or the 

Secretarial Guidelines. In cases of this nature, the Ninth Circuit has held that, absent further guidance, such 

9 IWSRCC, “Wild and Scenic River Management Responsibilities,” page 26 (2002), available at 

http://rivers.gov/publications/management.pdf. 10 Hell’s Canyon Alliance v. U.S. Forest Service (USFS), 227 F.3d 1170, at 1177-78 (9th Circuit 2000). As one court has 

observed, the act requires managers to exercise discretion and judgment in order to strike a balance between use and 

preservation. Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 69 F. Supp. 2d 1202, 1254 (E.D. Cal. 1999). (“If anything, the WSRA seems 

deliberately ambiguous as to how an agency is supposed to balance the recognized tension between use and 

preservation.”) 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-7 

 
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

terms should be given their ordinary meaning.11 In this plan, NPS has defined the term in accordance with 

its plain, ordinary meaning, and best professional judgment. Consistent with the statutory language in 

WSRA, an adverse impact is a substantial reduction in the condition of a river value throughout a given river 

segment. Such an impact could be sudden and unforeseeable, or it could develop over a specified period of 

time, as reflected through the findings of periodic assessments.12

As discussed in this chapter, the specific conditions that constitute an adverse impact have been defined for 

each river value. These metrics were established using the best available scientific information, including 

research conducted specifically for this planning effort, and reasoned professional judgment.

Degradation

Degradation is defined as the state in which a river value has been fundamentally altered by public use or 

development to the point that its value is lost for at least a decade. Degradation is a long-term condition 

that is segmentwide. A river value has been degraded when recovery would only be possible through a 

sustained change in park management and a significant investment of financial and natural capital. 

Degradation may be detected by the baseline condition assessment, by periodic monitoring, or by other 

means.

The Ninth Circuit has held under WSRA that a comprehensive management plan must “trigger management 

action before degradation occurs.”13 Like adverse impact, degradation is not defined in either the act or the 

guidelines. This plan therefore relies on the common, ordinary meaning of the term.14 Merriam Webster’s 

Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, defines degradation as a “decline to a low, destitute, or demoralized 

state,” while degrade is defined as “to lower or impair in respect to some physical property” or “to lower in 

grade, rank, or status.” Similarly, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary Unabridged uses both of the 

above definitions of degrade as well as “to lower from a superior to an inferior level.” Thus, the common, 

ordinary meaning of degradation is consistent with that given above: a substantial reduction in the condition 

of a river value to a clearly defined, low state of functioning.

11 Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 796 (9thCircuit 2003) (citing Hell’s Canyon Alliance v. USFS, 

227 F.3d 1170, at 1177 (9th Cir. 2000). 

12 The requirement that in order to be an adverse impact, a decline must be substantial and sustained over time is 

intended to exclude limited, transitory, or natural fluctuations in condition from the definition. Many river values 

may experience temporary downward trends that are not indicative of any threat to the segmentwide condition of the 

river value as a whole. For example, an animal may drown while crossing the Merced River, thereby temporarily 

increasing nearby coliform bacteria counts. In another example, some downward trends may be the result of natural 

variations in function over time. Drought years, for example, may negatively influence the diversity and productivity 

of grasses in Yosemite Valley Meadows for several years in a row. For these reasons, the trends leading to adverse 

impacts must be reflective of something more than inconsequential changes or short-term fluctuations. More rarely, 

sudden unforeseeable impacts may occur that require immediate action to mitigate. 13 FYVIII, 520 F.3d 1024, 1034-35 (Ninth Circuit 2008).

14 Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 796 (9th Circuit 2003) (citing Hell’s Canyon Alliance v. USFS, 

227 F.3d 1170, at 1177 (9th Circuit 2000). “Degradation” is not a term from the act, but from the Secretaries’ 

Guidelines for River Areas. The Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed that where an agency’s regulations construing 

a statute are ambiguous, the agency’s own interpretation of those terms are entitled to substantial weight. Chase Bank 

USA, N.A. v. McCoy, 131 S. Ct. 871, 880 (2011). In this case NPS has determined that the ordinary meaning of the 

term “degradation” is the most reasoned reading of the text of the guidelines because it will enable the agency to use 

the best available science to establish clear and specific thresholds for degradation of each outstandingly remarkable 

value (ORV), as well as a monitoring program that triggers action intended to prevent degradation prior to its 

incidence. See FYVIII, 348 F.3d at 1034.

5-8 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS

 
Key Concepts for River Management under WSRA

As presented in this chapter, each river value has a specific set of conditions that equate to degradation. The 

NPS relied on the best available science and reasoned professional judgment in determining those conditions.

Management Concern

The goal of this river plan is to maintain all river values in a condition that meets or exceeds the associated 

management standard. However, in a dynamic natural setting, fluctuations in resource conditions can be 

expected to occur over time. The key to successful management then is to provide a series of checkpoints in 

the monitoring framework that will be used to trigger actions to arrest downward trends before conditions 

drop to the level of, and then perhaps below, the management standard. Therefore, for each river value, a 

series of “trigger points” have been established at incremental levels above the management standard. When 

monitoring indicates that the condition of a river value has reached a specific trigger point, the situation is 

described as a management concern. Management concerns are to be immediately addressed and 

corrective measures have been identified and included in the management framework described for each 

river value later in this chapter as “Actions to Protect River Values.” 

Management concerns are correctable and do not necessarily bring the river value condition to the level of 

adverse impact or degradation. Another form of management concern is a downward trend in river 

condition that is occurring so slowly that the river condition has not fallen below the management standard 

but might do so if the downward trend is not arrested and reversed. In either case, the NPS will take the 

actions identified for each river value when a trigger point is reached. A river value that has documented 

management concerns is still considered to be protected but requires management action to remain so.

Localized Concern

Localized concerns are localized areas of impact to components of a river value whose overall condition is 

within the management standard. Management actions can be taken that will improve (enhance) conditions 

in the river corridor. Localized concerns may also be addressed by actions such as long-term monitoring 

programs, such as water quality monitoring to identify any localized changes in water quality. Because of 

their limited extent, localized concerns can be corrected with relatively simple actions that help to ensure 

the associated river value remains at or above the management standard.

Baseline Condition Assessment

To assess the health of river values and ensure that no degradation or adverse impact occurs, the 

Interagency Council recommends that managing agencies “document baseline resource conditions and 

monitor changes to these conditions.”15 According to the council, the baseline resource condition:

“... serves as the basis from which the degree/intensity of existing and future impacts can be 

measured. All future activities are to be measured from this baseline to ensure continued 

high quality conditions and to eliminate adverse effects (protect) or improve conditions 

(enhance) within the river corridor. If a thorough resource assessment that includes a 

baseline description of the ORVs is not completed at the time of designation, this 

assessment should be included in the river management plan. The river management plan 

15 Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council, “Wild and Scenic River Management Responsibilities,” 

page 22 (2002), available at: http://rivers.gov/publications/management.pdf. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-9 

 
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

5-10 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 

then establishes the baseline conditions at the time of designation—including a description 

of any degradation—and proposes management actions that will be taken to improve 

conditions until they meet the requirement to protect and enhance the river’s values ....”16

By assessing baseline conditions, managing agencies can identify and correct past degradation.17

Downward trends that could lead to adverse impacts and degradation can be identified and addressed at an 

early stage. In April 2011, the NPS produced a draft baseline conditions report for river values both at the 

time of the Merced River’s 1987 designation and in 2010. The final baseline conditions report is available at 

http://www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/mrp_documents.htm. 

Monitoring Program 

The monitoring program in the Final Merced River Plan/EIS fulfills the direction in the guidelines to ensure 

“studies will be made during preparation of the management plan and periodically thereafter to determine 

the quantity and mixture of recreation and other public use which can be permitted without adverse effect 

on the resource values.”18 This plan defines a set of measureable indicators to monitor the condition of each 

river value as described in this chapter. Yosemite National Park staff selected indicators for their ability to 

provide insight into the integrity of the river value and provide early warnings of change. Park staff also 

required indicators to be derived from objective and easily obtained data collection that is repeatable across 

time and across observers. The monitoring program for an individual river value may be refined, if 

necessary, as more information becomes available. 

RIVER VALUE CONDITION, PROTECTION, AND ENHANCEMENT 

The following sections describe the program to protect and enhance each ORV as proposed in the Final 

Merced River Plan/EIS. For each ORV, the following will be discussed: 

 The current condition of each ORV and its condition at the time of the river’s 1987 designation 

 A description of the management program and actions to ensure each ORV is protected from 

adverse impact or degradation. This management program includes: 

- A description of the indicator(s) used to monitor the condition of each ORV 

- Definitions of management standard, adverse impact, and degradation 

 

16 Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council, “A Compendium of Questions & Answers Relating to 

Wild & Scenic Rivers,” page 70 (2011), available at www.rivers.gov/publications/q-a.pdf. For the Final Merced River 

Plan/EIS, the baseline conditions assessment is summarized in this chapter, and provided in its entirety in an attached 

DVD. Note that although the Council uses the term “adverse effects,” the NPS uses the term “adverse impacts” 

within this document and the Tuolumne River Plan, in accordance with the terminology used in the 1982 Federal 

Register regulations for wild and scenic rivers (National Wild and Scenic River System; Final Revised Guidelines for 

Eligibility, Classification and Management of River Areas, 47 FR 39454 (1982)). 

17 According to the Council, adverse impacts to River Values “must be identified in development of the comprehensive 

management plan, with appropriate strategies detailed for their resolution.” Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Coordinating Council, “Wild and Scenic River Management Responsibilities,” page 22 (2002), available at 

http://rivers.gov/publications/management.pdf. 18 National Wild and Scenic River System; Final Revised Guidelines for Eligibility, Classification and Management of 

River Areas, 47 Federal Register 39454, at 39459 (1982). In addition, by clearly stating the baseline conditions, 

management concerns, actions to correct those, indicators, standards, and triggers for corrective action, the plan 

“will state .... the specific management measures which will be used to implement the management objectives for 

each of the various river segments and protect aesthetic, scenic, historic, archeologic and scientific features” 

47 FR 39454, at 39458 (1982). 
River Value—Free-Flowing Condition 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-11 

- A description of the conditions that would trigger increasingly intensive management 

actions to protect each ORV 

 Management concerns and associated protective actions included in Alternatives 2-6 

RIVER VALUE—FREE-FLOWING CONDITION 

River Value: Free-flowing Condition 

Location: All Segments of the Merced River 

Description: A free-flowing river, or section of a river, moves in a natural condition without impoundment, 

diversion, straightening, riprapping, or other modification of the waterway (WSRA 1968, Section 16) 

Management Objective: Reduce the overall amount of human-constructed modifications within the bed and 

banks of the Merced River through restoration, redesign, and other appropriate methods. 

Condition Assessment 

Condition at Time of Designation (1987) 

As the Merced River flows from its headwaters in the High Sierra at 13,000 feet to El Portal at 2,000 feet, 

various elements impeded its movement at the time of designation in 1987.19

 Just above Nevada Fall, a one- or two-foot high deflection bar prevented high flows from leaving 

the main channel and going down the Mist Trail gully. 

 Between Nevada Fall and the Happy Isles Bridge, bedrock and massive talus boulders line the river 

channel, making it more resistant to human impacts. The free-flowing condition of the river was 

largely intact in this section. From Happy Isles Bridge to Clark’s Bridge, the channel was confined 

on the right bank by moraines for much of its length. This reach was generally stable at the time of 

designation (Madej et al. 1991). 

 Between 1879 and the early 1970s, the NPS performed extensive bank stabilization to prevent 

channel migration near campsites and infrastructure. Riprap—used successfully as a management 

tool to prevent channel erosion—inhibits the free-flowing condition of the river by preventing 

natural stream processes, such as lateral migration and point bar formation (Florshiem et al. 2008; 

Schmetterling et al. 2001). By 1987, 25% of the river’s banks had undergone bank revetment 

between Clark’s Bridge and Sentinel Bridge (the area with the greatest infrastructure and human 

presence), primarily with riprap. In the less-visited West Valley downstream of Swinging Bridge, 

riprap lines only 2% of the channel. 

Additionally, two dams and numerous utility crossings at the time of designation affected the Merced 

River’s free-flowing condition: 

 The Happy Isles Dam footing, a three-foot-high structure spanning the river, created a barrier to 

flow, though it was no longer used to produce electricity or divert water. 

 

19 The Rare, Mid-Elevation Alluvial River ORV (#6) is closely related to the free-flow value, as a river’s ability to flow 

unimpeded in low-gradient areas creates its alluvial nature. However, the Merced River’s almost unique midelevation alluvial nature merited its inclusion as an ORV separate from free-flow. Consequently, impoundments, 

diversions, straightening, riprapping, or other modifications of free-flow (as defined in WSRA and provided in the 

introduction to free-flow) are discussed in this section, while human actions or structures that more affect the river’s 

alluvial nature are discussed under ORV 6. The reader is advised to read both sections of this chapter for a complete 

picture of the condition of both its free-flowing nature and its alluvial nature. 
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

5-12 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 

 The Cascades Diversion Dam, a 17-foot-high structure about one mile downstream of Pohono 

Bridge, impeded the free-flowing condition of the river, although it had not been used for 

hydroelectricity since the mid-1980s. This decaying structure was removed in 2004. 

 Buried utility lines crossed the riverbed at 13 locations, acting as small dams. The North Pines Lift 

Station at the confluence of the Merced River and Tenaya Creek also exacerbated riverbank 

erosion. 

In Segment 4 at the time of designation, the Merced River near El Portal was confined by Foresta Road and 

associated abutments and riprap, which encroached into the historical channel bed in places. In El Portal, a 

small levee was located on the left (south) bank of the Merced River, just downstream from the Highway 

140 Road Bridge. This approximately 300-foot deflection bar protects the Trailer Village area from flooding. 

There is also a levee near the gas station and store. Other modifications to the river in Segment 4 include 

remnant rock diversions. 

In Segment 6 at the time of designation in the Wawona area, a small impoundment at the intake of 

Wawona’s surface water supply was located near the end of Forest Drive. By the time of designation, the 

pool had filled with small cobbles, sands, and other sediments; however, this impoundment was not a major 

source of sediment and did not act as a significant barrier to river flow and dynamics. 

Current Condition 

In Segment 1, the deflection bar just above Nevada Fall remains. Water for domestic consumption at 

Merced Lake High Sierra Camp is taken directly from the Merced River. Such withdrawals constitute at 

most 0.5% of the river’s flow, as determined from water withdrawal rates in 2012 (one of the driest years in 

Yosemite history). 

In Segment 2, restoration projects have removed approximately 1,700 cubic yards of riprap from the 

Merced River’s banks; 2,600 feet of biotechnical bank stabilization have been installed; and 15,000 feet of 

fencing have been installed (Cardno ENTRIX 2012). In addition, the 13 buried utility lines have been 

removed from the riverbed, and the North Pines Lift Station has been removed from the riverbank at the 

confluence of the Merced River and Tenaya Creek. These actions eliminated some impediments to the freeflowing condition of the river. 

No hardened bank stabilization, such as riprap, has been installed since the 1987 designation. Although the 

installation of riprap in Yosemite Valley largely ceased in the early 1970s, more than 3,500 yards of riprap 

still line the edges of riverbanks and streambanks in Yosemite Valley. Since 1987, the river has undermined 

riprap in some locations, and bank erosion is occurring behind the lines of riprap in other locations. Finally, 

the footings of the former Happy Isles dam remained in place. 

In Segment 3, the Cascades Diversion Dam, a 17-foot-tall impoundment that backed up the river 200 feet, 

was removed in 2004, allowing the river channel to be restored to natural conditions. Also in Segment 3, the 

El Portal Road was partially rebuilt after it sustained significant damage during the 1997 flood (the Merced 

River eroded the road’s embankments). About 7.5 miles of the roadway were rebuilt, with extensive riprap 

necessary. 

For Segment 4, conditions in El Portal continue to be similar to those at the time of the river’s designation. 

The river is confined by Highway 140 and revetment (riprap, for example), which in places encroach into 

the historical channel bed. The small deflection bar built to protect the Trailer Village still exists, as does the 

small levee and remnant rock diversions. Water for domestic consumption is taken from three wells in the 
River Value—Free-Flowing Condition 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-13 

El Portal area. These wells do not appear to affect groundwater levels or those in the Merced River (which 

has substantially higher flows here than it does in Yosemite Valley). 

Water for domestic consumption in Wawona (Segment 7) is taken directly from the South Fork Merced 

River at Swinging Bridge, in Segment 6. In most years, there is adequate flow for the withdrawals, but in dry 

years like 2012 and 2013, river levels can reach critically low levels. In 1987, the NPS implemented the 

Wawona Water Conservation Plan, which set the rate of diversion from the Wawona water intake at 

0.59 cubic feet per second (water is diverted for domestic and irrigation uses) (NPS 1987). To protect 

instream flows for aquatic habitat, the plan enacts mandatory water conservation (such as banning 

irrigation) whenever the river reaches flows of less than 6 cubic feet per second. At flows of less than 6 cubic 

feet per second, diversions are limited to 10% of the river flow. The plan adequately protects the river’s 

aquatic invertebrates and other life forms during such drought years, but increases in such withdrawals 

could harm native fauna (Holmquist and Waddle 2012). All alternatives would continue the conservation 

plan. 

In Segments 5 and 8, current free-flowing conditions remain the same as in 1987 at the time of river’s 

designation. There are no human-caused impediments within the river channel. In Segment 7 in Wawona, 

the South Fork Bridge was damaged during the 1997 flood and replaced in 2006 with a new bridge without 

piers in the river channel. As established in the WSRA Section 7 determination process, an evaluation for 

direct and adverse impacts from the new bridge found no significant impediment to the free-flowing 

condition of the river during most flow conditions. 

Management Indicator and Monitoring Program for Free-Flowing Condition of 

the Merced River 

WSRA specifies guidelines for determining appropriate actions within the bed and banks of a Wild and 

Scenic River. Section 7 of the act restricts hydrologic and water resource development projects and directs 

managing agencies to specify a process to determine whether or not a proposed water resources project is 

appropriate. Chapter 4 of the Final Merced River Plan/EIS articulates the Section 7 Determination Process 

for Water Resources Projects. This formal process is used to ensure that the free-flowing condition of the 

Merced River is preserved, in lieu of a specific monitoring program. Because the Section 7 Determination 

Process prevents impacts to the river’s free-flowing condition, it is not necessary to define adverse impact, 

degradation, or management concerns. 

The Section 7 analysis would take place before implementation of any hydrologic and water resource 

development project to ensure it would cause no adverse impact or degradation to the free-flowing condition 

of the river. Proposed park management actions (for example, projects involving construction, maintenance, 

or other activities involving ground disturbance) are already regularly reviewed by subject-matter experts 

and park management at NPS’s Monthly Planning Forum. Any project proposed within the bed and banks 

of the Merced River is mandated to have a completed Section 7 determination process to ensure compliance 

with Section 7 of WSRA. 

In addition, NPS will remove riverbank riprap to restore natural river processes, replacing it with native 

riparian vegetation for a total of 3,400 linear feet. Bioengineering techniques would be used on 2,300 feet of 

riverbank where riverbank stabilization is necessary for infrastructure protection. NPS will also remove the 

abutments and infrastructure associated with the former Happy Isles footbridge, relocate the Pohono 

Bridge gauging station out of the bed and banks of the river, remove 34 units within the ordinary high water 
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

5-14 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 

mark at Housekeeping Camp, remove the river gauge base, and remove any remaining sewer treatment 

facilities, sewer and water lines, and man-holes from within the bed and banks of the river. 

Conclusion: Protecting and Enhancing Free-Flowing Condition 

With the removal of Cascades Dam, the restoration actions in Yosemite Valley, and the removal of the 

utility crossings and lift station, the river’s free-flowing condition has improved since designation. To 

prevent future impacts, the NPS would require all projects involving construction within the bed or banks 

of the river to undergo a Section 7 analysis. The removal of riprap, as called for in the alternatives, will 

further enhance the river’s free-flowing condition. 

RIVER VALUE—WATER QUALITY 

River Value: Water Quality 

Location: All Segments of the Merced River 

Management Objective: Maintain exceptional water quality on all segments of the Merced River within Yosemite 

National Park and the El Portal Administrative Area. 

Condition Assessment 

Condition at Time of Designation (1987) 

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began ongoing water quality monitoring of the Merced River at the 

Happy Isles gauge in 1968. At the time of river’s designation in 1987, the USGS continued to monitor the 

Happy Isles gauge. Then, in 1994, the NPS published a comprehensive water quality report, which 

established baseline water-quality data for the Merced River (NPS 1994). The overall water quality of the 

river was exceptionally high, with relatively few impacts caused by development and visitor use. Water 

quality in the South Fork Merced River above Wawona was characterized as high, while generally low in 

nutrients, salts, and suspended sediment, and high in dissolved oxygen. Only minor impacts from human 

activities were indicated (NPS 1994). The limited data that have been collected for the Merced River above 

Nevada Fall indicate that water quality is high (Clow et al. 1996). 

Current Condition 

Current water quality in all Merced River segments is high, with most water quality sampling results near 

natural background levels (Clow et al. 2011). Water samples collected near Sentinel Bridge and Pohono 

Bridge showed higher bacteria levels than elsewhere in the watershed, but even those levels were well below 

public health limits (Clow et al. 2011). Nutrient concentrations are very low, as they are for similar 

undeveloped areas (Brown and Short 1999; Clow et al. 2011). Some Yosemite Valley samples (9%-14%) 

indicated trace amounts of petroleum hydrocarbons (Peavler et al. 2008), most likely a result of stormwater 

runoff from parking lots and roads. Petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations, when detected, were well 

below the State of California water-quality limits. The overall water quality of all stretches of the river 

remains exceptionally high, far exceeding state water quality standards and as good as, or better than, 

conditions at the time of designation. 
River Value—Water Quality 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-15 

Management Indicator and Monitoring Program for Water Quality 

This section discusses the proposed management program for protecting water quality, including the 

indicator(s) to be used; the definitions of management standard, adverse impact, and degradation; and the 

monitoring program. 

Indicator Description: Water Quality 

The following variables related to water quality are directly associated with human contact with water: 

 Nutrient levels (total dissolved nitrogen, total phosphorus, nitrate plus nitrite, and total dissolved 

phosphorous)

 Total petroleum hydrocarbons

 E. coli 

These three variables are appropriate to monitor because their levels are related to human activities and 

human contact with water: people swimming in the river or manure from horses can lead to elevated levels of 

E. coli and nitrogen species; people bathing or washing dishes in the river can increase phosphorus/ phosphate 

levels; and vehicular use, roads and other development contributes to hydrocarbon pollution. Total coliform, 

temperature, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity also vary with human use, but are less effective variables to 

monitor (as indicators) because they are lagging indicators of human impact and can be affected by other 

factors. 

Specific indicators derived from these metrics that will be used to assess current water quality conditions on 

the Merced River are: 

1. Nutrient Indicators: 75th percentile of annual nutrient concentrations (total dissolved nitrogen, 

total phosphorus, nitrate plus nitrite, and total dissolved phosphorous) sampled at each site 

2. Petroleum Hydrocarbon Indicator: Number of samples with total petroleum hydrocarbon 

concentration equaling or exceeding 13 μg/l at each site

3. E. coli Indicator: 50th percentile of annual E. coli concentrations sampled at each site

Definitions of Management Standard, Adverse Impact, and Degradation 

Management Standard 

The Secretarial Guidelines direct that water quality in wild, scenic, and recreational river areas “will be 

maintained or, where necessary, improved to levels which meet Federal criteria or federally approved State 

standards for aesthetics and fish and wildlife propagation.”20 Water quality in the Merced and South Fork 

Merced rivers far exceeds state standards for these parameters. The California State Water Resources 

Control Board has issued a Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins, 

which adheres to the federal anti-degradation policy (40 CFR 131.12) by stating: “Chief among the State water 

policies for water quality control is State Water Board Resolution No. 68-16 (Statement of Policy with Respect 

to Maintaining High Quality of Waters in California). It requires that wherever the existing quality of surface or 

ground waters is better than the objectives established for those waters in a basin plan, the existing quality 

would be maintained unless as otherwise provided by Resolution No. 68-16 or any revisions thereto.” 

 

20 National Wild and Scenic River System; Final Revised Guidelines for Eligibility, Classification and Management of 

River Areas, 47 FR 39459 (1982). 
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

5-16 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 

The management standard adheres to this policy by utilizing the baseline established in 2004-2008.21 Sitespecific management standards are exceeded when a single nutrient or E. coli indicator exceeds the baseline 

condition in more than one out of any five consecutive years. Similarly, the standard for the petroleum 

hydrocarbon indicator is one or more detections (at greater than 13 μg/l) at a site in more than one out of 

five consecutive years. 

Adverse Impact 

An adverse impact would be either of the following: 

 Exceedance of the EPA’s bacteriological criteria for water contact recreation E. coli statistical 

threshold value (STV) standard of 410 CFU/100ml (Colony Forming Units per 100 milliliters) and 

the geometric mean standard of 126 CFU/100ml (EPA 2012) in a 30-day interval following two 

consecutive monthly samples exceeding the 235 CFU/100ml beach action value (EPA 2012). 

Exceedance of the bacteriological standard indicates a persistent contamination problem beyond 

normal flushing rainstorms that would likely result in a violation of state water-quality standards 

(protecting the designated use of Merced River waters for recreation). 

 Exceedance of EPA Maximum Contamination Level for nitrate+nitrite of 10 mg/l (milligrams of 

nitrate and nitrite expressed as the weight of elemental nitrogen). Exceedance of the Nitrate+Nitrite 

criteria would be a violation of state water-quality standards as applied to municipal water sources. 

Waters designated for municipal use must also adhere to California drinking water regulations (Title 

22), which include the EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Limit for Nitrate+Nitrite. Levels of 

Nitrate+Nitrite, currently within Yosemite, are only 1% to 10% of this Maximum Contaminant Limit. 

Degradation 

Degradation is defined as the inclusion of any Merced River segment on the federal Section 303d (Clean 

Water Act) listing of waters not attaining minimum water quality objectives. For the Merced River and the 

chosen water quality indicators, this will occur when there are 10 or more exceedances of the EPA’s water 

quality standards over the course of the 303d reporting period of three years. 

States are mandated “to identify waters that do not meet applicable water quality standards with 

technology-based controls alone and prioritize such waters for the purposes of developing Total Maximum 

Daily Loads (TMDLs),” according to California State Water Resources Control Board. 

Monitoring Program to Prevent Future Adverse Impacts or Degradation 

The Merced River’s water quality, as measured by nutrient levels and E. coli, would be measured at six 

locations and petroleum hydrocarbons at three of those six locations (noted with asterisks): 

 Merced River above Nevada Fall 

 Merced River above Happy Isles Bridge 

 Merced River above Pohono Bridge* 

 Merced River below Foresta Bridge* 

 South Fork Merced River above Swinging Bridge 

 South Fork Merced River below Wawona Campground*. 

 

21 Baseline is defined as the 95% upper confidence limit (UCL95) of the 50th (E. coli) or 75th (nutrients) percentile of a 

particular metric. 
River Value—Water Quality 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-17 

The monitoring protocol is available as a part of the overall Visitor Use and Impacts Monitoring program 

field guide: http://www.nps.gov/yose/naturescience/upload/Visitor-Use-Monitoring-Guide-v1-0-2010.pdf. 

Table 5-2 displays trigger points related to water-quality conditions and related management responses 

should a trigger be exceeded. 

TABLE 5-2: MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND TRIGGER POINTS TO MAINTAIN DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR WATER QUALITY

Trigger Point(s) at Which 

Management Action 

Would Be Taken 

Required Management Actions (at least one action 

specified for each trigger will be taken) 

Rationale for 

Management Actions 

Trigger Point 1: Statistically 

significant upward trend in 

concentration of any of the 

indicator analyses at any one 

monitoring site. 

Initiate investigation of water quality conditions in the area of 

consideration to identify potential source. 

These standards indicate 

possible deterioration of water 

quality. Steps taken here are 

focused on determining the 

persistence and source of the 

problem and whether more 

serious investigation and action 

are required to resolve the issue. 

Trigger Point 2: Exceedance 

of recommended USEPA 

bacteriological criteria for 

water contact recreation E. 

coli Beach Action Value of 

235 CFU/100ml at any one 

monitoring site. 

Repeat sampling within one month at affected site. If the Beach 

Action Value is exceeded a second time, initiate weekly sampling 

of E. coli at sites exceeding the limit. Assure at least 5 samples 

are taken over the course of the 30 days following the second 

monthly sample in order to determine the 30-day geometric 

mean and adherence to the recommended E. coli standard. 

If the geometric mean is greater than the 30-day standard of 

126 CFU/100ml, a subsequent investigation shall take place. 

This trigger point indicates 

potential violation of a state (and 

EPA) water quality standard. 

Subsequent prescribed sampling 

would determine whether the 

event was one time only or more 

persistent (more serious) in 

nature. 

Trigger Points 1 or 2 These actions would be taken for either trigger point above, 

depending on the type of impact: 

 Increase educational messaging regarding water quality. 

 If impacts are related to human waste (and where allowed by 

management objectives), provide toilet facilities. 

 If impacts result from erosion, improve conditions through 

restoration, trail rerouting, etc. 

 If impacts result from stock use, redirect/ reduce/limit stock 

use in certain areas. 

 Increase enforcement of permit requirements. 

 Increase ranger patrols in river areas to protect water quality 

and educate users. 

 Close some areas temporarily or permanently, and/or reduce 

use of the affected area(s). 

Actions would be initiated 

during or after the investigations 

listed under either trigger point 

to protect water quality and 

human health. 

SOURCE: Environmental Protection Agency 

Management to Protect and Enhance Water Quality 

Current Findings Regarding Management Standard, Adverse Impact, and 

Degradation 

Table 5-3 compares the current condition of the Merced River water quality to the definitions of management 

standard, adverse impact, degradation, and management concern. 

Water quality along all segments is of high quality with most levels near the natural background. 
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

Management Concerns and Protective Actions

Management concerns occur when the condition of a resource has reached one of the trigger points 

identified in Table 5-2. There are no management concerns associated with the water quality river value.

TABLE 5-3: CURRENT CONDITION OF WATER QUALITY

Metric Based on Comparison to Baseline Conditionsa

Meets management standard: The management standard for 

water quality is defined as the baseline established in 2004-2008, 

with nutrients, E. coli, and petroleum hydrocarbons all measured.a

Water quality along all segments is of high quality with 

most levels near the natural background.

Management concern present: Statistically significant upward 

trend in concentration of any of the indicator analyses at any one 

monitoring site.

None present. Adverse impact: Exceedance of USEPA bacteriological criteria for 

water contact recreation: E. coli and nitrates.b

Degradation: The inclusion of any Merced River segment on the 

state listing under section 303d of the Clean Water Act of waters not 

attaining minimum water quality objectives.c

NOTES:

a The management standard for nutrients is exceeded when the 75th percentile of annual sampling exceeds the 95% upper confidence 

limit of the baseline condition in more than one in five years at any sample location. The management standard for E. coli is exceeded 

when the 50th percentile of annual sampling exceeds the 95% upper confidence limit of the baseline condition in more than one in 

five years at any sampling location. The standard for petroleum hydrocarbons is exceeded when they are detected (at current detection 

limits) in more than one in five years. b (1) E. coli exceeds one-day standard of 235 MPN/100 ml and subsequent exceedance of the 90-day geometric mean standard of 126 

MPN/100 ml for water contact recreation, or (2) exceedance of USEPA maximum contamination level for nitrate + nitrate of 10 

milligrams per liter. c For the Merced River and the chosen water quality indicators, this would occur when there were 10 or more violations (exceedances) 

of the USEPA water quality standards over the course of the 303d reporting period of three years.

Abbreviations: E. coli = Escherichia coli; ml = milliliter; MPN = most probable number of bacterial colonies; USEPA = U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency

Localized Concerns and Enhancement Actions

Localized concerns pertaining to this river value include water quality related to the impacts of automotive 

fluids and surface water runoff; potential hazards related to dump stations, septic tanks, and leach fields; 

and accelerated erosion and potential sediment loading in the Merced River. While water quality in the 

Merced River meets standards, the Secretarial Guidelines (USDI and USDA 1982) direct managing agencies 

to maintain or, where necessary, improve water quality to levels that meet federal criteria or federally 

approved state standards in Wild and Scenic River areas. To address these considerations, the alternatives in 

Chapter 8 consider the following actions: 

• Wawona Impoundment: Retain the current water collection and distribution system, and continue 

to implement the Water Conservation Plan related to the minimum flow analysis for the South 

Fork. 

• Pack Trail from Concessioner Stables in Yosemite Valley to Happy Isles: Either remove or reroute 

the pack trail along the Merced River and restore the area to natural conditions depending on the 

alternative.

• Odger’s Fuel Storage Facility: Remove and relocate the facility out of the 500-year floodplain.

• Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area: Move the parking area various distances north depending 

on the alternative. Restore meadow and floodplain communities. 

5-18 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Biological ORVs

• Parking Areas: Move parking lots away from the river and/or construct stormwater run-off 

mitigation measures that incorporate best management practices.

• Upper Pines RV Dump Station: Relocate the dump station away from the river to a site between 

Curry Village and the entrance to the Pines Campgrounds. 

• Wawona RV Dump Site: Relocate the dump site to an appropriate location away from the river.

• Waste Water Collection System for the Wawona Campground: Remove the current septic system 

and develop a waste water collection system. The NPS would build a pump station above the 

Wawona Campground to connect the facility to the existing waste water treatment plant. 

• Delineate the boundaries of the two formal picnic areas in Wawona, adding hardened river access 

points and paths to the river that encourage visitors to walk in the resilient areas (if needed, place 

fencing to direct visitors to these hardened access points). 

Actions to address accelerated riverbank erosion and potential sediment loading are described under 

Geological/Hydrological ORV 6— the Merced River in Yosemite Valley as an outstanding example of a rare, 

mid-elevation alluvial river. 

Conclusion: Protecting and Enhancing Water Quality

The Merced River’s water quality currently has no adverse impact, degradation, or management concerns. 

The NPS would also regularly monitor water quality and take protective actions should specific trigger 

points be reached. These trigger points are selected to inform managers well in advance of adverse impacts

or degradation to water quality. 

BIOLOGICAL ORVS

This section describes the program to protect and enhance each Biological ORV as proposed in the Final 

Merced River Plan/EIS. Three Biological ORVs exist in the Merced River corridor, each related to specific 

segment(s) of the river (Table 5-4). 

TABLE 5-4: BIOLOGICAL ORVS AND ASSOCIATED INDICATORS

ORV Number and Key Resource Segment(s) Indicator to be Monitored through Time

1. High-elevation meadows and riparian habitat 1 and 5 1. Meadow bare soil

2. Meadow fragmentation resulting from proliferation of 

informal trails

3. Streambank stability

2. Mid-elevation meadows and riparian 

communities in Yosemite Valley

2 1. Meadow fragmentation resulting from proliferation of 

informal trails

2. Status of riparian habitat

3. Riparian bird abundance

3. Sierra sweet bay population in the Wawona area 7 and 8 Population decline

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-19
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

Biological ORV 1—High-Elevation Meadows and Riparian Habitat

ORV 1—The Merced River sustains numerous small meadows and riparian habitat with high 

biological integrity.

Location: Segment 1 (Merced River above Nevada Fall) and Segment 5 (South Fork Merced River above Wawona)

Rationale: Numerous small meadows and adjacent riparian habitats in this high-elevation environment are influenced 

by flooding from the Merced. The meadows and riparian habitat are exemplary in their intact condition and the great 

diversity of plant and animal species they support.

Management Objective: Manage human use in meadows and riparian habitat within the Merced River corridor 

to maintain high ecological condition, minimize habitat fragmentation, and protect the integrity of streambanks to 

conserve ecosystem processes associated with meadow and riparian function.

Condition Assessment

ORV Condition at the Time of Designation (1987)

Meadow conditions in 1987 at the time of designation were likely similar those of today, with some exceptions. 

At the time of designation, the NPS allowed the concessioner to graze its pack stock at Merced Lake-West 

Meadow and Merced Lake-Shore Meadow. Trampling and grazing impacts were observed in these areas as 

early as the 1960s (Sharsmith 1961). Such impacts were likely present in the early 1990s (and at the time of 

designation), motivating the NPS to close these meadows to grazing. 

In general, the drier, upland edges of subalpine meadows in the Sierra Nevada became more forested during 

the last century. A comprehensive study by Millar et al. (2004) determined that this occurred during a 

“single distinct climatic pulse” that occurred from 1946 to 1975, when the weather was warm and dry with 

little annual variability and conditions fostered pine seed germination. Historic sheep grazing (Sharsmith 

1959; Dunwiddie 1977) and fire suppression (DeBenedetti and Parsons 1979) are also implicated in conifer 

invasion in meadows. Pack stock grazing and fire suppression that occurred between 1946 and 1975 may 

have contributed to the forest invasion by adding more stress to grazed meadow plants. It is difficult to 

ascertain the extent, timing, or causes of this historic forest spread in specific subalpine and alpine reaches 

of the Merced River corridor due to a lack of studies (Ballenger et al. 2011). 

Current ORV Condition

In 2010, park personnel evaluated the condition of high elevation meadows of the Merced River corridor. This 

study evaluated every meadow in the corridor in its entirety, using assessment protocols tailored to different 

elevations. In upper montane and subalpine meadows, the study evaluated over 30 different metrics associated 

with meadows. In alpine meadows, the study focused on coarse composition of vegetation and substrate, and 

plant communities. In subalpine sites, the study assessed streambank and channel condition using an 

interagency protocol (Burton et al. 2011), and in alpine sites, the study used a rapid assessment protocol.

The study found that most meadows reflected high ecological integrity, with the exception of some sitespecific impacts. Alpine meadows displayed little to no impacts from visitors or pack stock, with the exception 

of braided and rutted formal trails in several meadows along the Red Peak and Triple Peak Forks (Ballenger et 

al. 2011). No stock impacts or informal trails were otherwise observed in alpine meadows in the river corridor 

(Ballenger et al. 2011). Some upper montane meadows displayed site-specific negative impacts. For example, 

Merced Lake - East Meadow exhibited very low vegetation cover and high bare-ground levels associated with 

5-20 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Biological ORVs

several years of administrative pack stock grazing. Researchers also documented extensive informal trails at 

the same two upper montane meadow sites (Ballenger et al. 2011). 

Management Indicator and Monitoring Program for ORV 1

This section discusses the proposed management program for this ORV, including the indicators to be used,

the definitions of management standard, adverse impact, and degradation; and the monitoring program. As 

noted above, the NPS conducted a widespread condition assessment for meadows in Segment 1 in 2010 

(Ballenger et al. 2011). This condition assessment provided a foundation to focus meadow monitoring in 

Segment 1 on areas of special concern. Three distinct indicators were selected to monitor meadow 

conditions through time. The indicators are: (1) bare soil cover in meadows, (2) fragmentation of meadow 

habitats as a result of proliferation of informal trails; and (3) physical streambank stability. 

Indicator 1 – Meadow Bare Soil for ORV 1

Indicator Description

The purpose of the bare soil indicator is to monitor meadow integrity in relation to pack stock grazing and 

trampling by people or packstock. The amount and distribution of bare soil is considered an important 

indicator of meadow integrity as it directly relates to site stability and susceptibility to wind and water 

erosion (Smith and Wischmeier 1962; Morgan 1986; Benkobi et al. 1993; Blackburn and Pierson 1994; 

Gutierrez and Hernandez 1996; Cerda 1999). Researchers have linked grazing activities to increases in bare 

soil as well as decreased plant cover, decreased primary productivity, and shifts in species composition 

(Miller and Donart 1981; Trimble and Mendel 1995; Olson-Rutz et al. 1996; Fahnestock and Detling 2000; 

Cole et al. 2004). Trampling, by either humans or stock, can produce similar results (Cole 1995; Liddle 1975, 

1991) with the added impact of soil compaction that compromises root growth and water infiltration 

(Gilman et al. 1987; Unger and Kaspar 1994; Pietola et al. 2005). 

Candidate metrics for monitoring ecological condition in meadows subject to grazing and/or trampling 

pressures include vegetative cover, bare soil, species composition, and meadow productivity. Bare soil and 

basal vegetative cover are more sensitive indicators of meadow condition than species composition (Cole et 

al. 2004). For instance, bare soil increases at lower levels of disturbance compared with shifts in species 

composition in a variety of montane vegetation types of North America (including alpine meadow) (Cole 

1993). Plant productivity may be more sensitive to grazing pressure than bare soil (Cole et al. 2004), but this 

measure may be impractical to monitor in Wilderness meadow settings (due to the difficulty of transporting 

equipment to the field and plant samples to the lab). Furthermore, plant productivity is subject to high 

interannual variability resulting from climatic factors, such as precipitation (Walker et al. 1994), snowpack, 

or snowmelt (Walker et al. 1995). In addition to its relevance for monitoring meadow condition, bare soil 

measured from point data is efficient, objective, easily obtained, and repeatable across time and observers. 

Therefore, bare soil may be one of the most robust indicators of changes in meadow ecological condition.

Weixelman and Zamudio (2001) generated low, moderate and high ecological condition classes for bare soil 

cover values based on monitoring data from a comprehensive multi-year study in U.S. Forest Service 

meadows in the Sierra Nevada (Table 5-5). In their report, ecological condition classes for bare soil values 

were based on point-intercept data collected from 363 meadows across a broad disturbance gradient 

(Weixelman and Zamudio 2001). These values were used as a starting point to inform condition class 

development in Yosemite and are shown here as an example. However, the park will revise these condition 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-21
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

class values based on monitoring data collected in Yosemite (the NPS is currently testing a pilot monitoring 

protocol for this indicator in Segments 1 and 5). These data will be collected from meadows with visitor and 

pack stock use as well as meadows with no to low use (reference sites) to detect changes in condition unrelated 

to direct human use or management actions. Exposed bare soil occurs due to natural phenomena such as 

wildlife activity, drought, and/or flooding and therefore some background level of bare soil may be expected. 

The monitoring approach may also include collecting information on meadow characteristics and human use 

to have an empirical basis for assessing bare soil causal factors. A specific approach would be determined 

during monitoring design.

TABLE 5-5: BARE SOIL COVER VALUES FOR ECOLOGICAL CONDITION CLASSES AMONG SIERRA NEVADA MEADOW TYPES 

(FROM WEIXELMAN ET AL. 2003). THESE ARE PROVISIONAL AND WILL BE SUBJECT TO REVISION FOLLOWING 

FURTHER STUDY IN YOSEMITE MEADOWS. 

Meadow type High Condition Moderate Condition Low Condition

Montane

Hydric meadow 0-4% 5-9% >9%

Mesic meadow 0-6% 7-13% >13%

Xeric meadow 0-8% 9-13% >13%

Subalpine

Hydric meadow 0-4% 5-8% >8%

Mesic meadow 0-6% 7-13% >13%

Xeric meadow TBD TBD TBD

NOTE: The upper montane zone is about 6,000 to 8,000 feet in elevation and the subalpine zone is 8,000 to 9,500 feet in elevation

Definitions of Management Standard, Adverse Impact, and Degradation

Management Standard

To meet the management standard for meadow bare soil, at least 75% of sites monitored in the river 

segment should have bare soil cover values within the range of high ecological condition, and no more than 

15% of sites should be in low ecological condition occurring at the individual meadow level for three 

consecutive years. By including multiple years in this standard, variability due to such non-human 

influences as drought or increased rodent burrowing can be ruled out for low ecological condition. 

Values for bare soil cover that define ecological condition classes vary according to meadow type and 

elevation (Table 5-5). In this example, to be in a high condition class, a moist (mesic) meadow would not 

have bare soil exceeding 6% of its surface area, and a wet (hydric) montane meadow (5,000-8,000 feet 

[1,500-2,400 meters]) would not have bare soil exceeding 4%. Exact range of values for condition classes 

would be set and adaptively revised for Yosemite based on values obtained through additional data 

collection. One meadow may contain up to 3 meadow types (wet, moist, and dry), each of which would be 

sampled as an independent unit (a “site”) and its values for condition class applied respectively. In order to 

determine whether the standard would be met at the segmentwide level, a percentage of sites in each low, 

moderate and high condition class would be calculated.

5-22 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Biological ORVs

The NPS based these management standards on data and recommendations from the U.S. Forest Service 

Region 5 (California) Range Monitoring Project. This project has been monitoring bare soil in relation to 

livestock use in Sierra Nevada meadows for 12 years (Weixelman 2009).22

Adverse Impact

As noted above, the condition ratings in Weixelman and Zamudio (2001) provide ecologically meaningful 

ranges for bare ground values that were derived from analyzing meadow data from the Sierra Nevada. This 

condition class approach provides a way to distinguish adverse impact from minor fluctuations in the 

amount of bare soil. Using this approach, an adverse impact would occur when at least 40% of the 

monitoring sites in a river segment have bare soil cover values that are twice the Weixelman et al. (2003) 

values for low ecological condition for those meadow types. For example, if a river segment contained 

50 monitored sites, an adverse impact would be present if there were more than 20 sites with a subalpine wet 

meadow whose bare soil cover value was greater than 16% (as measured by point-intercept data). The exact 

range of values for condition classes would be set and adaptively revised for Yosemite based on values 

obtained through additional data collection. 

Increases in bare soil that result in values at double the low condition rating for more than 40% of meadow 

sites in a river segment would signify a more significant decline than a minor, short-term fluctuation in one 

meadow. Also, the doubling of bare soil amount provides a means to account for other factors besides 

packstock use that may be contributing to bare soil levels. 

Degradation

Degradation would occur when at least 80% of the monitoring sites in a river segment have bare soil cover 

values that are twice the Weixelman et al. (2003) values for low ecological condition for those meadow 

types. For example, if a river segment contained 50 monitored sites, degradation would be present if there 

were more than 40 sites with a subalpine wet meadow where bare soil cover value was greater than 16% (as 

measured by point-intercept data). The exact range of values for condition classes would be set and 

adaptively revised for Yosemite based on values obtained through additional data collection. 

The ecological processes that sustain meadows are integrally tied to plant composition, vegetative structure, 

and soil stability. A meadow in low ecological condition would have a predominance of shallow- and taprooted species, lower vegetative cover, and a greater extent of bare soil than a meadow in high condition. 

High amounts of bare soil indicate low meadow productivity and greater susceptibility to erosion. Bare soil 

amounts of the magnitude described above, widespread across meadows in a river segment, would likely 

indicate that the processes sustaining meadow function are in jeopardy within that segment of the Merced 

River corridor. 

Monitoring Program to Prevent Future Adverse Impacts or Degradation – Meadow 

Bare Soil

The NPS is collaborating with the University of California-Berkeley and the University of Arizona to 

develop a protocol to monitor meadow bare soil cover. Together they completed a draft monitoring 

protocol and collected pilot data from representative meadow types in summer 2012. They have refined the 

protocol based on pilot data results and tested the protocol in meadows of concern and reference meadows 

22 There are no known standards for bare soil in published academic literature.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-23

 
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

in summer 2013. Additionally, data collected will be used to adapt the ecological condition classes of 

Weixelman et. al. (2001) to Yosemite National Park.

Monitoring would occur in Segment 1 above Nevada Fall (e.g., Merced Lake, Washburn Lake, Lyell Fork) and 

in Segment 5 on the South Fork Merced River above Wawona (Moraine Meadow and meadows upstream of 

Moraine Meadow, for example). The NPS would evaluate meadows of concern as well as reference meadows 

within Segments 1 and 5. As the protocol develops, specific meadows of concern will be identified for 

monitoring. Reference sites (meadows with little to no visitor or stock use) will also be monitored as needed to 

provide a comparison with meadows of concern. Every five years, NPS staff will re-evaluate which meadows in 

the corridor are in need of monitoring. The NPS would evaluate the effectiveness of the indicators on a regular 

basis to assure that the combination of these metrics fully protect ORV 1.

The recommended monitoring interval for bare soil is three to five years unless the amount of bare soil 

reaches a management trigger, prompting an increase in monitoring. A subset of sites may receive annual 

monitoring to obtain estimates of inter-annual variation. Monitoring may occur any time between meadow 

flowering and first snowfall. Table 5-6 displays the trigger points at which actions would be taken to 

maintain meadow condition well above the management standard. These trigger points are focused on both 

site-level and segmentwide conditions. Responses are taken at the individual meadow level; this is necessary 

to avoid a downward trend segmentwide that may be difficult to mitigate at that scale.

Management to Protect and Enhance High-Elevation Meadows and Riparian 

Habitat (Indicator 1, ORV 1)

Current Findings Regarding Management Standard, Adverse Impact, and 

Degradation (Indicator 1, ORV 1)

In 2010, NPS staff conducted a meadow condition assessment to characterize meadow and riparian 

conditions throughout the Merced River corridor and identify meaningful indicators and specific areas of 

concern (Ballenger et al. 2010). This assessment concluded that from a segmentwide perspective, high 

elevation meadows displayed little to no impacts from visitor use or packstock with the exception of 

Merced Lake-East Meadow, which had widespread impacts due to packstock use.

The NPS is currently testing site-specific monitoring protocols for bare soil protocol. The pilot testing 

implemented in 2013 in the Merced Lake area showed that bare soil trigger point 2 had been reached for the 

current season. However, no other triggers for bare soil, adverse impacts, or degradation were present on a 

segmentwide scale. 

Table 5-7 compares the current condition of bare soil for ORV 1 to the definitions of management standard, 

adverse impact, degradation, and management concern. 

5-24 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Biological ORVs

TABLE 5-6: MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND TRIGGER POINTS TO MAINTAIN DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR HIGH-ELEVATION 

MEADOWS (BARE SOIL) 

Trigger Point(s) at 

Which Management 

Action Would Be Taken

Required Management 

Actions (at least one action 

specified for each 

trigger will be taken) Rationale for Management Actions

Trigger Point 1: 

Monitoring indicates 

“low ecological 

condition” bare soil 

cover value at any 

monitored site.

Apply a secondary assessment 

method for a qualitative 

evaluation of meadow 

condition.

Rapid assessments are diagnostic tools that provide standardized, rapid, 

field-based assessments of the overall condition or functional capacity of 

meadows. Assessing meadow condition would aid in identifying key 

stressors that may be affecting meadow condition. Assessment results 

would assist with interpretation of monitoring results. 

Increase education about Best 

Management Practices (BMPs)

in meadows for all who use 

them.

Education in maintaining meadow condition would help prevent 

further increases in bare soil associated with human use.

Trigger Point 2:

Monitoring indicates 

“low ecological 

condition” bare soil 

cover value at any 

monitored site for two 

successive monitoring 

periods 

AND

secondary assessment 

indicates human use is a 

stressor for both 

monitoring periods 

OR

less than 80% of 

monitoring sites within a 

river segment are rated 

in “high ecological 

condition” for bare soil

or greater than 10% of 

sites in “low ecological 

condition” for bare soil. 

Increase education about 

BMPs in meadows for 

Wilderness visitors, park staff, 

and park partners.

Education in maintaining meadow condition would help prevent 

further increases in bare soil associated with human use.

Work with stakeholders to 

reduce grazing capacity or 

timing of use if needed to 

minimize impacts. Work with 

stakeholders to adjust use 

levels annually.

Determining effective strategies with stakeholders for managing 

meadow use is a necessary step in the process to protect and enhance 

meadow condition. Grazing capacities constitute use levels that can be 

sustained in a meadow based on available forage cover, productivity 

and site condition, which can guide in setting an appropriate level of 

use.

Increase monitoring frequency 

to annually for 5 years. 

Frequent monitoring would help facilitate more rapid detection of, and 

management response to, changes in ecological condition. Its utility 

would be to evaluate the effectiveness of changes in the intensity 

and/or timing of use on meadow condition.

Rest the meadow if necessary. 

Temporarily discontinue 

grazing until conditions 

improve based on secondary 

assessment results. 

Allowing a period of meadow “rest” (removing stresses from grazing 

and/or trampling) facilitates meadow recovery. Effects of trampling 

and grazing that are expected to decline with reduced use or 

avoidance of early-season use include soil compaction, bare ground 

exposure, and plant disturbance. 

Trigger Point 3: Bare soil 

is double the value of 

“low ecological 

condition” class at a site

OR

previous management 

actions (such as reduction 

in use) have been 

ineffective

OR

assessments for 5 years 

have not shown 

improvement in ecological 

condition. 

Discontinue grazing until 

conditions improve based on 

bare soil monitoring. 

Allowing a period of meadow “rest” (removing stresses from grazing 

and/or trampling) facilitates meadow recovery. Effects of trampling 

and grazing that are expected to decline with reduced use or 

avoidance of early-season use include soil compaction, bare ground 

exposure, and plant disturbance 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-25
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

TABLE 5-7: CURRENT CONDITION OF HIGH-ELEVATION MEADOWS, BARE SOIL INDICATOR

Metric Current Conditions

Meets management standard: At least 75% of sites monitored in the river 

segment should have bare soil cover values within the range of “high 

ecological condition,” and no more than 15% of sites in “low ecological 

condition” occurring at the individual meadow level for three consecutive 

years.

Pilot testing of this indicator’s protocols in 2013 

suggests that the meadows meet the 

management standard. 

Management concern present: “Low ecological condition” bare soil 

cover value at any monitored site.

Merced Lake-East Meadow has tripped trigger 

point 1 and is in “low ecological condition.”

Adverse impact: At least 40% of the monitoring sites in a river segment 

have bare soil cover values that are twice the Weixelman et al. (2003) 

values for “low ecological condition” for those meadow types. None present. Degradation: At least 80% of the monitoring sites in a river segment have 

bare soil cover values that are twice the Weixelman et al. (2003) values for 

“low ecological condition” for those meadow types.

Management Concerns and Actions to Protect River Values (Indicator 1, ORV 1)

As noted above, bare soil trigger point 2 was reached for the Merced Lake-East Meadow. To bring the ORV 

back to the management standard, NPS will do the following: 

• Establish a maximum grazing capacity of 58 stock nights annually in Merced Lake-East Meadow 

and require stock users to pack in pellet feed for any additional stock nights, 

• Implement seasonal closures of the wet portion of the meadow to allow for recovery and exclude 

stock grazing, and 

• Reevaluate stock grazing capacity once the meadow has recovered.

Indicator 2 – Meadow Fragmentation Due to Proliferation of Informal Trails for 

ORV 1

Indicator Description

This indicator measures fragmentation of high elevation meadow habitat due to the proliferation of 

informal trails.23 Informal trails (or social trails) are tracks created by visitors or administrative users that are 

noticeable to observers and generally not managed directly by park staff, as opposed to formal trails that are 

mapped, periodically assessed, and regularly maintained (Leung et al. 2002, 2011b). Various informal trail 

metrics have been commonly used as indicators of visitor-caused impacts throughout federal land 

management agencies, including other parks like Mount Rainier and Acadia (Kim and Daigle 2011; 

Rochefort and Swinney 2000; Leung et al. 2011b; Monz and Leung 2006). Monitoring (and preventing) 

informal trails is especially appropriate in subalpine environments because recovery rates are very slow in 

such environments (Eagan et al. 2004; Kim and Daigle 2011). The NPS selected this indicator for this ORV 

because it is quite sensitive in detecting spatial changes and thus is useful to park managers in protecting 

meadows in an intact condition. 

Informal trails have many deleterious ripple effects in natural systems. Research within high elevation 

meadow environments has demonstrated that trails can have sizeable impacts radiating from the trail’s edge 

into the meadow (Holmquist 2004), an effect also seen in non-meadow habitats (within one to three meters 

of the informal trail) (Dawson et al. 1974; Dale and Weaver 1974; Leung et al. 2011c). Fragmentation has 

23 The NPS will also use this indicator to monitor meadow conditions in Yosemite Valley as described under ORV 2. 

5-26 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS

 
Biological ORVs

further effects on meadow hydrology, habitat quality, and soil moisture, and creates conditions ideal for the 

introduction of non-native species (Forman 1995; Leung et al. 2011c; Lindenmayer and Fischer 2006). 

Finally, trail corridors have also been shown to pose barriers for small mammals and other wildlife (Knight 

2000; Miller et al. 1998; Gaines et al. 2003). Indeed, researchers investigating trampling impacts in Yosemite 

Valley meadows have found that meadow condition is frequently poor in heavily used areas, smaller areas 

are more prone to difficulties with recovery than larger areas, and visitor-created trampling has a 

significantly negative impact on vegetation and macroinvertebrate structure and diversity (Kutiel 1999;

White et al. 2011; Wimpey and Marion 2011; Holmquist 2004; Leung et al. 2011a, 2011b; Holmquist and 

Schmidt-Gengenbach 2008; Foin et al. 1977). 

A fragmentation measure known as the Largest Patches Index –5 (LPI5) will be used to measure level of 

fragmentation. Adapted from the concept of Largest Patch Index (McGarigal and Marks 1995), this index is 

derived from the sum of the areas of the five largest patches without informal trails in a given meadow, divided 

by the total landscape (meadow) area and then multiplied by 100. This index is also weighted using a factor 

derived from the size of the meadow in relation to its area across the entire meadow complex of the river 

segment. The resulting number (a percentage) indicates the extent to which the meadow area is divided 

(fragmented) owing to the existence of visitor-created trails. If no trails are present, the total index value would 

be 100%. The main purpose of grouping the five largest patches, instead of evaluating the single largest patch, is 

to reduce the index’s over-sensitivity to changes in one single patch. Just as parks such as Mount Rainier have 

found variations of this metric best suited to their meadow system (Moskal and Halabisky 2010), Yosemite park 

staff and collaborators also considered the three largest and 10 largest patches (LPI3, LPI10), ultimately 

determining that five best achieved a balance between simplicity and representativeness for Yosemite’s 

meadows. In combination with the bare meadow soil and streambank stability indicators, the NPS will have an 

excellent picture at any time of the health of the Merced River corridor’s high elevation meadows, and (as 

specified below) will be able to utilize this information to protect those meadows from the variety of uses in 

Yosemite National Park. 

Definitions of Management Standard, Adverse Impact, and Degradation

This standard is based on data from meadows throughout Yosemite (not just those in the Merced River 

corridor) that experience elevated visitation levels, reduced vegetation cover, and an increased occurrence 

of invasive species. As there are no specific standards established for this metric in the literature, two 

information sources provided guidance in determining the appropriate standard for meadow fragmentation 

in the Merced River Corridor. The first source shows results from on-the-ground monitoring of meadows 

in both the Merced and Tuolumne river corridors (since 2008). Meadows found to exhibit LPI5 values 

below 90% were meadows with restoration needs and potential threats to biodiversity, soil erosion, and 

increased fragmentation. Conversely, meadows that were fully protective of species biodiversity, overall 

ecological integrity, and meadow hydrology (the fundamental components of this ORV) had a higher 

fragmentation standard, 93%. Second, a GIS analysis indicated the range of LPI5 values expected to be 

found after management actions outlined in this plan are implemented. Another part of this second analysis 

was to consider the potential impacts that could occur alongside all of the proposed actions in the plan, such 

as expanding a campground next to a meadow. This second, two-pronged analysis determined that the 

fragmentation level (the LPI5) would be the average of 93% for a segment. Through these two analyses, 

then, park managers determined that the meadow fragmentation management standard of 93% would both 

protect this ORV and be attainable for Yosemite meadows.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-27
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

Management Standard

To meet the management standard (for the upper montane and subalpine meadow complexes in Segments 1

and 5, and also for ORV 2 in Segment 2), the weighted average of the LPI5 indexes for all selected 

meadows within the segment must be greater than or equal to 93%, with no individual meadow less than 

90%. The weighted values are selected by determining each individual meadow size relative to the total 

meadow area within each segment. Because the overall size of the meadow complex is a key component of 

the meadow ORV, using a weighted average ensures protection for the integrity and overall extent of 

individual meadows and the full complex within each segment. 

Adverse Impact

An adverse impact would occur when the weighted average of the LPI5 indices for all meadows within a 

river segment has dropped below 81% for three consecutive years of annual assessments despite 

management actions to improve the connectivity and overall health of the meadow. Because precipitation in 

the Sierra Nevada varies widely year to year and is directly linked to meadow condition, specific annual 

precipitation patterns would be evaluated to ensure that the sampling interval reflects impacts caused by 

visitors as opposed to natural causes. 

Informal trails and reduced patch sizes in meadows have been shown to be associated with reduced total 

vegetation, increased bare ground cover and an increased presence of non-native plants (Leung et al. 

2011b). The value chosen to represent adverse impacts reflects conditions found in individual meadows (in 

both Yosemite Valley and Tuolumne Meadows) identified by park staff, managers, and subject matter 

experts as needing significant restoration actions due to widespread trailing networks and associated 

trampling and bare ground. 

These meadows should 

demonstrate accelerated 

recovery rates and good 

response to restoration once 

actions are taken (NPS 2009).

Degradation

Degradation would occur when 

fragmentation resulting from 

informal trailing results in a 

weighted average LPI5 index of 

40% or less from all meadows 

within a river segment (again, in 

Segments 1, 2, and 5). 

Using archival aerial 

photographs, NPS staff were 

able to simulate historic meadow 

conditions in Stoneman 

Meadow in 1978. As shown in 

Figure 5-1, this analysis revealed 

Figure 5-1: Informal Trails in Stoneman Meadow in 1978 and 2011

5-28 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Biological ORVs

that an LPI5 index of 40% existed prior to intensive restoration efforts. Although this meadow has shown 

evidence of recovery in recent years, the recovery was only the result of intensive restoration efforts, 

significant financial investment, and several years of planning. These past conditions in Stoneman Meadow 

represent meadow conditions that park managers and scientists feel best represent degradation for 

meadows in Yosemite, in montane, subalpine, and alpine meadows. Current conditions in Stoneman 

Meadow demonstrate the potential for recovery that is possible through intensive restoration efforts. 

Monitoring Program to Prevent Future Adverse Impacts or Degradation – Meadow 

Fragmentation Due to the Proliferation of Informal Trails

All meadows within a segment will be evaluated for potential monitoring, with all meadows selected for 

monitoring evaluated using a complete set of measures reflecting extent, proliferation, and condition of trails 

and disturbed areas (Leung et al. 2011b). All meadows with a high potential for visitor-created impacts would 

be monitored on a three-year basis or at a maximum of five years. Meadows without evidence of visitor 

impacts, as reflected in the baseline conditions report, will be periodically evaluated until evidence suggests 

more intensive monitoring is necessary. Monitoring would take place during the middle of the growing season 

before plant senescence (the final stage in the life cycle of a plant). The Visitor Use and Impact Monitoring 

Field Guide (2010) provides more details on data collection, identification of informal trails and a training 

program for technicians in order to ensure data are collected effectively and consistently for the life of the 

program. 

Table 5-8 depicts measures that would trigger management response. 

TABLE 5-8: MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND TRIGGER POINTS TO MAINTAIN DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR HIGH-ELEVATION 

MEADOWS (MEADOW FRAGMENTATION) 

Trigger Point(s) at Which 

Management Action 

Would Be Taken

Required Management Actions

(at least one action specified for 

each trigger will be taken)

Rationale for 

Management Actions

Trigger Point 1: A oneyear decrease in the LPI5

index below 93% at the 

level of an individual 

meadow.

• Increase meadow monitoring assessments to one-year 

interval at each individual meadow that surpasses this value. 

Target the largest patches in meadow, and analyze trail 

condition and emergence of new trails. 

• Increase enforcement and education of best management 

practices in meadows. 

• Implement restoration practices, including visitor messaging, 

restoration signs after Wilderness Minimum Requirement 

Analysis, delineation of trails determined to be less 

disturbing to meadow ecology, and closure of informal trails.

This action allows increased 

sensitivity to changes in trails, and 

would allow managers better 

opportunities to identify meadows 

of consideration, and take actions 

well before adverse impacts are 

incurred. With more frequent 

assessment, emerging trails and 

particularly problematic trails 

would be identified and 

restoration actions taken.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-29
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

Trigger Point(s) at Which 

Management Action 

Would Be Taken

Required Management Actions

(at least one action specified for 

each trigger will be taken)

Rationale for 

Management Actions

Trigger Point 2: Data 

analyses from annual 

fragmentation monitoring 

yield an LPI5 value of less 

than 93% for three 

consecutive years in an 

individual meadow

OR

a decrease below 90% at 

the level of an individual 

meadow for one summer.

Further restoration of disturbed areas and informal trails in 

specific meadows that exceed trigger. Depending on the degree 

and extent of impacts, the NPS would take some or all of the 

following actions:

• Use boardwalks or hardened surfaces to allow access to 

sensitive areas.

• Delineate trails through upland areas and along meadow 

perimeters to allow access while reducing fragmentation and 

meadow impacts.

• Place restoration closure signs, and/or outside Wilderness, 

fence meadow perimeters. Within Wilderness, fence 

meadow perimeters if deemed appropriate after a 

Wilderness Minimum Requirement Analysis.

• De-compact trampled soils.

• Salvage plants growing in trail ruts and use as part of revegetation to consolidate multiple parallel trails.

• Re-contour topography. 

• Scatter locally gathered seed and organic materials to 

facilitate new plant growth.

• Fill deep headcuts caused by informal trails with native soil 

and re-contour to natural meadow topography.

• Institute closures in individual impacted meadows, and 

increase visitor education associated with the closures.

This value represents the level at 

which a group of subject matter 

experts determined meadows to 

be threatening resource protection 

and quality of visitor experience.

Management to Protect and Enhance High-Elevation Meadows and Riparian 

Habitat (Indicator 2, ORV 1)

Current Findings Regarding Management Standard, Adverse Impact, and 

Degradation (Indicator 2, ORV 1)

NPS has begun collecting data with newly developed monitoring protocols for 2012 and 2013 for meadow 

fragmentation. After evaluating 2013 data according to specific standards, park managers will assess 

whether the subalpine meadow fragmentation meets the management standard or if this ORV is sustaining 

adverse impacts or degradation. Once this assessment has been done, NPS will take management action if 

needed as prescribed in Table 5-6, above.

Table 5-9 compares the current condition of meadow fragmentation for ORV 1 to the definitions of 

management standard, adverse impact, degradation, and management concern. 

Management Concerns and Actions to Protect River Values (Indicator 2, ORV 1)

The NPS is currently compiling and analyzing meadow fragmentation monitoring data from 2013. A 

determination of whether management concerns, adverse impacts, or degradation is present will be made 

when this analysis is complete. However, because a trigger has been tripped under the bare soil indicator (as 

discussed above), ORV 1 has a management concern present (see the bare soil discussion for the action NPS 

will take to address this concern—establishing a grazing capacity for this meadow).

5-30 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Biological ORVs

TABLE 5-9: CURRENT CONDITION OF HIGH-ELEVATION MEADOW AND RIPARIAN COMPLEX BASED ON MONITORING OF 

LARGEST PATCH INDEX-5 (LPI5) 

Metric Current Conditions

Meets management standard: LPI5 is greater than 93% of weighted 

average value of the meadows in a river segment, with no individual 

meadow less than 90%.

Data were collected during 2013 and are still being 

evaluated. After evaluating these data, park 

managers will assess whether the subalpine 

meadow fragmentation meets the management 

standard for this ORV.

Management concern present: LPI5 is below 93% for any individual 

meadow (trigger 1) or the annual LPI5 index is below 90%, or below 93% 

for three consecutive years, again for an individual meadow (trigger 2). 

Adverse impact: The weighted average LPI5 value is below 81% for all

the meadows in a river segment for three consecutive years.

Degradation: The weighted average LPI5 value is below 40% for all the 

meadows in a river segment.

NOTE:

a LPI5 is a percentage of the weighted average value of all the meadows in a river segment.

Indicator 3 – Streambank Stability for ORV 1 

Indicator Description

Riparian streambanks have been described as transitional areas between aquatic and terrestrial systems 

(Bohn 1986; Gregory et al. 1991), where the interchange among ground and surface water hydrologic 

processes are evident. In meadow systems, streambank conditions exhibit the balance between the 

hydraulic forces of fluvial surface water, subsurface pore pressure (i.e., lateral flow of groundwater input to 

the channel, infiltration, etc.), soil particle cohesion, and binding properties associated with roots of riparian 

vegetation (Micheli and Kirchner 2002). Streambank stability has been widely identified as a factor affecting 

the geomorphic function of stream channels (Kondolf et al. 1996; Kattelmann and Embury 1996; Madej et 

al. 1994; Kauffman et al. 1997).

Impacts on streambank stability can result from multiple causal mechanisms, including both anthropogenic 

(human-related) and natural sources that alter sediment-discharge balance (Kondolf et al. 1996), or 

cumulative impacts from both source types (Allen-Diaz et al. 1999). Meadows and riparian areas are a 

primary focus for visitor use. Examples of anthropogenic activities and their impacts that contribute to 

destabilization of streambanks (hereafter, streambank alteration) include the following:

• human foot traffic (bank shear, compaction, vegetation trampling, loss of vegetative roots, or loss of 

woody riparian vegetation)

• stock use (hoofpunching, bank shear, soil compaction, vegetation trampling, vegetation removal 

from grazing)

• road/trail construction and/or informal trailing (soil compaction, decreased sheet flow, reduced 

infiltration/percolation, increased surface routing and flow velocities, vegetation composition 

changes)

Natural processes associated with channel migration or evolution to a new dynamic equilibrium can also be 

manifested as instability. Examples of these processes are substantial flood events, or other large-scale 

events such as wildfires and/or landslides, within the contributing watershed. 

For this component of the Biological ORV, the indicator is streambank stability ratings. Values used for the 

trigger point, management standard, adverse impacts, and degradation will be determined by the percent of 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-31
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

plots determined as “stable” at the scale of the monitoring locations or river segment (see detailed 

descriptions for each standard, below). Streambank stability ratings involve a trained technician assessing 

three factors at a number of plots at one location, then averaging those rankings for the location. The three 

factors are streambank type (erosional or depositional [i.e. outside or inside of meanders]), vegetation cover 

(covered or uncovered), and evidence of erosional features (block, slump, slough, active, or absent) (Frazier 

et al. 2005; Burton et al. 2011). Plots are ranked as either stable or unstable, with stable plots being those that 

have the specified combination of these three factors that signify stability. Results of quality control tests 

conducted by Archer and others (2004) demonstrated that streambank stability ratings had generally low 

coefficients of variation, were repeatable, and were consistent among different observers (especially when 

ratings were done dichotomously—either stable or unstable).

Streambank stability is a fundamental component of riparian and meadow condition and function over time. 

Low ratings for streambank stability could be indicative of reduced system function and diminished biological 

integrity of riparian areas and suggest a need for focused monitoring and possible management actions. Longterm monitoring data on streambank stability conditions can be used to indicate whether, and how well, 

management objectives are being achieved. Follow-up focused monitoring at sites with low stability ratings 

would include intensive hydrologic assessments of the site and contributing watershed, such that the principal 

causes of instability could be discerned. Beyond focused monitoring, additional management actions could be 

taken to restore or mitigate low stability due to levels of streambank alteration. 

Definitions of Management Standard, Adverse Impact, and Degradation

Standards for streambank stability have been reported in published literature from various survey protocols, 

including the Pfankuch-Rosgen channel stability assessment (Rosgen 2001), the stream condition inventory

(Frazier et al. 2005), and multiple indicator monitoring (Burton et al. 2011). Yosemite resource experts 

considered each protocol and corresponding optimal value for streambank stability ratings in determining the 

management standard, adverse impact, and degradation for this indicator. Ultimately, the NPS approach to 

determining values for these standards is blended from two protocols, multiple indicator monitoring (Burton et 

al. 2011) and stream condition inventory (Frazier et al. 2005). These two protocols both assess streambank 

stability similarly, with the MIM protocol providing estimates of sample variance (i.e., confidence intervals) 

and the SCI protocol providing recommended standards for reference and managed reaches. The third

published protocol for assessment of streambank stability, the channel stability assessment (Rosgen 2001), is not 

currently feasible given fiscal and staffing constraints for long-term monitoring, though it may be appropriate 

as a hydrologic assessment tool for follow-up monitoring for sites that reach the trigger point value. 

The standards described below accommodate a given level of instability due to natural processes, but are 

consistent with mean values reported by Frazier et al. (2005) for reference streams (75% stable, n = 18) and 

managed streams (50% stable, n = 25) in the Sierra Nevada.

The standards are described hierarchically—in terms of increasing spatial and/or temporal scale, with the 

management standard determined at the monitoring location (a designated monitoring area) scale, while 

adverse impact and degradation are determined at the scale of each river segment. This hierarchical 

distinction is consistent with the river discontinuum and continuum concepts, which infer that each river 

segment is comprised of individual components (Poole 2002) that collectively function as an interconnected

riverine system (Vannote et al. 1980; Rosgen 1996). In addition, degradation incorporates temporal scale, 

where this standard is exceeded if streambank stability conditions have not recovered to above the 

management standard over two monitoring years.

5-32 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Biological ORVs

Management Standard

The management standard for the maintenance of stable streambanks is that at least half (50%) of all 

streambank stability rankings at each individual monitoring location must be stable in any given year.24 This 

management standard allows for some streambank instability due to either anthropogenic causes and/or 

dynamic processes (channel migration, erosion, and deposition) fundamental to hydrologic function of 

fluvial river systems (as explained above) while still requiring at least half of all streambanks—amounts 

similar to those commonly found on unaltered streambanks—to be stable. Monitoring locations are 

specific, established places, chosen according to accepted criteria, within the three river segments in which 

portions of the subalpine meadow and riparian complex occur. The monitoring locations are regularly 

monitored according to the schedule specified in the “Monitoring Program” section below.

Adverse Impact

Based on available scientific knowledge and professional judgment, an adverse impact would occur when 

less than half (<50%) of all streambank stability rankings are stable, averaged across all monitoring locations

within a river segment for any single monitoring year, after restoration or use restrictions have been 

implemented (as outlined in Table 5-10 below).25 Potential adverse impacts may also be realized when a 

statistical trend is observed where the percent of stable streambank stability ratings in a segment is likely to 

drop below 50% in subsequent monitoring years without intervening management action.

Degradation

Based on available scientific knowledge and professional judgment, degradation would occur when less 

than half (<50%) of all streambank stability rankings are stable, averaged across all monitoring locations

within a river segment for at least two consecutive monitoring years, after restoration or use restrictions 

have been implemented (again as outlined in Table 5-10 below).

26

Ultimately, negative consequences of channel instability could be associated with land productivity change, 

land loss, aquatic habitat deterioration, changes in both short- and long-term channel evolution, and loss of 

physical and biological function (Rosgen 2001). Extensive or severely degraded streambank stability 

conditions, manifested from either anthropogenic or natural sources, would likely propagate the loss of 

functional integrity of the stream channel on site and downstream. Realization of degradation would be 

indicative of the need for substantial restoration investment.

24 There exists an inherent level of uncertainty in efforts to quantifiably measure changes in streambank stability 

conditions, based on variability in observers, as well as variation within, and between, sites (Archer et al. 2004). 

Confidence limits developed from monitoring data would facilitate a given level of certainty (i.e., 95% or 90% 

confidence) for comparison of the mean of the observed values with the management standard. Burton and others 

(2011) reported the width of confidence intervals as 5.2 percent at 95% confidence from repeat surveys of 

streambank stability at 89 sites. This indicator will use 5% (rounded down from 5.2%) as the confidence interval until 

a Yosemite-specific confidence interval can be determined. The 5% value is both added to and subtracted from 

results to produce the confidence interval. 

Breach of the management standard will be determined by comparing it to the value of the upper confidence limit for 

the average of the observed data. The results are then compared to the 50% management standard. For example, a 

location with an average of 46% of its plots as stable would have a 95% confidence interval of 41 to 51%. The upper 

confidence limit—51%--is used for comparison; because it exceeds 50%, this location would be within the 

management standard.

25 Again, the upper confidence limit provides the basis for comparison. For example, a location whose plots averaged 

44% stable would be classified as having an adverse impact, because the upper confidence limit (49%) would be less 

than 50%. 26 Again, the upper confidence limit provides the basis for comparison.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-33

 
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

Monitoring Program to Prevent Future Adverse Impacts or Degradation – Streambank 

Stability

As required by the guidelines implementing WSRA, the NPS will conduct a program of monitoring and 

ongoing study during and following the implementation of the plan to ensure that river values are enhanced 

where necessary and protected throughout the life of the plan. 

Streambank stability monitoring is a long-term indicator and can be effectively monitored on a three- to 

five- year interval (see Kershner et al. 2004; Burton et al. 2011); whereas, streambank alteration is a shortterm indicator that should be monitored annually (see Burton et al. 2011). Streambank stability and 

streambank alteration will be assessed by trained personnel after the majority of use has occurred for that 

year, typically September or October. Monitoring locations will be selected according to the site selection 

criteria of the chosen protocol. Monitoring sites have been established within the river segment 1 including 

Doc Moyle’s East, Triple Peak, Turner Lake, and Red Peak sites. Additional sites may be established within 

the Merced Peak drainage, and paired reference sites will be established, as available, especially where sites 

are near or below the trigger value.

Existing conditions for streambank stability will be established through data collection the first year of plan 

implementation; subsequent evaluation of streambank stability conditions will be conducted on a three- to 

five- year monitoring interval, thereafter. If either trigger in Table 5-10 is reached, the NPS will undertake 

detailed annual assessments to evaluate the level of streambank alteration at that site. Annual assessments of 

alteration will provide data on the level, location, and distribution of use, and will facilitate inference on the 

degree to which use is affecting streambank stability. Concurrently, the NPS will assess hydrologic 

conditions within the contributing source area for that monitoring site to identify potential anomalies (i.e., 

excessive alteration at areas upstream of the monitoring site, or the occurrence of natural events, such as 

landslides or wildfires) as sources of site instability. Results from a wide suite of metrics—stream monitoring 

data (i.e. the comprehensive MIM protocol, including streambank stability), follow-up hydrologic 

assessments, and available data from additional sources such as visitor use data—would be used to inform 

and help prioritize subsequent actions necessary for site recovery.

For streambank stability, action would be triggered when less than 75% of plots at any monitoring location 

are ranked as stable (see Table 5-10). Action will also be triggered when a statistical trend is observed 

indicating that the percent of plots at a monitoring location rated as stable is likely to drop below 75% in 

subsequent monitoring years, without intervening management action. Management actions to facilitate site 

recovery could restrict the use of riparian habitats by a combination of exclosures (access restriction), rest 

(temporary restriction of specific use types), and/or site restoration. The duration of use-restriction will be 

dependent on the rates of recovery of streambank stability and could be short or long term. Effectiveness 

monitoring will be initiated if management actions to restrict use levels are implemented.

5-34 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Biological ORVs

TABLE 5-10: MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND TRIGGER POINTS TO MAINTAIN DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR HIGH-ELEVATION 

RIPARIAN HABITAT (STREAMBANK STABILITY) 

Trigger Point at Which 

Management Action Would 

Be Taken

Required Management Actions 

(at least one action will be taken)

Rationale for 

Management Actions

Trigger Point: The percent of 

plots at any monitoring location 

rated as stable declines to less 

than 75%

OR

a statistical trend is observed 

indicating that the percent of 

plots at a monitoring location 

rated as stable is likely to drop 

below 75% in subsequent 

monitoring years, without 

intervening management action.

Depending on the degree and extent of impacts, the 

NPS would take some or all of the following actions:

• Assess streambank alteration at impacted sites.

• Conduct hydrologic assessments of the 

contributing source area for that site.

• Implement actions to facilitate site recovery 

through restoration and/or use restriction 

(i.e. resource exclosures, site rest, and so on).

• Implement use-restriction actions (such as 

reducing overall use) if streambank alteration or 

other anthropogenic activities are identified as 

causal mechanisms of instability.

• Increase monitoring frequency to evaluate 

effectiveness and recovery to the management 

standard, and compare to reference site 

conditions as available.

Assessments will refine understanding 

of baseline conditions and the causes 

(streambank alteration, natural 

processes, or cumulative effects) 

affecting streambank stability, on-site 

and within the greater contributing 

source area for that monitoring site. 

Identifying land use practices that are 

the most damaging to ecosystems or 

that prevent recovery is essential for 

restoration (National Research Council 

1992). Comparison of site conditions 

to reference sites will validate 

observed conditions and recovery.

Management to Protect and Enhance High-Elevation Meadows and Riparian 

Habitat (Indicator 3, ORV 1)

Current Findings Regarding Management Standard, Adverse Impact, and 

Degradation (Indicator 3, ORV 1)

As noted above under “Monitoring Protocols,” existing conditions for this indicator have not yet been 

recorded; these will be established through data collection the first year of plan implementation, at which 

point a determination will be possible as to whether this ORV is within the management standard or 

sustaining adverse impacts or degradation. After evaluating that baseline data according to the specific 

standards for the three meadow/riparian indicators, NPS will take management action if needed as 

prescribed in Table 5-10, above.

Table 5-11 compares the current condition of streambank stability for ORV 1 to the definitions of 

management standard, adverse impact, degradation, and management concern. 

TABLE 5-11: STREAMBANK STABILITY RATINGS BY MONITORING SITE AND SEGMENT AVERAGES

Metric Current Conditions

Meets management standard: At least half (50%) of all streambank

stability rankings at each individual monitoring location must be stable.

Baseline conditions for this indicator have not yet 

been recorded; these will be established through 

data collection during the first year of plan 

implementation.

Management concern present: Less than 75% of all streambank 

stability rankings at an individual monitoring location are stable.

Adverse impact: Average streambank stability rating below 50% 

averaged across all monitoring sites within a river segment for any single 

monitoring year.

Degradation: Average streambank stability rating below 50% across all 

river segments for at least two consecutive monitoring years.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-35
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

Management Concerns and Protective Actions (Indicator 3, ORV 1)

The NPS is currently compiling and analyzing streambank stability monitoring data from 2013. A 

determination of whether management concerns, adverse impacts, or degradation is present will be made 

when this analysis is complete. However, because a trigger has been tripped under the bare soil indicator (as 

discussed above), ORV 1 has a management concern present (see the bare soil discussion for the action NPS 

will take to address this concern—establishing a grazing capacity for this meadow).

Localized Concerns and Enhancement Actions (ORV 1)

Several localized concerns for this ORV exist at Merced Lake-East Meadow, Triple Peak Fork Meadow, 

wetlands near Echo Valley and Merced Lake shore, and mineral springs between Merced Lake and 

Washburn Lake. To address these localized concerns, the alternatives in Chapter 8 would all remove

informal trails that incise meadow habitat, trails in wet and/or sensitive vegetation, and trails that fragment 

meadow habitat, including trails in the areas mentioned above and other areas as necessary.

Conclusion: Protecting and Enhancing Biological ORV 1 (High-Elevation 

Meadows and Riparian Habitat)

Using the monitoring information from 2012 and 2013, the NPS will report baseline data for all three 

indicators. This data will be used to confirm the presence or absence of adverse impacts, degradation, or 

management concerns based on the identified standards.

The NPS has already determined that a management concern regarding bare soil exists and that protective 

action is required for Merced Lake East Meadow. As a result, this management action has been included in 

each of the action alternatives in Chapter 8. The Final Merced River Plan/EIS proposes additional actions to 

enhance Biological ORV 1 conditions in “Alternatives” (Chapter 8). To ensure this ORV is protected through 

time, the NPS will continue to monitor three indicators to assess the condition of the ORV. Monitoring these 

indicators, in association with the identified trigger points, will provide early warning of conditions that require 

management action before adverse impacts or degradation occur. The indicators link to triggers that initiate 

specific management responses. 

Biological ORV 2—Mid-Elevation Meadows and Riparian Habitat

ORV 2—The meadows and riparian communities of Yosemite Valley comprise one of the largest 

mid-elevation meadow-riparian complexes in the Sierra Nevada.

Location: Segments 2A and 2B (Yosemite Valley) 

Rationale: The large, moist mid-elevation meadows and the riparian vegetation communities of Yosemite Valley 

owe their existence to river processes that produce regular flooding and sustain high water tables, and past 

burning by American Indians and current prescribed burns that maintain open conditions for meadows. Yosemite 

Valley meadows and riparian habitats support rare and endemic species as well as an exemplary diversity of plant 

and animal species found in a variety of ecological niches.

Management Objective: The NPS would manage public use of meadows and riparian zones within the Merced River 

corridor to minimize habitat fragmentation, maintain high ecological condition, and protect the integrity of 

streambanks to conserve ecosystem processes associated with meadow hydrologic and ecological function.

5-36 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Biological ORVs

Condition Assessment

Historic ORV Conditions 

Given the rich history of development in Yosemite Valley, this section highlights how this history has impacted 

Valley mid-elevation meadows and riparian habitat over the years. It is widely acknowledged that there have 

been significant changes in the vegetation composition of Yosemite Valley since 1851, particularly with regard 

to increase in extent/density of conifers and reduction of meadow extent. While some scientific studies have 

shown natural factors contributing to these changes, it is most likely a combination of human induced and 

natural changes, such as cessation of burning by American Indians, altered hydrology, domestic livestock 

grazing, public use of the meadows, wildlife herbivory, natural succession, and climate change.

American Indians strongly influenced the vegetation of Yosemite Valley (Gibbens and Heady 1964; Heady and 

Zinke 1978; Anderson 2005). Gibbens and Heady (1964) found that Yosemite Valley was forested prior to the 

arrival of American Indians, noting that American Indians controlled brush and tree growth in the Valley, 

keeping vegetation at the stage best suited to their needs. Indians largely accomplished this goal through the 

use of fire (Ernst 1943; Greene 1987; Reynolds 1959; Anderson and Carpenter 1991; Taylor 2006). California 

Indians conducted small, low-intensity surface fires for centuries to increase growth and yield of crops, aid in 

hunting and insect collection, and perform other functions (Gassoway 2007). The Euro-American settlers 

essentially eliminated anthropogenic fire from the Valley in the 1850s. Elimination of fire had immediate 

effects, with a widespread establishment of trees in and around the meadows taking place after 1860 (Gibbens 

and Heady 1964). Plowing, mowing, burning, and probably in some cases severe overgrazing, complicated the 

increase in tree cover to varying degrees, as did the clearing activities of the 1890s, 1930s and 1940s. 

Nonetheless, a substantial reduction in the size of the meadows was becoming evident by the time Gibbens 

and Heady did their work. 

Through time, many park managers took action to control conifer encroachment in meadows. Galen Clark 

initiated the first post-contact conifer thinning in Yosemite Valley in the early 1890s (Clark 1894). Conifer 

clearing continued in the campgrounds and in El Capitan Meadow in 1919 (Greene 1987). Emil Ernst, 

Yosemite Park Ranger/Forester in the 1930-1950s, championed and conducted large efforts to control conifer 

encroachment. Efforts to control conifer encroachment with prescribed burning began in 1970.

Alterations in meadow hydrology, almost always making meadows drier, have had an equally altering effect. 

Anthropogenic impacts to hydrologic flows in Yosemite Valley were both purposeful and inadvertent. For 

example, in 1879 Galen Clark, Guardian of the Yosemite Grant, used blasting methods to lower the level of 

the terminal moraine located just downstream of El Capitan Meadow in an effort to drain upstream 

meadows and enhance access to east Yosemite Valley (Milestone 1978). This action likely dropped the 

water table in El Capitan Meadow, making it more conducive for tree establishment. Ditching done to drain 

the meadows had the same drying effect, with roads built across meadows exacerbating the hydrological 

alterations (Madej et al. 1994; Milestone 1978; Cooper et al. 2008). Most Merced River tributaries in 

Yosemite Valley were also channelized in part (Milestone 1978), altering the path of water that would 

naturally flow from cliff walls in a sheet or braided fashion across the meadows.

Historic impacts on riparian communities were also widespread. Madej (1994) reviewed historic 

photographs and documents related to the Merced River channel and found “banks were well vegetated, 

except on the outside of meander bends or where humans had already concentrated their activities. 

Riparian vegetation was typically dense and vigorous.” By the late 1970s, there were over 4,000 meters of 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-37
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

riprap revetment placed along the banks of Yosemite Valley streams (Milestone 1978; Cardno-ENTRIX 

2012). Madej (1994) documented severe riverbank erosion in specific areas, particularly in sites in proximity 

to development. There was a strong relationship to accelerated erosion and a lack of riparian vegetation. 

Several authors (Heady and Zinke 1978; Anderson and Carpenter 1991; Taylor 2006) since have refined 

these conclusions, but the fundamental conclusion—that Yosemite Valley meadows have shrunk in size in 

the historic era—remains. 

ORV Condition at the Time of Designation (1987)

By the time of designation, the NPS had several fundamental programs and projects in place to address the 

vegetation changes in Yosemite Valley and to improve the integrity of remaining meadows. Notably, the 

NPS systematically reintroduced fire into Yosemite Valley meadows. Park staff and volunteers also removed 

tens of thousands of conifer seedlings and saplings from Yosemite Valley meadows since the time of 

designation (Ballenger et al. 2011). These practices kept encroaching conifers at bay in many Yosemite 

Valley meadows. These actions were intended to restore the open scenery and cultural landscape that was 

changed by the cessation of burning by American Indians beginning about 1850, and counter humaninitiated changes in hydrologic processes and topography that channelized sheet flow in meadows.

In 1987, riparian areas along the banks of the Merced River in Yosemite Valley demonstrated substantial 

impacts including erosion, denuded riparian vegetation, and poorly designed riprap revetment (Tucker 

1996; Cardno ENTRIX 2012). Madej et al. (1991) found a strong association among levels of human use 

around campsites and river access points, and loss of riparian cover leading to accelerated bank erosion. 

Trampled soils with denuded vegetation in the developed, high-use areas of east Yosemite Valley (e.g., 

Upper Pines, Lower Pines, and North Pines Campgrounds) exposed highly erodible soils on the riverbanks 

that were vulnerable to accelerated erosion. This condition contributed to substantial widening of the river 

in some reaches (Madej et al. 1991). The potential effects of denuded riparian vegetation on the riverbanks 

include lack of shading and altered nutrient dynamics in aquatic habitats, reduced riparian habitat for 

wildlife, increased water temperature, increased suspended sediment, and reduced dissolved oxygen levels 

(Madej et al. 1994). Other areas in Yosemite Valley exhibited extensive trampling from visitor use and a 

subsequent decrease in riparian vegetation including the former El Capitan Picnic Area, the Lower River 

Campground/Housekeeping Camp area, Devil’s Elbow, and North Pines Campground. 

In summary, the impacts to the Merced River in East Yosemite Valley due to vegetation loss and the 

systematic removal of large wood from the channel have been significant, and likely irreversible. In fact, two 

of the scientists to examine Yosemite Valley meadows concluded, “So much alteration of the meadows has 

occurred that they can no longer be restored to their primitive state” (Heady and Zinke 1978:20). The extent 

to which this change should be considered adverse is unclear; both Gibbens and Heady (1964) and Heady 

and Zinke (1978) argued that meadows largely exist and persist because of human intervention. To 

perpetuate meadows, perpetual management intervention will be required.

Current ORV Condition

The effects of the actions discussed above, taking place over more than a century, are that an estimated 64% of 

the original meadow (and open forest) habitat in Yosemite Valley has converted to forest since the mid-1800s 

(Ballenger et al. 2011). While most meadow loss occurred prior to the 1940s (NPS 1997 Parkwide Vegetation 

Map; NPS 1937 Type Mapping, Hoffman 1866), infrastructure and development continue to influence the 

5-38 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Biological ORVs

hydrologic regime, reducing the distribution and extent of connected floodplain, level and extent of meadow 

inundation, and the meadow extent.

Recognizing this trend, the NPS has conducted a number of projects to enhance the condition of meadow 

and riparian areas in Yosemite Valley since the time of designation. These projects include:

• Extensive removal of high priority non-native species in meadows and riparian areas

• Boardwalks installed in Sentinel and Stoneman Meadows, substantially reducing the dense network 

of informal trails in these meadows 

• Fill removed in Sentinel Meadow from the site of a former movie house and dance hall (Pavilion 

Square), and natural meadow topography restored at the site

• Ecological restoration in Cooks Meadow involving removal of a historic road (abandoned), filling 

in ditches, and restoration of natural meadow topography; and construction of a boardwalk across 

sensitive meadow habitat

• Riparian habitat restoration at Lower River Campground, Housekeeping Camp, El Capitan Picnic 

Area, Devil’s Elbow, Sentinel Bridge, Swinging Bridge, Clark’s Bridge, North Pines Campground, 

and the Cascades Dam site after dam removal

• Removal of infrastructure from meadows and riparian habitat, including actions to remove buried 

utility lines in meadows and replace them under existing roadways, removal of underground utility 

lines that cross the Merced River, and removal of utility lines and lift stations from riparian/riverbank 

areas

These projects mitigated many meadow- and riparian- related issues that were present at the time of 

designation, though many remain. The Baseline Conditions Report (NPS 2012) reached the following 

conclusions as regards the current conditions of Yosemite Valley meadows and riparian areas: 

• Informal trails: Informal trails are common in Yosemite Valley meadows. Meadow research 

demonstrates that impacts associated with trails can extend beyond direct trail impacts, with 

impacts radiating from the trail’s edge into the meadow (Holmquist 2004).

• Conifer encroachment:In five of six meadows surveyed, tree seedlings were present in more than 

10% of the study plots, indicating that the tree encroachment documented since 1870 (Gibbens and 

Heady 1964) continues. The extent of tree seedlings was highest in El Capitan and Stoneman Meadows 

(32% of plots contained seedlings), indicating that nearly one-third of meadow area in El Capitan 

Meadow and Stoneman Meadow has some degree of tree encroachment (Ballenger et al. 2011). 

• Non-native species: Non-native species are common across all Yosemite Valley meadows, with 

the highest extent of non-natives found in El Capitan Meadow and Stoneman Meadow (as inferred 

from percent of plots with non-native plants present—92% to 96% of plots contained non-native 

species) (Ballenger et al. 2011). 

• Meadow vegetation composition: The mean cover of non-native plants was lower in saturated and 

inundated soils (by a factor of two to seven) compared with moist to dry soils (Ballenger et al. 2011). 

As found in other studies (Dwire et al. 2006), the distribution of non-native plants was strongly linked 

to water table depths in meadows, with a higher presence of non-native species in drier areas. 

Maintaining meadow water tables to promote areas of wet soil may be a means to sustaining native

meadow vegetation composition (Kluse and Allen-Diaz 2005).

• Meadow topography: Ditches and other human alterations to meadow topography, remnants of the 

past agricultural era, remain within Yosemite Valley meadows. Ditches were also constructed during 

NPS administration beginning in 1929 (they were often referred to as “moral ditches” to keep people 

from driving into meadows) (Greene 1987). Ditches increase drainage and lower natural water-table 

levels, favoring non-native meadow vegetation.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-39
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

• Trails through meadows: Formal trails in the Ahwahnee Meadow, Bridalveil Meadow, and 

Slaughterhouse Meadow pass through easily disturbed meadow habitat, some of which is 

inundated on a regular basis. Trails can alter hydrologic connectivity within the meadow by 

blocking natural flows.

Two recent studies, the Merced River and Riparian Vegetation Assessment (Cardno ENTRIX 2012) and the 

Wildlife Condition Assessment for the Merced River Corridor in Yosemite Valley (Espinoza et al. 2011) assessed

the condition of eight different reaches of the Merced River in Yosemite Valley. They found:

• Reaches with high scores (>0.86 on a scale of 0.27 to 1.0; see below for a more detailed discussion of 

the derivation of such scores and their interpretation) had lower intensities of visitor use, and were 

generally characterized as areas with less bank erosion, high topographic complexity, and 

moderately developed vegetation with moderate structural complexity. These reaches included the 

Happy Isles, Inter-meadow, and above Pohono Bridge reaches of the river. 

• Areas with poor scores (<0.71) had higher intensities of visitor use, more bank erosion, low 

topographic complexity, and a poorly developed riparian community. These reaches were above 

and below the confluence with Tenaya Creek and below Pohono Bridge.

• Recreational use (specifically, social trailing and riverbank trampling) have affected the condition 

of riparian wildlife habitat. Conditions varied by reach in response to the type of human impact. 

For example, the reach below Happy Isles was characterized as good wildlife habitat, with wide 

riparian buffers and a complex physical structure. Conversely, the reach below the confluence with 

Tenaya Creek was characterized as poor wildlife habitat, with narrow riparian buffers and low 

vegetation structural complexity.

• The majority of the riparian corridor had few non-native species, and moderate horizontal 

zonation and vertical overlap among plant layers, indicating a well-developed riparian community.

• The study observed bank erosion throughout the study area, particularly near bridges, recreation 

facilities, and some meander bends. Areas with moderate to high human use generally had fewer 

co-dominant species and lower riparian community structure complexity. 

• There is greater availability of riparian habitat in the Upper Meadow, Inter-meadow, and Lower 

Meadow reaches, and that that the structural integrity of the riparian habitat in these reaches may 

be higher than in other areas of the Sierra Nevada. 

Finally, a third recent study (Newcomb and Fogg 2011) examined the impacts of well pumping in Yosemite 

Valley on the surrounding ground water availability. Water for domestic consumption is pumped from three 

different wells in Yosemite Valley. Even though extraction rates approach 700,000 gallons daily in the summer 

(the period of greatest use), groundwater levels in Yosemite Valley show very little effect. This is most likely 

due to both to the aquifer’s great depth (there is as much as 2,000 feet of sediment overlying bedrock in 

Yosemite Valley, so there is substantial water-holding capacity) and to recharge from surrounding areas. 

Consequently, such water extraction has no impact on groundwater recharge in nearby meadow/riparian 

areas or on downstream ecosystems (Newcomb and Fogg 2011). 

Management Indicator and Monitoring Program for ORV 2 

This section discusses the proposed management program for this ORV, including the indicators to be used; 

the definitions of management standard, adverse impact, and degradation; and the monitoring program.

The NPS selected three indicators to monitor the condition of this ORV through time: 1) fragmentation of 

meadow habitats resulting from proliferation of informal trails, 2) status of riparian habitat, and 3) riparian 

bird abundance. Because the condition of Valley meadows has improved since the time of designation, the 

5-40 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Biological ORVs

baseline that will be used to compare meadow conditions to the management standard for each indicator 

will be established using recent monitoring efforts, as discussed below.

Indicator 1 – Meadow Fragmentation Due to Proliferation of Informal Trails for 

ORV 2

The NPS would employ the same fragmentation indicator used for ORV 1—the Largest Patches Index – 

Five (LPI5)—in high elevation habitats to monitor meadows in Yosemite Valley. The NPS would utilize the 

same protocols and definitions of adverse impact and degradation as described under ORV 1—highelevation meadows and riparian habitat—Indicator 1, described earlier in this chapter. Data have been 

collected on this indicator in Yosemite Valley since 2008. The management responses for this ORV will vary 

slightly due to the relative lack of restrictions on access and limitations on structures (such as boardwalks 

and fences) in the non-Wilderness meadows of Yosemite Valley. The trigger points and management 

responses for this indicator in Segments 2A and 2B are found in Table 5-12. 

TABLE 5-12: MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND TRIGGER POINTS TO MAINTAIN DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR MID-ELEVATION 

MEADOWS (MEADOW FRAGMENTATION) 

Trigger Point(s) at Which 

Management Action 

Would Be Taken

Required Management Actions

(at least one action specified for 

each trigger will be taken)

Rationale for 

Management Actions

Trigger Point 1: Decrease 

in LPI5 threshold below 

93% at the level of an 

individual meadow for one 

summer. 

• Increase meadow monitoring assessments to one-year 

interval at each individual meadow that surpasses this 

value. Target the largest patches in meadow, and analyze 

trail condition and emergence of new trails. 

• Increase enforcement and education of Best Management 

Practices in meadows. 

• Implement restoration practices, including visitor 

messaging, restoration signs, delineation of trails 

determined to be less disturbing to meadow ecology, and 

closure of selected informal trails.

This action allows increased 

sensitivity to changes in trails, and 

would allow managers better 

opportunities to identify meadows of 

consideration, and take actions well 

before adverse impacts are incurred. 

With more frequent assessment, 

emerging trails and particularly 

problematic trails would be identified 

and restoration actions taken.

Trigger Point 2: Data 

analyses from annual 

fragmentation monitoring 

yield an LPI5 value of less 

than 93% for three 

consecutive years in an 

individual meadow 

OR

a decrease below 90% at 

the level of an individual 

meadow for one summer.

Further restoration of disturbed areas and informal trails in 

specific meadows that exceed trigger. Depending on the 

degree and extent of impacts, the NPS would enact some or 

all of the following actions: 

• Use boardwalks or hardened surfaces to allow access to 

sensitive areas. 

• Delineate trails through upland areas and along meadow 

perimeters to allow access while reducing fragmentation 

and meadow impacts. 

• Place restoration closure signs, and/or

• Fencing along meadow perimeters. 

• De-compact trampled soils.

• Salvage plants growing in trail ruts and use as part of 

revegetation to consolidate multiple parallel trails.

• Re-contour topography. 

• Scatter locally gathered seed and organic materials to 

facilitate new plant growth.

• Fill deep headcuts caused by informal trails with native soil 

and re-contour to natural meadow topography.

• Institute closures in individual impacted meadows and 

increase visitor education associated with the closures. 

This value represents the level at 

which a group of subject matter 

experts determined meadow 

resource protection was threatened, 

along with quality of visitor 

experience.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-41
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

Management to Protect and Enhance Mid-Elevation Meadows and Riparian 

Habitat (Indicator 1, ORV 2)

Current Findings Regarding Management Standard, Adverse Impact, and 

Degradation (Indicator 1, ORV 2)

Table 5-13 compares the current condition of meadow fragmentation for ORV 2 to the definitions of

management standard, adverse impact, degradation, and management concern.

TABLE 5-13: CURRENT CONDITION OF MID-ELEVATION MEADOW AND RIPARIAN COMPLEX BASED ON MONITORING OF 

LARGEST PATCH INDEX-5 (LPI5) 

Metric Meadow

LPI5 by Year

Weighting 

Value* 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Meets management 

standard: LPI5 is greater 

than 93% of weighted 

mean value of the 

meadows in a river 

segment, with no individual 

meadow less than 90%.

The high level of fragmentation in Cook’s A, El Capitan, Sentinel A, and Leidig meadows, along with 

the high weighting values of the last three of these, mean that the management standard was not 

met in 2012.

Management concern 

present: LPI5 is below 93% 

for any individual meadow 

(trigger 1) or below 90% 

for any individual meadow 

(trigger 2).

Ahwahnee 13% 96.97 98.37

Bridalveil 5% 96.59 99.25

Cook’s A 2% 93.84 75.53 80.05 78.63 86.19 66.83

Cook’s B 8% 99.10 98.20 99.34

Cook’s C 4% 99.09 95.04

El Capitan 20% 87.24 83.47 78.18 78.01 79.23 74.02

Leidig 18% 63.06 95.89 82.37 86.95 92.36

Sentinel A 14% 92.58 93.55 82.85

Sentinel B 4% 98.37 99.90 99.84

Slaughterhouse A 2% 98.60 98.27 86.86 93.24

Slaughterhouse B 4% 99.02 99.31 99.74 99.29

Stoneman A 4% 99.62 99.30 99.37 99.29 998.99 98.82

Stoneman B 1% 99.71 99.90 99.81 99.91 99.94 99.84

WEIGHTED AVERAGE for 2012 = 88.645

Adverse impact: LPI5 is 

below 81% of weighted 

mean value of the meadows 

in a river segment for three 

consecutive years.

None present. 

Degradation: LPI5 is below 

40% of weighted mean 

value of the meadows in a 

river segment.

None present.

NOTE:

* Weighting value is determined by calculating the percentage of an individual meadow to the area of all measured meadows in the 

segment.

Results (Table 5-13) show that several Yosemite Valley meadows (Cook’s A, El Capitan, Leidig, and 

Sentinel A) had a fragmentation index score of less than 93% for one summer, tripping the first trigger, 

5-42 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Biological ORVs

and/or below 93% for three consecutive years or below 90% for one summer, tripping the second trigger as 

well. Due to these low fragmentation scores, the management standard was not met in 2012. 

Management Concerns and Protective Actions (Indicator 1, ORV 2)

Management concerns have occurred because several meadows have a fragmentation index that is less than 

either or both of the trigger points identified in Table 5-12 above. 

To address the management concerns related to meadow fragmentation triggers for Cook’s A, El Capitan, 

Leidig, and Sentinel A meadows, NPS will:

• Remove informal trails in meadows where they fragment meadow habitat or cross through 

sensitive, wet vegetation communities. Overall, NPS will restore six miles of informal trails 

throughout Yosemite Valley.

• Use boardwalks or hardened surfaces (amounts varying by alternative) to allow access to sensitive 

areas 

• Delineate trails through upland areas and along meadow perimeters

• Place restoration closure signs, and/or fencing along meadow perimeters

• Fill deep headcuts caused by informal trails with native soil and re-contour to natural meadow 

topography

• De-compact trampled soils, and use salvaged plants growing in trail ruts and local seed to 

revegetate area and consolidate multiple parallel trails

• Institute closures in individual impacted meadows, and increase visitor education associated with 

the closures

The first priority for restoration will be El Capitan Meadow, with Cook’s A, Leidig, and Sentinel A the next 

priorities. 

Indicator 2 – Status of Riparian Habitat for ORV 2

Indicator Description

The objective of this indicator is to provide a comprehensive rapid assessment of riverbank (river riparian 

habitat) status every two to three years. The intent is to detect potential impacts from visitor use at the 

incipient stage and correct them in a timely manner so as to protect and enhance biological and 

Geological/Hydrological ORVs. Given the spatial and temporal complexity of riparian systems, this general 

indicator would be part of a comprehensive river protection implementation program that includes 

permanent riverbank vegetation monitoring plots and river cross-section analysis in addition to periodic 

surveys for total accumulated large wood in the channel. The NPS will also use this indicator to monitor a 

component of ORV 10, ethnographic resources in Yosemite Valley. 

This indicator consists of scores derived from the California Rapid Assessment Method for riverine 

environments (CRAM, one of the same methods utilized in Cardno ENTRIX 2012) (Collins et al. 2008; 

CWMW 2013). This is an extensively peer-reviewed and validated protocol (e.g., Stein et al. 2009) intended to 

provide a general condition score of riverine wetlands sites using a combination of landscape, hydrology, 

physical, and biotic structure scores. Potential scores range from 0.27 for the poorest condition up to 1.00 for 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-43
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

the best. In Yosemite Valley, 20% of sites as evaluated in 2010 were classified in the low-condition class (scores 

below 0.71) and 20% were classified in the high-condition class (above 0.86) (Cardno ENTRIX 2012).27

Necessarily broad in nature, the CRAM score integrates substantial information and has been shown to 

adequately distinguish poor and good site conditions (Stein et al. 2009), while allowing for documentation 

of stressors that may be affecting ecosystem processes. Documenting stressors is particularly important for a 

rapid survey in this setting as it permits a fairly direct connection to possible management actions necessary 

to protect and enhance the ORV. Primary stressors on the riparian environment documented in Yosemite 

Valley include riverbank trampling and subsequent rapid erosion in heavy visitor use areas, and erosion 

around riprap and bridge abutments (Madej et al. 1991, 1994). This indicator would be supported by more 

rigorous monitoring of riparian vegetation and riverbank condition at permanently established plots in this 

segment (Yosemite National Park 2010). To refine this indicator, the park may adopt other protocols that 

provide more specific metrics of riparian condition as they become available.28

Definitions of Management Standard, Adverse Impact, and Degradation

Management Standard

The management standard for the status of riparian habitat varies across the alternatives, as shown below in

Table 5-14. The standard is derived from an assessment of the number of sites currently in a low condition 

class (Cardno ENTRIX 2012) that will be affected by restoration actions in each alternative and is therefore 

based on the following:

• Of the 20% of sites currently in the low condition rating, approximately half have the potential of 

being restored to a moderate or high condition class in Alternatives 2 and 3. The remaining 50% of 

these sites could remain in a low condition class due to their proximity to critical roads and bridges. 

Therefore, a maximum of approximately 90% of all sites could achieve a moderate- or highcondition rating once restoration actions are taken in Alternatives 2 and 3. 

• Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 envision higher use numbers, though with more controls on visitation. The 

net effect of higher visitor numbers is that fewer monitored sites are likely to be in moderate or high 

condition. Therefore, the management standard for these alternatives is that at least 80% of sites 

should be in moderate- or high-condition. 

• No matter the level of use, however, a minimum of 20% of sites must be in high-condition to ensure 

enhancement of conditions would take place. For that reason, and because the majority of all sites 

must be in moderate- to high-condition under any alternative, all alternatives provide for the 

protection and enhancement of the Biological ORV.

27 Examples of specific measurements incorporated into CRAM scores are buffer width and condition, channel 

stability, hydrologic connectivity to the adjacent floodplain, structure patch richness, number of plant layers, and 

eight other metrics. Metrics are combined in a way specified in the CRAM protocol to produce a final score. Both 

banks of the river would be evaluated in 200-meter reaches (approximately 160 individual sites) every two to three

years. The CRAM riverine module defines riverine wetlands as “the riverine channel and its active floodplain, plus 

any portions of the adjacent riparian areas that are likely to be strongly linked to the channel and immediate 

floodplain through bank stabilization and allochthonous organic material (productivity) inputs.” 28 Note that the streambank stability indicator used to monitor higher elevation meadows (both in this plan and in the 

Final Tuolumne River Plan/EIS) is not suitable for the higher order stream found in Yosemite Valley; CRAM is.

5-44 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS

 
Biological ORVs

TABLE 5-14: MANAGEMENT STANDARDS FOR THE STATUS OF RIPARIAN HABITAT INDICATOR

Alternatives Associated Management Standard

Alternative 1 No action

Alternatives 2 and 3 At least 90% of sites would attain CRAM scores of 0.71 or higher (moderate or high rating) and at least 

20% of sites would rate as high condition (greater than 0.86) during any single monitoring period.a

Alternatives 4, 5, 

and 6

At least 80% of sites would attain CRAM scores of 0.71 or higher (moderate or high rating) and at least 

20% of sites would rate as high condition (greater than 0.86) during any single monitoring period.

NOTE:

a The 0.71 and 0.87 values are based on the grouping of such scores in Cardno ENTRIX 2012.

Adverse Impact

An adverse impact is indicated when 30% or more of monitored sites in Segments 2A and 2B are rated in a 

low condition class, as measured by the CRAM rating system. This is the minimum change below current 

condition that could be detected given physical metrics and observer variability.

Surveys in 2010 (Cardno ENTRIX 2012) indicated that about 20% of the riparian area along the Merced 

River in Yosemite Valley was in low condition. Consensus among NPS staff and outside specialists is that 

this is an unacceptable impact on riparian habitat in this segment. However, these impacts are highly 

localized (almost all of them are between Clark’s and Sentinel Bridge), with the remaining 80% of the 

segment in higher condition (moderate or high). Most riparian habitat in the valley, in other words, is 

functioning at an acceptable level. Consequently, the segment as a whole is functioning at a level higher than 

what most ecologists would consider adverse impact (e.g., Poole 2002). Management concerns are clearly 

present (see below), with the overall condition for this ORV within Segments 2A and 2B approaching

adverse impact. This definition of adverse impact, then, defines a point that is the minimum detectable 

decline in proportion to monitoring sites in the moderate and high condition classes from the 2010 survey. 

Currently, 16 of 81 sites (20%) rate in low condition. In order to detect a significant increase (at the 95% 

confidence level) in the number of sites in low condition, at least 22 sites (27%) would have to fall into the 

low category. Given the dynamic nature of river systems and the estimated uncertainty in CRAM scores of 

+/- 6% (Stein et al. 2009), the percentage of sites in the low condition class that constitutes adverse impact is 

rounded to 30%.

Degradation 

Degradation is indicated when 40% or more of monitored sites in Segments 2A and 2bBhave CRAM 

condition ratings of low (less than 0.71). Using the current distribution of CRAM scores, 32 out of 81 sites 

(39.5%) would need to fall into this condition. 

Degradation indicates the need for substantial restoration efforts. Extensive or severely degraded 

streambank stability conditions, manifested from either anthropogenic or natural sources, would likely 

propagate the loss of functional integrity of the stream channel on site and downstream. Degradation of 

riparian zones and stream channels diminishes their capacity to provide critical functions, including 

chemical and nutrient cycling, water purification, flood attenuation, maintenance of stream flows and 

temperatures, groundwater recharge, and habitats for fish and wildlife (Kauffman et al. 1997). Ultimately, 

adverse consequences of channel instability (or disequilibrium) would be associated with land productivity 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-45
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

change, land loss, aquatic habitat deterioration, changes in both short- and long-term channel evolution, 

and loss of physical and biological function (e.g., Rosgen 2001). 

Monitoring Program to Prevent Future Adverse Impacts or Degradation – Status of 

Riparian Habitat

Monitoring would take place along the entire portion of this segment that is alluvial in nature, from Happy 

Isles Bridge to 0.6 mile downstream of Pohono Bridge. Both left and right banks of the river over this entire 

length would be divided into 200-meter sites (reaches) and each would be assigned a CRAM score. Monitoring 

would be conducted every two to three years and after major (greater than 10-year return interval) flood 

events. Table 5-15 depicts the trigger points and management response to riparian habitat ratings.

TABLE 5-15: MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND TRIGGER POINTS TO MAINTAIN DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR MID-ELEVATION 

RIPARIAN HABITAT (STATUS OF RIPARIAN HABITAT) 

Trigger Point(s) at Which Action 

Management Would Be Taken

Required Management Actions

(at least one action specified for 

each trigger will be taken)

Rationale for 

Management Actions

Trigger Point 1: Routine survey finds 

the decline of condition class of any 

reach from high to moderate, high to 

low, or moderate to low 

OR 

surveyors note any localized impact due 

to visitor use such as an incipient 

headcut or loss of riverbank vegetation. 

The scale of impacts and potential 

restoration is up to 200 meters of 

riverbank, the maximum single reach 

length in the CRAM protocol.

Investigation of site conditions and potential 

factors leading to the decline in condition 

class or localized impact. Specific mitigating 

actions could range from continued regular 

monitoring to restoration and exclusion of 

the reach from visitor use. Actions would 

consist of at least one of the following: 

• Restore affected area and address causes 

of impacts

• Fencing around campgrounds and 

designated river access points

• Increased monitoring frequency to assure 

recovery of site

The purpose of this trigger is to allow 

for immediate site-specific action 

regarding a potential impact to 

riparian condition. In addition, this 

action will refine our understanding 

of baseline conditions and causal 

mechanisms (streambank alteration, 

natural processes, or cumulative 

effects) affecting streambank 

condition, on-site and within the 

greater contributing source area for 

that site.

Trigger Point 2: Presence of a 

negative trend indicating that the 

breach of the management standard is 

likely without intervening management 

actions. 

The scale of impacts is greater than 

200 meters of riverbank. (Note that this 

is considered the current state of the 

riparian area in the Yosemite Valley 

segment.)

Action at this level requires a more 

comprehensive visitor management and 

restoration response than under Trigger 

Point 1. Actions at this point must be 

sufficient to restore river condition at greater 

than the single reach scale and prevent (or 

mitigate) displacement of impacts upstream or 

downstream of the affected area.

Actions would include one or more of the 

following: 

• Fencing around campgrounds and 

designated river access points

• Active patrols of river area to protect 

riparian vegetation from trampling

• Manage access by limiting use adjacent to 

the river

• Close or re-design campgrounds to lessen 

human impacts to the riparian area

This trigger point indicates that 

impacts have grown beyond sitespecific impacts and now affect 

multiple reaches of the river. While 

unforeseen circumstances could 

manifest this condition, visitor 

impacts are likely to be the most 

important factor. The purpose of 

taking action at this point would be 

to prevent impacts from coalescing 

and propagating downstream leading 

to adverse impact. 

Trigger Point 3: Riparian conditions 

have not improved 10 years after 

reaching Trigger Point 2 and 

implementing restoration and visitor 

use management actions.

Further reduce/restrict use along riverbanks 

and in impacted riparian areas.

Riparian condition may take several 

years to recover following restoration 

or visitor use management actions. 

No measureable improvement 

10 years after implementing actions, 

however, suggests that human use is 

preventing recovery.

5-46 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Biological ORVs

Management to Protect and Enhance Mid-Elevation Meadows and Riparian 

Habitat (Indicator 2, ORV 2)

Current Findings Regarding Management Standard, Adverse Impact, and 

Degradation (Indicator 2, ORV 2)

Table 5-16 compares the current condition of riparian condition for ORV 2 to the definitions of 

management standard, adverse impact, degradation, and management concern. 

TABLE 5-16: CURRENT CONDITION OF MID-ELEVATION STATUS OF RIPARIAN HABITAT

Metric Current Conditions

Meets management standard:

Alternative 1: No action.

Alternatives 2 and 3: At least 90% of sites would attain CRAM scores of 

0.71 or higher (moderate or high rating) and at least 20% of sites would rate 

as high condition (greater than 0.86) during any single monitoring period.

Alternatives 4, 5 and 6: At least 80% of sites would attain CRAM scores of 

0.71 or higher (moderate or high rating) and at least 20% of sites would rate 

as high condition (greater than 0.86) during any single monitoring period.

Management concern present: A decline of condition class of any reach 

from high to moderate, high to low, or moderate to low, or any localized 

impact due to visitor use (trigger 1) (triggers 2 and 3 are shown in Table 5-15

above). 

Surveys in 2010 indicate that about 80% of sites 

were in moderate or high condition, and 20% 

were in low condition, due at least in part to 

visitor use.

Adverse impact: When 30% or more of monitored sites are rated in a low 

condition class.

None present. Degradation: When 40% or more of monitored sites are rated in a low 

condition class.

Surveys in 2010 indicate that management concerns were present in terms of the riparian status indicator. 

These surveys indicated that about 80% of sites attained a minimum CRAM score of 0.71. The remaining 

20% of the riparian area along the Merced River in Yosemite Valley was in low condition, with the scale of 

impacts being greater than 200 meters of riverbank, thereby tripping the first and second triggers for this 

indicator. These impacts are highly localized and would be mitigated once ecological restoration is 

implemented.

Management Concerns and Protective Actions (Indicator 2, ORV 2)

Table 5-15 above presents the trigger point values for the status of riparian habitat indicator used to monitor 

meadow and riparian conditions for ORV 2. Management concerns have occurred because monitoring 

results indicate Trigger Points 1 and 2 have both been exceeded (a trigger has also been tripped under the 

meadow fragmentation indicator for this ORV, as discussed above). 

To address this management concern, the NPS will:

• Re-vegetate riverbanks between Clark’s Bridge and Sentinel Bridge with native riparian shrubs 

and trees. Utilize temporary closures to sensitive resource areas to allow natural recovery along 

riverbanks.

• Strategically place wood according to Yosemite Directive #31, promoting bar formation and 

natural channel narrowing. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-47
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

• Re-direct visitor use to more stable and resilient river access points such as sandbars, and 

designate formal river access sites. Establish fencing and signage to protect sensitive areas; install 

boardwalks where appropriate, and actively re-vegetate where needed.

• Remove all campsites within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark. Restore riverside areas of 

Backpackers, North Pines, and Lower Pines campgrounds to natural riparian conditions.

• Construct hardened structures at designated river access points where needed to facilitate and 

concentrate safe visitor access. Fence and sign sensitive areas and reestablish riparian vegetation.

The NPS will also establish a riparian buffer and prohibit new development along both sides of the Merced 

River within 150 feet of the ordinary high water mark, and move the Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area 

150 feet north of the ordinary high water mark. A riparian buffer is a strip of riparian vegetation along the 

banks of a river that filters runoff and provides a transition zone between the river and human land use (e.g., 

Osbourne and Kovacic 1993). The concept of a riparian buffer to protect river resources is well established 

in the scientific literature and has been applied by numerous federal, state, and local land management 

agencies (e.g., Welch 1991; Wenger 1999; Lee et al. 2004; Mayer et al. 2006). The primary justifications for 

employing a riparian buffer along the Merced River are to protect water quality and riparian habitat. In 

terms of water quality, riparian buffers help trap pollutants that could otherwise directly enter the river. 

Buffers reduce the magnitude and velocity of overland flow, trap sediment, and attenuate compounds such 

as nitrogen and phosphorous and pathogens such as E. coli (e.g., Osbourne and Kovacic 1993; Mayer et al. 

2005; Tate et al. 2006; Hoffmann et al. 2009). Riparian buffer vegetation helps to stabilize riverbanks through 

provision of root cohesion on banks and floodplains, reduce erosion, and allow surface water to infiltrate 

the soil. Riparian buffer vegetation also provides a source of large wood to the river and adjacent floodplain, 

which dissipates river flow energy and regulates channel form (Montgomery et al. 2003). In terms of habitat, 

riparian buffers enhance important habitat for birds and other wildlife by allowing establishment of new 

vegetation and persistence of a complex habitat structure (e.g., Darveau et al. 1995, 2001; Whitaker and 

Montevecchi 1999). Buffers also protect aquatic ecosystems by providing organic nutrients, by supplying 

woody debris that improves habitat complexity, and by moderating water temperatures by vegetative 

shading of the river (e.g., France et al. 1996; Karr and Schlosser 1977). The effective width of a riparian 

buffer depends on the steepness of the local topography, the floodplain extent, soil type(s), vegetation 

type(s), local wildlife species, and the nature and extent of human land use (e.g., Lee et al. 2004; Hawes and 

Smith 2005; Mayer et al. 2006). As a result of these numerous factors, as well as the inherent variability and 

complexity of river system processes, there are no singular, generic standards for riparian buffer widths. 

Review of scientific literature indicates a range of recommended buffer widths, with values generally 

ranging between a minimum of 30 feet and a maximum of 300 feet (Castelle et al. 1994; Wenger 1999; Lee et 

al. 2004; Mayer et al. 2006); typical values fall between 50 and 150 feet. In general, larger buffers afford 

greater levels of river protection. Because the riparian buffers proposed herein are designed to protect a 

Wild and Scenic River within a National Park and World Heritage site, a strong level of river protection is 

desired; a 150-foot buffer is therefore proposed for all alternatives. 

Indicator 3 – Riparian Bird Abundance for ORV 2

Indicator Description

The riparian bird indicator is based on the relative abundance of five riparian bird species that breed 

throughout the meadow and riparian habitats in the Yosemite Valley segment each summer. Birds are an 

effective indicator of overall habitat quality and have been used as indicators of ecological integrity in a variety 

5-48 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Biological ORVs

of habitats (Bradford et al. 1998; Canterbury et al. 2000; O’Connell et al. 2000; Venier and Pearce 2007). Bird 

monitoring is cost-effective, efficient, and effective because birds advertise their presence through 

vocalizations, making them relatively easy to detect and identify. They can also be censused efficiently over 

various spatial scales. An assemblage of birds with strong ecological ties to riparian habitat, as opposed to a 

single species, incorporates a wider range of sensitivities to habitat disturbances and modifications (Koskimies 

1989). Hence, relative abundance of such an assemblage is more likely to reflect changes in the ecosystem 

without population dynamics of one of the species drastically skewing the overall trend (Zonneveld 1983).

The riparian bird indicator comprises five focal species identified by the Riparian Habitat Joint Venture as 

being biologically relevant indicator species (RHJV 2004) and that occur in Yosemite Valley in abundances 

that allow collection of an adequate sample size. These five species are Spotted Sandpiper, Warbling Vireo, 

Yellow Warbler, Song Sparrow, and Black-headed Grosbeak (see Table 5-17 for scientific names and 

ecological characteristics). This suite of focal species follows suggestions by Chase and Geupel (2005) to 

select species that are easy and efficient to monitor and that represent various habitat elements and 

processes in the riparian ecosystem. All of the selected focal species except for Song Sparrow are 

neotropical migrants, which are considered sensitive (declines in neotropical species owing to human 

disturbance and habitat fragmentation have been well documented; see Wilcove and Terborgh 1984; 

Temple 1986; Terborgh 1989). 

TABLE 5-17: RIPARIAN BIRD ASSEMBLAGE IN YOSEMITE VALLEY SEGMENT AND GUILD ASSIGNMENTS

Species Scientific name

Neotropical 

migrant Nest type Diet

Foraging 

type

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius Yes ground nester Insectivore ground 

gleaner

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus Yes cup nest >10 feet off the 

ground

Insectivore foliage 

gleaner

Yellow Warbler Setophaga petechia Yes cup nest < 10 feet off the 

ground

Insectivore foliage 

gleaner

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia No ground nester Omnivore ground 

gleaner

Black-headed 

Grosbeak 

Pheucticus 

melanocephalus 

Yes cup nest < 10 feet off the 

ground

Omnivore foliage 

gleaner

NOTE: Data compiled by Bryce (2006) and collected from Terres (1980), Ehrlich et al. (1988), and DeGraaf et al. (1991).

These riparian focal species make up a diverse group of birds representing a variety of breeding niches and 

foraging strategies. Collectively, their habitat requirements are indicative of a structurally diverse riparian 

system. These riparian habitat specialists represent better indicators than habitat generalists, in part because 

habitat specialists are more susceptible to local extinction following environmental change (Hutto 1998). 

Also, their habitat requirements during the breeding season represent a range of structural components; 

thus their population trends could indicate whether the integrity of the habitat is improving or deteriorating 

under a range of possible habitat management actions (Carignan and Villard 2002). 

Although birds have been widely used as indicators (Beintema 1983; Powell and Powell 1986; Bost and 

Mayo 1993; Daily et al. 1993; Bradford et al., 1998; Hutto 1998), it is still challenging to develop an indicator 

that discriminates between population declines caused by changes within the local habitat (i.e., the Yosemite 

Valley meadows and riparian habitat—ORV 2) and declines caused by factors occurring outside of that 

habitat (e.g., changes in the wintering habitat, diseases, parasites, competition, predation, conditions in 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-49
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

other areas used by migratory species, and/or climate change) (Steele et al. 1984; Bryce 2006). This 

monitoring program would address this need in two complementary ways.

First, the NPS would continue conducting park-wide surveys for these birds as part of the Sierra Nevada 

Network bird-monitoring program (and using the peer-reviewed survey protocol developed by Siegel et al. 

2010). Annual data collected park-wide would provide a valuable comparison with population trends 

detected in Yosemite Valley. For example, if Yellow Warblers disappeared from Yosemite Valley, park 

ornithologists could turn to the park-wide dataset (collected using exactly the same protocol) to determine 

if the trend is specific to Yosemite Valley, or if instead the decline reflects a park-wide threat. 

Second, the NPS would conduct these bird surveys at the same sites (randomly selected) where the 

Yosemite Visitor Use and Impact Monitoring Program also collects vegetation, riverbank, and human use 

data (Newburger et al. 2009; Starcevich 2011).29 If a decline in riparian bird abundance is detected, then the 

vegetation data could be used to determine possible correlations associated with changes in vegetation 

attributes. Several studies have found local vegetation and habitat characteristics to be important in 

explaining variation in local bird abundance (e.g., Wiens and Rotenberry 1981; Cody 1985; Strong and Bock 

1990; Saab 1999; Nur et al. 2008). Knowledge of a species’ life history and habitat requirements enables 

researchers to relate an observed decline to possible human impacts on specific habitat components or to a 

flood or other natural event. For example, preliminary data suggest a relationship between the relative 

abundance of riparian birds and the amount of riparian habitat within specific reaches of the Merced River 

in Yosemite Valley (Cardno-ENTRIX 2012) (Figure 5-2). If a decline in one of the species using these 

riparian habitat types were detected, park managers would examine those habitats to see if changes were 

occurring that could account for the decline. They would also examine the area’s recent history to see if a 

natural event could have caused the decline. 

In summary, the riparian bird indicator is based on five riparian specialist bird species that commonly breed 

in Yosemite Valley’s riparian habitat and that represent various life histories and riparian habitat 

requirements. The indicator accounts for population changes that could be caused by sources external to 

the habitat condition of this ORV by including two additional components: (1) comparison with similar data 

being collected on a wider spatial scale, and (2) matching the sampling plots with concurrent data collection 

on vegetation attributes and extent of human use. Over the long term, such relative abundance data on 

riparian-obligate species will be used to assess whether meadow and riparian communities in Yosemite 

Valley are achieving the management standard. 

29 Vegetation data collected include functional groups related to understory community composition (nonvascular 

plants, annual biennials, tap-rooted perennials, fibrous-rooted perennials, woody seedlings, and shrubs), physical 

riverbank characteristics (litter cover, bare ground, large woody debris, substrate size classes, and exposed roots), and 

canopy characteristics (deciduous trees, evergreen trees, and snags).

5-50 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS

 
Biological ORVs

Figure 5-2: Mean Relative Abundance of Five Riparian Focal Species in 2010-2011 in Relation to 

Percentage of Riparian Habitat (Black Cottonwood Temporarily Flooded Forest Alliance and Shining 

Willow Riparian Scrub) in eight Geomorphic Reaches in Yosemite Valley

NOTE: Habitat alliances and geomorphic reaches described in Cardno-Entrix (2012).

Definitions of Management Standard, Adverse Impact, and Degradation

Management Standard

The management standard is that the abundance of any one of the five species, averaged across the three 

annual observation periods, exceeds the 25th percentile of its distribution, as provided in Table 5-18 below, 

in at least three out of every ten years, or that the average abundance of all five species, averaged again 

across the three annual observation periods, exceeds their summed 25th percentile, unless a species shows 

similar declines in other nearby riparian habitat not in Yosemite Valley. Additionally, neither the abundance 

of any one of the five species or the average abundance of all five species can fall below the 20th percentile 

for more than three of any 10 years. For example, for Song Sparrow populations to meet the management 

standard, observers would need to see or hear at least four individuals in their three visits to exceed the 

25th percentile (4 sightings/3 visits=1.33 birds per visit, which exceeds the 25th percentile value of 1.22), at 

least three times in a decade. Or, for the sum of all five species, observers would need to see or hear an 

average of ten or more individuals of any of the five species (any combination that adds to ten) during the 

three annual visits, to exceed the 25th percentile (10 sightings/3 visits=3.33, which exceeds the 25th percentile 

value of 3.21), again at least three times in a decade.

The riparian bird management standard adopted for the Final Merced River Plan/EIS was developed from a 

four-year pilot dataset: a two-year dataset collected by NPS biologists in 2010-2011 (NPS unpublished data) 

at 24 randomly selected monitoring plots and a two-year dataset collected by other skilled bird observers 

(Point Reyes Bird Observatory scientists) in 2006-2007 at 20 systematically placed plots in Yosemite Valley 

(Stillwater Sciences 2008). In the absence of long-running historical data in Yosemite Valley, this standard 

uses the 4-year pilot dataset to determine expected interannual variation. Percentiles were calculated based 

on the interannual mean and standard deviation (Table 5-18). 

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Below

Pohono

Above

Pohono

Lower

Meadows

Inter

Meadows

Upper

Meadows

Below

Tenaya

Above

Tenaya

Happy

Isles

Bird Relative Abundance 

(# individuals/(plot*date)

% Riparian Habitat

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-51
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

TABLE 5-18: SPECIES-SPECIFIC ANNUAL ABUNDANCESa

Species Average Variance Max

Inter-annual 

Averageb

Inter-annual 

Varianceb

Inter-annual 

Standard 

Deviationa Percentilesc

10% 20% 25%

Spotted Sandpiper 0.42 0.62 5 0.38 0.07 0.26 0.05 0.16 0.21

Warbling Vireo 0.78 0.85 4 0.78 0.08 0.28 0.41 0.54 0.59

Yellow Warbler 0.54 0.83 5 0.50 0.09 0.31 0.11 0.24 0.29

Song Sparrow 1.55 1.65 6 1.50 0.17 0.41 0.97 1.15 1.22

Black-headed 

Grosbeak 0.84 1.10 5 0.81 0.10 0.32 0.41 0.55 0.60

Sum 4.13 8.37 18 3.97 1.28 1.13 2.52 3.02 3.21

NOTE: Yosemite Valley point count data were collected by PRBO Conservation Science biologists in 2006-2007 (Stillwater Sciences 2008) and 

NPS biologists in 2010-2011 (NPS unpublished data). 

a Units are the number of detections per plot—the number of birds seen or heard at a plot, averaged across the three annual visits per plot. 

Species specific annual abundances (average, variance, and maximum abundance); interannual (year to year) average, variance, and standard 

deviation; and percentiles are based on the interannual average and standard deviation. Values are calculated from four years of point count 

data (2006, 2007, 2010, and 2011) collected in Yosemite Valley. b Computed by first calculating the within-year average across sites and dates for each year, then taking the average, variation, and standard 

deviation of those annual averages. (The Interannual average differs from the individual average because it weights years equally while the 

individual average effectively weights years by the “Plot by Date” effort.) c Percentiles are based on the interannual average and standard deviation, and are the values that abundances are expected to be below N% 

of the time due to random fluctuations as observed in the four years of pilot data.

In any given year, random population fluctuations may yield results less than the values for the 25th percentiles. 

To fall below the management standard, such poor years would have to occur 7 or more times per decade. To 

fail to meet the management standard for any individual species, the decline would have to be directly 

associated with ORV 2 in Yosemite Valley. If similar declines were observed in other nearby riparian habitats 

(e.g., Wawona Meadow, Tuolumne River riparian corridor), the management standard would still be met, 

though the reasons for the decline would still need to be determined. The management standard is set to 

safeguard against the chance of falling below the standard due to chance fluctuations while being sensitive 

enough to be triggered if the riparian ORV in Yosemite Valley becomes ecologically dysfunctional. 

There may be certain instances when the management standard needs to be reevaluated and potentially 

readjusted: (1) a natural event (e.g., flood, fire, drought) that does not pertain to human use causes the target 

threshold to be exceeded; (2) another dataset from Yosemite shows more variation than expected annual 

variation; (3) any individual species disappears across all sites; or (4) new available data, science, or technology. 

Adverse Impact 

An adverse impact would occur when the average abundance of any individual species or the average 

abundance summed across all species falls below the 20th percentile of the respective distributions in at 

least four out of 10 years, unless a species shows similar declines in other nearby riparian habitat not in 

Yosemite Valley. As Table 5-18 indicates, falling below those percentiles would indicate that the bird species 

are becoming less common. For example, Warbling Vireo detections would decline from 0.59 averaged 

across all three observation periods in a year (the management standard), to less than 0.54 in a year (the 

adverse impact level). Or, the average number of sightings would fall from 3.21 in a year (the management 

standard), to less than 3.02 in a year (the adverse impact level).

5-52 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Biological ORVs

Because of the fluctuations that are possible from year to year, the duration of four out of 10 years is used. 

This accounts for stochastic events, such as flooding or fire (both of which have occurred in Yosemite 

Valley in the last couple of decades) that could temporarily reduce populations. If such an event occurred, it 

is reasonable to assume that the habitat and bird community would change, but would remain below the 

20th percentile threshold in fewer than four out of 10 years. If rebounding did not occur and human-use 

factors are identified as the cause of adverse impact, then mitigation to reverse impacts would be necessary 

to restore ecological function. 

There may be certain instances when the point of adverse impact needs to be reevaluated and potentially 

readjusted: (1) a natural event (e.g., flood, fire, drought) that does not pertain to human use causes the 

adverse impact threshold to be exceeded; (2) another dataset from Yosemite shows more variation than 

expected annual variation; (3) any individual species disappears across all sites; or (4) new available data, 

science, or technology. As explained in the triggers discussion below, the NPS is committed to ensuring 

adverse impacts or degradation do not occur, through the multiple levels of management triggers. 

Degradation

Degradation would be present when the average abundance of any individual species or average abundance 

summed across all species falls below the 10th percentile of the respective distributions in at least five out of 

10 years, unless a species shows similar declines in other nearby riparian habitat not in Yosemite Valley. As 

Table 5-18 indicates, falling below those percentiles would indicate that the bird species are becoming 

considerably less common. For example, Spotted Sandpiper sightings would decline from 0.21 averaged 

across all three observation periods in a year (the management standard), to less than 0.05 in a year (the 

degradation level)—a decline of more than 75%. Or, the summed sightings would fall from 3.21 across all 

three observation periods in a year (the management standard), to less than 2.52 in a year (the tenth 

percentile, or degradation level).

Because of the fluctuations that are possible from year to year, degradation is reached only when riparian 

bird abundances drop below the 10th percentile threshold in at least five out of 10 years. The duration of 

five out of 10 years accounts for stochastic events. If such an event occurred, it is reasonable to assume that 

the habitat and bird community would rebound above the 10% threshold within five out of 10 years. If 

rebounding does not occur and human use factors are identified as the cause of degradation, then mitigation 

to reverse degradation would take multiple years and a tremendous amount of effort and resources, but 

would be necessary to restore ecological function. 

There may be certain instances when the point of degradation needs to be reevaluated and potentially 

readjusted: (1) a natural event (e.g., flood, fire, drought) that does not pertain to human use causes the 

degradation threshold to be exceeded; (2) another dataset from Yosemite shows more variation than 

expected annual variation; (3) any individual species disappears across all sites; or (4) new available data, 

science, or technology. The NPS is committed to ensuring adverse impact or degradations levels are never 

met through the multiple levels of management triggers developed, as explained below. 

Monitoring Program to Prevent Future Adverse Impacts or Degradation – Riparian Bird 

Abundance

Bird surveys will be conducted at the same 24 randomly selected sites (Figure 5-3) where vegetation and 

riverbank data are regularly collected through the Yosemite Visitor Use and Impact Monitoring Program 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-53
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

(Newburger et al. 2009; Starcevich 2011). Using the peer-reviewed survey protocol and standardized 

datasheets developed by Siegel et al. (2010), the NPS will conduct point count surveys each year during the 

breeding season (May 15-June 30). At each of the 24 point count locations, the NPS will conduct three sets 

of 7-minute surveys, spaced at least ten days apart. The observer will record observed species (detected by 

visual cues, song, or call), and indications of breeding status, such as copulation, courtship or territorial 

display, food carrying, and any observed fledglings. To reduce sample bias, observers will be highly trained 

and demonstrate competence at bird identification. Survey locations will not change during the season or 

between years. Because bird activity tends to decrease later in the morning, surveys will begin within 

10 minutes of official local sunrise time and will be completed within 3.5 hours. Surveys will only take place 

under mild weather conditions. For a more detailed description of the survey protocol, see Siegel et al. 

(2010). Each year, data analysis for each focal species and all focal species combined will include within-year 

average detections per visit, variance among visits, and maximum number of individuals detected in a single 

visit. In addition, interannual (year to year) averages and standard deviations will be updated in order to 

calculate percentiles. These percentiles are the basis for assessing whether the management standard is 

being met. However, as new data, technology, or science becomes available, we may incorporate changes 

into the protocol for conducting field surveys or analyzing data, which may change the averages and 

standard deviations, and in turn, change the calculated percentiles.

Figure 5-3: Point Count Locations (n = 24) within the Merced River Corridor in Yosemite Valley

5-54 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Biological ORVs 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-55 

TABLE 5-19: MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND TRIGGER POINTS TO MAINTAIN DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR RIPARIAN BIRD 

INDICATOR

Trigger Point(s) at Which 

Action Would Be Taken 

Required Management Actions 

(at least one action specified for 

each trigger will be taken) 

Rationale for 

Management Actions 

Trigger Point 1: Average 

abundance of two or more 

individual species drops below 

the 10th percentile threshold 

for one year or the average 

abundance summed across 

species drops below the 20th 

percentile threshold in two out 

of three years. 

For each plot, assess riparian bird assemblage and extent 

of human impacts. 

If anthropogenic activities are correlated with declining 

riparian bird populations, then implement actions to limit 

the extent and magnitude of effects (i.e., human impacts 

or management practices). 

Actions would also include visitor messaging, restoration 

signs, and/or targeted vegetation restoration. 

Management action to assess 

vegetation attributes and human use 

at potentially impacted sites would 

refine our understanding of baseline 

conditions and causal mechanisms 

(altered riparian habitat function, 

natural processes, external factors, or 

cumulative effects) affecting local 

populations of riparian birds. 

Trigger Point 2: Average 

abundance of two or more 

individual species are below the 

10th percentile threshold in 

three out of five years or the 

average abundance summed 

across species is below the 

25th percentile threshold in five 

out of seven years. 

For those potentially impacted plots that have lower bird 

abundance, assess any changes in vegetation attributes 

and human use that may be causing declines in riparian 

birds. 

If anthropogenic activities are identified as causal 

mechanisms of declining riparian bird populations, then 

implement actions to limit the extent and magnitude of 

effects (i.e., human impacts or management practices). 

Actions would include one or more of the following: 

1) restoration practices at those impacted sites where 

riparian birds have declined. 

2) hard closures of individual impacted areas, including 

law enforcement and increased visitor education 

surrounding closures and riparian vegetation impacts. 

Closure regulations would be represented within the 

superintendent’s compendium to allow for law 

enforcement. 

If this trigger point is exceeded, 

actions will be necessary to ensure 

the indicator does not fall below the 

management standard. 

While actions under the trigger points should prohibit falling below the management standard, unforeseen 

circumstances could occur. Plots that exhibit declines that fall below the management standard would require 

a comprehensive analysis of causal relationships for informing effective restoration actions. Restoration 

actions would be guided by identifying specific elements or attributes of habitats used by affected bird focal 

species. Earlier studies on bird-habitat associations emphasized general structural characteristics of vegetation 

(Wiens 1969; Willson 1974; Cody 1985), while more recent studies have identified the importance of specific 

tree species for riparian-dependent birds (Strong and Bock 1990; Saab 1999). Nur et al. (2008) reported that 

local vegetation and habitat characteristics were important in explaining variation in local abundance. 

Concurrent with active habitat restoration, elimination of anthropogenic use of the impacted riparian habitats 

(e.g., willow and cottonwood stands) adjacent to the river may occur. 

Management to Protect and Enhance Mid-Elevation Meadows and Riparian 

Habitat (Indicator 3, ORV 2) 

Current Findings Regarding Management Standard, Adverse Impact, and 

Degradation (Indicator 3, ORV 2) 

Table 5-20 compares the current condition of riparian bird abundance for ORV 2 to the definitions of 

management standard, adverse impact, degradation, and management concern. 
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

5-56 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 

TABLE 5-20: CURRENT CONDITION OF MID-ELEVATION ABUNDANCE OF RIPARIAN BIRDS

Metric 

Current Conditions 

Species 

Percentiles 

10% 20% 25% 

Spotted Sandpiper 0.05 0.16 0.21

Warbling Vireo 0.41 0.54 0.59

Yellow Warbler 0.11 0.24 0.29

Song Sparrow 0.97 1.15 1.22

Black-headed Grosbeak 0.41 0.55 0.60

Sum 2.52 3.02 3.21 

Meets management standard: The abundance of any one of the five 

species, averaged across three years, exceeds the 25th percentile of its 

distribution in at least three out of every ten years, or that the average 

abundance of all five species, averaged across three years, exceeds their 

summed 25th percentile, unless a species shows similar declines in other 

nearby riparian habitat. 

The first status assessments will take place after one 

year of monitoring, in early 2014. The next assessment 

requires information from two out of three years, and 

then ten years. 

Management concerns present: Average abundance of two or more 

individual species drops below the 10th percentile for one year, or the 

average abundance summed across species drops below the 

20th percentile in two out of three years. 

Adverse impact: When the average abundance of any individual 

species or the average abundance summed across all species falls below 

the 20th percentile in at least four out of ten years. 

Degradation: When the average abundance of any individual species 

or average abundance summed across all species falls below the 

10th percentile in at least five out of ten years. 

The NPS is beginning to monitor riparian bird abundance. A baseline for this indicator is in place to monitor 

the status of the indicator through time. The first status assessments will take place in early 2014, after one 

year of monitoring. The next assessment requires information from two out of three years. Confirmation of 

the presence or absence of management concerns, adverse impacts, or degradation requires 10 years of 

monitoring data. 

Management Concerns and Protective Actions (Indicator 3, ORV 2) 

As noted above, data are still being collected, so a determination of whether a management concern, adverse 

impact, or degradation are present for this indicator for ORV 2 is not possible at this time. However, because 

triggers have been tripped under both the meadow fragmentation and the status of riparian habitat indicators 

for this ORV (as discussed above), ORV 2 has management concerns present (see the meadow fragmentation 

and status of riparian habitat discussions above for the actions NPS will take to address these concerns). 

Localized Concerns and Enhancement Actions (ORV 2) 

Actions proposed to enhance the Biological ORV in Segments 2A and 2B would improve meadow 

hydrology and topography, install or extend boardwalks to reduce meadow trampling, fill drainage ditches 

not serving current operational needs, remove abandoned infrastructure, and remove conifer seedlings and 

saplings from meadows. The following actions are common to Alternatives 2-6: 
Biological ORVs 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-57 

 Meadow hydrology: Construct wide box culverts to enhance natural water flows into meadows, 

and formalize or remove road shoulder parking. Restore hydrologic processes to increase sheet 

flow into meadows to sustain native meadow vegetation and limit conifer growth where possible. 

Target areas include Sentinel Meadow, Cook’s Meadow, El Capitan Meadow, Stoneman Meadow, 

and other meadows as necessary. 

 Meadow habitat: Restore denuded vegetation in Ahwahnee Meadow, Sentinel A Meadow, 

Stoneman Meadow, and other meadows as necessary. Protect re-vegetated areas with fencing or 

other natural barriers and install signs to prevent vegetation trampling. Develop or extend boardwalks 

to accommodate visitors and reduce meadow trampling, and/or reroute trails away from the problem 

areas. Fill ditches not serving current operational needs using adjacent soil or pond-and-plug 

techniques. Manually or mechanically remove conifer seedlings and saplings from meadows. 

 Abandoned infrastructure in meadow and riparian habitat: Remove abandoned infrastructure 

(including tiles, pipes, and abandoned roads) from meadow, riparian, and floodplain habitat. 

Decompact soils, remove fill, and re-vegetate with riparian species. Address areas including the 

former Eagle Creek/Rocky Point Sewage Plant site, Royal Arches Meadow, Cook’s Meadow, 

western (closed) portion of former Lower Pines Campground, and the former lodge 

cabin/volunteer center at Yosemite Lodge. 

 Riparian restoration and river access: Use brush layering and other re-vegetation techniques to 

repair localized riverbank erosion and lessen the scouring effect associated with bridges. Direct 

visitor use on the banks of the Merced River to stable and resilient river access points such as sandy 

beaches and low-angle slopes. Install fencing and signs to protect sensitive areas such as steep 

riverbanks and high use areas that exhibit vegetation loss and eroded soils. Protect re-vegetated 

areas with closure signs, fencing, and/or natural barriers such as rocks and logs. Riverbanks that 

would be addressed include those adjacent to Lower Pines and North Pines Campgrounds, 

Backpackers Camp, Housekeeping Camp, Yosemite Lodge beach access, Swinging Bridge Picnic 

Area, Sentinel Beach Picnic Area, Cathedral Beach Picnic Area, Devil’s Elbow, riverside areas 

between Pohono Bridge and the El Portal Road/Big Oak Flat Road intersection, and along the 

Valley Loop Trail. Remove the pack stock trail along the river between the Concessioner Stables 

and Happy Isles, and re-direct stock use to the Valley Loop Trail. See Appendix E for a detailed 

description of ecological restoration actions. 

 Ahwahnee Meadow: Restore meadow to natural conditions by restoring meadow topography, 

removing abandoned irrigation lines and associated fill material, filling in ditches, and re-vegetating 

with native meadow vegetation. Reconnect fragmented portions of Ahwahnee Meadow by 

removing conifers, and re-contour topography to increase the size of the meadow by 5.7 acres. 

 Bridalveil Meadow: Address the condition of the stream in Bridalveil Meadow, which was 

channelized and now exhibits “headcutting,” by inserting willow cuttings into disturbed sites in the 

stream channel, banks of the Merced River, and the adjacent meadow. Reestablish the riparian 

shrub layer in the meadow to restore the diversity of meadow and riparian habitat. 

 Native plant communities in river corridor: Restore the mosaic of meadow, riparian deciduous 

vegetation, black oak, and open mixed conifer forest at specific locations in Yosemite Valley 

(67 potential acres). Management actions could include re-vegetation, prescribed fire, mechanical 

removal of conifers, and infrastructure re-design. 

 Declining amphibian and reptile species: In accordance with NPS Policy, continue management 

toward removal of non-native species, and re-introduction of extirpated or declining species as 

priorities and opportunities are developed. Prioritize studies of the Western pond turtle and the 

foothill yellow-legged frog. 

Additional localized concerns related to fire management and non-native species control would be 

addressed through actions prescribed in the Yosemite National Park Fire Management Plan (NPS 2004) and 

the Invasive Plant Management Plan Update (NPS 2010). ORV 6—the Merced River as an outstanding 
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

example of a rare, mid-elevation alluvial river—presents additional localized concerns and associated 

actions to enhance riparian habitat.

Conclusion: Protecting and Enhancing Biological ORV 2 (Mid-Elevation 

Meadows and Riparian Habitat)

The Merced River’s Biological ORV 2 currently has no adverse impact or degradation, but management 

concerns do exist and protective action is required. The Final Merced River Plan/EIS proposes additional 

actions to enhance Biological ORV 2 conditions in “Alternatives” (Chapter 8). Preliminary data collection 

indicates that a trigger point for the fragmentation standard (LPI5) has been reached. Actions to address 

informal trailing impacts and fragmentation would be taken at all meadows where these triggers have been 

reached. Initial surveys of the riparian status indicator in 2010 indicate that degradation is not present, but 

management concerns are. The NPS would utilize temporary closures to allow natural recovery along 

riverbanks, re-direct visitor use to more stable and resilient river access points, establish fencing and signage 

to protect sensitive areas, and install boardwalks where appropriate. No conclusions regarding the riparian 

bird abundance are yet possible, as monitoring of this indicator has just begun. 

To ensure this Biological ORV is protected through time, the NPS would continue to monitor the condition 

of the ORV using these three indicators. Monitoring would provide early warning of conditions that require 

management action before adverse impacts or degradation occur. These measurable conditions would 

trigger specific management responses, as described in Table 5-12, Table 5-15, and Table 5-19. The NPS 

would evaluate the effectiveness of the indicators regularly to assure that the combination of these metrics 

fully protect the ORV. 

Biological ORV 3—Sierra Sweet Bay (Myrica hartwegii) 

ORV 3—Sierra sweet bay (Myrica hartwegii) is a rare plant found on riverbanks of the South 

Fork Merced River.

Location: Segments 7 (Wawona) and 8 (South Fork Merced River below Wawona)

Rationale: In Wawona and downstream, the South Fork Merced River provides habitat for a rare plant, the Sierra 

sweet bay (Myrica hartwegii). According to the California Native Plant Society, it has a limited distribution in 

California, occurring in only five Sierra Nevada counties.. In Yosemite, it occurs exclusively on sand bars and 

riverbanks along the South Fork Merced River downstream from Wawona and along Big Creek.

Management Objective: Manage the Sierra sweet bay population to protect the abundance of the population 

along the South Fork Merced River

Condition Assessment

ORV Condition at the Time of Designation (1987)

At the time of designation, botanists considered the Sierra sweet bay to be rare in Yosemite, but not 

threatened by local impacts.

5-58 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Biological ORVs

Current ORV Condition

This population was initially mapped and censused in 2004 (Moore et al. 2010) and remapped and 

recensused in 2010 (Colwell and Taylor 2011). The Sierra sweet bay population in Yosemite National Park is 

in good condition (Colwell and Taylor 2011). The only known human impact is minor localized trampling 

associated with recreational river access near the Wawona Campground.

Management Indicator and Monitoring Program for ORV 3 

This section discusses the proposed management program for this ORV, including the indicator to be used; 

the definitions of management standard, adverse impact, and degradation; and the monitoring program.

Indicator – Sierra Sweet Bay Population Decline for ORV 3

Indicator Description

To monitor this species, permanent photo points would be established to monitor the integrity of the Sierra 

sweet bay habitat along the South Fork Merced River in the vicinity of the Wawona Campground. 

Comparison of repeat photos would be an effective method for assessing significant human disturbance of 

this ORV in the vicinity of high use sites. 

Photo monitoring protocols should include the following measures:

• Standardizing camera specifications such as zoom, aperture, and tripod height

• Placing photo board (EX: 2 x 0.5 m fold-able board with 0.5 m stripes of white and blaze orange)

• Marking camera and photo board locations with labeled rebar outside of the river channel

• Including landmarks in the photos such as uniquely forked trees away from the riverbank or 

human-made structures

Definitions of Management Standard, Adverse Impact, and Degradation

Management Standard

The management standard for Sierra sweet bay would be achieved if the population is maintained at >80% 

of its current proportion to the reference stands. The management standard establishes a low tolerance for 

human-caused decline in population size so that population decline caused by human disturbance can be 

reversed if detected early. This species is adapted to spatial and temporal modifications to its habitat 

resulting from periodic hydrologic events, such as floods or from periodic fires. Resulting natural 

fluctuations in population size indicated by all populations declining in size by a similar amount would not 

be mitigated under this ORV. Also, population declines resulting from global environmental change (e.g., 

community shifts, disease, changing precipitation patterns affecting water flow), even if anthropogenic in 

origin, are beyond the scope of this plan and would not be mitigated under this ORV.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-59
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

Adverse Impact

An adverse impact would be present if there is a human-caused decline of over 40% in Sierra sweet bay 

abundance along the high use segment of the South Fork Merced River, as compared with reference 

photographs. 

Degradation

Degradation would be present if there is a human-caused decline of over 70% in the abundance score of 

Sierra sweet bay along the high use segment of the South Fork Merced River, as compared with reference 

photographs. A 70% decline in the abundance score is estimated to be a level of decline that would be 

difficult or impossible to mitigate without a significant input of resources. 

Monitoring Program to Prevent Future Adverse Impacts or Degradation – Sierra sweet 

bay

Permanent photo points would be established to help assess habitat condition over time. Monitoring would 

occur every five years. The mapped extent of Sierra sweet bay completed in 2010 (Colwell and Taylor 2011) 

would provide the basis for locating monitoring sampling units and for comparisons through time. 

Table 5-21 describes the trigger that would inform managers that a response is required to avoid impacts on 

the ORV.

TABLE 5-21: MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND TRIGGER POINT TO MAINTAIN DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR SIERRA SWEET BAY

Trigger Point at Which

Action Would Be Taken

Required Management Actions

(at least one action will be taken) Rationale for Management Actions

Trigger: Decline of 15% in 

Sierra sweet bay abundance

due to human causes across 

two monitoring periods.

Reduce localized human use of Sierra 

sweet bay habitat, such as by installing 

fencing or by redirecting use. 

Augment population by planting using 

cuttings or seeds from local 

population, and protect plants until 

establishment.

Because localized human use is the most likely source of 

human-caused decline in Sierra sweet bay population 

abundance along the South Fork Merced River, a 

reduction in human use would be likely to reverse a 

declining trend. 

Redirecting visitor use to areas away from the Sierra 

sweet bay would be expected to reduce the effects of 

trampling, and the addition of more individuals derived 

from this population would be expected to enhance 

population abundance. Both of these management 

responses would be likely to reverse a declining trend.

Management to Protect and Enhance Sierra Sweet Bay (ORV 3)

Current Findings Regarding Management Standard, Adverse Impact, and 

Degradation (ORV 3)

Table 5-22 compares the current condition of the Sierra sweet bay to the definitions of management 

standard, adverse impact, degradation, and management concern.

5-60 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Geological and Hydrological ORVs

 

TABLE 5-22: CURRENT CONDITION OF SIERRA SWEET BAY (MYRICA HARTWEGII) 

Metric Current Conditions

Meets management standard: The population abundance is 

maintained at >80% of its current population to the reference stands.

The Sierra sweet bay population is in good condition, 

and the management standard has been met.

Management concern present: A decline of 15% due to human 

causes across two monitoring periods.

None present. Adverse impact: A human-caused decline of over 40% along the 

high use segment of the South Fork Merced River.

Degradation: A human-caused decline of over 70% along the high 

use segment of the South Fork Merced River.

According to the population census work done in 2004 and again in 2010, the Sierra sweet bay population is 

in good condition. The management standard has been met. 

Management Concerns and Protective Actions (ORV 3)

This population is currently in good condition, and management concerns are not present. Protective 

management action is not required at this time. 

Localized Concerns and Enhancement Actions (ORV 3)

Enhancement actions are not required at this time.

Conclusion: Protecting and Enhancing Biological ORV 3 (Sierra Sweet Bay) 

The Merced River’s Biological ORV 3 currently has no adverse impact, degradation, or management 

concerns, based on 2010 surveys (Colwell and Taylor 2011). The NPS would monitor the condition of the 

Sierra sweet bay population to ensure early warning of conditions that require management action before 

impacts occur. The monitoring indicator for Sierra sweet bay is coupled with triggers for specific 

management responses. 

GEOLOGICAL AND HYDROLOGICAL ORVS 

This section describes the program to protect each Geological/Hydrological ORV as proposed in the Final 

Merced River Plan/EIS. Four Geological/Hydrological ORVs exist in the Merced River corridor, each 

related to specific segment(s) of the river (Table 5-23). 

TABLE 5-23: GEOLOGICAL/HYDROLOGICAL ORVS AND ASSOCIATED INDICATORS

ORV Number and Key Resource Segment(s) Indicator to be Monitored through Time

4. Glacially-carved Canyon in Upper Merced River 

Canyon

1 None; the ORV is impervious to human disturbance

5. The “Giant Staircase” 2 None; the ORV is impervious to human disturbance

6. A Rare, Mid-elevation Alluvial River 2 The California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM)

7. Boulder Bar in El Portal 4 None; the ORV is impervious to human disturbance

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-61
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

5-62 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 

Geological/Hydrological ORV 4—Glacially-carved Canyon in Upper Merced 

River Canyon 

ORV 4—The upper Merced River canyon is a textbook example of a glacially-carved canyon. 

Location: Segment 1 (Merced River above Nevada Fall) 

Rationale: This segment of the Merced River is characterized by a large-scale, glacially-carved canyon. The section of 

the Merced River above Bunnell Point, in particular, illustrates the relationship between geology and river course 

owing to its sweeping, glacially-carved granite canyon cradling the river. 

Management Objective: Manage to allow natural processes to shape the landscape and associated geologic values. 

Condition Assessment 

ORV Condition at the Time of Designation (1987) 

This Geological ORV was unaffected by human activities at the time of designation. 

Current ORV Condition 

Natural processes would continue to shape the landscape and associated geologic values. Human 

intervention has not perceptibly modified this Geological ORV. 

Management Indicator and Monitoring Program for ORV 4 

It is very unlikely that this ORV would ever be affected by human intervention. Because the ORV is 

essentially impervious to intended human activities, no indicator will be used to monitor it. For the same 

reason, management standard, adverse impact, and degradation are not defined for this ORV, and the NPS 

will not monitor the condition of this ORV as part of the Final Merced River Plan/EIS. 

Conclusion: Protecting and Enhancing Geological/Hydrological ORV 4 

(Glacially-Carved Canyon in Upper Merced River Canyon) 

The Merced River’s Geological/Hydrological ORV 4 currently has no adverse impact, degradation, or 

management concerns, and it is unlikely that this ORV would be affected by human intervention in the 

future. The NPS would not monitor the condition of this ORV. 
Geological and Hydrological ORVs 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-63 

Geological/Hydrological ORV 5—“Giant Staircase” 

ORV 5—The “Giant Staircase,” which includes Vernal and Nevada Falls, is one of the finest 

examples in the western United States of stair-step river morphology. 

Location: Segment 2A (East Yosemite Valley) 

Rationale: Dropping over 594-foot Nevada Fall and then 317-foot Vernal Fall, the Merced River creates what is 

known as the Giant Staircase. Such exemplary stair-step river morphology is characterized by substantial variability 

in river hydrology, from quiet pools, such as Emerald Pool, to the dramatic drops in the waterfalls. 

Management Objective: Manage to allow natural processes to shape the landscape and associated geologic values. 

Condition Assessment 

ORV Condition at the Time of Designation (1987) 

The rocky cliffs, cascades, and broad valleys along the Merced River represent a nationally significant 

example of a glaciated landscape. Sierra Nevada landforms were well established before glaciation, and 

major stream drainages provided the avenues that the glaciers would later follow. The course of the presentday Merced River is determined by the path of glaciers that came and went during the geological epoch 

known as the Pleistocene (10,000 to 1.8 million years ago). These glaciers transformed valleys from 

V-shaped to U-shaped, left hanging valleys along their lower reaches, and deposited thick packages of 

glacial till, ultimately shaping the iconic landscapes for which Yosemite Valley and the upper Merced River 

are known. Most researchers agree that at least three major glacial advances, or stages, have taken place: the 

Tioga, the Tahoe, and a much older pre-Tahoe (possibly the Sherwin) (Huber 1989). The Tioga Glaciation is 

considered to have peaked around 20,000 years ago, but the precise timing of the earlier stages is still a topic 

of debate. Because these are massive landscape-wide natural events well beyond human control, this 

Geological ORV was unaffected by human activities at the time of designation. 

Current ORV Condition 

Natural processes would continue to shape the landscape and associated geologic values. Human 

intervention has not perceptibly modified this Geological ORV. 

Management Indicator and Monitoring Program for ORV 5 

It is very unlikely that this ORV would ever be affected by human intervention. Because the ORV is 

essentially impervious to intended human activities, no indicator will be used to monitor it. For the same 

reason, management standard, adverse impact, and degradation are not defined for this ORV, and the NPS 

will not monitor the condition of this ORV as part of the Final Merced River Plan/EIS. 

Conclusion: Protecting and Enhancing Geological/Hydrological ORV 5 (“Giant 

Staircase”) 

The Merced River’s Geological/Hydrological ORV 5 currently has no adverse impact, degradation, nor 

management concerns, and it is unlikely that this ORV would be affected by human intervention in the future. 

The NPS would not monitor the condition of this ORV as part of the Final Merced River Plan/EIS. 
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

Geological/Hydrological ORV 6—A Rare, Mid-Elevation Alluvial River

This ORV integrates geological/hydrological processes and the condition of aquatic, riparian, and floodplain 

communities.

ORV 6—The Merced River from Happy Isles to the west end of Yosemite Valley provides an 

outstanding example of a rare, mid-elevation alluvial river.

Location: Segments 2A and 2B (Yosemite Valley)

Rationale: In Yosemite Valley, the Merced River is alluvial, characterized by a gentle gradient, a robust flood 

regime with associated large woody debris accumulation, and complex riparian vegetation. There are few examples 

in the Sierra Nevada of similar river morphology of this scale at this elevation (about 4,000 feet).

Management Objective: Protect and enhance natural geologic and hydrologic processes, such as overbank 

flooding and channel migration, which sustain river values such as meadow and riparian communities.

Condition Assessment

ORV Condition at the Time of Designation (1987)

Evidence, such as historical maps and floodplain topography, suggests the Merced River has always had a 

high rate of lateral erosion, which may have increased in response to human impacts, such as trampling 

along the banks. Although the alluvial reach of the Merced River in Yosemite Valley has been relatively freeflowing compared with most rivers in California, this segment was the most impacted reach of the river 

within the park, especially in east Yosemite Valley floor between Clark’s Bridge and Sentinel Bridge. A small 

dam spanned the river at Happy Isles. Between 1919 and 1986, visitor trampling along the banks between 

Clark’s Bridge and Sentinel Bridge damaged riparian vegetation to the point that the river channel widened 

by an average of 27% and by more than 100% in some locations. In 1987, 39% of the Yosemite Valley 

segment was actively eroding. Downstream in the west Valley, 25% of the banks were actively eroding. A 

strong association was found between levels of human use around campsites and river access points, the loss 

of riparian vegetation cover, and accelerated bank erosion (Madej et al. 1991). 

Furthermore, in 1879, large boulders were blasted to deepen and widen the river gap through the El Capitan 

moraine (Milestone 1978). As a result, the extent and frequency of flooding in the upstream meadows were 

reduced within approximately three to four miles of the moraine (approximately up to Superintendent’s 

Bridge) leading to drier conditions and loss of wetlands. 

Since the 1870s, park managers have removed large wood, such as downed trees and logjams, from the river to 

reduce flood risk near bridges and to facilitate road construction and river recreation. Large organic matter 

contributes to channel roughness, which slows the river’s flow, dissipating its energy. The practice of removing 

large wood has encouraged faster, more erosive flows and promoted vertical channel erosion, referred to as 

downcutting, rather than the point bar creation, lateral migration, and avulsion typical of alluvial rivers. The 

practice also contributed to channel simplification, creating a more homogeneous river. An inventory of large 

wood was done shortly after the river’s 1987 designation (Madej et al. 1994). This study found 12 pieces of 

wood per kilometer in the upper study reach (between Clark’s Bridge and Sentinel Bridge) and 29 pieces per 

kilometer in the lower reach (comprising 1.6 miles upstream of El Capitan Bridge). 

Certain bridges spanning the river have effects on its alluvial nature. Hydraulic constrictions were especially 

pronounced at three arch bridges built in the 1920s: Stoneman, Sugar Pine, and Sentinel bridges (Madej 1991).

5-64 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Geological and Hydrological ORVs

Restrictive bridges cause eddy currents upstream and downstream that lead to bank erosion. Additionally, 

accelerated flows through the narrow opening have scoured the channel bed near bridges and resulted in bar 

formation downstream and river migration. Bridges also created hard points that anchored channel migration, 

preventing channel evolution. Some bridges, such as Sugar Pine Bridge, created such strong confinement that 

they appear to have increased the potential for channel avulsion by substantially eroding and widening 

naturally-occurring cutoff channels. The impacts of some of these bridges were exacerbated by the elevated 

road causeways leading to them, which intercepted and concentrated floodplain flows at high water.

In Segment 7 at the time of designation, bridges on the South Fork Merced River included the Swinging 

Bridge upstream of Wawona; the historic Wawona Covered Bridge, a timber-framed covered bridge; and 

the South Fork Bridge (Wawona Road). At the time of designation, the South Fork Bridge was a narrow 

bridge that has since been replaced. The original South Fork Bridge had unreinforced masonry cobble 

abutments and piers within the channel of the South Fork Merced River and created scour holes in the 

immediate vicinity of the abutments. 

Current ORV Condition

Segment 2 is the most complex stretch of the Merced River because it includes Yosemite Valley, which hosts 

the majority of Yosemite’s current 4 million annual visitors. Segment 2, therefore, incorporates the greatest 

number of management actions but also the most historic impacts (usually the reasons for the management 

actions) since designation, as presented here:

• Localized riverbank restoration projects have been implemented since 1987 at Housekeeping 

Camp, North Pines Campground, Sentinel Bridge, former Lower River Campground, and the 

original El Capitan Picnic Area. In addition, the Happy Isles Dam was removed in 2004. Restoration 

techniques included soil decompaction, re-vegetation, bioengineering stabilization, riprap removal, 

and fencing installation. Under current conditions, large wood continues to be managed, although 

less aggressively than in 1987 conditions. Large wood is maneuvered to riverbanks in the 

designated rafting area from Stoneman Bridge to Sentinel Beach, a practice considered best 

management due to the presence of frequent recreational rafting. In part because such wood is not 

removed from the river (as before), Cardno ENTRIX (a consulting firm working for Yosemite) 

found that in the upper reach, wood loading had increased from 19 to 70 pieces per mile, while in 

the lower reach the load had increased from 47 to 97 pieces per mile. This increase was also 

attributed to bank erosion and wood recruitment resulting from the 1997 flood. Within Yosemite 

Valley, wood loading varies, with the highest levels found in the Happy Isles reach; it is likely still 

below levels found in comparable natural settings, with a level of approximately 26%-35% of that 

found in a similar study of unmanaged watersheds in the eastern Cascades (Cardno ENTRIX 2012). 

• Yosemite Valley’s historic bridges (and some historic abutments associated with two former 

bridges at Happy Isles) continue to produce effects that reduce the river’s alluvial nature, similar to 

constrictions at the time of designation. Following the 1997 flood, the Happy Isles Gauge Bridge 

was removed from the channel, and Sentinel Bridge was reconstructed upstream of its original 

location. Sugar Pine, Ahwahnee, and Stoneman bridges (all historically significant arch bridges) 

continue to produce major hydraulic constrictions during high water events. The elevated 

causeway (a multi-use trail) connecting Sugar Pine and Ahwahnee bridges exacerbates these effects. 

At Sugar Pine Bridge, the bridge’s small opening diverts some river flow into a cutoff channel. 

Greater flow and a steeper slope in the cutoff channel has led to substantial widening since 1919, 

increasing the potential for avulsion of the main channel in this location. At other bridges—even 

some of the non-arch bridges like Housekeeping and Swinging bridges—large scour holes have 

developed. Superintendent’s Bridge, similarly, disrupts flow and results in the formation of artificial 

rapids. Riverbank erosion and widening in Segment 2 have continued to occur since the time of 

designation. High levels of human use have exacerbated natural bank erosion, particularly on the 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-65
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

outside of the meander bend near Sentinel Beach Picnic Area. Human use has also contributed to 

channel widening on both river banks between Swinging Bridge and El Capitan Picnic Area and on 

the outer bends between El Capitan Picnic Area and El Capitan Meadow (Cardno ENTRIX 2012). 

Although several of the structures affecting the river’s alluvial nature have been removed, the fundamental 

causes of channelization remain to some degree: large wood removal from the channel, bridge confinement, 

and continued bank erosion, as well as the bank revetment (e.g., riprap) discussed above under the free-flow 

discussion. These have the effect of diminishing the river’s alluvial nature in some stretches where it more 

resembles a river with weirs on it. 

Management Indicator and Monitoring Program for ORV 6

The status of riparian habitat, as measured by the California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) (Collins 

et al. 2008) would be used to monitor the condition of this ORV through time. This is one of the same 

indicators used to monitor ORV 2. The indicator, management standard, definitions of adverse impact and 

degradation, monitoring program, and trigger points for management response are the same as ORV 2, as 

described earlier in this chapter.

Management to Protect and Enhance A Rare, Mid-Elevation, Alluvial River

(ORV 6)

Current Findings Regarding Management Standard, Adverse Impact, and 

Degradation (ORV 6)

As noted in the discussion of ORV 2, surveys in 2010 found that about 80% of sites attained a minimum 

CRAM score of 0.71. About 20% of the riparian area along the Merced River in Yosemite Valley was found 

to be in low condition. These impacts were highly localized and would be mitigated once ecological 

restoration actions are implemented.

Management Concerns and Protective Actions (ORV 6)

Management concerns have occurred because monitoring results indicate Trigger Points 1 and 2 identified 

in Table 5-15 above have been exceeded. 

To address these management concerns, the NPS will: 

• Re-vegetate riverbanks between Clark’s Bridge and Sentinel Bridge with native riparian shrubs and 

trees. Utilize temporary closures to sensitive resource areas to allow natural recovery along 

riverbanks.

• Strategically place wood according to Yosemite Directive #31, promoting bar formation and 

natural channel narrowing. 

• Re-direct visitor use to more stable and resilient river access points such as sandbars, and designate 

formal river access sites. Establish fencing and signage to protect sensitive areas; install boardwalks 

where appropriate, and actively re-vegetate where needed.

• Establish Riparian habitat buffers: Establish a riparian buffer and prohibit new development along 

both sides of the Merced River within 150 feet of the ordinary high water mark. Move the Yosemite 

Village Day-use Parking Area 150 feet north of the ordinary high water mark. 

5-66 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Geological and Hydrological ORVs

• Remove all campsites within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark. Restore riverside areas of

Backpackers, North Pines, and Lower Pines campgrounds to natural riparian conditions.

• Construct hardened structures at designated river access points where needed to facilitate and

concentrate safe visitor access. Fence and sign sensitive areas and reestablish riparian vegetation.

• The action alternatives include a variety of actions to address the effects of the bridges, from

removal to further study.

Localized Concerns and Enhancement Actions (ORV 6)

Localized concerns associated with this river value include infrastructure within the bed and banks of the 

river and bridges. The following actions would take place under Alternatives 2-6 to address these concerns: 

• Footings at the former Happy Isles footbridges. Remove former footings from the bed and banks

of the Merced River. Re-vegetate denuded informal trails.

• Base of the former gauging station at Happy Isles. Remove the gauge base from the bed and

banks of the Merced River. Re-vegetate denuded areas.

• Pohono Bridge Gauging Station. Move the gauging station north of the river outside of the bed

and banks of the river. Re-vegetate denuded areas.

• Housekeeping camp units. Remove 34 Housekeeping camp units located within the ordinary high

water mark.

• Pathway through Leidig Meadow. Replace a section of paved trail in Leidig Meadow (within

ordinary high water mark of the river) with an elevated boardwalk or a series of box culverts.

Conclusion: Protecting and Enhancing Geological/Hydrological ORV 6 (A Rare, 

Mid-Elevation, Alluvial River) 

The Merced River’s Geological/Hydrological ORV 6 currently has no adverse impact or degradation, but

management concerns do exist and protective action is required. The Final Merced River Plan/EIS proposes 

additional actions to enhance Geological/Hydrological ORV 6 conditions in “Alternatives” (Chapter 8). For 

example, in riparian zones under all alternatives, the NPS would direct river use to more stable and resilient 

access points, protect sensitive areas, and remove or relocate campsites within 100 feet of the ordinary high 

water mark. 

To ensure this ORV is protected through time, the NPS would monitor the condition of the ORV using the 

status of riparian habitat as an indicator and the CRAM methodology (the same methodology used in 

ORV 2), and take specific actions should conditions reach trigger points. These trigger points are selected to 

inform managers well in advance of adverse impacts or degradation on this ORV.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-67
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

Geological/Hydrological ORV 7—Boulder Bar in El Portal

ORV 7—The boulder bar in El Portal was created by changing river gradients, glacial history, 

and powerful floods. These elements have resulted in accumulation of extraordinarily large 

boulders, which are rare in such deposits.

Location: Segment 4 (El Portal)

Rationale: When river gradients lessen, rivers lose the energy needed to transport larger sediments. In such areas, 

bar-type deposits, such as the large boulder bar at the east end of El Portal, are built up. This is no ordinary boulder 

bar, however, for it contains massive boulders over a meter in diameter and weighing many tons. It is the 

combination of boulder availability, the steepness of the river in the gorge, the major change in gradient at El 

Portal, and the size of the Merced River’s peak floods that enable the river to build such a boulder bar. As 

illustrated by the January 1997 flood, the Merced River continues to sort and build this bar, providing evidence in 

all seasons of its potential power.

Management Objective: Manage to allow natural processes to shape the landscape and associated geological

values.

Condition Assessment

ORV Condition at the Time of Designation (1987)

This Geological ORV was unaffected by human activities at the time of designation.

Current ORV Condition

Additional large boulders were deposited by a natural flooding event in 1997. 

Management Indicator and Monitoring Program for ORV 7

It is very unlikely that this ORV would ever be affected by human intervention. Because the ORV is 

essentially impervious to intended human activities, no indicator will be used to monitor it. For the same 

reason, management standard, adverse impact, and degradation are not defined for this ORV, and the NPS 

will not monitor the condition of this ORV as part of the Final Merced River Plan/EIS. 

Conclusion: Protecting and Enhancing Geological/Hydrological ORV 7 (the El 

Portal Boulder Bar) 

The Merced River’s Geological/Hydrological ORV 7 currently has no adverse impact, degradation, nor

management concerns, and it is unlikely that this ORV would be affected by human intervention in the 

future. The NPS would not monitor the condition of this ORV as part of the Final Merced River Plan/EIS. 

CULTURAL ORVS

The continuum of human use along the Merced River and South Fork Merced River encompasses millennia 

of diverse peoples, cultures, and uses. American Indian and late 19th-century American cultures flourished 

along these rivers because they provided reliable, year-round water in extraordinary settings. Evidence that 

reflects trade, travel, and settlement patterns abounds in an intricate and interconnected landscape of 

5-68 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Cultural ORVs

archeological sites, traditional use sites, and historic resources representing this cultural history. The 

ongoing cultural traditions of contemporary American Indians and other ethnic heritages are linked 

through space and time to their respective prehistoric and historic pasts via these ethnographic and cultural 

landscapes. This landscape holds outstandingly remarkable scientific, interpretive, and cultural value for 

traditionally associated peoples and the public. This section describes how the NPS would protect and 

enhance the Cultural ORVs as proposed in the Final Merced River Plan/EIS. Each ORV is related to specific 

segment(s) of the river (Table 5-24). They constitute seven ORVs, from ORV 8 to ORV 14. 

TABLE 5-24: CULTURAL ORVS AND ASSOCIATED INDICATORS

ORV Number and Key Resource Segment(s) Indicator to be Monitored through Time

8. Yosemite Valley American Indian 

ethnographic resources 

2A and 2B 1. Meadow fragmentation due to the proliferation of 

informal trails

2. Status of riparian habitat

3. California black oak – number of adults and ratio of 

saplings to adults

9. The Yosemite Valley Archeological District 2A and 2B 1. Condition of Yosemite Valley Archeological District

10. Yosemite Valley Historic Resources 2A and 2B 1. FMSS Condition Assessments

11. The El Portal Archeological District 4 1. Condition of El Portal Archeological District

12. Regionally rare archeological features 

along the South Fork Merced River at 

archeological sites with rock ring features 

5 1. Condition of archeological sites

13. The Wawona Archeological District 5, 6, 7 and 8 1. Condition of Wawona Archeological District

14. The Wawona Historic Resources 7 1. Condition Assessment

The characteristics of the Cultural ORVs related to their condition are based on the same seven aspects of 

integrity that contribute to the National Register eligibility of each ORV element: location, design, setting, 

materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Location is the place where the historic property was 

constructed or where the historic event occurred. Design is the combination of elements that create the 

form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. Setting is the physical environment of a historic 

property. Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of 

time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. Workmanship is the physical 

evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. 

Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. Association

is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property (NPS 1997d). 

Specific examples of the characteristics evidencing the condition of the Cultural ORVs include, but are not 

limited to:

Archeological Sites: Archeological sites reflect millennia of human use and cultural evolution in relation to 

the river. Prehistoric and historic resources in the Yosemite Valley and Wawona Archeological Districts 

include American Indian villages, camps, and special purpose sites dating from at least 6,000 years ago to a 

period of historical occupation. In the El Portal Archeological District, some resources may be as old as 

9,500 years. Benchmarks of condition for archeological sites are primarily concerned with the in situ

preservation of intact artifacts and features (the attributes of location, design, and setting discussed above), 

so that spatial associations between site components can be observed in surface and subsurface 

assemblages. The integrity of features—such as pictographs, rock rings, or rock alignments—are judged on 

the clarity with which the outline, form, content and purpose of such features can be delineated. Additions 

of cultural elements not related to the site (e.g., modern campfire rings, trails, roads, graffiti, buildings, or 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-69
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

structures) can negatively affect the integrity of an archeological site’s setting, association, and feeling. 

Historical remains can provide clear evidence of former use and association and may retain integrity as 

archeological resources, such as the physical remains of U.S. Army Cavalry Camp A.E. Wood.

As a regular part of ongoing archeological research, inventory, and accountability, Yosemite utilizes the 

Archeological Site Management Information System (ASMIS). Throughout the NPS, ASMIS is the primary 

monitoring tool for the condition of archeological sites, documenting site stability, threats, disturbances, 

treatments, and management actions, as well as providing descriptions and locations for all known 

archeological sites in the park (NPS 2005, 2007). The ASMIS condition assessment (i.e., “good,” “fair,” 

“poor,” “unknown,” or “destroyed”) addresses the stability of a site compared to the previous site visits, but 

is not an indicator of cumulative impacts over time (Middleton [NPS] 2008). The disturbance severity level 

assessed for a given site is determined through the combined assessment of individual disturbances (NPS 

2010c). This component of the ASMIS data system is determined independently of site condition and 

reflects a cumulative impact level that the site has sustained (Darko 2011).

Ethnographic Resources: Traditionally associated American Indians assign strong spiritual value to the 

Merced River and Yosemite Valley, continuing their sense of place and cultural association with the river that 

is both a destination and a place of refuge. American Indians attached names and stories to geologic and other 

features in the Merced River corridor and consider many of these to be sacred or of spiritual significance. 

Villages or campsites were sited along the river to take advantage of seasonal resources, riparian plant species, 

or migrations of game animals. The integrity of the association with the community’s cultural practices and 

beliefs is a critical consideration in assessing the condition of the ethnographic resources in Yosemite Valley. 

Benchmarks for the integrity of this component of the Cultural ORV in the Segments 2A and 2B could include 

unobstructed views of and/or access to sacred or significant geologic features, maintenance of and access to 

healthy populations of traditional ethnobotanical resources, and preservation and access to archeological 

remains or locations of historic, spiritual, or traditional significance.

Built Environment: Conditional benchmarks for the historic-era built environment include: 

• continuity of original uses (association)

• maintenance of original physical form and materials (design, workmanship, and materials)

• a feeling of related association between the resource and contemporaneous elements (location, 

setting, feeling, and association)

5-70 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Cultural ORVs

Cultural ORV 8—Yosemite Valley American Indian Ethnographic Resources

ORV 8—Yosemite Valley American Indian ethnographic resources include a linked landscape of 

specifically mapped traditional-use plant populations, as well as the ongoing traditional cultural 

practices that reflect the intricate continuing relationship between indigenous peoples of the 

Yosemite region and the Merced River in Yosemite Valley. 

Location: Segments 2A and 2B (Yosemite Valley)

Rationale: Yosemite Valley Native American ethnographic resources include relatively contiguous and interrelated 

places that are inextricably and traditionally linked to the history, cultural identity, beliefs, and behaviors of 

contemporary and traditionally-associated American Indian groups. These areas include specifically mapped 

traditional plant gathering areas rooted in the history of traditionally associated peoples that are important to 

maintain and continue their cultural identity (Bibby 1994; Parker and King 1998). The traditional use plants 

gathered at such areas within Yosemite Valley comprise a complete system that is culturally significant. Because this 

ORV is the ethnographic system itself, which is fundamentally river-related, it includes some non-river related 

traditional use plants. 

Management Objective: Maintain ethnographic resources, and encourage future propagation to meet cultural 

restoration purposes to the extent ecologically feasible. Support access for traditional practitioners and other 

traditionally associated American Indians through the administrative elements of the user capacity and nonrecreational tribal pass programs, and ongoing consultation with traditionally associated tribal groups to ensure the 

success of these programs. 

Condition Assessment

Condition at the Time of Designation (1987)

The landscape of Yosemite Valley is a product of both natural and cultural processes. Many of the meadow 

and riparian species of this landscape are important ethnographic resources. While natural processes, such 

as those that drive hydrological functions, have shaped the meadow complexes of the Merced River, 

cultural processes including American Indian burning to promote hunting and gathering have also shaped 

the Yosemite Valley landscape. Vista clearing to maintain views of the iconic scenery in Yosemite Valley also 

affected the condition of the landscape. The nearly pure stands of black oak are a prominent component of 

the Yosemite Valley Ethnographic ORV. Similar to meadows in Yosemite Valley, American Indians actively 

managed these Yosemite Valley oak groves. This management likely included burning or hand pulling to 

discourage conifer encroachment and undergrowth, deer control, and planting. The purpose of this active 

management was to ensure a good harvest of acorns, which was an important part of American Indian diets. 

The federal government policy of Indian removal was gradually implemented in Yosemite over many 

decades, with the final residents evicted late in the 20th century. American Indian practices that fostered the 

propagation of desired plants, including oak trees, ended in the mid-1800s, well before their final removal 

from Yosemite. Seasonal burning, selective pruning, tilling, timely harvesting, and propagation were the 

primary tools they used; the discontinuation of these meant that by 1987, mature individual oak trees were 

being encroached upon by conifers, with low recruitment (germination and growth to adult trees) 

(Anderson 2005). 

During this same time period, the newly arrived settlers and then park managers cleared vegetation for 

construction of facilities, homesteaded, farmed, and grazed range animals in what used to be traditionally 

used meadow and oak habitat (Bibby 1994). These actions furthered the decline of oak and other desired 

species, with an overabundant deer population exacerbating the effect in more recent years (deer 

overbrowsed oak seedlings, causing poor recruitment). The introduction of non-native plant species also 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-71
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

encroached on populations of traditional use plants in Yosemite Valley at the time of designation. All of 

these changes have likely led to alterations in the abundance and integrity of ethnographic resources. 

Current ORV Condition

Many of the impacts to this ORV identified at the time of designation continue to the present, though the 

current NPS preservation mission encourages ongoing cultural connections between traditionally 

associated American Indian communities and ancestral park lands by facilitating the continuation of 

important cultural practices, religious ceremonies, and unimpeded access to sacred sites (Bibby 1994). 

Recognition of the ecological and ethnobotanical value of Yosemite Valley meadows has begun to result in 

restoration of some of these sensitive areas to conditions resembling those found in the period before 

intensive historic-era settlement (NPS 2010a). Several traditional use areas have been identified within 

Yosemite Valley, and some of the plant species within them are now actively being managed to encourage 

healthy plant populations (Bibby 1994; Deur 2007). 

Management Indicator and Monitoring Program for ORV 8

This section discusses the proposed management program for this ORV, including the indicators to be used; 

the definitions of management standard, adverse impact, and degradation; and the monitoring program.

Three distinct indicators would be used to protect and enhance the Ethnographic ORV: a meadow 

fragmentation indicator, a riparian indicator, and a California black oak indicator. The meadow and riparian 

indicators have already been described in this chapter under ORVs 1 and 2, respectively. The California 

black oak indicator is introduced and described in this section. Although each indicator reflects different 

aspects of the ethnographic ORV and different potential impacts, they would all be evaluated on a regular 

basis to ensure that the combination of these metrics protects the Ethnographic ORV. 

Indicator 1 – Meadow Fragmentation Due to the Proliferation of Informal Trails for 

ORV 8

Some of the plant populations constituting this ORV occur in Yosemite Valley meadows. To monitor the 

condition of meadow ethnographic resources, the meadow fragmentation indicator will be used, as 

described under Biological ORV 1 – Meadow Fragmentation due to the Proliferation of Informal Trails. The 

management standard, definitions of adverse impact and degradation, monitoring program, and trigger 

points are the same as described under ORV 2.30 As noted in the current findings discussion under ORV 2, 

management concerns are present with this indicator, because several Yosemite Valley meadows have 

fragmentation indexes below the trigger values. That same discussion presents numerous protective actions 

that NPS will take to remedy this management concern. 

Indicator 2 – Status of Riparian Habitat for ORV 8

Other plant populations constituting this ORV occur in Yosemite Valley riparian areas. To monitor these 

riparian ethnographic resources, the Status of Riparian Habitat indicator will be used, as described under 

30 Meadow fragmentation is used as an indicator for both ORVs 1 and 2, with identical definitions of management 

standard, adverse impact, and degradation, as well as identical trigger points. The management responses differ, 

because the meadows in Yosemite Valley are not in designated Wilderness. Because the plants comprising ORV 8 are 

found in those same meadows, ORV 8 will use the management responses prescribed for ORV 2. 

5-72 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS

 
Cultural ORVs

Biological ORV 2 – Status of Riparian Habitat. The management standard, definitions of adverse impact and 

degradation, monitoring program, and trigger points are the same as described under ORV 2. As noted in 

the current findings discussion under ORV 2, management concerns are present with this indicator, because 

about 20% of the riparian area along the Merced River in Yosemite Valley is in low condition. That same 

discussion presents numerous protective actions that NPS will take to remedy this management concern.

Indicator 3 – California Black Oak for ORV 8

California black oak acorn has been an important staple food for American Indians in Yosemite Valley for 

millennia (Anderson 1991; Hull and Moratto 1999). Cultural knowledge regarding its preparation has 

survived strongly among the contemporary associated tribes and groups, reflecting its importance (Bibby 

1994). Although black oak acorn is no longer a staple food, it has become symbolic of ancestral traditions 

and an important aspect of contemporary culture. For example, acorn soup is prepared for special 

occasions, especially traditional gatherings and ceremonial events. Several of the former inhabitants of the 

last American Indian village in Yosemite Valley recall gathering acorns with their parents and/or 

grandparents, attesting to the multi-generational historical and place-based personal connections between 

black oaks and the people. Certain groups of trees, or even individual trees, continue to be associated with 

particular individuals who gathered in historic times (Bibby 1994).

The current structure of the California black oak population in Yosemite Valley follows a familiar pattern 

for many oak species throughout California – a peak frequency in the younger adult size class but few, if any, 

saplings and pre-adults. For one or more reasons, survivorship from the seedling stage into the larger 

sapling and young adult stages is very low for many oak species. This apparent lack of regeneration (also 

known as recruitment) in oak species is a widespread pattern in California (Holzman 1993; Swieki et al. 

1993; Garrison et al. 2002), the United States (Loftis and McGee 1992; Russell and Fowler 1999), and other 

parts of the world (Watt 1919; Shaw 1968; Saxena and Singh 1984; Singh et al. 1997; Abrams et al. 1999). 

Many factors have been proposed to account for the poor regeneration or lack of survivorship from 

seedling to sapling, leading to the absence of saplings and young adults (Tyler et al. 2006). Little data exist on 

the structure of black oak populations throughout its distribution in California and Oregon (Tyler et al. 

2006), but some recent data from Yosemite Valley (Angress 1985; Kuhn and Johnson 2008; Ripple and

Beschta 2008) and anecdotal accounts indicate the black oak population structure there also resembles 

those of others where regeneration is lacking or very low.

Although black oaks may be an exception, a typical size class frequency distribution for many tree species is 

one called the reverse-J curve where the smallest size classes (i.e., seedlings and saplings) have the most 

individual trees, each larger size class (i.e., saplings, adults) has fewer individual trees, and the largest size 

class (i.e., adults) has the fewest number of trees (Harper 1977). This demographic structure can be caused 

by a number of processes including density-dependent competition for limited resources such as light, 

water, and nutrients, and predation that all result in differences in rates of establishment, growth, and 

mortality. In the early life stages (i.e., smaller size classes), mortality rates are high, with a small proportion of 

a size class surviving into the next, larger size class. Mortality rates decrease as individuals get older. Once a 

tree becomes large enough, mortality rates decline considerably and most then live to an old age.

A leading hypothesis to explain the commonly found lack of regeneration in oaks and other species in 

protected areas is that ungulates (deer or elk) are browsing heavily on the seedlings, leading to high mortality 

rates. This hypothesis is supported by considerable research and observations from Yosemite (Dixon 1944; 

Gibbens and Heady 1964; Heady and Zinke 1978; Kuhn and Johnson 2008; Ripple and Beschta 2008), 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-73
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

California (Kuhn 2010), other parks (Wolf and Cowling 1981; Hebblewhite et al. 2005; Bestcha 2005; Ripple 

and Bestcha 2006), and the United States (Stromayer and Warren 1997; Waller and Alverson 1997). Cote et al. 

(2004) offer an excellent literature review on the impacts of abundant deer populations on many forest tree 

species. It has long been known and documented that protected areas such as national parks may contain high 

densities of ungulate species such as deer and elk (Cahalane 1941; Leopold et al. 1963; Porter and Underwood 

1999).

Indicator Description

This indicator has two components to monitor the status and long-term health of adults in two key stands of 

black oaks in Yosemite Valley, the Schoolyard and El Capitan stands (Figure 5-4). These stands cover a total 

area of 44.7 acres (18.1 hectares). The schoolyard stand is 28.2 acres (11.4 hectares) and contains 

approximately 134 adult black oaks, while the El Capitan stand is 16.5 acres (6.7 hectares) and contains 

approximately 282 adult black oaks. These stands would be monitored by tracking both the number of 

adults (or density) over time, and the ratio of saplings to all adults. Together, these two components provide 

a quick but informative look at the status and long-term health of the stands. The first component of the 

indicator will be used because the number of adults should stay relatively steady over time to maintain the 

quality and character of the woodlands and for reproduction. Although uncertain and variable, California 

black oaks likely become reproductive adults when they reach a size of 10 to 20 cm diameter at breast height 

(dbh). Although many individuals in the “sapling” stage (<20 cm dbh) produce acorns and are technically

adults, adults are defined as individuals ≥ 20 cm dbh. The number of adults in these two stands has likely 

been relatively stable in the recent past, though there continues to be slow and perhaps punctuated adult 

mortality. The number of adults should not experience a significant decline.

As with adult survival, there should also be adequate recruitment into the critical sapling stage to maintain 

stand health. Between 1.3 meters (the height at which dbh measurements can be taken) and 2.0 meters in 

height, saplings are able to escape deer browsing and survival rates are much higher than for earlier stages of 

growth. Thus, saplings are defined as individuals > 1.3 meters tall and < 20 cm dbh. The part of the indicator 

measuring the ratio of saplings to adults is intended to measure this component of stand health. Based on the 

assumption that California black oak follows an expected demographic frequency distribution (based on the 

common reverse-J curve model), there should be many more saplings than the number of adults in the largest 

size classes. However, it is possible that black oaks and even oaks in general have highly episodic recruitment 

(i.e., occurring at very irregular intervals). This would create a population size structure frequency distribution 

with multiple peaks and troughs. Existing data indicate that there has not been strong episodic recruitment in 

at least the last 90 years. While recruitment may still be episodic, it is unlikely that episodes occur on time scales 

of 90 years or longer. Given the current size structure of the Yosemite Valley black oak population and the 

extensive research on the effects of ungulates on oak and other tree population demographics, it is likely that 

the pattern of very low recruitment in the last 90 years is not a naturally occurring pattern.

This indicator, its standards, and any management actions taken only apply to the two California black oak 

stands defined in the cultural traditional use plants ORV: the schoolyard stand and the El Capitan stand.

5-74 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Cultural ORVs

Figure 5-4: Boundaries of the Two Stands for the Black Oaks ORV Indicator. Included are other 

areas where black oaks are the dominate canopy species in Yosemite Valley.

Definitions of Management Standard, Adverse Impact, and Degradation

Management Standard

There are two components to the management standard for the schoolyard and El Capitan stands: 1) the 

number of adults, and 2) the ratio of saplings to non-saplings (or adults) for all black oaks taller than 

1.3 meters. For all individuals defined as adults, the management standard is at least 85% of adults 

compared to the 2008 baseline.

31 For the ratio of saplings to non-saplings, the management standard is a 

ratio greater than 0.55. The expected size class frequency distribution, based on data collected by Kuhn and

Johnson (2008), is a ratio of saplings to non-saplings of 0.65.32 Because the management standard applies to 

the entire river segment, it considers the total number of adults and the ratio in the two stands; however, the 

31 Because the NPS has considerably more precise information about 2008 conditions than those at the time of 

designation, the more recent conditions provide a usable baseline for this indicator. 32 This ratio was derived by constructing a best fit decaying exponential polynomial curve to the size frequency 

distribution of 325 trees using size classes from 20 cm up to 200 cm, separated into 10 cm bins. From the relationship 

derived from this frequency distribution, it is inferred that, for a stable population, the abundance of individuals 

< 20 cm dbh should be 65% of the abundance of all individuals ≥ 20 cm dbh.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-75

 
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

trigger points described below apply to the individual stands, because trigger points are designed to 

maintain conditions above the management standard. 

Adverse Impact 

An adverse impact would be the number of adult California black oaks (i.e., ≥ 20 cm dbh) declining by at 

least 20% compared to the 2008 baseline. 

Degradation

Degradation would be the number of adult California oaks (i.e., ≥20 cm dbh) declining by at least 25% 

compared to the 2008 baseline.

Monitoring Program to Prevent Future Adverse Impacts or Degradation – California 

Black Oak

California black oak is a slow growing species, and adult mortality rates are also low (though quite variable 

year to year). Monitoring growth can be conducted on relatively long time scales while mortality should be 

monitored more frequently due to its episodic nature. The two key stands of black oaks in Yosemite Valley 

would be monitored annually for adult mortality while new recruitment and changes in sapling to adult 

ratios would be monitored less frequently (every three to five years). Monitoring methods should follow 

established demographic methods (such as Elzina et al. 2001).

33 

Table 5-25 below displays the trigger point and associated management actions. The first trigger point 

would be a decline in the total number of adult oaks of 15% in either (but not both) stands compared to 

2008 baseline, or a decline in the sapling-to-non-sapling ratio to 0.55 or less in either (but not both) stands. 

Management actions to respond to trigger points would be active restoration, including deer and rodent 

exclusion for individual seedlings, saplings, parts of the stand, or all of the stand; planting acorns or 

seedlings; and possibly a reduction in visitor use.34

During ecological restoration, the success of management actions will be monitored annually and further 

actions taken to mitigate any failures. Young saplings will require protection from deer until they are tall 

enough to escape heavy browsing. Mortality rates of all seedlings and saplings will be monitored annually to

ensure sufficient survival rates into larger size classes. Periodically (every 3 to 5 years), the current population 

structure can be compared to an expected frequency distribution based on data collected by Kuhn and

Johnson (2008) to determine relative success of the restoration actions. Saplings and young adults will 

continue to experience some mortality as they grow larger. Depending on conditions, it will take 

approximately 55 to 85 years (the average is 69 years) (Kuhn and Johnson 2008; Ripple and Bestcha 2008) for 

California black oak to grow into the adult size classes (≥ 20 cm dbh) in Yosemite Valley. These age estimates 

are based on size-to-age relationships from 27 trees throughout Yosemite Valley (Ripple and Beschta 2008), 

33 When determining tree mortality, some degree of latitude and interpretation should be afforded those who are 

monitoring. Adult black oaks may enter into a period of slow decrepitude that may take decades before eventual 

mortality occurs. During this period, the tree will continue to survive and grow, but in a reduced form and stature. As 

long as the adult is still a contributing reproducer (producing acorns), it should be considered alive. If a decrepit adult 

is no longer reproductive, it may be considered dead for the purposes of this indicator.

34 Deer protection can be applied to naturally recruited seedlings, and protection from deer and rodents can be applied 

to planted acorns or seedlings. Methods to protect planted acorns and seedlings have been used successfully in other 

restoration projects (Swiecki & Bernhardt 1991; Tyler et al. 2008) and can be applied in Yosemite.

5-76 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS

 
Cultural ORVs

and the size-to-age relationship within the two stands in question may differ somewhat from what has been 

reported here.

TABLE 5-25: MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND TRIGGER POINTS TO MAINTAIN DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR CALIFORNIA BLACK 

OAK INDICATOR

Trigger Point at Which 

Management Action Would Be Taken

Required Management Actions 

(at least one action will be taken)

Rationale for 

Management Actions

Trigger Point: In either (but not both)

stands, total numbers of adults decline 

by 15% 

OR 

the ratio of saplings to all non-sapling 

adults in that stand falls below 0.55.

Protect existing adults (particularly if the adult 

trigger is reached) 

Protect existing saplings (particularly if the 

ratio trigger is reached) 

Ecological restoration, primarily through 

planting of seedlings, possibly over a number 

of years

Protect individuals of all age and size classes 

through fencing, removal of competing 

plants, fuel reduction, public awareness, 

signs, removal of facilities

Reduce deer browsing

Reduce rodent pressure

Reduce public use

0.65 is the expected ratio, 

notwithstanding natural variability, 

and management action when the 

ratio reaches 0.55 allows for a 

declining trend to be reversed 

before the management standard 

is reached. Similarly, management 

action when adult decline reaches 

15% allows for a declining trend 

to be reversed before the 

management standard is reached.

Management to Protect and Enhance Ethnographic Resources in Yosemite 

Valley (Indicator 3, ORV 8)

Current Findings Regarding Management Standard, Adverse Impact and 

Degradation (Indicator 3, ORV 8)

Table 5-26 compares the current condition of the California black oak to the definitions of management 

standard, adverse impact, degradation, and management concern. 

TABLE 5-26: CURRENT CONDITION OF CALIFORNIA BLACK OAK

Metric Current Conditions

Meets management standard: The number of adult oaks is at least 85% 

of the 2008 baseline, and the ratio of saplings to non-saplings is greater than 

0.55.

Management concern present: In either (but not both) stand, total 

numbers of adults decline by 15%, or the ratio of saplings to non-saplings in 

that stand falls below 0.55.

The El Capitan Meadow and schoolyard groves in 

2013 had a sapling to non-sapling ratio of 0.10 

and 0.12, respectively. 

Adverse impact: A decline by at least 20% in the number of adults 

California black oaks (≥20 cm dbh) compared to the 2008 baseline. None present. Degradation: A decline by at least 25% in the number of adult California 

black oaks (≥20 cm dbh) compared to the 2008 baseline. 

Recent surveys of both the El Capitan Meadow and schoolyard groves found sapling to non-sapling ratios 

of 0.10 and 0.12, respectively (Kuhn 2013), for a combined segmentwide ratio of 0.11, requiring immediate 

ecological restoration to increase the number of saplings, as shown in Table 5-26. This ratio indicates that 

this ORV is not meeting the management standard with a management concern present. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-77
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

Management Concerns and Protective Actions (Indicator 3, ORV 8)

Management concerns arise when a trigger point is reached, indicating that a river value does not meet 

management standards. As noted, a management concern is present with black oak recruitment rates. 

To address this management concern, the NPS will introduce new seedlings into the affected stands and 

protect as necessary to ensure high survival rates, with a goal to establish enough saplings so the ratio of 

saplings to all adults improves to at least 0.65. This work has already begun in earnest for both groves.

Localized Concerns and Enhancement Actions (ORV 8)

Localized concerns related to ORV 8 involve park operations, invasive species, and park and infrastructure. 

Park operations have triggered changes in ethnographic resources by disturbing traditional use plant 

populations or changing access to these places. Threats to traditionally used plant populations include 

invasive species such as Himalayan Blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), drainage and hydrology impacts to 

meadows, and erosion and revetments that affect riparian vegetation.

The Final Merced River Plan/EIS would enhance this ORV through the following actions: 

• Ensure continuing coordination between traditionally associated American Indian tribes, groups, 

and traditional practitioners (through the Park American Indian Liaison) with law enforcement, 

fire management, interpretation, invasive species, ecological restoration, and facilities management 

programs. 

• Develop operational guidelines for material staging areas, parking, etc. to protect ethnographic 

resources. 

• Continue to document the cultural and religious significance of historic properties (i.e., sites, objects, 

structures, districts, etc.) for Yosemite Valley. Build upon focused mapping and condition assessments 

for traditional use plants and archeological sites. Work in collaboration with traditionally-associated 

American Indian tribes and groups, using staff expertise in cultural anthropology, botany, archeology 

and oral history. Compile existing information gathered during previous ethnographic studies, fill gaps 

in the historical record through research in archival repositories, update and expand the oral history 

documentation, and complete detailed field mapping.

• Address invasive plant impacts to traditionally used plant populations in some locations through 

ecological restoration actions in concert with the existing invasive plant management program.

• Restore and protect riparian areas, meadows, and hydrological resources to enhance traditional use 

plant communities.

Conclusion: Protecting and Enhancing Cultural ORV 8 (Ethnographic 

Resources in Yosemite Valley) 

The Merced River’s Cultural ORV 8 currently has no adverse impact or degradation, but management 

concerns do exist and protective action is required. Management concerns are present regarding all three 

indicators for this ORV: meadow fragmentation, riparian health, and California black oaks. As described 

above under Biological ORV 2, NPS will take many protective actions to reduce meadow fragmentation and 

to improve riparian vegetation health to meet the management standard. To address the management 

concerns regarding California black oaks, NPS will introduce new seedlings into the affected stands and 

protect as necessary to ensure high survival rates, with a goal to establish enough saplings so the ratio of 

saplings to all adults improves to at least 0.65. The Final Merced River Plan/EIS proposes additional actions 

5-78 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Cultural ORVs

to enhance Cultural ORV 8 conditions in “Alternatives” (Chapter 8). To prevent future impacts, the NPS 

will monitor the condition of the ORV, continue to plant and foster sapling growth, and take specific actions 

should additional trigger points be reached once the ratio meets the management standard of 0.55. Trigger 

points will continue to inform managers well in advance if this ORV’s condition continues to deteriorate. 

Cultural ORV 9—Yosemite Valley Archeological District

ORV 9— The Yosemite Valley Archeological District is an unusually rich and linked landscape 

that contains dense concentrations of resources that represent thousands of years of human 

settlement. 

Location: Segments 2A and 2B (Yosemite Valley)

Rationale: Drawn by the year-round availability of water and the diversity of plants available for sustenance in 

Yosemite Valley, people have inhabited the valley for thousands of years, leaving behind an exemplary collection of 

archeological sites in the Yosemite Valley Archeological District. Many pre-contact and historic-era archeological 

sites are identified in ethnographic literature and native oral traditions, providing a rare example of the long and 

continuing association of people and places. While the landscape itself provides exemplary documentation of land 

use practices, many of the individual sites contain exceptional information with the potential to interpret not only 

ancient lifeways, but also cultural change at the period of contact with Euro-Americans. In addition to this regional 

and state-wide scientific and interpretive value, the sites have value to American Indian tribes and groups as a 

connection to their ancestors and an important component of their cultural patrimony. Because the archeological 

sites within the Yosemite Valley Archeological District comprise a complete system that is culturally and scientifically 

significant, both river-related and non-river related archeological sites are included in this ORV. Furthermore, 

archeological sites contained within this district but existing outside of the river corridor boundaries contribute to 

the significance and integrity of the historic property and are therefore included in this ORV.

Management Objective: Ensure protection and enhancement of the Yosemite Valley Archeological District as a 

whole, and ensure that human impacts are not adversely affecting the district’s essential character and integrity.

Condition Assessment

ORV Condition at the Time of Designation (1987)

The archeological district nomination completed in 1979 indicates that archeological resources retained 

integrity despite administrative and facility-related impacts, visitor use-related impacts, and ecological 

process-related impacts. At the time of designation, the following impacts had been documented to sites 

within the Yosemite Valley Archeological District:

• Construction of historic and contemporary facilities such as roads, trails, buildings, and utilities

• Unauthorized excavation at one site; a damage assessment there determined that it still contained 

intact subsurface deposits (Mundy and Hull 1988)

• Informal trails

• Intentional or inadvertent movement of artifacts or feature elements (such as displacement of rock 

alignments)

• Soil compaction

• Bouldering/rock-climbing and camping impacts that included ground-disturbing actions

• Tree falls

• Bioturbation - The disturbance of soil by living things (e.g., rodent tunneling)

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-79
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

• Erosion

• Rockfall

Despite the impacts, these sites have been documented to contain intact cultural deposits, holding both 

information important to understanding regional pre-contact and historic-era American Indian lifeways, 

and the cultural patrimony of descendant American Indian tribes and groups. 

Current ORV Condition

The same types of impacts that were occurring at the time of designation continue to affect this ORV. While 

the majority of archeological sites in Yosemite Valley retain a relatively high degree of integrity, many have 

been disturbed by human activity and natural processes, from both before and after designation (Hull and 

Kelly 1995). Slightly less than half (47%, or 56 sites) of Yosemite Valley Archeological District sites within the 

Merced River corridor are rated in “good” condition (i.e., are relatively stable and not subjected to continuing 

deterioration) according to their most recent assessment scores (ASMIS). An additional 33% (39 sites) are in 

fair condition, and 18% (22 sites) are in poor condition, or are continuing to deteriorate (see the discussion in 

the Cultural ORV introduction above for an explanation of the ASMIS definition of “site condition” and 

“disturbance severity level” attributes). The corresponding ASMIS disturbance severity levels for the visited 

sites show that 39% of the sites (47 sites) have low disturbance severity, with an additional 33% (39 sites) 

showing moderate disturbance severity, and 25% (29 sites) displaying severe disturbances (Darko 2011). 

Impacts may include soil compaction, vegetation damage, movement of artifacts, feature disturbance, and 

vandalism. Impact severity ranges from minor to severe, although most visitor-use impacts were characterized 

as minor or moderate. Seven sites were identified during recent visits as having experienced a moderate to 

severe degree of impact from visitor use (Middleton [NPS] 2009, 2010). One of the sites within the river 

corridor could not be relocated during a recent attempted field assessment (Darko 2011). The same types of 

impacts that were occurring at the time of designation continue to affect site conditions now.

Management Indicator and Monitoring Program for ORV 9

This section discusses the proposed management program for this ORV, including the indicator to be used; the 

definitions of management standard, adverse impact, and degradation; and the monitoring program.

Indicator – Condition of Yosemite Valley Archeological District for ORV 9

The Yosemite Valley Archeological District is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NPS 1978). 

The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) defines an archeological district as “... a grouping of sites, 

buildings, structures, or objects that are linked historically by function, theme, or physical development or 

aesthetically by plan” (NRHP). Within the Yosemite Valley Archeological District, individual prehistoric 

sites form the collective character and significance of the district. Sites discovered after nomination would 

be evaluated and may be added to the district.

5-80 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Cultural ORVs

Indicator Description 

The indicator that NPS selected for this ORV is archeological site condition, which is an aggregate of the 

condition of the archeological sites within the district.35 Site condition includes the general physical state of 

the site and associated material remains. Other key components of site condition are site stability (the 

potential for physical deterioration over time) and site integrity (the ability to convey important scientific 

information, or the setting, feeling, and association of previous historical eras to researchers, the public, and 

traditionally associated peoples).

The indicator draws from the NPS Archeological Sites Management Information System (ASMIS) format 

(NPS 2007a, 2007b), supplemented with other measures designed to capture impacts specifically related to

visitor and administrative use. ASMIS, a management database developed by the NPS, tracks a broad range 

of information about documented archeological sites. ASMIS functions as a tool to improve archeological 

resources preservation, protection, planning, and decision-making by parks and the NPS nationwide (NPS 

2007b).

ASMIS quantifies impacts (disturbances) in two ways: first, the effect an impact has on site condition, and 

second, the severity of the damage caused by the impact. Effects on site condition are ranked on a 

descending scale: 

• negligible, such as minor damage to the physical condition of the site, with little to no loss of 

scientific data potential or site integrity

• partial loss repairable, for example, minor damage to the site that can be reversed or ameliorated 

through treatment or repair (such as careful removal of campfire rings or hand removal of fire fuel 

buildup)

• partial loss irretrievable, found when more serious damage has occurred that cannot be repaired, 

such as partial collapse of a prehistoric rock feature triggered by human alteration, or removal of an 

artifact or features from its original context

• total loss irretrievable, found in cases of complete loss of the resource, as in destruction of a site 

from fire or vandalism (NPS 2007a)

The severity of damage to a site is measured as either low, moderate, or severe, based on areal extent of 

disturbance, or proportional damage to the site’s important characteristics (NPS 2007a; Bane 2011). These 

measurements take into consideration the site type, the value of the scientific data in the damaged area, and 

the overall damage to a site’s integrity. Damage severity levels are ranked as low, moderate, or high; 

examples of what would constitute each severity level include: 

• low damage severity level: damage to a relatively small portion of an archeological site with few 

resources, or in an area that has been previously disturbed

• moderate damage severity level: disturbance to a relatively large portion of a site that has low 

scientific data value or has been previously disturbed, or disturbance to a small but scientifically 

rich portion of a site

• high damage severity level: destruction of a unique character-defining feature such as a pictograph, 

or damage/destruction to a small but dense concentration of materials within a large site 

The Archeology Visitor Use Program further refines the standardized ASMIS data categories by assigning 

disturbances to one of four causes: natural processes, park operations, visitor use, or unknown. Both “park 

35 Note that the ASMIS definition of “site condition” above is not directly applied here, although aspects of the ASMIS 

method (see below) are used.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-81

 
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

operation” and “visitor” disturbances are included in total counts of human-caused site impacts. Park 

operations that have the potential to cause disturbance include road construction and maintenance, trail 

construction and use, utilities installation, building construction, controlled fire, ecological restoration, and 

scientific research. The most common types of potential “visitor” disturbances include camping impacts, 

creation of informal trails, climbing, and use by hikers and/or horses. Other less common types of possible 

“visitor” disturbances include damage to vegetation, damage to archeological ruins, stock use (picketing or 

corralling), soil compaction, dumping, off-road vehicle use, vandalism, and unauthorized collection of 

artifacts (looting). Unlike “natural” and “visitor” impacts, many impacts resulting from “park operations” 

that have occurred in the last two decades are considered “undertakings”, and therefore have been 

addressed through regulatory compliance processes such as those addressing requirements of Section 106 

of the NHPA, and NEPA, both of which involve consultation with tribal partners, evaluation under the 

National Register, and professional treatment.

Since 2007, the Archeology Visitor Use Program has annually monitored the range of visitor impacts and 

changes in site condition at a sample of archeological sites within the Tuolumne and Merced Wild and Scenic 

River corridors. Program methodology was originally modeled after similar archeology programs at NPS 

Flagstaff, Arizona, area monuments (Donnermeyer 2005; Gossart 2005) and Grand Canyon National Park 

(Dierker and Leap 2005, 2006), with subsequent modifications specific to Yosemite site types and 

visitation patterns (Middleton 2009). Project protocols were designed to fit within the larger Yosemite Visitor 

Use and Impact Monitoring Program framework and reporting standards. Sample sizes and selections follow a 

strict protocol detailed in the Visitor Use Impact Monitoring Program Field Guide (see NPS 2008a, 2008b, 

2009a, 2009b). 

Definitions of Management Standard, Adverse Impact, and Degradation

Management Standard

For the Yosemite Valley Archeological District, the management standard is as follows: At least 85% of the 

sites determined to have high scientific data potential must be free from currently-identified serious human 

impacts, where these impacts have not already been addressed, or otherwise “mitigated” through regulatory 

processes. At least 80% of the documented sites determined to have low scientific data potential must be 

free from currently-identified serious human impacts, where these impacts have not already been 

addressed, or otherwise “mitigated” through regulatory processes.36 Serious human impacts are single 

disturbances that have resulted in partial or total irretrievable loss at a site, where the loss represents 

“moderate” to “high” site damage levels; or a series of three or more disturbances that have resulted in 

irretrievable partial or total loss, where the loss represents “low” damage levels. The management standard 

is applied against a representative sample compiled from current monitoring data, assessed in five-year 

intervals.

In balancing visitor use and site preservation, some site disturbances can be acceptable if the site retains its 

overall physical integrity (Fairley and Downum 2000). For archeological sites with estimated low data 

potential (i.e., small sites with few materials and no diagnostic artifacts, sites with a single feature such as a 

bedrock mortar, sparse lithic scatters, or heavily deteriorated sites), some amount of irretrievable damage 

36 Estimates of data potential are based upon the best data currently available: ASMIS data potential assignments, 

definitions provided in Yosemite archeological reports, and Visitor Use Project site assessments. These estimates are 

preliminary, based largely on available surface archeological data, and subject to change based on future research 

(Bane 2011).

5-82 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS

 
Cultural ORVs

may be allowable. This is particularly true for site types that are relatively common in the district, such as 

small lithic scatters. The Management Standard provides for this sort of tolerance in accepting human 

impact disturbances at up to 20% of sites with low data potential (Donnermeyer 2005). 

For sites estimated to hold high data potential (i.e., sites with multiple features, sites with diagnostic artifacts 

or dense artifact concentrations, documented historical sites, or sites with uncommon or unique attributes), 

the potential for impacts to cause resource loss is greater, and this in turn results in impacts that would be 

more noticeable at the district (or segmentwide) level. A serious human impact, or an accumulation of 

minor impacts, that results in irretrievable damage and loss at sites with high data potential is therefore less 

acceptable (Donnermeyer 2005). The management standard reflects this differential tolerance by accepting 

this level of damage at only 15% of sites with high data potential. 

Adverse Impact

An adverse impact, as defined under WSRA, occurs when the number of sites free from current serious 

human impacts falls to 60% for sites with low data potential, and 70% for sites with high data potential, in a 

ten year monitoring interval. 

Thus, an adverse impact is found when a higher level of serious impact has occurred at sites in the district 

with both low and high data potential over a ten year period of sampling. The 15% to 20% increase in 

serious impact serves as a warning of long-term downward trends in site condition, requiring stronger 

protective actions to prevent widespread site damages that would threaten the essential character of the 

archeological district (Donnermeyer 2005). 

Degradation

The ORV would be considered degraded should the archeological district be impacted to the extent that it 

is no longer eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. This would occur if the district no 

longer met the criteria for listing in the NRHP through deterioration and loss of integrity of the “qualities 

which caused it to be originally listed have been lost or destroyed” (NPS 1997, 2004). The significant 

qualities of this ORV are its ability to provide a comparative basis for regional archeological studies, for its 

ethnic (or cultural) significance to descendant American Indian populations, for its ability to contribute to 

the understanding of environmental and cultural history, and for public interpretation. These qualities are 

present in the number and variety of individual archeological sites and their intact deposits. A “degraded 

cultural resource” would typically no longer have status as a historic property (in this instance, a majority of 

the sites would be extensively damaged or destroyed), and its National Register status could not be restored 

through mitigation efforts.37

Monitoring Program to Prevent Future Adverse Impacts or Degradation- Condition of 

Yosemite Valley Archeological District

As required by the guidelines implementing WSRA, the NPS will conduct a program of monitoring and 

ongoing study during and following the implementation of the Final Merced River Plan/EIS to ensure that 

the Yosemite Valley archeological district river value is protected throughout the life of the plan. Impacts on

37 Because this ORV is defined by archeological districts, where the Archeological ORV in the Final Tuolumne River 

Plan/EIS is defined corridorwide, the Final Merced River Plan/EIS uses loss of eligibility as degradation. A more 

precise definition is given in the Final Tuolumne River Plan/EIS because that ORV includes several districts. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-83

 
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

archeological resources are irreversible, and their condition can never be enhanced. Even if all human 

impacts could be eliminated, a downward trend in the condition of archeological resources over time would 

be inevitable due to the effects of natural weathering. Condition assessments would be conducted at a sample 

of archeological sites within the district at periodic monitoring intervals, following the assigned assessment 

(ASMIS) site inspection schedule (NPS 2007). For some sites, monitoring would occur at a five-year interval; 

others would be assessed at ten- and fifteen-year intervals, with the schedule determined based on the sites’ 

fragility, proximity to visitor facilities, etc. At five-year intervals, the collective monitoring data would be 

compiled and compared to the trigger point in Table 5-27 below to determine whether protective actions are 

necessary. This monitoring program thus allows for the type of feedback necessary for adaptive archeological 

site management (i.e., periodic, systematic analysis of site data, focused on management objectives) (Kintigh et 

al. 2007). This five-year interval for summary reporting and analysis is the minimum periodicity necessary to 

accurately capture human impacts at a meaningful chronologic and geographic scale (Bane 2011). 

The national register nomination for the archeological district would be reassessed at 25-year intervals in 

order to verify that the district itself has not been degraded (such long reporting intervals for large historic 

districts are typical, as it can take decades for changes to occur). Table 5-27 lists the trigger point and 

specific management responses that would take place if the trigger point were to be reached.

TABLE 5-27: MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND TRIGGER POINTS TO MAINTAIN DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR THE YOSEMITE 

VALLEY ARCHEOLOGICAL DISTRICT (CONDITION OF DISTRICT) 

Trigger Point at Which 

Management Action 

Would Be Taken

Required Management Actions 

(at least one action will be taken)

Rationale for 

Management Actions

Trigger Point: The 

number of individual sites 

free from serious 

unmitigated human 

impacts falls to 90% or 

less for sites with low data 

potential, and falls to 

95% or less for sites with 

high data potential in a 

monitoring interval. 

1. Increased monitoring frequency for affected sites.

2. Increased management protection designed to counteract or 

minimize impacts, crafted to individual site specifications. Examples 

include:

• Site documentation, research, testing, or NRHP evaluation; 

• Site stabilization, re-vegetation, trail reroutes, trail removal;

• Increased public interpretation and education; 

• Increased education for local user communities such as residents 

or climbers;

• Increased training for law enforcement in site damage recognition 

and protection; 

• NRHP re-evaluations and/or data recovery at affected sites; 

• Development of comprehensive site management plans for large, 

complex sites in developed areas.

• Initiate hard closures of individual affected sites, utilizing increased 

visitor education about human impacts and the necessity for 

closures. Site closure regulations would be represented within the 

superintendent’s compendium in order to allow legal 

enforcement.

3. At the districtwide level, NRHP nomination amendments to reflect 

changes in district integrity.

The trigger range is set at 

10% above standard 

violation, allowing 

identification of individual 

problem sites and 

localized areas and timely 

prescriptive actions before 

management standard 

levels are violated. The 

trigger range was selected 

from sampling results for 

five years of site impact 

monitoring within the 

district, and is based on 

best professional 

judgment of thresholds 

necessary to retain desired 

management standard.

5-84 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Cultural ORVs

Management to Protect and Enhance Yosemite Valley Archeological District 

(ORV 9)

Current Findings Regarding Management Standard, Adverse Impact, and 

Degradation (ORV 9)

Table 5-28 compares the current condition of the Yosemite Valley Archeological District to the definitions 

of management standard, adverse impact, degradation, and management concern.

TABLE 5-28: CURRENT CONDITION OF ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES IN YOSEMITE VALLEY BASED ON MONITORING OF 

AGGREGATE CONDITION OF SITES

Metric

Percentage of Sites Free from Serious Human Impacts, 

2007–11a

Location

High Data 

Potential Sites

Low Data 

Potential 

Sites

Meets management standard: Sites with low data potential: 

80% of sites free from serious unmitigated human impacts. 

Sites with high data potential: 85% of sites free from serious 

unmitigated human impacts.

Sample set of 60 sites 

(53%) of 113 sites relevant 

to the Yosemite Valley 

archeological value

95% 93%

Management concern present: Sites with low data 

potential: the number of individual sites free from serious 

unmitigated human impacts falls to 90% or less in a 

monitoring interval. Sites with high data potential: the number 

of individual sites free from serious unmitigated human 

impacts falls to 95% or less in a monitoring interval.

None present. Adverse impact: Sites with low data potential: 60% of sites 

free from serious unmitigated human impacts. Sites with high 

data potential: 70% of sites free from serious unmitigated 

human impacts.

Degradation: The archeological district is no longer eligible 

for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

NOTE:

a Impacts with partial loss irretrievable effects with moderate to severe damage levels or multiple (≥3) impacts with low damage levels.

As shown, current site conditions and human impact values for a sample of relevant Yosemite Valley 

Archeological District sites are drawn from a sample of 60 sites as part of the Archeology Visitor Use site 

monitoring program for the years 2007-2011. This represents 53% of the 113 sites. Over this five year 

period, 95% of high data potential sites and 93% of low data potential sites in the sample were considered 

free of serious human impacts, meeting the management standard for this ORV.

Management Concerns and Protective Actions (ORV 9)

Management concerns occur when the condition of a resource has reached the trigger point identified in 

Table 5-27 above. There are no management concerns associated with the Yosemite Valley Archeological 

District.

Localized Concerns and Enhancement Actions (ORV 9)

The following are the localized concerns regarding ORV 9: 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-85
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

• A stock trail passing through a midden deposit and a formal hiking trail near a rock art feature are 

causing impacts to cultural resources at archeological site CA-MRP-0046/47/74; modern graffiti 

also currently desecrates the rock art boulder. 

• Rock climbing activities (“bolt ladder”) at a rock shelter boulder are causing trampling of the near 

surface archeological deposit at CA-MRP-0082/H. 

• Stock use and an operational staging area are currently impacting archeological resources at site 

CA-MRP-0052/H. 

• Heavily used formal trails and informal trails, as well as illegal campfires, graffiti, and trampling are

currently causing impacts to the prehistoric rock shelter and associated artifacts at archeological 

site CA-MRP-0057. 

• Parking, rock climbing, camping, vandalism, human waste, fire rings and informal trails currently 

impact a prehistoric rock shelter and associated artifacts at site CA-MRP-0062. 

• Camping and trampling are currently causing impacts to bedrock mortars at site CA-MRP-0080; 

impacts to these important archeological features also affect traditional cultural values. 

• Rock climbing (bouldering) activities on a rock art boulder, and informal trails currently impact the 

archeological and ethnographic resources at CA-MRP-0158/309. 

• Vehicular and bike traffic along a dirt access road are affecting surface and subsurface archeological 

resources at CA-MRP-0190/0191. 

• Non-technical climbing on a large bedrock mortar is causing impacts to the archeological resource 

at site CA-MRP-0240/0303/H; visitor use on the bedrock mortar also affects traditional cultural 

values. 

The following are proposed to address these localized concerns and enhance Cultural ORV 9: 

• Achieve archeological resource protection by using natural features to conceal and divert foot 

traffic around sites, removing informal trails, removing climbing hardware, formalizing river and 

meadow access locations, and avoiding potential damage from ecological restoration practices by 

using noninvasive techniques wherever possible. 

• Delineate roadside parking and divert foot traffic away from sites and into less sensitive areas. 

• Develop site-specific treatments for the large, complex site at Yosemite Village; actions would be 

developed in the form of site management guidelines to avoid resource loss as a result of

implementing proposed actions. This would guide new development and the rehabilitation or 

repair of existing facilities and/or redevelopment involving repair and maintenance of 

infrastructure, facilities and underground utilities to support visitation in a manner that is 

protective of the archeological site.

• Update the National Register nomination forms for all three archeological districts, and use this 

updated documentation to support more comprehensive management of the resources. 

Conclusion: Protecting and Enhancing Cultural ORV 9 (Yosemite Valley 

Archeological District) 

The Merced River’s Cultural ORV 9 currently has no adverse impact or degradation, but localized concerns 

do exist. The Final Merced River Plan/EIS proposes several actions to enhance Cultural ORV 9 conditions in 

“Alternatives” (Chapter 8). To prevent future impacts, the NPS will monitor the condition of the ORV, and 

take specific actions should the ORV condition reach a specific trigger point.

5-86 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Cultural ORVs

Cultural ORV 10—Yosemite Valley Historic Resources

ORV 10—The Yosemite Valley Historic District represents a linked landscape of river-related or 

river-dependent, rare, unique or exemplary contributing resources that bear witness to the 

historical significance of the river system.

Location: Segment 2A (Yosemite Valley)

Rationale: Historic development within Yosemite Valley has been profoundly shaped by the Merced River and its 

associated natural systems. The National Register nomination for the Yosemite Valley Historic District identifies the 

river and its associated riverine corridor (including riparian zones and meadows) as the primary natural systems that 

have historically shaped the built environment of Yosemite Valley. The patterns of settlement, land use and 

manipulation of the environment have influenced the river system itself, its resources, and our perception of these 

resources. 

The ORV includes three National Historic Landmarks (the Ahwahnee Hotel, the Rangers’ Club and the LeConte 

Memorial Lodge), as well as the Yosemite Valley Historic District (comprised of three historic developed areas [the 

Ahwahnee Hotel developed area, Camp Curry, and Yosemite Village), numerous sites, and broad-scale landscape 

characteristics). Because the historic district is one complete whole, the ORV includes those components that 

extend beyond the 1⁄4-mile Merced wild and scenic river corridor. 

Management Objective: The Yosemite Valley Historic Resources ORV would be managed to ensure the historic 

resources are in good physical condition. Actions that affect the integrity of historic resources are addressed 

through the NHPA regulations. 

Condition Assessment

ORV Condition at the Time of Designation (1987)

The landscape of Yosemite Valley is a continually evolving natural and cultural system that has changed in 

response to successive American Indian, private, state and federal government management strategies, 

increasing visitation, incremental loss of historic features, evolving land uses, and natural processes like 

floods, fires, and rockfalls. At the time of designation (1987), the Yosemite Valley Historic District was in 

essentially the same physical condition and largely served the same function as in the period of significance. 

The primary impacts to the District at the time of designation were incremental changes in the historic 

setting, such as evolution of the circulation system (e.g., converting the eastern part of the system to shuttleonly, adding bicycle paths, accessible walkways, parking, shuttle stops, etc.), and the addition of new 

buildings and structures. Some of the buildings within the District had been adapted for new uses, such as 

the former Fish Hatchery being rehabilitated for public use as a Nature Center. Changes in the natural 

systems and features are documented under other ORVs, largely consisting of conifer encroachment into 

meadows, scenic vistas, and black oak woodlands.

Current ORV Condition 

Many of the changes to this ORV identified above continue to the present. It is important to recognize that 

change is inherent in the Yosemite Valley landscape, and that the Yosemite Valley Historic District cannot be 

managed as a museum piece. As with any cultural system, change is not only tolerated, but it is also embraced 

for the system to remain vibrant. Buildings and structures have been added as part of ongoing programs of 

visitor-use management and park administration in Yosemite Valley. Examples of these are the shuttle stop 

shelters constructed at The Ahwahnee and the LeConte Memorial Lodge National Historic Landmarks 

(NHLs). These structures were designed to complement the existing historic settings. Other elements of the 

historic district, most notably Residence 1 (the Superintendent’s House) and the Yosemite Valley Chapel, were 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-87
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

affected by the 1997 winter flood. Use of the Superintendent’s House was discontinued while the Chapel 

received preservation maintenance treatment to remediate the effects of inundation. The remaining buildings 

and structures of the Yosemite Valley Historic District receive regular inspection and preservation 

maintenance. 

Management Indicator and Monitoring Program for ORV 10

This section discusses the proposed management program for this ORV, including the indicator to be used; 

the definitions of management standard, adverse impact, and degradation; and the monitoring program. 

Indicator – Condition of Historic Assets for ORV 10

Indicator Description

The physical condition of historic buildings, structures, and sites can indicate early warning signs of the 

overall condition of the Yosemite Valley Historic Resources ORV. An indication of the physical condition is 

available through the Facility Management Software System (FMSS), an established NPS program for 

managing agency fixed assets. NPS uses FMSS to inventory critical components of these assets; determine 

priorities for corrective maintenance; schedule routine maintenance; plan work, track progress, and 

evaluate success; and generate preventative maintenance plans. 

This indicator is based on the FMSS program’s quantification of the physical condition of the individual 

contributing historic buildings, structures, and sites included as fixed assets in FMSS. FMSS assigns a 

physical condition rating according to the following definitions: 

• Good: The cost of deferred maintenance does not exceed 10% of the structure’s current 

replacement value, and there are no significant problems with critical building systems.

• Fair: The cost of deferred maintenance is between 10% and 14% of the structure’s current 

replacement value, and there are no significant problems with critical building systems.

• Poor: The cost of deferred maintenance is between 14% and 49% of the structure’s current 

replacement value, or there are significant problems with critical building systems. 

• Serious: The cost of deferred maintenance is 50% or more of the structure’s current replacement 

value.

The FMSS database for Yosemite National Park does not currently have the capability to address broader 

landscape characteristics such as vegetation, natural systems and features, views and vistas, land use, 

circulation patterns, and spatial organization. Contributing historic vegetation and natural systems and 

features to the Yosemite Valley Historic District will be managed using the indicators and monitoring 

programs established by this plan for the Biological ORV 2. Contributing historic views and vistas are 

managed using indicators and monitoring programs for the Scenic ORV 16. 

As noted above, the Yosemite Valley Historic Resources ORV is a dynamic landscape, influenced by 

decisions in the range of alternatives regarding user capacity and visitor use management, development and 

redevelopment, and/or removal, along with loss or damage due to natural events, or changes in physical 

condition due to neglect. Consequently, this indicator will measure the physical condition of the individual 

contributing historic buildings, structures, and sites that are extant and included as fixed assets in FMSS at 

the time of assessment.

5-88 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Cultural ORVs

Definitions of Management Standard, Adverse Impact, and Degradation

Management Standard

To meet the management standard for this indicator, at least 2/3 (66.7%) of the extant contributing assets 

included in the 2006 Yosemite Valley Historic District nomination (as updated periodically) must be in 

“good” or “fair” condition, with no more than 10% of contributing assets in “serious” condition. At least 

80% of the contributing resources of the three NHLs must also be in “good” or “fair” condition.38

Adverse Impact

An adverse impact would occur if 40%-60% of the extant assets are in “good” or “fair” condition; if more 

than 20% of the assets are in “serious” condition; or if more than 30% of the contributing resources of the 

three NHLs are in “poor” or “serious” condition. 

Degradation 

Degradation would occur if the Yosemite Valley Historic District or any of the NHLs lose their eligibility for 

listing in the National Register of Historic Places; if more than 50% of the assets are in “serious” condition; 

or if more than 50% of the contributing resources of the three NHLs are in “poor” or “serious” condition.

Monitoring Program to Prevent Future Adverse Impacts or Degradation – Condition of 

Historic Assets

The condition of contributing assets will be monitored through FMSS condition assessments every five 

years. This schedule would be adjusted to provide condition assessments for individual buildings and 

structures in response to unforeseen natural events (such as extreme flooding, fire, rockfall, etc.) that can 

affect the condition of a contributing resource. Given the dynamic nature of the ORV, NPS will update 

FMSS condition assessments to reflect any changes to contributing features to the Yosemite Valley Historic 

District according to the following conditions: 

• Properties newly determined to be eligible as a contributing feature of the Yosemite Valley Historic 

District or to the three NHLs would become part of the Yosemite Valley Historic Resources ORV.

• If the National Register nomination for the Yosemite Valley Historic District is updated or 

amended and resources that were previously listed as contributing have been determined to have 

lost their integrity, those resources would be removed from the ORV. 

• If a contributing asset is demolished, it will no longer contribute to or be a part of the Yosemite 

Valley Historic Resources ORV. 

In all three instances, NHPA review would be critical to the process of updating National Register 

nominations, including management decisions to demolish contributing historic assets. Also, planning 

actions or decisions that have the potential to change historic developed areas or landscape characteristics 

will be guided by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, and the 

Yosemite Design Guidelines. 

38 Currently, four of the ten contributing assets (Rangers’ Club Garage/Woodshed, Ahwahnee Meadow, Ahwahnee 

Pond, and the Ahwahnee Walkways) are not included in FMSS. Until these can be added to FMSS, they will not be 

included in the inventory.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-89

 
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

Management concerns would occur when the condition of an ORV has reached one of the trigger points 

identified in Table 5-29 below.

TABLE 5-29: MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND TRIGGER POINTS TO MAINTAIN DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR YOSEMITE VALLEY 

HISTORIC RESOURCES (FMSS CONDITION ASSESSMENT) 

Trigger Point(s) at Which 

Management Action 

Would Be Taken

Required Management Actions

(at least one action specified for 

each trigger will be taken) Rationale for Management Actions

Trigger Point 1: Fewer than 

80% of historic assets are in 

“good” or “fair” condition

1. Complete and update the FMSS condition 

assessment database 

2. Increase the frequency of condition assessments 

for assets in “poor” or “serious” condition

3. Develop prioritized list of preservation actions 

based on severity of deterioration (addressing 

NHL assets first, and prominent public use assets 

second )

4. Preservation maintenance or repair to arrest 

ongoing deterioration and reverse damage

The rationale for taking action at this threshold 

is to ensure repairs are made to reverse damage 

or deterioration noticeable at the collective level, 

and prevent the condition of buildings or 

structures from deteriorating to a “poor” 

condition. These corrective actions should arrest 

key ongoing deterioration, and return assets to 

“good” or “fair” condition.

Trigger Point 2: Any 

contributing resource of the 

three NHLs is in “poor” or 

“serious” condition.

Management to Protect and Enhance Yosemite Valley Historic Resources (ORV 

10) 

Current Findings Regarding Management Standard, Adverse Impact, and 

Degradation (ORV 10)

Table 5-30 compares the current condition of the Yosemite Valley Historic Resources to the definitions of 

management standard, adverse impact, degradation, and management concern. 

TABLE 5-30: CURRENT CONDITION OF YOSEMITE VALLEY HISTORIC RESOURCES

Metric Current Conditions 

Meets management standard: At least 2/3 (66.7%) of the extant 

contributing assets included in the 2006 Yosemite Valley Historic District 

nomination must be in “good” or “fair” condition, with no more than 10% of 

contributing assets in “serious” condition. At least 80% of the contributing 

resources of the three NHLs must be in “good” or “fair” condition. 

This ORV meets the management standard, but a 

management concern is present. 

Management concern present: Fewer than 80% of historic assets are in 

“good” or “fair” condition, or if any of the contributing assets of the NHLs are 

in “poor” or “serious” condition.

Of a sample of 240 of the contributing historic 

assets in the Yosemite Valley Historic District, 72.9% 

are in “good” or “fair” condition, with 12.5% in 

“serious” condition. Also, the Ahwahnee 

Gatehouse, a contributor to the Ahwahnee Hotel 

NHL, is in “serious” condition. 

Adverse impact: An adverse impact would occur if 40%-60% of the extant 

assets are in “good” or “fair” condition; if more than 20% of the assets are in 

“serious” condition; or more than 30% of the contributing resources of the 

three NHLs are in “poor” or “serious” condition. 

Deg None present at this time. radation: Degradation would occur if the Yosemite Valley Historic District 

or any of the NHLs lose their eligibility for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places; if more than 50% of the assets are in “serious” condition; or if 

more than 50% of the contributing resources of the three NHLs are in “poor” 

or “serious” condition.

Preliminary analysis of a sample of 240 of the contributing historic assets in the Yosemite Valley Historic 

District (the sample includes a majority of the primary public use assets) indicates the following:

5-90 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Cultural ORVs

• 72.9% are in “good” or “fair” condition 

• 12.5% are listed in “serious” condition

• The Ranger’s Club Garage and Ahwahnee Hotel Parking Area (both contributing resources to 

NHLs) are in “fair” condition; and the Ahwahnee Gatehouse is in “serious” condition (other 

contributing resources to NHLs are in “good” condition)39

Updates to the database are ongoing and it is anticipated that a more comprehensive assessment can be 

completed using the database within five years. 

Management Concerns and Protective Actions (ORV 10)

Because both triggers have been reached, it will be necessary to comprehensively address the FMSS 

condition assessment database with particular focus on assets currently listed in “poor” or “serious” 

condition. This process will yield a prioritized list of preservation actions, which will be developed in 

consideration of currently funded projects in progress throughout Yosemite Valley. Further preservation 

and/or rehabilitation actions will then be undertaken sufficient to eliminate the management concerns, with 

the contributing resources of the three NHLs being highest priority. 

For example, when the Ahwahnee parking lot is redesigned, NPS will implement the recommendations 

from the Ahwahnee Historic Structures Report (1997) and the Ahwahnee Cultural Landscape Report (2010) 

to bring the Ahwahnee stone gate house and the Ahwahnee parking lot to “good” condition. 

Localized Concerns and Enhancement Actions (ORV 10)

Localized concerns related to the Yosemite Valley Historic Resources ORV occur when 20% to 33% of the 

assets in the ORV are in “poor” or “serious” condition. This condition would still meet the management 

standard, but enhancement actions would still be possible. Enhancement actions for this ORV, therefore, 

would consist of continuing to improve asset conditions to the point that more than 80% of them are in 

“good” or “fair” condition. 

Enhancement actions will be guided by the cultural resources section of the 2006 NPS Management Policies

and the Cultural Resource Management Handbook issued pursuant to Director’s Order #28. Cultural 

resource management will be carried out in a manner that is consistent with legislative and regulatory 

provisions and with implementing policies and procedures. Planning will ensure full consideration of the 

park’s cultural resources and values in all proposals for operations, development, and natural resource 

programs. Stewardship will continue to be subject to (1) preservation of existing states; (2) rehabilitation to 

serve contemporary uses, consistent with integrity and character; and (3) restoration to earlier appearances 

by the removal of later additions and replacement of missing elements. 

39 The Ahwahnee Hotel is currently listed in "poor" condition because proposed rehabilitation costs associated with the 

Ahwahnee Comprehensive Rehabilitation Plan have been entered into the FMSS database as "deferred 

maintenance." The rehabilitation plan will address more than the physical condition of the building, thus inflating the 

deferred maintenance costs. For this reason, the FMSS condition of this NHL is not accurate and is excluded from 

the analysis (the hotel is assumed to be in “fair” condition). Implementation of this rehabilitation program will be 

phased over 20 years. Every 5 years, FMSS condition assessments will account for the improved conditions (and 

reductions in deferred maintenance costs) resulting from this effort.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-91

 
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

Conclusion: Protecting and Enhancing Cultural ORV 10 (Yosemite Valley 

Historic Resources) 

The Yosemite Valley Historic Resources ORV does not currently have adverse impacts or degradation. 

However, management concerns are present in that fewer than 80% of the contributing resources are in good 

or fair condition, and the Ahwahnee Gatehouse is in “serious” condition. To address these concerns, the Final

Merced River Plan/EIS would update the FMSS database, develop a prioritized list of actions (focusing in 

particular on assets in “poor” or “serious” condition), continue the active program of maintenance for historic 

buildings and structures; employ existing design guidelines to ensure that new development or redevelopment 

complements the ORV and the Yosemite Valley Historic District; and periodically assess and update 

professional documentation for the historic resources. The Final Merced River Plan/EIS also proposes 

additional actions to enhance Cultural ORV 10 conditions in “Alternatives” (Chapter 8). 

Cultural ORV 11—El Portal Archeological District

ORV 11—The El Portal Archeological District contains dense concentrations of resources that 

represent thousands of years of occupation and evidence of continuous, far-reaching traffic and 

trade. This segment includes some of the oldest deposits in the region and the archeological 

remains of the Johnny Wilson Ranch, a regionally rare historic-era American Indian Homestead.

Location: Segment 4 (El Portal)

Rationale: El Portal’s location midway between Yosemite Valley and the San Joaquin Valley made it an important 

place of settlement, subsistence, and trade along the Merced River. The steep, narrow canyon at El Portal includes 

river terraces with level lands on which villages were built. The presence of Great Basin and Pacific Coast artifacts 

indicates that El Portal was a location of continuous, far-reaching traffic and trade. The El Portal Archeological District 

encompasses an archeological landscape containing dense concentrations of resources representing some of the 

oldest deposits in the Sierra Nevada foothills, with data important to interpreting regional cultural history as old as 

9,500 years. Particularly significant are the archeological remains of the Johnny Wilson Ranch, a rare example of an 

American Indian Homestead, which took advantage of the river as an irrigation source. 

Management Objective: Archeological sites within the El Portal Archeological District would be monitored to 

ensure protection and enhancement of the district as a whole, and to ensure that human impacts are not adversely 

affecting the district’s essential character.

Condition Assessment

ORV Condition at the Time of Designation (1987)

Prior to the river’s designation, sites within the El Portal Archeological District were impacted from historic 

development and NPS administrative uses. Construction of the Yosemite Valley Railroad and Highway 140, 

logging, mining, concession operations, and park facility or residential construction had damaged 30% or 

more of the twenty-two sites listed in the district (NPS 1976). Four sites are known to have experienced 

particularly severe damage, most notably a large ancient village and cemetery where park infrastructure 

development had taken place. Sites have also experienced impacts from visitor use. Unauthorized collection of 

surface artifacts was presumed at several sites, although this type of impact is very difficult to document (NPS 

1976).

Though these sites may have been damaged, they are nonetheless listed as contributing elements of the 

district, in part because these sites have been documented to contain dense and intact cultural deposits with 

information important to understanding regional pre-contact and historic-era American Indian lifeways.

5-92 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Cultural ORVs

Current ORV Condition

The condition of the El Portal Archeological District has not changed significantly from the time of 

designation (Darko 2011). Recent information suggests that one site in the district exhibits evidence of 

moderate visitor use impacts. Also, bioturbation (i.e., soil disturbance from biological sources such as animals) 

and impacts from the 1997 flood have impacted sites within the district. 

Management Indicator and Monitoring Program for ORV 11 

This section discusses the proposed management program for this ORV, including the indicator to be used; 

the definitions of management standard, adverse impact, and degradation; and the monitoring program. 

This ORV utilizes the same indicator to monitor the aggregate condition of the collection of archeological 

sites within the district as Cultural ORV 9 – Yosemite Valley Archeological District (Table 5-27). The 

management standards, definitions of adverse impact and degradation, monitoring program, and trigger 

points are the same as described under ORV 9. 

Management to Protect and Enhance El Portal Archeological District (ORV 11)

Current Findings Regarding Management Standard, Adverse Impact, and 

Degradation (ORV 11)

Table 5-31 compares the current condition of the El Portal Archeological District to the definitions of 

management standard, adverse impact, degradation, and management concern. 

TABLE 5-31: CURRENT CONDITION OF ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES IN EL PORTAL BASED ON MONITORING OF AGGREGATE 

CONDITION OF SITES

Metric

Percentage of Sites Free from Serious Human Impacts, 2007–11a

Location

High Data 

Potential Sites

Low Data 

Potential Sites

Meets management standard: Sites with low data 

potential: 80% of sites free from serious unmitigated 

human impacts. Sites with high data potential: 85% of 

sites free from serious unmitigated human impacts.

Sample set of 6 sites 

(27%) of 22 sites relevant 

to the El Portal 

archeological value

100% 100%

Management concern present: Sites with low data 

potential: the number of individual sites free from serious 

unmitigated human impacts falls to 90% or less in a 

monitoring interval. Sites with high data potential: the 

number of individual sites free from serious unmitigated 

human impacts falls to 95% or less in a monitoring interval.

None present. Adverse impact: Sites with low data potential: 60% of sites 

free from serious unmitigated human impacts. Sites with 

high data potential: 70% of sites free from serious 

unmitigated human impacts.

Degradation: The archeological district is no longer eligible 

for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

NOTE: 

a Impacts with partial loss irretrievable effects with moderate to severe damage levels or multiple (≥3) impacts with low damage levels.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-93
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

The current condition of the district is drawn from the Archeology Visitor Use Program annual monitoring, 

which analyzed a representative sample of six sites (27%) from the district. Over a five-year period (2007-

2011), 100% of high data potential sites and 100% of low data potential sites in the sample were considered 

free of serious human impacts, meeting the management standards for the indicator. 

Management Concerns and Protective Actions (ORV 11)

Management concerns occur when the condition of a resource has reached one of the trigger points identified 

in Table 5-27. There are no management concerns associated with the El Portal Archeological District.

Localized Concerns and Enhancement Actions (ORV 11)

Localized concerns for this ORV include abandoned infrastructure located on CA-MRP-0181/H, which 

impacts the setting of a site with exceptionally significant scientific values and extremely sensitive cultural 

materials highly valued by traditionally associated American Indians. Also, informal trails, non-essential 

gravel roads, and visitor use contribute to archeological site disturbances at CA-MRP-0250/H and CAMRP-0251/H in Old El Portal. To address these concerns, the NPS will undertake the following actions: 

• In recognition of the high cultural significance of CA-MRP-181 for traditionally associated 

American Indians, the site will be protected from any further development. A plan of action for 

addressing the abandoned infrastructure on the site will be developed in consultation with 

traditionally associated American Indian tribes and groups. Any solution(s) developed will also 

include a recommended approach for deterring visitor use within the site. 

• Remove informal trails, non-essential roads, and abandoned infrastructure to address the 

archeological site disturbances at CA-MRP-0250/H and CA-MRP-0251/H. 

Conclusion: Protecting and Enhancing Cultural ORV 11 (El Portal Archeological 

District) 

The Merced River’s Cultural ORV 11 currently has no adverse impact, degradation or management 

concerns. However, the Final Merced River Plan/EIS proposes additional actions to enhance Cultural ORV 

11 conditions in “Alternatives” (Chapter 8). To protect this ORV in the future, the NPS will monitor the 

condition of the ORV and take specific actions should the trigger point be reached. 

Cultural ORV 12—Regionally Rare Archeological Features, including Rock Rings

ORV 12—This segment includes regionally rare archeological features representing indigenous 

settlement and use along the South Fork Merced River at archeological sites with rockring 

features.

Location: Segment 5 (South Fork Merced River above Wawona)

Rationale: Three regionally rare prehistoric archeological sites are located in this segment of the South Fork of the 

Merced Wild and Scenic River corridor. The sites contain unique stacked rock ring constructions and rock 

alignments. Two sites also contain pine timber remains within the ring interiors or incorporated into the stacked 

rock courses. Stacked rock ring structures are highly uncommon in the park (Hull and Moratto 1999) and their 

function is unknown. The rings may be associated with hunting activities at the nearby soda springs, a natural 

source of salt for animals (Knieriemen 1976). 

Management Objective: The sites will be monitored to ensure that human impacts do not adversely affect their

essential character and integrity.

5-94 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Cultural ORVs

Condition Assessment

ORV Condition at the Time of Designation (1987)

Rock constructions are fragile and highly subject to human alteration from camping and campfire building 

disturbances. Two of the South Fork sites are adjacent to formal NPS trails, increasing the likelihood of 

disturbance. Knierieman (1976) penned a short paper that described stacked rock rings with timbers within 

this river segment, their locations, associated artifacts, estimated temporal affiliations, and known impacts 

(1976). At the time, wilderness campers had reportedly destroyed at least one feature in a different area. 

Knierieman described the features as being in a “dilapidated condition” from natural processes.

Current ORV Condition

In 2000, an archeological assessment reported two of the sites in fair or good condition, with natural erosional 

processes and vegetation growth the only sources of impacts (Quinn 2001; Jackson and Hagen 2007). Damage 

assessments at similar rock ring sites near Johnson Lake in the southern portion of the park over two decades 

have noted rock ring features disassembled for use in fire rings, alignments cleared for sleeping or tent 

placement, and recent fire rings within features (Jackson 2005; Curtis 2011; Curtis and Darko 2012). The latter 

disturbance is particularly threatening for rare wood elements at the South Fork sites, opening the possibility 

of opportunistic use as campfire fuel before scientific analysis can be conducted. Human impacts noted, but 

not formally documented, at Wilderness Historic Resource Survey (WHRS) Structure 53 include campfire 

rings and garbage within the rock feature, structural alterations, and rock “furniture” constructed near the 

feature (Montague 2005). 

Two of the sites, CA-MRP-2296 and CA-MRP-2363, were documented and monitored for site condition in 

2010. A third site, WHRS Structure 53, has not been recorded to current Yosemite standards (Snyder 1992; 

Montague 2005). The vicinity of the sites has not been systematically surveyed, and it is possible that additional 

rock ring sites may be present along the South Fork. Should additional rock ring sites be discovered in the 

monitoring process, they would also become a part of the South Fork ORV.

Management Indicator and Monitoring Program for ORV 12 

This section discusses the proposed management program for this ORV, including the indicators to be used; 

the definitions of management standard, adverse impact, and degradation; and the monitoring program. 

The NPS would monitor the condition of this ORV in conjunction with the Wawona Archeological District 

(ORV 13). This ORV utilizes the same measures of site condition described under Cultural ORV 9 

(Yosemite Valley Archeological District).

Indicator - Condition of Individual Rock Ring Sites for ORV 12

Indicator Description

The indicator is the condition of individual rock ring sites. Site condition includes the general physical state 

of the site and associated material remains; site stability, or potential for physical deterioration over time; 

and site integrity, the potential to convey information, setting, feeling, and association of previous historical 

eras to researchers, the public, and traditionally associated peoples.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-95
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

Archeological site condition was chosen as an indicator because this characteristic is sensitive to human 

disturbance, an observable harmful effect on the integrity or data potential of a site resulting from human 

activity. There is a direct relationship between the degree of site disturbance and current site condition 

(NPS 2007a). Site disturbances, or impacts, can lead to the irretrievable loss of archeological resources at the 

individual site level (NPS 2007b). The cumulative loss of individual site resources within the ORV group can 

ultimately result in degradation of the ORV as a whole.

Definitions of Management Standard, Adverse Impact, and Degradation

Management Standard

The management standard for the sites would be met if three or fewer serious human impacts to the rock

ring ORV site group occur in a five-year monitoring interval. This impact maximum may occur at a single 

site (one site receives three disturbances) or be spread over multiple sites (each site receives one 

disturbance). Serious unmitigated human impacts are single disturbances with partial or total loss 

irretrievable disturbance effects at moderate to high site damage levels, or a series of three or more 

disturbances with partial or total loss—irretrievable disturbance effects at low site damage levels. 

Unmitigated impacts are disturbances uncorrected by management action under regulatory context such as 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

In balancing visitor use and site preservation, some disturbances to resources can be acceptable if the site 

retains context and integrity (Fairley and Downum 2000). For sites with estimated high data potential, such 

as rock ring sites with unique attributes, the potential resource loss is greater, particularly given the small 

number of sites known to make up the ORV. A serious human impact or series of minor impacts resulting in 

irretrievable damage and loss at high data sites is less acceptable in such cases (Donnermeyer 2005), and the 

management standard (a maximum of three impacts in a monitoring interval) targets appropriate site 

protection levels based on professional judgment of condition assessments at similar sites within the 

southern portion of the park (Jackson 2005; Curtis 2011; Curtis and Darko 2012). 

Adverse Impact

Adverse impact occurs when human disturbances to the rock ring ORV site group exceeds three serious 

human impacts in a five-year monitoring interval. This impact may occur at a single site (i.e., one site 

receives four disturbances) or be spread over multiple sites (i.e., each site receives one or more 

disturbances). The increase serves as a warning of long term downward trends in site condition, allowing for 

protective management actions before widespread site damages threaten the essential character of the ORV 

(Donnermeyer 2005). 

Degradation

Degradation occurs when two or more sites comprising the ORV show severe disturbance severity levels 

and poor site conditions due to human impacts. 

Severe disturbance levels indicate a prior history of disturbances causing major site damage. Sites or major 

portions of sites will likely be lost if actions to protect and/or preserve are not taken within two years. Poor 

site conditions result from multiple current disturbances causing loss of site features or key areas that define 

primary site function and are critical to site data potential for historical or scientific research. Such losses 

5-96 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Cultural ORVs

make it difficult to utilize any remaining site data (NPS 2007). The combination of prior and current damage 

causes a near total loss of site significance and integrity. When the majority of sites (≥2) within this small 

collection of rare site types lose significance and integrity, the essential value of the ORV is lost.

Monitoring Program to Prevent Future Adverse Impacts or Degradation – Condition of 

Individual Rock Ring Sites

As required by the guidelines implementing WSRA, the NPS will conduct a program of monitoring and 

ongoing study during and following the implementation of the Merced River Plan to ensure that the 

Regionally Rare Archeological Features river value is protected throughout the life of the plan. Impacts on

archeological resources are irreversible, and their condition can never be enhanced. Even if all human 

impacts could be eliminated, a downward trend in the condition of archeological resources over time would

be inevitable due to the effects of natural weathering. Site condition assessments will be conducted for the 

rock ring sites at 5-10 year monitoring intervals, following the assigned ASMIS site inspection schedule. 

Given the sites’ remote locations, a 10 year monitoring interval may be appropriate when site 

documentation is fully completed (NPS 2007b). This monitoring program allows for the type of feedback 

necessary for adaptive management (i.e., periodic, systematic analysis of collected site data, focused on 

management objectives) (Kintigh et al. 2007). At the same intervals, the compiled monitoring data would be 

compared to the trigger points in Table 5-32 below to determine whether protective actions are necessary. 

The 5-10 year interval for summary reporting and analysis is the minimum period necessary to accurately

capture human impacts at a meaningful chronological scale (Bane 2011). Table 5-32 lists triggers and 

specific management responses that would take place should conditions reach the trigger points.

TABLE 5-32: MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND TRIGGER POINTS TO MAINTAIN DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR REGIONALLY RARE 

ARCHEOLOGICAL FEATURES (INDIVIDUAL ROCK RING SITES) 

Trigger Point(s) at 

Which Management 

Action Would Be Taken

Required Management Actions

(at least one action specified for each trigger will be taken)

Rationale for 

Management Actions

Trigger Point 1: One (1) 

serious human impact to a 

rock ring site in a five-year 

monitoring interval.

Increased monitoring frequency at affected sites and other ORV 

sites within vicinity. This may include archeological monitoring 

and/or law enforcement/backcountry ranger monitoring.

Extreme component vulnerability 

and high research potential at 

rare rock ring sites require 

increased monitoring frequencies 

after single cases of serious 

disturbances. 

Trigger Point 2: Two (2) 

serious human impacts to 

the rock ring ORV site 

group in a five year 

monitoring interval. This 

impact may occur at a 

single site (i.e. one site 

receives two disturbances) 

or spread over multiple 

sites (i.e. two sites receive 

one disturbance each). 

Increased management protection designed to counteract or 

minimize impacts, crafted to individual site specifications or to site 

group. Actions include: 

• Site documentation, research, testing, or NRHP evaluation; 

• Dendrochronological analysis of rare wood elements; 

• Site stabilization, re-vegetation, trail reroutes, trail removal;

• Increased outreach/education to permitted users such as 

backpackers;

• Data recovery at affected sites; 

• Closure of areas to camping, utilizing law enforcement 

monitoring and increased visitor education about human 

impacts and the necessity for closures. Area closure 

regulations will be represented within the superintendent’s 

compendium in order to allow legal enforcement.

Extreme component vulnerability 

and high research potential at 

rare rock ring sites requires timely 

management prescriptive actions 

before management standard 

levels are violated.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-97
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

Management to Protect and Enhance Regionally Rare Archeological Features 

(ORV 12)

Current Findings Regarding Management Standard, Adverse Impact, and 

Degradation (ORV 12)

Table 5-33 compares the current condition of the regionally rare archeological features to the definitions of 

management standard, adverse impact, degradation, and management concern. 

TABLE 5-33: CURRENT CONDITION OF REGIONALLY RARE ARCHEOLOGICAL FEATURES

Metric

Percentage of Sites Free from Serious Human Impacts, 2007–11a

Site Condition

Meets management standard: Three or fewer serious 

human impacts to the site group occur in a five year 

monitoring interval. Impact may occur at a single site or 

be spread over multiple sites.

Management concern present: One (trigger #1) or 2 

(trigger #2) serious human impacts to a rock ring site in a 

five year monitoring interval. 

A confirmed impact at site CA-MAD-2697 (WHRS Structure 53) trips

the first trigger, requiring immediate management actions for site 

preservation, as shown in Table 5-32. 

Adverse impact: More than three serious human impacts 

to the site group occur in a five year monitoring interval. 

Impact may occur at a single site or be spread over 

multiple sites. None present.

Degradation: Two or more sites show severe disturbance 

severity levels and poor site conditions due to human 

impacts.

NOTE: 

a Impacts with partial loss irretrievable effects with moderate to severe damage levels or multiple (≥3) impacts with low damage levels.

Current site condition and impact numbers are drawn from Archeology Visitor Use yearly site monitoring 

(2007-2011), Wilderness Historic Resources Survey (WHRS) in 1992, 2005 project field reports, and 2012 

Archeology Visitor Use reporting. Two recorded sites (CA-MAD-2296 and CA-MAD-2363) are currently in 

good condition with no reported human impacts and meet the management standard. The third site, CAMAD-2697 (WHRS Structure 53), had one serious human impact noted in 2012 (NPS 2012 ). 

Management Concerns and Protective Actions (ORV 12)

Management concerns occur when the condition of a resource has reached one of the trigger points 

identified in Table 5-32 above. One serious human impact at site CA-MAD-2697 (WHRS Structure 53) was 

confirmed during formal site documentation in the 2012 field season, meeting the first stage trigger 

identified in Table 5-32. Consequently, management concerns are present at that site, and NPS will increase

monitoring frequency there. This may include archeological monitoring and/or law 

enforcement/backcountry ranger monitoring. 

Localized Concerns and Enhancement Actions (ORV 12)

Localized concerns for this ORV include wilderness camping, which can disturb rock ring features when 

campers move rocks to create fire pits or use wooden material associated with archeological features for 

5-98 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Cultural ORVs

firewood, and informal trails and visitor use, which can cause ground disturbing impacts to surface and subsurface archeological resources. The NPS will implement the following actions:

• Complete documentation of features. 

• Restrict Wilderness camping in the area of the rock rings (camping allowed past particular marker). 

• Remove informal trails and charcoal rings. 

• Increase education and outreach to Wilderness travelers. 

Conclusion: Protecting and Enhancing Cultural ORV 12 (Regionally Rare 

Archeological Features) 

The Merced River’s Cultural ORV 12 currently has no adverse impact or degradation, but management 

concerns do exist and protective action is required. To remedy these, the NPS will increase monitoring of 

rock ring sites, evaluate the need for scientific study through dendrochronological analysis, and remove 

informal trails in the vicinity of archeological sites. The Final Merced River Plan/EIS proposes additional 

actions to enhance Cultural ORV 12 conditions in “Alternatives” (Chapter 8). To prevent future impacts, 

the NPS would monitor the condition of the ORVs, and take specific actions when specific trigger points are 

reached. 

Cultural ORV 13—Wawona Archeological District

ORV 13—The Wawona Archeological District encompasses numerous clusters of resources 

spanning thousands of years of occupation, including evidence of continuous, far-reaching 

traffic and trade. Segment 7 includes the remains of the U.S. Army Cavalry Camp A.E. Wood 

documenting the unique Yosemite legacy of the African American Buffalo Soldiers and the 

strategic placement of their camp near the Merced River.

Location: Segments 5 (South Fork Merced River above Wawona), 6 (Wawona Impoundment), 7 (Wawona), and 8 

(South Fork Merced River below Wawona)

Rationale: Because there are few springs and no talus shelters in the Wawona area, sites of human activity 

reaching back thousands of years are concentrated along the river. The presence of Great Basin and Pacific Coast 

artifacts indicates that Wawona was a location of continuous far-reaching traffic and trade. Sites in this district 

contain important information relevant to research regarding permanent and semi-permanent settlement along a 

particularly long mid-elevation river. 

Physical remnants of the African American Buffalo Soldiers’ late 19th and early 20th century federal protection of 

Yosemite National Park are present along the South Fork Merced River in Wawona. These reflect extremely rare 

African American army troop guardianship of national park lands. These are represented in the archeological 

remains of Camp A.E. Wood, the first Army headquarters in the park, which was situated near the South Fork and 

its year-round water source.

Management Objective: Archeological sites within the Wawona Archeological District would be monitored to 

ensure protection and enhancement of the district as a whole, and to ensure that human impacts are not adversely 

affecting the district’s essential character.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-99
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

Condition Assessment

ORV Condition at the Time of Designation (1987)

When the Wawona Archeological District was determined eligible for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places in 1979, it had undergone very little in the way of archeological testing or excavation. The 

statements of significance on the National Register nomination form were based largely on surface 

assemblages and the potential for subsurface deposits, rather than explicit knowledge of the nature of such 

deposits. This potential was confirmed when Ervin (1984) carried out limited auger testing at 24 sites and 

performed test excavations at nine of the sites during the field seasons of 1983 and 1984 in anticipation of a 

water/wastewater infrastructure project. The results of this investigation proved that many sites within the 

Wawona Archeological District contained intact, and in some cases deeply buried, cultural deposits with the 

potential to reveal much about the pre-contact inhabitants of the area. As a result of this fieldwork, plans for 

the infrastructure development were modified to avoid or reduce impacts to known sites, which kept them in 

overall excellent condition. Although substantial historic-period development has occurred within portions of 

the Wawona Archeological District, Ervin (1984) concluded that impacts mainly affected surface artifact 

assemblages and only limited portions of subsurface deposits, leaving intact cultural materials with the 

potential to address important research questions related to the long history of human habitation and use of 

the Wawona area.

After the departure of U.S. Army troops from Camp A.E. Wood, the area was abandoned for several years until 

a public campground—known as “Camp Hoyle”— was established in the same location. In 1951, the 

campground was enlarged, improved, and renamed Camp A.E. Wood (Sargent 1961). The Wawona 

Campground grew around the site, with the portion known as Camp A.E. Wood eventually incorporated into 

the popular camping spot. Archeological survey work conducted for the National Register nomination of the 

Wawona Archeological District noted the presence of significant historic-era cultural materials but did not 

explicitly connect any of these remains to the early Army camp or to the African American soldiers assigned to 

park duty (NPS 1978). Further evaluation of several sites in the district during 1983-1984 fieldwork revealed a 

wealth of military and domestic artifacts related to Camp A.E. Wood, and possibly the early homestead of 

1860s settler Stephan Cunningham, located within and adjacent to the current Wawona Campground (Ervin 

1984). Square-cut nails, gun cartridges (a majority dating to 1899-1905), bullets, can fragments, bottle and 

window glass, and rotting wood were discovered in the top 6 centimeters of one of the test excavation units. 

During the 1983 field season, Ervin (1984) noted that disturbances to the historic-era component of the site 

were mainly a result of formal campground construction and maintenance, beginning with campsite and road 

grading, restroom construction, and other infrastructure development in the 1940s and continuing with the 

burial of modern campsite trash, casual collection of artifacts, and tent trenching practices. However, Ervin 

(1984) concluded that despite these impacts, the historic component of the site contained important 

information related to the U.S. Army’s use of the area and possibly to early homesteading activities, as well.

Current ORV Condition

Of the 29 Wawona Archeological District sites visited during the 2007-2009 field seasons, 13 sites were 

estimated to have experienced severe impacts. Nine additional sites had a moderate degree of disturbance, 

and seven sites had a low rate of impact. Visitor use impacts were present at all but three of the monitored 

5-100 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Cultural ORVs

sites (Middleton [NPS] 2008, 2009, 2010).40 A recent condition assessment of the total 59 sites in the 

Wawona Archeological District within the Merced River Corridor found that 33% (19 sites) are in good 

condition, with an additional 38% (23 sites) in fair condition (Darko 2011). Eleven of the sites are in poor 

condition, while four could not be relocated during an attempted field visit, and two with unknown 

conditions were not visited as part of the project because they were outside the Merced River corridor. 

Darko’s 2011 report corroborated the earlier estimations of disturbance severity levels, with 20 sites (35%) 

exhibiting a low level of disturbance, 17 (29%) having a moderate disturbance severity level, and 12 (19%) 

showing severe impacts. Ten (17%) of the sites within the 2011 Wawona Archeological District study area 

could not be assessed for disturbance severity levels.

Ongoing use and maintenance of the Wawona Campground continues to present potential impacts to the 

archeological remains of U.S. Army Cavalry Camp A.E. Wood. Extensive flooding in 1997 may also have 

contributed to impacts. Flood-related impacts to this site and others in the Wawona Archeological District 

were assessed in 1999 and 2004 (Montague and Valdez 2004). As of the most recent assessment, Camp A.E. 

Wood and the other examined sites in the district still possessed intact cultural deposits, but additional 

investigation of these sites was needed to more fully define their horizontal and vertical extent and integrity. 

Additional historical research was recommended to correlate the historic-era artifacts within the Wawona 

Campground to the occupation of the site by the U.S. Army Cavalry troops (Montague and Valdez 2004).

Impacts seen at archeological sites within this ORV segment fall into largely the same categories as those 

noted in the Yosemite Valley and El Portal archeological districts: administrative/facilities-related impacts 

such as campground and infrastructure maintenance, visitor use impacts (including general trampling, 

artifact collection, and creation of informal trails), and natural impacts such as flooding and erosion.

Management Indicator and Monitoring Program for ORV 13

This section discusses the proposed management program for this ORV, including the indicator to be used; 

the definitions of management standard, adverse impact, and degradation; and the monitoring program. 

This ORV utilizes the same indicator to monitor the aggregate condition of the collection of archeological 

sites within the district as Cultural ORV 9 – Yosemite Valley Archeological District. The management 

standards, definitions of adverse impact and degradation, monitoring program, and trigger points are the 

same as described under ORV 9 (Table 5-27). Portions of the Wawona Archeological District fall outside of 

the Merced Wild and Scenic River corridor boundaries, and other portions of the Wawona District are 

privately owned or in mixed public/private ownership areas. Sites located completely or mostly on private 

land would not be included in monitoring assessments due to lack of NPS jurisdiction. Monitoring at 

CA-MRP-168/329/H, the location of historic Camp A.E. Wood, would be regarded as a high priority, and 

conducted at the earliest possible opportunity in the site monitoring schedule.

40 It is not known when the impacts occurred (i.e., before or after designation). 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-101

 
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

Management to Protect and Enhance Wawona Archeological District (ORV 13)

Current Findings Regarding Management Standard, Adverse Impact, and 

Degradation (ORV 13)

Table 5-34 compares the current condition of the Wawona Archeological District to the definitions of 

management standard, adverse impact, degradation, and management concern. 

Human impact values for a sample of relevant Wawona Archeological District sites are drawn from 

Archeology Visitor Use yearly site monitoring for a sample set of 36 sites (42%) from 86 Wawona District 

sites relevant to the Merced River corridor ORV. Archeological sites outside of the river corridor judged not 

to be river-related (Wawona Meadow) and sites completely or mostly on private land are not included in 

the district site total. Over a five year interval (2007-2011), 92% of high data potential sites and 94% of low 

data potential sites in the sample were considered free of serious human impacts, meeting the management 

standard for this ORV. 

TABLE 5-34: CURRENT CONDITION OF ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES IN WAWONA BASED ON MONITORING OF AGGREGATE 

CONDITIONS OF SITES

Metric

Percentage of Sites Free from Serious Human Impacts, 2007–11a

Location

High Data 

Potential Sites

Low Data 

Potential Sites

Meets management standard: Sites with low data 

potential: 80% of sites free from serious unmitigated human 

impacts. Sites with high data potential: 85% of sites free 

from serious unmitigated human impacts.

Management concern present: Sites with low data 

potential: the number of individual sites free from serious 

unmitigated human impacts falls to 90% or less in a 

monitoring interval. Sites with high data potential: the 

number of individual sites free from serious unmitigated 

human impacts falls to 95% or less in a monitoring interval.

Sample set of 36 sites (42%) 

of 86 sites relevant to the 

Wawona archeological value

92% 94%

Adverse impact: Sites with low data potential: 60% of sites 

free from serious unmitigated human impacts. Sites with 

high data potential: 70% of sites free from serious 

unmitigated human impacts. None present.

Degradation: The archeological district is no longer eligible 

for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

NOTE:

a Impacts with partial loss irretrievable effects with moderate to severe damage levels or multiple (≥3) impacts with low damage levels.

Management Concerns and Protective Actions (ORV 13)

Management concerns occur when the condition of a resource has reached one of the trigger points 

identified in Table 5-27 under ORV 9, above. Because the percentage of sites free of serious human impacts 

is below 95% for sites with high data potential, a management concern is present. To remedy this concern, 

one or more of the actions in Table 5-27 will be taken (increased monitoring frequency for affected sites; 

increased management protection designed to counteract or minimize impacts, crafted to individual site 

specifications; and/or NRHP nomination amendments to reflect changes in district integrity). 

5-102 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Cultural ORVs

Localized Concerns and Enhancement Actions (ORV 13)

There are several localized concerns for this ORV:

• The Wawona Archeological District is subject to site-specific impacts from park operations, visitor 

use, artifact collection, vandalism, and ecological processes. 

• Visitor use at Wawona Campground is potentially causing localized adverse impacts to site CA-MRP168/329/H (Camp A.E. Wood), with ground disturbing activities potentially causing impacts to the 

shallow deposit of historic artifacts and features and modern campsites sometimes obscuring the 

historic setting of Camp A.E. Wood. 

• Informal trails and variety of operational and visitor uses cause ground disturbing impacts to surface 

and sub-surface archeological resources at CA-MRP-0008/H.

• Shoulder and off-road parking is causing impacts to archeological resources on archeological site CAMRP-0171/172/254/516/H. 

The following actions would help to address these localized concerns:

• Increase monitoring frequency at affected sites.

• Remove seven campsites from Wawona Campground that cause potential impacts to the 

archeological site.

• Consider need for archeological site treatment measures to address impacts to shallow deposits of 

artifacts and features. Remove informal trails and develop site management guidelines. 

• Remove informal trails and fire rings adjacent to shoulder and off-road parking in proximity to the 

site to prevent continuing disturbance.

Conclusion: Protecting and Enhancing Cultural ORV 13 (Wawona 

Archeological District) 

The Merced River’s Cultural ORV 13 currently has no adverse impact or degradation, but management 

concerns do exist and protective action is required. The Final Merced River Plan/EIS proposes additional 

actions to enhance Cultural ORV 13 conditions in “Alternatives” (Chapter 8). To prevent these problems

from redeveloping, the NPS would monitor the condition of the ORV, and take specific actions should specific 

trigger points be reached.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-103
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

Cultural ORV 14—Wawona Historic Resources 

ORV 14—The Wawona Historic Resources ORV includes one of the few covered bridges in the 

region and the National Historic Landmark Wawona Hotel complex, which is one of the largest 

existing Victorian hotel complexes in a national park and one of the few remaining in the 

United States with this high level of integrity.

Location: Segment 7 (Wawona)

Rationale: Galen Clark, Yosemite’s first guardian, built the original Wawona Covered Bridge in 1868, which became 

the bridge as it is today. The bridge embodies the distinctive characteristic of a unique type of construction and is the 

only historic covered bridge in the Pacific West region of the NPS. The nearby National Historic Landmark (NHL) 

Wawona Hotel is a complex of buildings and structures built between 1876 and 1918 adjacent to the South Fork 

Merced River. The complex, which includes seven buildings, is unique in its architectural unity, its formal placement on 

the rural landscape, the original building materials, and their form and massing. The hotel complex retains exemplary 

integrity of function given its use as a resort complex for over one hundred years. It is of national significance in 

architecture, is one of the largest existing Victorian hotel complexes within a national park, and is rare for its high level 

of integrity. It is also of national significance in art because it contains the studio of landscape painter Thomas Hill, 

who was one of the last painters of the Hudson River School and who painted here from 1886 to 1908.

Management Objective: The Wawona Historic Resources ORV would be managed to ensure the Wawona Covered 

Bridge and the Wawona Hotel and Thomas Hill Studio Historic District National Historic Landmark are in good physical 

condition. Actions that affect the integrity of historic resources are addressed through the NHPA regulations. 

Condition Assessment

ORV Condition at the Time of Designation (1987)

At the time of the 1987 Wild and Scenic River designation, the Wawona Covered Bridge had recently 

undergone structural safety improvements. Well before river designation, the NPS had dismantled and 

restored the bridge in 1956 and 1957, employing hand-hewn timber construction in the same style as the 

original bridge. Some timbers were replaced in 1961 and again in 1983 when NPS corrected structural safety 

hazards following an inspection of the bridge (Greene 1987).

The Wawona Hotel Complex and Thomas Hill Studio (also known as the Pavilion), are nationally 

significant historic properties, listed in the National Register as the Wawona Hotel and Pavilion Historic 

District and designated the Wawona Hotel and Thomas Hill Studio National Historic Landmark district.41

At the time of designation, the hotel complex was a national historic landmark, indicating that it met the 

very high standards of integrity necessary to qualify as an NHL. This was the case despite the fact that it had 

transferred from the private holdings of the Washburn Family to NPS ownership in the 1930s and had 

undergone recent rehabilitation to install a fire sprinkler system. According to a later (1998) condition 

assessment, the building exteriors “are generally highly intact and are composed of historic wood siding, 

with original door and window openings and trim. Roof cladding, while not original, is of the original 

type.”42The NHL nomination notes that the buildings of the complex had “undergone certain changes in 

recent years to improve the quality of the seasonally-offered guest services and to make the structures safer 

for occupancy.”43 Given these general statements, it is clear that the Wawona Hotel and Thomas Hill Studio 

41 Laura Soulliere Harrison: Architecture in the Parks: A National Historic Landmark Theme Study. USDI National 

Park Service, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1986. 42 Carey & Co. Inc., “Wawona Hotel Complex Condition Assessment, Yosemite National Park, California.” Report on 

file, Yosemite National Park Resources Management and Science Library, 1988, p. ii. 43 National Park Service: “National Register of Historic Places Inventory – Nomination Form for the Wawona Hotel 

and Thomas Hill Studio.” USDI National Park Service, n.d. 

5-104 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS

 
Cultural ORVs

had endured incremental change since their construction in the late 19th century, but survived largely intact 

and with an extremely high degree of integrity. 

Current ORV Condition

Between 2002 and 2005, the Wawona Covered Bridge underwent a restoration effort to improve the 

deteriorating timber structure. Hand-hewn timbers were used to repair the structure in a manner similar to 

the original 19th-century construction. Restoration of the bridge also included:

• Constructing shoring to support the 115,000-pound timber frame of the bridge

• Removing the 8-inch sag from the superstructure, leveling the bridge 

• Removing and replacing all seven of the deteriorated 14-square-inch by 30-foot transverse floor 

beams

• Repairing the bridge pier masonry in the riverbed 

• Restoring the structural stability of the upstream and downstream timber frame truss assemblies

• Replacing the undersized timber components in order to resist wind and snow loading 

• Replicating hand-hewed timbers using broad axes and traditional craftsmanship from 19th-century 

practices

All recent bridge restoration activities were designed to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties, thereby ensuring that the bridge retains its historical integrity. (The 

Secretary’s standards were adopted in 1976, and earlier work was not designed to meet these specific 

standards.) Completion of the bridge restoration project inaugurated the creation of the interpretive 

Pioneer Yosemite History Center, with the restored bridge as a central feature.

A recent condition assessment of the Wawona Hotel Complex indicates that it continues to retain a high 

degree of historical integrity.44 Individual buildings within the complex were assessed to be in good condition, 

with some minor deterioration of historic fabric. The NHL complex has undergone recent upgrades to 

address seismic stability and compliance with the Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Standards of 2006. 

Additionally, a series of cyclic repair and maintenance projects were completed. The Thomas Hill Studio was 

recently rehabilitated and adapted for use as a visitor contact station. The fountains at the main hotel and the 

studio were also recently restored to their historic appearance and function. Each of these projects has been 

accomplished consistent with the Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, thereby ensuring that the 

complex retains its historical integrity. Interior furnishings and finishes such as paint, wallpaper, carpeting, and 

some fixtures have been updated to maintain functionality and serviceability.

Management Indicator and Monitoring Program for ORV 14

This section discusses the proposed management program for this ORV, including the indicator to be used; the 

definitions of management standard, adverse impact, and degradation; and the monitoring program. 

44 National Park Service: “Wawona Hotel Complex Historic Structures Report.” USDI National Park Service, Yosemite 

National Park, California, 2012.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-105

 
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

Indicator – Condition of Historic Assets for ORV 14

This ORV will be monitored using the same indicator as ORV 10, Yosemite Valley Historic Resources: the 

condition assessment feature of FMSS. However, the definitions of management standard, adverse impact, 

degradation, and management concern vary from those for ORV 10, along with the triggers and 

management responses, reflecting the differences between the two historic districts. Not only does the 

Wawona ORV have far fewer structures, but all are in good or fair condition. Consequently, the 

management standard for this ORV is adjusted to preserve this existing condition. Just as with ORV 10, the 

Wawona Historic Resources ORV is a dynamic landscape, influenced by decisions in the range of 

alternatives regarding user capacity and visitor use management, development and redevelopment, and/or 

removal, along with loss or damage due to natural events, or changes in physical condition due to neglect. 

Similarly, this indicator will measure the physical condition of the individual contributing historic assets that 

are extant and included as fixed assets in FMSS at the time of assessment.

Definitions of Management Standard, Adverse Impact, and Degradation

Management Standard

To meet the management standard for this indicator, both the Wawona Covered Bridge and all individual 

contributing resources to the NHL must be in “good” or “fair” condition.

Adverse Impact

An adverse impact would occur if the Wawona Covered Bridge or any individual contributing resource to 

the NHL fall to “poor” condition, or if any of the four cottages are lost. 

Degradation

Degradation to this ORV would occur if the Wawona Covered Bridge or the Wawona Hotel and Thomas 

Hill Studio NHL lose their eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 

Monitoring Program to Prevent Future Adverse Impacts or Degradation

The monitoring schedule and techniques would be the same as under ORV 10. Trigger points and 

associated management responses are provided below in Table 5-35. 

5-106 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Cultural ORVs

TABLE 5-35: MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND TRIGGER POINTS TO MAINTAIN DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR WAWONA HISTORIC 

RESOURCES ORV (FMSS CONDITION ASSESSMENT)

Trigger Point at Which 

Management Action 

Would Be Taken

Required Management Actions

(at least one action will be taken) Rationale for Management Actions

Trigger Point: Any 

contributing resource to the 

ORV is in “poor” or 

“serious” condition.

1. Complete and update the FMSS condition 

assessment database

2. Increase the frequency of condition assessments 

for buildings and structures in “fair,” “poor,” or 

“serious” condition

3. Develop prioritized list of preservation actions 

based on severity of deterioration (addressing 

deterioration at NHL assets first)

4. Preservation maintenance or repair to arrest 

ongoing deterioration and reverse damage

The rationale for taking action at this threshold 

is to ensure repairs are made to reverse damage 

or deterioration noticeable at the collective level, 

and prevent the condition of buildings or 

structures from deteriorating to a “poor” 

condition. These corrective actions should arrest 

any ongoing deterioration, and return assets to 

“good” condition.

Management to Protect and Enhance Wawona Historic Resources (ORV 14)

Current Findings Regarding Management Standard, Adverse Impact, and 

Degradation (ORV 14)

Table 5-36 compares the current condition of Wawona Historic Resources to the definitions of 

management standard, adverse impact, degradation, and management concern. 

TABLE 5-36: CURRENT CONDITION OF WAWONA HISTORIC RESOURCES

Metric Current Conditions 

Meets management standard: All individual contributing resources to the 

NHL and the Wawona Covered Bridge are in FMSS “good” or “fair” condition The Wawona Covered Bridge is in FMSS 

“good” condition, but the database does not 

currently provide an accurate assessment of the 

condition of the contributing assets to the 

Wawona Hotel and Thomas Hill Studio. The 

database will be updated as soon as possible 

and a condition assessment will be done at that 

time. 

Management concern present: Any contributing resource to the ORV is in 

FMSS “poor” or “serious” condition 

Adverse impact: An adverse impact occurs if any individual contributing 

resources to the NHL or the Wawona Covered Bridge fall to FMSS “poor” 

condition.

Degradation: Degradation would occur if the Wawona Hotel and Thomas 

Hill Studio NHL or Wawona Covered Bridge cease to convey their significance 

as a historic property. 

Current FMSS condition assessments for the Wawona Covered Bridge list the resource in good condition. 

The FMSS database, however, has not been updated for concession-managed resources, so a condition 

assessment is not possible at this time for the Wawona Hotel and Thomas Hill Studio NHL. Consequently, 

the database will be updated within 5 years. However, as noted earlier, the Wawona Hotel Complex Historic 

Structures Report (2012) indicates that all contributing assets to the Wawona Hotel and Thomas Hill Studio 

NHL are in “good” condition, with the exception of Clark’s Cottage, which is in “fair” condition (“good” 

and “fair,” though, are not defined in this report the same way as they are in FMSS). 

Management Concerns and Protective Actions (ORV 14)

Management concerns occur when the condition of an ORV has reached the trigger point identified in 

Table 5-35 above. Because FMSS has not been updated to include the Wawona Hotel and Thomas Hill 

Studio NHL, it is not possible to determine whether the Wawona Historic Resources ORV meets the 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-107
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

management standard. However, the recent Wawona Hotel Complex Historic Structures Report suggests that 

the hotel and contributing assets are in good condition, and FMSS indicates that the bridge is also in good 

condition, so it appears as though no management concern is present. This finding will be confirmed within 

5 years, when FMSS is updated for this ORV. 

Localized Concerns and Enhancement Actions (ORV 14)

Localized concerns related to the Wawona Historic Resources ORV occur when any of the assets in the 

ORV are in “fair” condition. Enhancement actions for this ORV, therefore, would consist of continuing to 

improve asset conditions to the point that all of them are in “good” condition. Because FMSS is not current 

regarding the condition of the Wawona Hotel and Thomas Hill Studio, it is not possible to determine 

whether localized concerns exist there. The bridge is in FMSS “good” condition, so no localized concern is 

present there. 

Enhancement actions will be guided by the cultural resources section of the 2006 NPS Management Policies

and the Cultural Resource Management Handbook issued pursuant to Director’s Order #28. For these 

enhancement actions, the cultural resources section of the 2006 NPS Management Policies and the Cultural 

Resource Management Handbook issued pursuant to Director’s Order #28 would continue to provide 

necessary guidance for protection of cultural resources throughout the park. Cultural resource management 

will be carried out in a manner that is consistent with legislative and regulatory provisions and with 

implementing policies and procedures. Planning will ensure full consideration of the park’s cultural 

resources and values in all proposals for operations, development, and natural resource programs. 

Stewardship will continue to be subject to (1) preservation of existing states; (2) rehabilitation to serve 

contemporary uses, consistent with integrity and character; and (3) restoration to earlier appearances by the 

removal of later additions and replacement of missing elements. 

Conclusion: Protecting and Enhancing Cultural ORV 14 (Wawona Historic 

Resources)

The Merced River’s Cultural ORV 14 currently has no adverse impact, degradation, or management 

concerns. The Final Merced River Plan/EIS proposes additional actions to enhance Cultural ORV 14 

conditions in “Alternatives” (Chapter 8). To prevent future impacts, the NPS will monitor the condition of 

the ORV, and take specific actions should conditions reach trigger points. Trigger points are selected to 

inform managers well in advance of adverse impacts or degradation impacts on the bridge and hotel 

complex. 

SCENIC ORVS

This section describes the program to protect and enhance each Scenic ORV as proposed in the Final 

Merced River Plan/EIS. Four Scenic ORVs exist in the Merced River corridor, each related to a specific 

segment of the river (Table 5-37).

5-108 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Scenic ORVs

TABLE 5-37: SCENIC ORVS AND ASSOCIATED INDICATORS

ORV Number and Key Resource Segment(s) Indicator to be Monitored through Time

15. Scenic Views in Wilderness 1 No indicator is proposed, as Wilderness designation 

precludes development 

16. Iconic Scenic Views in Yosemite Valley 2 Application of the Visual Resource Management System

17. Scenic Views in the Merced River Gorge 3 Application of the Visual Resource Management System

18. Scenic Wilderness Views along the South 

Fork Merced River

5 No indicator is proposed, as management as wilderness 

precludes development.

Scenic ORV 15—Scenic Views in Wilderness

ORV 15—Visitors to this Wilderness segment experience exemplary views of serene montane 

lakes, pristine meadows, slickrock cascades, and High Sierra peaks.

Location: Segment 1 (Merced River above Nevada Fall)

Rationale: Starting at the headwaters, the Merced River passes through chains of alpine and sub-alpine lakes, 

enters the subalpine and upper montane forest, and becomes walled in by a classic U-shaped glacial valley. Scenic 

landmarks visible from the river or its banks include Washburn and Merced Lakes, Echo Valley, Bunnell Point, and 

Little Yosemite Valley. The long river segment of great visual variety and its uncompromised natural setting provide 

diverse, exceptional scenery—all with the river in the foreground.

Management Objective: The NPS would maintain the visitors’ ability to experience and appreciate the Scenic ORV 

by providing a wilderness river segment that is almost completely free of development.

Condition Assessment

ORV Condition at the Time of Designation (1987)

The Merced river and its tributaries flow through glacially-carved landscapes with very few human-made 

features, largely unaffected by human activities. In 1984, this portion of the river corridor and adjacent lands 

were designated as Wilderness, with the exception of the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp, which is in a 

potential wilderness addition. The Merced Lake High Sierra Camp was established in the early twentieth 

century. A recreational trail, initially developed in the 1930s, followed the river corridor as far as the Lyell 

Fork, then continued up Red Peak Fork. The trail included wooden foot bridges at multiple locations. 

Backpackers campgrounds existed at Little Yosemite Valley, Moraine Dome, and Merced Lake. A historic 

ranger station existed, just off the trail, a short distance upstream from Merced Lake. The landscape was 

otherwise comprised of natural features such as granite rock formations, meadows and forests. 

Current ORV Condition

Views from the river and trails along this segment are valued for their isolation from the developed world, their 

ecological integrity and Wilderness qualities. Trail conditions and opportunities for visitor access remain the 

same as in 1987. Scenic vistas can sometimes be obscured by regional air pollution, which is manifested in 

occasional haze during the summer months (NPS and Colorado State University 2002). Wild and prescribed 

fires sometimes limit the visual range from higher elevations and vistas or views located within the river 

corridor. Existing conditions include rustic structures, trails, footbridges, utility buildings and tents at the 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-109
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

historic Merced Lake High Sierra Camp, and primitive campsite development in Little Yosemite Valley. The 

level of development is largely the same as it was when the river was designated.

Management Indicator and Monitoring Program for ORV 15

Because Segment 1 is classified as a wild segment and the river corridor—aside from Merced Lake High 

Sierra Camp—is designated Wilderness, further development is strictly limited to structures or installations 

that are the minimum necessary to administer the wilderness. In addition, Congress designated the area 

containing the High Sierra Camp as potential wilderness and specified that the area must be managed as far 

as practicable as wilderness. . Additionally, the action alternatives will either remove the camp or replace its 

canvas tents with colors that harmonize better with the local environment, thereby reducing the camp’s 

visual contrast with its surroundings. As a result of these restrictions, the scenic conditions present in this 

river segment will not experience material changes over time from development; the scenery will remain 

unchanged. 

Management standard, adverse impact, and degradation are not defined for this ORV because further 

development is strictly limited under the Wilderness Act, the associated Minimum Requirements Analysis 

(MRA) process, and the legal restrictions on development at the High Sierra Camp. Furthermore, any new 

structures or renovations to existing structures would be subject to the contrast analysis discussed below 

under ORV 16 (with a maximum contrast rating of 4, with no strong contrasts present). Therefore, the NPS 

would not monitor the condition of this ORV as part of the Final Merced River Plan/EIS. The NPS will 

continue to participate in regional efforts to monitor air quality throughout the park. Because of the ambient 

nature of air quality, it cannot be managed exclusively for the river corridor. 

Conclusion: Protecting and Enhancing Scenic ORV 15 (Scenic Views in 

Wilderness) 

The Merced River’s Scenic ORV 15 currently has no adverse impact, degradation, or management concerns. 

As a segment located almost entirely within protected Wilderness, except for the potential Wilderness

addition at Merced Lake High Sierra Camp, the Scenic ORV for Segment 1 will remain undeveloped and 

will not be affected by human activity. The NPS will not monitor visual resources or conditions at sitespecific scenic vista points. 

5-110 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Scenic ORVs

Scenic ORV 16—Iconic Scenic Views in Yosemite Valley

ORV 16—Visitors to Yosemite Valley experience views of some of the world’s most iconic 

scenery, with the river and meadows forming a placid foreground to towering cliffs and 

waterfalls.

Location: Segments 2A and 2B (Yosemite Valley)

Rationale: The Merced River enters Yosemite Valley at Nevada Fall, flowing through Emerald Pool and then over 

Vernal Fall. Once in the flat valley, the Merced provides the foreground to many of Yosemite’s most famous 

landmarks. From within the Merced River corridor, views consist of Half Dome, Yosemite Falls, El Capitan, Bridalveil 

Fall, Three Brothers, Cathedral Rocks and Spires, Sentinel Rock, Glacier Point, North Dome, Washington Column, 

and Royal Arches and other unnamed parts of the cliffs and hanging valleys rimming Yosemite Valley. Meandering 

through a sequence of compound oxbows, wetlands, and meadows, the river and its related features provide 

broadened panoramas. Throughout Yosemite Valley, views from within the river corridor encompass the lower 

montane forest as it rises up to sheer rock faces of granite cliffs and talus slopes with a flat valley bottom serving as 

a contrasting foreground. The juxtaposition of granite domes and waterfalls is unique, as is the concentration of 

river-related views found in Yosemite Valley.

Management Objective: Segments 2A and 2B are the most highly accessible portion of the Merced River, visited 

by the greatest numbers of park visitors. Here the NPS provides the highest levels of service and accommodations 

for visitor use, and here the NPS has the greatest obligation to manage visual resources and visitors, and to protect 

and enhance the conditions that provide for the best possible viewing experiences. The NPS will ensure that all 

future development or redevelopment harmonizes with its surrounding landscape. 

Condition Assessment

ORV Condition at the Time of Designation (1987)

Scenery was a key reason for setting Yosemite Valley aside as a national park (GMP EIS draft 1978; Olmsted 

1865). Numerous roads, buildings, and other features were developed with scenic resources in mind (SVMP 

2011; DuBarton 2007; Davis 2004; Carr 1998). In the late 1970s, the NPS conducted an assessment for the 

1980 Yosemite General Management Plan (GMP) to determine existing and historic viewing conditions and 

to identify the prominent landscape features in Yosemite Valley (NPS 1980). The GMP classified all areas of 

Yosemite Valley according to the following scale: 

A – Areas included in scenic views commonly chosen by eminent early photographers and painters 

or included in the most significant scenic views that exist today (this included all meadows and the 

entire length of the Merced River in the Valley); 

B – Areas included in scenic views less commonly chosen by historic photographers and painters or 

that compose less significant modern views based on park management observations; 

C – Areas of minor scenic quality and areas that can absorb visual intrusion without detracting from 

either primary or secondary views. 

Based on this classification system, almost all of Yosemite Valley was either Class A or B. Only two small 

areas, one near the Upper Pines campground and another north of Yosemite Village, were considered 

Class C. 

Multiple scenic resources and natural landmarks were visible from within the river corridor. The most 

prominent features noted were Half Dome, Yosemite Falls, El Capitan, Bridalveil Fall, Three Brothers, 

Cathedral Rocks and Spires, Sentinel Rock, Glacier Point, North Dome, Washington Column, and Royal 

Arches. Other important scenic resources that could be seen from within the Merced River corridor include 

Nevada, Illilouette, Vernal, and Ribbon falls; the cliffs at Yosemite Point and Lost Arrow Spire; and the 

scenic interface of river, rock, meadow, and forested valley floor. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-111
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

Current ORV Condition

Views from within the river corridor, including from roadside locations, trails and vista points continue to 

retain high aesthetic value. The built and natural environments have changed subtly since the river was 

designated as a Wild and Scenic River in 1987. Some structures were damaged by flood or rock fall and 

removed over time. Meadow and riparian conditions are affected by visitor use as described in Biological 

ORV 2, and some scenic vista points are overgrown with vegetation and in need of maintenance. Views of 

scenery are commonly hampered by encroachment of conifers on meadows and in certain cases by exotic 

species. 

The 1997 flood caused a general reduction in the development footprint within the river corridor and 

floodplain. Curbing was later installed along Northside and Southside Drives to protect sensitive resource 

areas, and the Lower Yosemite Fall project removed idling buses from a primary viewing area of the falls.

The NPS has protected and restored meadows by removing obsolete or abandoned utility lines, removing 

non-native vegetation and encroaching conifers, planting and reestablishing native vegetation, constructing 

meadow boardwalks, and implementing monitoring programs. Due to these actions, direct views of 

meadows themselves and of meadows in the foreground views towards iconic scenic views have improved. 

However, river bank erosion and vegetation trampling associated with visitor access to river points 

continues to detract from visitor use and enjoyment of iconic scenic views in Yosemite Valley. 

The 2004 Scenic Vista Management Plan for Yosemite National Park Environmental Assessment (SVMP) (NPS 

2010a) defined numerous, key scenic vista points throughout Yosemite.45 The SVMP went on to rate and 

rank the quality of the scenic vista points, providing quantified values of the scenic merits of each viewpoint 

and ranking them as high-, medium-, or low importance based on that value. Finally, the SVMP provided 

specific proposals for the management of vegetation changes that have intruded on scenic vista points and 

defined limits on management actions based on ecological conditions (NPS 2009a, 2009b). The SVMP 

deferred final decisions on maintenance of vista points in the Merced River corridor to this plan. Appendix 

H lists the viewpoints in the Merced River corridor that this plan will indeed maintain along with the 

rationale for elimination of others and a description of the vegetation management actions for each vista 

point. 

Management Indicator and Monitoring Program for ORV 16

This section discusses the proposed management program for this ORV, including the indicators to be used; 

the definitions of management standard, adverse impact, and degradation; and the monitoring program.

Indicator – Contrast Analysis for ORV 16

Indicator Description

To protect and enhance this ORV, the NPS will apply the Visual Resource Management (VRM) system 

developed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM 2007) to monitor this ORV. The VRM system has been 

45 The park’s General Management Plan used historic photographs and landscape paintings to identify the best locations 

for viewing scenery (NPS 1980). 

5-112 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS

 
Scenic ORVs

used for over three decades and has proven to be a process that can articulate and document conditions that 

viewers consider inappropriate to the natural environment (Galliano 2000).46 

There are typically three steps for the VRM system: an inventory of the existing landscape, assignment of 

management classes, and a contrast analysis. The inventory is done to ensure that existing conditions are 

acceptable based on scenic quality, the sensitivity of viewers to potential changes in the landscape, and the 

distance from which the landscape is viewed. The inventory also develops a baseline for future comparison. 

Management classes are then assigned in consideration of all resource values; these determine the 

acceptable level of visual change for each area. Landscapes are classified into one of four classes, with class I 

being most protective/most wild and class IV being most accommodating to a variety of human change. A 

final category (V) is sometimes used to describe a landscape that is altered to the extent that it cannot be 

classified or managed for natural scenic qualities. Finally, in the contrast analysis, the degree of contrast of a 

management action, as compared to the native landscape and within management objectives, is 

quantitatively assessed.

Within the context of the Merced Wild and Scenic River, the VRM landscape classification is determined by 

the river segment designation of Wild, Scenic or Recreational. As presented in Table 5-38, there is a natural 

parallel between wild and scenic river classifications and VRM classes.

TABLE 5-38: PARALLELS BETWEEN WSRA CLASSIFICATIONS AND VRM CLASSES

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) BLM Visual Resource Management (VRM) System Classifications (BLM 2007)

Wild: Free of impoundments, generally 

inaccessible except by trail with watersheds 

or shorelines essentially primitive and waters 

unpolluted; vestiges of primitive America

Class I Objective – Preserves existing character of the landscape and provides for 

natural ecological changes, but does not preclude limited management activity. Any 

changes in the landscape should be minimal and must not attract attention.

Scenic: Free of impoundments with 

shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive 

and shorelines undeveloped, but accessible in 

places by roads

Class II Objective – Retains existing character of the landscape. Any changes in the 

landscape should be minimized. Management activities may be seen, but should not 

attract attention. Any changes must repeat or maintain basic elements of form, line, 

color and texture found in predominant natural features and characteristics of the 

broader landscape.

Recreational: Readily accessible by road or 

railroad, may have some development along 

shorelines, and may have undergone 

impoundment or diversion in the past

Class III Objective – Partially retains existing character of the landscape. Any changes 

to the landscape should result in moderate differences. Management activities may be 

noticeable but should not dominate views. Any changes should repeat the basic 

elements found in the predominant natural features of the landscape.

Areas not designated Class IV Objective – Provides for management activities that result in major 

modifications of the existing landscape. Changes in the landscape may be significant. 

Management activities or actions may dominate views or become a focus of viewer 

attention. Every attempt should be made to minimize the impact of activities or 

actions through careful location, minimal disturbance, and repetition of basic 

elements.

Areas not eligible for designation Class V – Development or other landform changes predominate; the natural 

landscape is compromised to the extent that it can no longer be managed for natural 

scenic qualities.

As indicated above, these classifications determine management goals for the protection of scenic areas. The 

VRM analysis proposed for this indicator also considers naturally-occurring landscape changes (such as fire 

or rock fall) and cumulative management actions over time. 

46 The Forest Service also developed a Visual Management System (VMS) (USDA 1995), but the BLM VRM system is 

better suited to adaptation to use as a scenic management indicator.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-113

 
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

In 2013, park staff performed a pilot base inventory in both Segments 2A and 2B, inventorying the view from 

the high-and medium-importance scenic vista points. In addition, random points along the river were 

generated and inventoried to ensure a good geographic representation of the entire river segments. The 

inventory is done to ensure that existing conditions are acceptable based on scenic quality, the sensitivity of 

viewers to potential changes in the landscape, and the distance from which the landscape is viewed. At each 

point, staff both inventoried the existing view and assessed the view for potential contrasts between the 

human developments that were present (if any) and the natural landscape (as described above). The NPS 

found that the level of development and contrast in Segment 2A is appropriate to VRM Class III, and 2B is 

appropriate to Class II. 

To protect the ORV from being adversely impacted or degraded by new developments or redevelopments in 

the future, the NPS will perform a contrast analysis before the design process concludes to ensure 

compatibility with the surrounding landscape. The contrast analysis is intended to reveal effects on the 

outstandingly remarkably scenic value before a new structure is built (or an existing one is remodeled). A 

contrast analysis is a way to quantitatively assess the degree to which a proposed structure will harmonize or 

detract from the native landscape. “Contrast” refers to the difference between the key components of a 

landscape (form, line, texture, and color, of both the landscape’s vegetation and also its land and water) and 

the same components of the proposed structure. For each of the 12 key components (

Figure 5-5), contrast will be rated from strong (3 points) to none (0 points). This could result in a contrast 

rating as high as 36, if the structure is rated as having a strong contrast in all categories. Higher scores indicate a 

higher level of potential contrast between the proposed development and the surrounding landscape, with 

lower scores indicating that a proposed development would blend harmoniously with (or not distract from) its 

surrounding landscape.47 For proposed structures, the contrast analysis will be performed using photographs 

from the key vista points identified in the 2004 SVMP and the random monitoring points along the river. 

Figure 5-5: Sample Contrast Analysis Rating Sheet (The 12 empty cells would all be completed, 

providing a comprehensive and quantitative analysis of the proposed structure’s contrast with the 

existing landscape.) 

FEATURES

Land and Water Body Vegetation Other Structures

Strong (3 pt.)

Moderate (2 pt.)

Weak (1 pt.)

None (0 pt.)

Strong (3 pt.)

Moderate (2 pt.)

Weak (1 pt.)

None (0 pt.)

Strong (3 pt.)

Moderate (2 pt.)

Weak (1 pt.)

None (0 pt.)

ELEMENTS

Form

Line

Color

Texture

47 While scores have some subjectivity, variations in scoring between scorers decline with user training and experience 

(NPS 2009). For example, the NPS in the Blue Ridge Parkway has used this system using large numbers of volunteers 

to assess scenic value and monitor change over time. Using those results, park managers have been able to 

successfully communicate the need of adjacent land owners to modify developments to reduce the possible contrasts 

with the native landscape. Results were also introduced in a 2008 lawsuit case against Tennessee Valley Authority and 

cited by the judge in the ruling to justify requirements for three coal plants to operate above Clean Air Act standards 

(NPS 2009).

5-114 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS

 
Scenic ORVs

To minimize potential contrasts, new development or re-development in Yosemite Valley would be designed 

to be compatible with historic districts and preservation of rustic architecture, using “A Sense of Place: Design 

Guidelines for Yosemite Valley.” These design guidelines are intended to promote harmony between the built 

and natural environments. Furthermore, all new structures or remodels in the recreational segment must be 

designed so that no more than two strong contrasts are present, with no strong contrasts in the scenic segment. 

Similarly, remodels of existing structures should not exceed the contrast ratings of the structure before 

remodel; preferably, any contrasts will be reduced. 

Definitions of Management Standards, Adverse Impact, and Degradation

Management Standard

The management standard is defined according to river segment classification and associated acceptable 

contrast ratings. Scenic segments (such as 2B, discussed below) shall meet VRM Class II definitions and the 

recreational segment (2A) shall meet VRM Class III definitions. Additionally, the average contrast rating of 

all scenic points in the segment (as determined in the initial inventory, which rates the scenic character and 

contrast from the scenic vista points and other representative viewpoints) should be 12 or less for scenic 

segments and 21 or less for the recreational segment, with no strong contrasts in scenic segments and no 

more than two strong contrasts per structure in the recreational segment, to the extent practicable by law.48

Adverse Impact

Scenic river segments managed as VRM Class II would be adversely impacted if human constructions or 

actions resulted in the segment falling into the VRM class III management class. The recreational river 

segment managed as VRM Class III would be adversely impacted if human constructions or actions resulted 

in the segment falling into VRM Class IV management class. 

Degradation 

Scenic river segments would be degraded if human constructions or actions resulted in the segment falling 

into VRM class IV management class. The recreational river segment would be degraded if human 

constructions or actions resulted in the segment falling into VRM class V management class. 

Monitoring Program to Prevent Future Adverse Impacts or Degradation – Contrast 

Analysis

Monitoring for this ORV will only take place when planned construction of any new structure or exterior 

modifications to any existing structures occur. Table 5-39 describes the triggers and required management 

actions to protect Scenic ORV 16 should the contrast analysis reveal that a proposed structure, or a 

modification of an existing structure, would unacceptably contrast with its surrounding landscape, or if the 

initial inventory reveals an undesirable level of contrast between existing structures and the surrounding 

landscape. 

48 In some cases, high contrast ratings are due to structural elements required by law and not possible for NPS to 

mitigate, such as pavement markings, highway signs, etc. In this case, NPS will reduce the contrasts to the extent 

practicable. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-115

 
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

TABLE 5-39: MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND TRIGGER POINTS TO MAINTAIN DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR ICONIC SCENIC

VIEWS IN YOSEMITE VALLEY (VISUAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT) 

Trigger Point(s) at 

Which Management 

Action Would Be Taken

Required Management Actions

(at least one action specified for each 

trigger will be taken)

Rationale for 

Management Actions

Trigger Point 1: Planned 

construction of any new 

structure or exterior 

modifications to any 

existing structure

For new structures: 

1) perform contrast rating, AND 

2) design structure to: 

a) preserve or improve the segment contrast average, 

b) produce no strong contrast ratings in scenic 

segments or more than two strong contrast ratings 

in recreational segments, AND 

c) keep the overall contrast rating below 10 for 

scenic segments and 18 for recreational segments

For redesigned structures, the contrast rating of the new 

structure should not exceed that of the old. 

The contrast analysis is intended to reveal 

effects on the outstandingly remarkably 

scenic value before a new structure is 

built. New or remodeled structures 

within this segment should attempt to 

minimize the contrast to the surrounding 

landscape to the best extent possible.

Trigger Point 2: A 

segmentwide average 

contrast rating of 10 or 

above for scenic segments 

and 18 or above for the 

recreational segment

Comprehensive assessment of all contrast ratings and 

adoption of suggested mitigations therein sufficient to 

drop the segmentwide average below 10 or 18 (note 

that some contrasts, such as highway markings, are 

outside of the management of NPS; in such cases, NPS 

will eliminate contrasts to the extent practicable). 

Segmentwide average contrast ratings of 

10 or higher for scenic segments and 18 

or higher in the recreational segment 

mean that the contrasts are jeopardizing 

the Class rating for these segments. 

Management to Protect and Enhance Iconic Scenic Views in Yosemite Valley

(ORV 16)

Current Findings Regarding Management Standard, Adverse Impact, and 

Degradation (ORV 16)

Table 5-40 compares the current condition of the Iconic Scenic Views in Yosemite Valley to the definitions 

of management standard, adverse impact, degradation, and management concern. 

TABLE 5-40: CURRENT CONDITION OF SCENIC VALUES IN YOSEMITE VALLEY BASED ON VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

SYSTEM

Metric Compliance with VRM Class Objectives, 2010

Meets management standard: Scenic segments shall meet VRM Class II 

definitions and the recreational segment shall meet VRM Class III definitions. 

Additionally, the average contrast rating of all scenic points in the segment

should be 12 or less for scenic segments and 21 or less for the recreational 

segment, with no strong contrasts in the scenic segment and no more than 

two strong contrasts per structure in the recreational segment, to the extent 

practicable by law.

Segment 2A meets the VRM Class III definitions

and has an average contrast rating of 12.4. 

Management concerns present: Planned construction of any new 

structure or exterior modifications to any existing structure (trigger 1) or a 

segmentwide average contrast rating of 10 or above for scenic segments and 

18 or above for the recreational segment (trigger 2). 

Segment 2B meets the VRM Class II definitions 

but has an average contrast rating of 12.4.

Adverse impact: A change in VRM class from II to III (scenic segment) or III 

to IV (recreational segment) None present. Degradation: A change in VRM class from II to IV (scenic segment) or III to V 

(recreational segment)

Preliminary analysis of the results from the 2013 pilot inventory indicates that the viewpoints in Segment 2A 

had an average scenic value of 17.7 (note that this is not the same score as the contrast analysis; for the 

5-116 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Scenic ORVs

scenic inventory, the higher the score, the more impressive the view) with an average contrast rating of 12.4

(for this rating, the higher the score, the more contrast is evident between human developments and the 

native landscape). Segment 2B had an average scenic value of 16.8 with an average contrast rating of 12.4. 

Management Concerns and Protective Actions (ORV 16)

Management concerns occur when the condition of a resource has reached one of the trigger points 

identified in Table 5-12. The average contrast ratings of 12.4 for the two Yosemite Valley segments from the 

2013 pilot effort is within the range of the management standard for the recreational segment (2A), but not 

for scenic segments (2B), largely due to the contrasts evident in some parking lots. Consequently, a 

management concern is present in Segment 2B. 

To remedy this concern, NPS will comprehensively assess the contrast rating sheets for this segment and 

adopt suggested mitigations therein sufficient to drop the segmentwide average below 10. Actions proposed 

to redesign and formalize parking lots will mitigate many of the contrasts. However, as noted above, some 

contrasts, such as highway markings, are outside of the management of NPS; in such cases, NPS will 

eliminate contrasts to the extent practicable. 

As called for in the various action alternatives, new structures may be built or existing ones repurposed 

and/or remodeled. Such projects would all be subject to a contrast analysis, with the structures designed to 

keep the segment contrast average or below its existing value, with no strong contrasts present in structures 

proposed for the recreational segment and no moderate or strong contrasts present in structures proposed 

in the scenic segment, and no total contrast ratings over 18 for structures proposed for the recreational 

segment and no total contrast ratings over 10 for structures proposed in the scenic segment.

Localized Concerns and Enhancement Actions (ORV 16)

Localized concerns pertaining to this ORV include vegetation growth that has intruded on scenic 

viewpoints historically available to park visitors, and riverbank erosion and informal trails that affect the 

foreground to some scenic views in the Merced River corridor. 

NPS will take the following actions to enhance this ORV: 

• The NPS will adopt the maintenance program for the scenic vista points outlined in Appendix H.

Because vegetation growth can obscure these iconic views, the NPS will regularly (every five years)

clear vegetation that is crowding or obscuring the scenic vistas. Appendix H provides specifics on

how the vegetation is to be cleared at each of the 46 viewpoints.

• Upon full analysis of the 2013 inventory and contrast analysis of existing structures, the NPS will

mitigate, to the extent feasible, high contrasts found at existing sites in the recreational segment and

both moderate and high contrasts found at existing sites in the scenic segment.

• All alternatives propose a 150-foot riparian buffer, which would generally insulate the river from

development and protect views from its bed and banks. Restoration efforts common to

Alternatives 2-6 and the 100-foot riparian buffer would provide for the protection and enjoyment

of scenery that is river related or river dependent.

• New development or re-development in Yosemite Valley would be designed to be compatible with

historic districts and preservation of rustic architecture, using “A Sense of Place: Design Guidelines

for Yosemite Valley.” These design guidelines are intended to promote harmony between the built

and natural environments.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-117
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

Conclusion: Protecting and Enhancing Scenic ORV 16 (Iconic Scenic Views in 

Yosemite Valley)

The Merced River’s Scenic ORV 16 currently has no adverse impact or degradation. However, a 

management concern is present in Segment 2B, which has a higher average contrast rating than is desired. 

To address this concern, the Final Merced River Plan/EIS will mitigate the contrasts revealed in the 2013 

inventory of scenic vistas in that segment, to the extent feasible by law. Additionally, the action alternatives 

propose restoration of denuded riverbanks and trampled meadows, and maintenance of high-priority 

scenic vista points. The Final Merced River Plan/EIS proposes additional actions to enhance Scenic ORV 16 

conditions in “Alternatives” (Chapter 8). To prevent future management concerns, the NPS will monitor the 

condition of the Scenic ORV 16, maintaining high-priority scenic vista points, performing contrast analyses 

on all new proposed structures, and taking action to keep those proposed structures appropriate to the 

Yosemite Valley landscape. 

Scenic ORV 17—Scenic Views in the Merced River Gorge

ORV 17—The Merced River drops 2,000 feet over 14 miles, it is a continuous cascade under 

spectacular Sierra granite outcrops and domes.

Location: Segment 3 (Merced River Gorge)

Rationale: Descending from Yosemite Valley, the river becomes a continuous cascade in a narrow gorge littered 

with massive boulders. Arch and Elephant Rocks and other landmarks rise above, all visible from the river or its 

banks. Dropping 2,000 feet in 14 miles, canyon walls rise steeply from the river and have many seasonal waterfalls 

cascading down to the river. Spring and fall bring special parades of colors, from redbuds and other plants 

flowering in spring to bigleaf maples and other trees turning bright colors in fall.

Management Objective: Segment 3 is classified as a scenic reach of the river, fully accessible by El Portal Road, 

and will be managed to promote visitor enjoyment from the river, from roadside pullouts, and from the roadway 

itself. Any further development is precluded.

Condition Assessment

ORV Condition at the Time of Designation (1987)

El Portal Road was originally built on the edge of the Merced River as a connecting route between Yosemite 

Valley and the Yosemite Valley railroad terminal in El Portal. Pullouts allowed for short and long-range 

views of the river and nearby rock formations. The river and Cascades Fall were visible from passing 

vehicles using El Portal Road or Big Oak Flat Road. Some structures intruded upon views from within the 

Merced River corridor in the Gorge, such as the Arch Rock entrance station, Cascades Dam powerhouse, 

Cascades housing units, and Cascades Diversion Dam. 

In 1987, the Cascade Diversion Dam and associated features, including the powerhouse building, were 

visible from the river and its bank. The dam spanned the entire river, with an intake structure on the right

bank of the river, and the associated powerhouse was a short distance downstream. The dam was no longer 

in use, in a dilapidated state. The powerhouse building was still present, but no longer used to generate 

power, instead being used as a high voltage substation. Portions of the El Portal Road were visible from the 

river and its banks, particularly in the Cascades and Arch Rock areas, where the river gradient is less severe 

and the road is close to the river.

5-118 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Scenic ORVs

Current ORV Condition

El Portal Road and the underlying sewer main were severely damaged by the 1997 flood. Both were rebuilt 

soon thereafter, with road conditions updated according to contemporary safety standards. Rock walls and 

barriers were rebuilt in keeping with the historic character that existed before the flood and new walls were 

built in keeping with the historic character. Cascades picnic area was developed and river resources were 

subsequently restored. The dam was removed in 2004, with the historic powerhouse, Arch Rock entrance 

station, and comfort station remaining in place today. The visual or scenic resources in the Merced River 

Gorge are largely unchanged from those present at the time of Wild and Scenic River designation.

The scenic quality in the area of the river at the Big Oak Flat Road-El Portal Road junction has significantly 

improved, because NPS removed the Cascades Diversion Dam and associated features in 2004 and restored 

the river to free-flowing conditions. The scenic quality in the vicinity of the dam returned to a natural

condition within six years. The powerhouse remains and continues to be used as a high voltage substation. 

Management Indicator and Monitoring Program for ORV 17 

This section discusses the proposed management program for this ORV, including the indicators to be used; 

the definitions of management standard, adverse impact, and degradation; and the monitoring program. This 

ORV utilizes the same indicator to monitor the scenic views in the Merced River Gorge as the indicator 

described under Scenic ORV 16 – Iconic Scenic Views in Yosemite Valley. The management standards, 

definitions of adverse impact and degradation, monitoring program, and trigger points are the same as 

described under ORV 16 (Table 5-39).

Management to Protect and Enhance Scenic Views in Merced River Gorge (ORV 17)

Current Findings Regarding Management Standard, Adverse Impact, and 

Degradation (ORV 17)

Table 5-41 compares the current condition of the Iconic Scenic Views in Merced River Gorge to the 

definitions of management standard, adverse impact, degradation, and management concern. 

TABLE 5-41: CURRENT CONDITION OF SCENIC VALUES IN MERCED RIVER GORGE BASED ON VISUAL RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Metric Compliance with VRM Class Objectives, 2013

Meets management standard: Scenic segments shall meet VRM Class II 

definitions and the recreational segment shall meet VRM Class III definitions. 

Additionally, the average contrast rating of all scenic points in the segment

should be 12 or less for scenic segments and 21 or less for the recreational 

segment, with no strong contrasts in the scenic segment and no more than 

two strong contrasts per structure, to the extent practicable by law.

Management concerns present: Planned construction of any new 

structure or exterior modifications to any existing structure (trigger 1) or a 

segmentwide average contrast rating of 10 or above for scenic segments and 

18 or above for the recreational segment (trigger 2). 

Segment 3 meets the VRM Class II definitions but 

has an average contrast rating of 14.3. 

Adverse impact: A change in VRM class from II to III (scenic segment) or III 

to IV (recreational segment) None present. Degradation: A change in VRM class from II to IV (scenic segment) or III to V 

(recreational segment)

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-119
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

In 2013, park staff performed a base inventory of the view from the only scenic vista point in this segment as 

well as randomly generated points along the river (to ensure a good geographic representation of the entire 

river segment). At each point, staff both inventoried the existing view and assessed the view for potential 

contrasts between the human developments that were present (if any) and the natural landscape (as 

described above). Preliminary analysis of the results indicates that the viewpoints in this segment had an 

average scenic value of 13.6 (again, this is not the same score as the contrast analysis; for the scenic 

inventory, the higher the score, the more impressive the view) with an average contrast rating of 14.3, largely 

due to contrasts stemming from the linearity of the road and its pavement markings. 

Management Concerns and Protective Actions (ORV 17)

Management concerns occur when the condition of a resource has reached one of the trigger points 

identified in Table 5-39. There is a management concern present related to scenic values in the Merced 

River Gorge, Segment 3: the average contrast rating exceeds 10. For this reason, NPS will undertake the 

same assessment of the contrast rating sheets for this segment and adopt suggested mitigations therein 

sufficient to drop the segmentwide average below 10. However, as noted above, some contrasts, such as 

highway markings, are not possible to eliminate; in such cases, NPS will eliminate contrasts to the extent 

practicable.

No new development or landscape changes are proposed within the river corridor aside from minor 

improvements to existing roadside pullouts. The only changes in landscape, except for minor trail reroutes 

and life-safety upgrades, will occur as natural processes prevail over present conditions. 

Localized Concerns and Enhancement Actions (ORV 17)

In addition to the contrast analysis, the NPS will adopt a maintenance program for the scenic vista point in 

this segment as outlined in Appendix H. Because vegetation growth can obscure this iconic view, the NPS 

will regularly (every five years) clear vegetation that is crowding or obscuring it, as outlined in Appendix H. 

Another enhancement action would be to remove overhead power lines from the Cascades Powerhouse to 

the Wawona Tunnel.

Conclusion: Protecting and Enhancing Scenic ORV 17 (Scenic Views in Merced 

River Gorge) 

The Merced River’s Scenic ORV 17 currently has no adverse impact or degradation, but a management 

concern is present. To address that concern, the Final Merced River Plan/EIS will mitigate the contrasts 

revealed in the 2013 inventory of scenic vistas, to the extent feasible by law. To prevent future management 

concerns, the NPS will maintain the scenic vista point in this segment. Segment 3, however, is unlikely to be 

affected by human activity in the future, due to the deep topography and rugged terrain of the Merced River 

Gorge and because no new facilities or visitor services are proposed. 

5-120 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Scenic ORVs

Scenic ORV 18—Scenic Wilderness Views along the South Fork Merced River

ORV 18—The South Fork Merced River passes through a vast area of natural scenic beauty.

Location: Segments 5 and 8 (South Fork Merced River, both above and below Wawona) 

Rationale: The South Fork Merced River in these stretches is largely inaccessible, with just a few trail crossings above 

Wawona and none below it. The scenery from the river or its banks is that of an undeveloped Sierra Nevada river 

valley, with views dominated by forest-cloaked hills, distant peaks, and an untamed river. These are some of the 

wildest views in the Sierra Nevada.

The landscape spanning wild Segments 5 and 8 includes distant, dramatic vistas of mountains and waterfalls and 

close, beautiful views of forests and gorges. Both segments are accessible only by foot, or by mule or on horseback. 

Management Objective: The NPS will maintain primitive conditions in Wilderness areas adjacent to the river, within 

the river corridor and beyond. The NPS will continue to manage visitor use through the Wilderness permit system, and 

to manage vegetation through prescribed fire and controlled burning practices when necessary and appropriate.

Condition Assessment

ORV Condition at the Time of Designation (1987)

No visual resource studies were conducted for these segments of the Merced River. The wild segments of 

the South Fork Merced were largely natural and undisturbed at the time of designation, including no roads 

and few trails.

Scenery viewed from within the Merced River corridor above Wawona, in Segment 5, was limited primarily 

to views of the South Fork itself at trail crossings, and long range views from the trails to nearby ridges and 

forests. Below Wawona, Segment 8 of the Merced River passes into an area of dense montane forest, with 

limited views of rugged mountains and steep canyons.

Current ORV Condition

Views from the river, banks, and trails in the South Fork Merced River, both above and below Wawona, 

continue to have high aesthetic value, as they did at the time of designation. Three scenic viewpoints of the 

South Fork below Wawona, Segment 8, were identified by the Scenic Vista Management Plan. None have 

views of the river itself, but refer to the gorge and surrounding mountains. No scenic vista viewpoints have 

been identified in Segment 5, above Wawona.

Both segments are susceptible to regional air quality impacts. The rates of visitor use here are among the 

lowest in the park. Unlike Segment 1, no trail follows the river. Segment 5 is accessible only from two trails 

that cross the river at perpendicular angles. Segment 8 is not accessible by trail and is rarely visited by kayak. 

Scenic resources are primarily appreciated from a distance.

Management Indicator and Monitoring Program for ORV 18 

Because Segments 5 and 8 are classified as wild, and because Segment 5 includes designated Wilderness, no 

further development or resource extraction can occur and scenery will remain unchanged. Management 

standard, adverse impact, and degradation are not defined for this ORV because any structures proposed in 

the Wilderness would be subject to the Minimum Requirements Analysis (MRA), as well as the contrast 

analysis discussed under ORV 16 (with a maximum contrast rating of 4, with no strong contrasts present). 

Therefore, the NPS would not monitor the condition of this ORV as part of the Final Merced River Plan/EIS. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-121
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

Conclusion: Protecting and Enhancing Scenic ORV 18 (Scenic Views along the 

South Fork) 

The Merced River’s Scenic ORV 18 currently has no adverse impact, degradation, or management concerns. 

As a segment located almost entirely within protected Wilderness, the Scenic ORV for Segment 5 will remain 

wild and will not be affected by human activity; similarly, as a segment managed as Wilderness, the Scenic ORV 

for Segment 8 will remain wild and unaffected by human activity. The NPS will not monitor visual resources or 

conditions at site-specific scenic vista points. 

RECREATIONAL ORVS

This section describes the program to protect and enhance each Recreational ORV as proposed in the Final 

Merced River Plan/EIS. Two Recreational ORVs exist in the Merced River corridor, each related to specific 

segment(s) of the river (Table 5-42). 

TABLE 5-42: RECREATIONAL ORVS AND ASSOCIATED INDICATORS

ORV Number and Key Resource Segment(s) Indicator to be Monitored through Time

19. Wilderness Recreation above Nevada Fall 1 Wilderness Encounters

20. River-related Recreation in Yosemite Valley 2 Visitor Densities at Valley attractions, beaches or trails

Recreational ORV 19—Wilderness Recreation above Nevada Fall

ORV 19—Visitors to federally designated Wilderness in the corridor engage in a variety of riverrelated activities in an iconic High Sierra landscape, where opportunities for primitive and 

unconfined recreation, self-reliance, or solitude shape the experience.

Location: Segment 1 (Merced River above Nevada Fall)

Rationale: Wild segments of the Merced River and South Fork Merced River flow from the heart of the Sierra 

Nevada, with its towering granite peaks and impressive forests. The spectacular, rugged expanses along these 

segments provide exemplary landscapes for wilderness experiences characterized by solitude, personal reflection, 

immersion in nature, independence, and self-reliance. Activities are oriented toward primitive travel, camping, 

exploration, and adventure. 

Of the many exemplary recreational activities, a few are particularly distinctive. Hiking or backpacking close to the 

river gives visitors the experience of spectacular cascades that change seasonally. In spring, visitors experience the 

sight, sound, and feeling of the powerfully crashing waters. In drier months, the beauty of delicate water plumes 

becomes the center of attention. Segment 1 offers access to multi-day Sierra Nevada Wilderness trips that are 

internationally renowned for gorgeous riverside views, undeveloped settings, opportunities for solitude, and 

wilderness camping near the river. 

Management Objective: Provide for high quality river-related recreational opportunities oriented toward 

wilderness values of primitive and unconfined, or solitary experiences in a setting that is consistent with the 

wilderness character of the area.

Condition Assessment

ORV Condition at the Time of Designation (1987)

The condition of ORV 19 at the time of designation is reported below for the following key attributes of the 

wilderness recreational experience: 1) types of activities and participation rates; 2) setting attributes; and 3) 

the quality of the experience provided.

5-122 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Recreational ORVs

Recreational Activity Participation: The most common visitor-related activities within the corridor at the 

time of designation included hiking, backpacking and staying overnight at the Merced Lake High Sierra 

Camp. The High Sierra Camp was located within a potential wilderness addition and operated by the park 

concessioner. Guests of the High Sierra Camp were provided rustic overnight sleeping accommodations in 

tent cabins, filtered drinking water, restrooms, showers, and hot meals. The trail immediately above Nevada 

Fall was a popular day-hiking destination and Half Dome hikers often camped at a designated camping area 

in Little Yosemite Valley. Dispersed camping opportunities were available east of Moraine Dome (i.e. in 

Lost Valley and Echo Valley). Stock animals were used in support of operations at the High Sierra Camp 

and for NPS administrative purposes. 

In 1987, up to 170 permits per day were issued for the six trailheads that provided the most direct access to 

Segment 1 (Table 5-43). While overnight use for broad geographic wilderness zones was limited by the 

trailhead permits, actual use levels within smaller areas of Yosemite Wilderness (such as the river corridor) 

were generally not monitored or regulated. Thus, wilderness permit quotas provide some indication of 

backcountry use in Segment 1 but are not a precise accounting of actual activity in either the zone or the 

corridor (Fincher 2010). 

TABLE 5-43: WILDERNESS PERMIT QUOTAS FOR SELECTED TRAILHEADS (1987)

Trailhead Number of Permits Available (Daily) a,b

Happy Isles (to Little Yosemite Valley) 35

Happy Isles (LYV Pass Through Access)c 10

Glacier Point (to Little Yosemite Valley) 25

Mono Meadow 15

Rafferty Creek 35

Cathedral Lakesd 25

Sunrise Lakesd 20

Lyell Canyond 50

Total 215

a These trailheads provide the most direct access to Segment 1. b Trailhead quotas represent the maximum number of people per day allowed to enter the wilderness via each trailhead and 

are used to manage overnight use in broad geographic areas of the Yosemite Wilderness. c “Pass Through Access” requires permit holders to hike through and past Little Yosemite Valley before camping. d

 Visitors traveling to the Merced River corridor from the Tuolumne Meadows area generally use the Rafferty Creek Trailhead. 

A smaller number of visitors using the Lyell Canyon, Sunrise Lakes, and Cathedral Lakes trailheads will travel the distance to 

the Merced.

Setting Attributes: At the time of designation, hiking trails and camping areas afforded visitors close contact 

to the river. The recreational experience in Segment 1 was strongly influenced by the scenic value of the 

alpine landscape and by the power and presence of the river itself. The description of ORV 15 above 

provides a more detailed description of these scenic values. At the time of designation, both camping areas 

were undeveloped except for minimal infrastructure provided to protect resources. For example, toilet 

facilities were provided at the Merced Lake backpackers camp, the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp, and the 

Little Yosemite Valley camping area. The chemical toilet sump at Little Yosemite Valley was cleaned every 

few days and the solid waste was packed out by mule. In addition, there were rangers stationed at the 

Merced Lake Ranger Station (located at its current location) and at the Little Yosemite Valley Ranger 

Station (which was located near the river). Campers could also purchase meals at the Merced Lake High 

Sierra Camp as well as use the shower and toilet facilities. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-123
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

Recreational Experience Quality: At the time of designation, the river corridor in this segment provided

opportunities for wilderness experiences characterized by solitude, personal reflection, immersion in nature, 

and self-reliance. However, both Little Yosemite Valley and Merced Lake, as well as the trails accessing those 

locations, were characterized by high rates of use with the attendant infrastructure to support that use (toilets, 

designated camping areas, tent cabins and structures at the High Sierra Camp) as well as regulations and 

restrictions on camping in certain areas. Thus, opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined 

recreation were relatively limited in those areas. Although no formal surveys documenting visitor satisfaction, 

perceptions of crowding, or encounter rates had been conducted, the Yosemite Wilderness (which includes 

the river corridor) was one of the most highly visited wilderness areas in the nation (NPS 2005d). 

Recreationists could expect to encounter many other hikers as well as stock users, both on the trail and at 

popular camping areas. 

Current ORV Condition

As with the condition at the time of designation, the current condition for ORV 19 is described below with 

regard to recreational activity participation, setting attributes, and the quality of the recreational experience. 

Recreational Activity Participation: The most common visitor-related activities within the corridor today 

are the same as those occurring prior to designation. Since designation, trailhead quotas have been reduced 

at Happy Isles, Glacier Point, Rafferty Creek, and Lyell Canyon to protect park resources and wilderness 

character. As a result, 130 permits are available daily for the six primary trailheads, a reduction of 40 permits 

relative to 1987. 

Visitor use in Segment 1 continues to be concentrated in the part of the corridor that extends from Nevada 

Fall to Merced Lake. Within this area, the short section of trail from above Nevada Fall to Little Yosemite 

Valley receives the highest use, in part due to the popularity of climbing Half Dome. Visitors wishing to 

climb Half Dome from trailheads in Yosemite Valley must traverse this section of the Merced Lake trail. In 

2010, the NPS tested a permit system to manage use of the Half Dome climbing cables. The permanent 

system, adopted in 2013, prevents further increases in use related to this activity. The short stretch of trail 

immediately above Nevada Fall is also very popular with day hikers seeking a safe place to swim above the 

falls. Recent estimates of encounter rates for the primary sections of trail within Segment 1 are provided in

Table 5-44. 

Setting Attributes: While the natural setting for most of the corridor remains unchanged since designation, 

some facilities have been removed or relocated to address resource concerns and move development away 

from the river. The capacities of the designated camping areas and High Sierra Camp have not changed 

since 1987. In 1992, the NPS relocated the Little Yosemite Valley Camping Area and Ranger Station away 

from the river to its current location, while maintaining the same capacity. In addition, the chemical toilets 

were replaced with a composting toilet and two fire rings and several bear boxes were added. In the mid1990s the Merced Lake Backpackers’ Camping Area was converted to a designated camping area and 

relocated to protect the quality of the lakeshore and nearby meadows. In 2001, the toilet sump and sewer 

line were removed from the previous campsite location. At the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp, the NPS 

upgraded utility systems, formalized the trails between camp buildings, and restored previously trampled 

areas to more natural conditions. The Moraine Dome Camping Area remains undeveloped.

Quality of Recreational Experience: The recreational experience in this segment has changed only slightly

since designation. The more remote areas of the river corridor provide an opportunity for recreational 

5-124 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Recreational ORVs

experiences characterized by opportunities for solitude, personal reflection, immersion in nature, 

independence and self-reliance. However, opportunities for solitude continue to be less available in certain 

locations. Both Little Yosemite Valley and Merced Lake received high levels of use at the time of 

designation and use is still concentrated in these areas today. Since designation, recreational activities in this 

segment have also become more intensively regulated by reducing the trailhead quotas for primary access 

routes and establishing a day-use permit system for the Half Dome cables, which has moderated use levels 

in the segment. Site and facility changes have also reduced development close to the river and produced 

more sustainable camping areas. 

Management Indicator and Monitoring Program for ORV 19

This section describes the proposed management standard for this ORV including the indicator to be used; the 

definition of management standard, adverse impact and degradation; and the monitoring program. 

Indicator – Encounter Rates for ORV 19

Indicator Description

Solitude is an enduring characteristic of a wilderness experience (Lucas 1964) and is typically measured by 

the number of encounters that one group (or individual) has with others over a specific period of time 

(Broom and Hall 2009). A large body of literature exists regarding wilderness encounter monitoring and its 

relationship to measuring solitude. While some question whether encounters by themselves are sufficient to 

assess opportunities for solitude, they are widely considered to be the best indicator for this wilderness 

attribute (cf. Broom and Hall 2009; Cole 2004; Newman 2002; Stewart and Cole 2008; Vandekamp 2011).

As is shown below (see Table 5-44), the management standards selected for different trail sections in 

Segment 1 reflect this observation. Trail sections farther from Yosemite Valley and other developed areas 

will be managed to provide a greater opportunity for solitude. 

The trail in the corridor to Merced Lake (and beyond) has been divided into separate trail sections for 

purposes of monitoring visitor use. In a study of encounter rates in the Tuolumne Meadows area, such a

partitioning was utilized (Broom and Hall 2010). Monitoring for this ORV will be accomplished by 

measuring the average number of encounters per hour that an individual hiker has with other groups within 

each trail section, averaged over the summer season.49 

Definitions of Management Standard, Adverse Impact, and Degradation

Management Standard

The management standard for the Recreational ORV in Segment 1 is that any combination of two trail 

sections cannot be in violation of their associated section standards for four consecutive years. Additionally, 

no individual trail section can exceed its trail-section standard for four consecutive years. This approach 

ensures that segmentwide conditions are being protected, although individual sections of trail may receive 

49 The NPS has chosen to measure encounter rates in terms of the number of groups encountered by others because this 

is a commonly used measure of crowding that has been shown to influence visitor perceptions of solitude (Pettebone 

2013; Watson et al. 2000; Broom and Hall 2009; Roggenbuck et al. 1982). Standards for encounters are derived from 

Newman (2002). Because the authors of that study utilized a standard based on encounters with people (rather than 

groups) per day, NPS has used data on use patterns to transform these figures into a standard for groups per hour.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-125

 
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

high levels of use at some periods of time (a situation that would be corrected through the triggers for 

management action shown in Table 5-45 below). 

Trail Section Standards 

In a parkwide study of wilderness users in Yosemite, Newman (2002, 25) observed that the NPS classifies

wilderness camping areas as being in one of three categories, depending on the level of development and

opportunities for solitude (See Figure 5-6). Category 1 locations offer “potential for pristine resource 

conditions, high solitude and low intensity management,” while Category 3 areas have “less pristine 

resource conditions, fewer chances for solitude and higher intensity management conditions.” Category 2 

areas are representative of mid-range conditions. All of the trail sections to be monitored in Segment 1 were 

adjacent to camping areas classified as Category 2 or 3. 

Research has shown that wilderness users tend to be more “encounter tolerant” when hiking on trails that 

are proximate to developed areas (Manning 1986; Cole and Hall 2008). As hikers travel farther from 

crowded frontcountry areas, they become more oriented toward solitude and primitive and unconfined 

recreation. This is consistent with Newman’s (2002) observation that opinions about the appropriate 

encounter rates for wilderness trails in Yosemite depend on the location and character of the camping area 

used by the survey respondent. 

The standards adopted for evaluating the quality of the Recreational ORV in Segment 1 were derived from 

Newman’s research in Yosemite. The trail section standards listed in Table 5-44 reflect what survey 

respondents reported as the number of hikers that “should be seen” along the trail each day for the camping 

area category most closely associated with each trail section. 50

TABLE 5-44: TRAIL ENCOUNTER STANDARDS FOR TRAIL SECTION IN SEGMENT 1 

Trail Section

Categorya 

Current Condition b 

Mean Hourly Encounter Rates Trail-Section 

Standard

(mean encounters

2010 2011 2012 2013 per hour)

Above Little Yosemite Valley Campground to Bunnell Cascade 2,3c 2.11 1.64 1.75 1.98 3

Echo Creek to Lewis Creek 3 3.67 -

d 4.34 4.52 4

Lewis Creek to Lyell Fork 2 -

d .61 1.02 1.55 2

aCategories derived from Newman (2002). 

b The “mean number of hourly encounter rates” is quantified using the predicted hourly encounter rate based on a ten hour day and averaged 

over the season. Predicted encounter rates are generated from daily automated counter measurements that have been correlated with actual 

encounters, as reported by trained observers. c This section has been classified as both Category 2 (Bunnell Cascade area) and Category 3 (Moraine Dome area). The standard reflects a mean 

for the two categories.

d Data are not available for these years.

50 The short one-mile trail section between the top of Nevada Fall and Little Yosemite Valley is located at the wilderness 

boundary and is already heavily regulated by several permit systems. Backpackers are subject to wilderness trailhead 

quotas, mandatory entry permits, and campsite regulations. Because the trail comprises the primary access route to 

Half Dome, use levels on this trail have historically been much higher than elsewhere in the segment. However, in 

2011, the NPS initiated a permit system to regulate use of the Half Dome climbing cables to roughly one-fourth of 

historical peak use levels, with a commensurate reduction in trail use. Under the new permit system, encounter rates 

along the Half Dome trail are projected to average 16 groups per hour. Currently, hikers between Nevada Fall and 

Little Yosemite Valley encounter 10-14 other parties while hiking this section. This is comparable to other popular 

day hikes in the Western U.S. such as Snow Lake in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, with an encounter 

rate of 18 groups per hour on weekend days (Cole et al. 1997), as well as other high use trails in Tuolumne Meadows 

(NPS 2012). Trail use will be monitored as the Half Dome Plan is implemented and further study of use patterns will 

be conducted in preparation for the Yosemite Wilderness Stewardship Plan. 

5-126 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS

 
Recreational ORVs

FIGURE 5-6: SEGMENT 1- TRAIL SEGMENTS FOR MONITORING ENCOUNTER RATES

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-127
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

Adverse Impact

Adverse impact would occur to ORV 19 if encounter rates for all trail sections exceeded their associated 

trail section standards for five consecutive years. This time frame was selected to ensure that the data do not 

reflect transient changes in usage patterns due to variation in snowpack or other random events. This 

situation would constitute a substantial reduction in the quality of the recreational experience on a 

sustained and segmentwide basis. Under these conditions, the entire 20 miles of trail (from the wilderness 

boundary to the Lyell Fork of the Merced) would be characterized by unacceptable levels of crowding, and 

opportunities for solitude would be substantially reduced. 

Degradation

Research regarding the appropriate displacement standard for high use trails is challenging to interpret. 

Although Newman and Manning (2001) found that 42% of Yosemite wilderness users reported that the 

number of encounters was very or extremely important to them, even more (72%) said having a chance to 

obtain a wilderness permit was equally important. Cole and Hall (2005 and 2008) found that on trails 

receiving “high” or “very high” use, most users are not willing or able to provide a standard for encounters 

when their response might be used to reduce access. Cole and Stewart (2002) reported that “encounters do 

not matter” to the users of such trails. However, in one study of very high-use areas, visitors did report a 

median displacement level of about nine encounters per hour (Cole and Hall 2005).51 Using this as a 

benchmark, degradation for this ORV would occur if encounter rates for all monitored trail sections 

reached nine encounters per hour for five consecutive years. 

The monitoring program described below, along with the limits imposed on use by the wilderness trailhead 

quota system, will continue to be implemented to avoid adverse impact and to prevent conditions from 

reaching the point of degradation. 

Monitoring Program to Protect and Enhance Wilderness Recreation above Nevada Fall

– Encounter Rates

Encounter rates within the specific sections of trail identified above will be monitored to assess the quality 

of the Recreational ORV in Segment 1. Of the twenty miles of trail that exist within the river corridor above 

Nevada Fall, twelve miles will be monitored. These trail sections represent the areas of highest use in 

Segment 1. All trail sections will be monitored during the entire high-use season (typically late June to midSeptember, depending on snowfall). Monitoring will be done on an annual basis, utilizing automated trail 

counters. NPS staff will periodically conduct direct observation counts of encounters in monitored trail 

sections to ensure that the equation representing the relationship between automated count totals and 

encounter rates remains the same.52 The trigger points for the management actions required to remain 

within the management standard are reported in Table 5-45. 

51 Visitors were asked what number of encounters would dissuade them from going to that place. 52 Encounters are determined based on numbers captured over the course of a 10 hour day, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. All 

selected trails have been monitored with actual observations by trained technicians and volunteers. Automated 

counts are made using infrared trail counters, with actual encounter rates determined by following methods outlined 

in Broom and Hall (2010). Automated trail counters are calibrated each season by actual observations to ensure 

accurate predictions of trail encounters. Mean hourly encounters with other parties per day are determined using a 

regression analysis with automated counter data as outlined in Broom and Hall (2010). Actual encounters or direct 

counts would be collected on a five-year rotation, or with more frequency, depending on trends or trigger points 

being reached. 

5-128 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Recreational ORVs

TABLE 5-45: MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND TRIGGER POINTS TO MAINTAIN DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR WILDERNESS 

RECREATION ABOVE NEVADA FALL (ENCOUNTER RATES) 

Trigger Point(s) at Which 

Management Action Would Be 

Taken

Required Management Actions

(at least one action specified for each 

trigger will be taken) Rationale for Management Actions

Trigger Point 1: One individual 

trail sections have an encounter 

rates exceeding the trail section 

standard shown in Table 5-44 for 

two consecutive years.

Conduct monitoring the following year by 

direct observation on each section exceeding 

its trail section standard. 

Increase the development and distribution of 

information pertaining to the unique 

attributes of other trails within the corridor.

Encourage visitors to start their hikes earlier or 

later in the day to avoid periods of peak use 

on high-use trail sections within the corridor. 

To ensure that the Recreational ORV remains

protected, the NPS would immediately 

address early indications of unanticipated 

increases in encounter rates. More frequent 

monitoring will allow managers to identify 

permanent changes in use patterns and take 

appropriate actions.

Management actions, such as education and 

outreach to visitors, would help to maintain 

the level of use within the target condition 

by providing trip-planning information to 

identify and avoid high use times. 

Trigger Point 2: One individual 

trail section (not the whole 

segment) has an encounter rate 

exceeding the trail section standard 

shown in Table 5-44 for three 

consecutive years or two sections 

have an encounter rate exceeding 

their respective trail section 

standards for three consecutive 

years.

Make necessary changes in the wilderness 

permit system, zone capacities, and/or 

commercial services to better manage for 

opportunities for solitude. 

Quotas and zone capacities manage the 

amount of overnight use in Segment 1.These 

actions would assist in providing the

opportunities for solitude for each trail 

section that is specified in TABLE 5-44. 

Management to Protect and Enhance Wilderness Recreation above Nevada Fall 

(ORV 19) 

Current Findings Regarding Management Standard, Adverse Impact, and 

Degradation (ORV 19)

Table 5-46 compares the current condition of ORV 19 to the definitions of management standard, adverse 

impact, degradation, and management concern.

Management Concerns and Actions to Protect River Values (ORV 19)

Management concerns occur when the condition of a resource has reached one of the trigger points 

identified in Table 5-45. As shown in Table 5-44, most reported encounter rates are within trail section

standards. However, in both 2012 and 2013, encounter rates on the trail section from Echo Valley to Lewis 

Creek exceeded the trail section standard. Therefore, the NPS will conduct direct observations on this trail 

segment and collect additional data to ensure that the indirect counts from 2012 and 2013 reflect the actual 

visitor experience on this trail segment.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-129
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

TABLE 5-46: CURRENT CONDITION OF RIVER-RELATED RECREATION IN SEGMENT 1 

Metric Current Conditions

Meets management standard:

Any combination of two trail sections cannot be in violation of their 

associated section standards for four consecutive years. No individual trail 

section can exceed its trail-section standard for four consecutive years. 

Management concerns present:

Individual trail sections have an encounter rate exceeding the trail section 

standard shown in Table 5-44 for two years. (Trigger 1)

One individual trail section (not the whole segment) has an encounter rate 

exceeding the trail section standard shown in Table 5-44 for four consecutive 

years or two segments have an encounter rate exceeding their respective trail 

section standards for two consecutive years. (Trigger 2)

In 2012 and 2013 the trail section from Echo 

Creek to Lewis Creek exceeded the trail 

section standard (Trigger 1). 

Adverse impact:

Encounter rates for all trail sections exceeded their associated trail section 

standards for five consecutive years. None present Degradation:

Encounter rates for all trail sections met or exceeded nine encounters per 

hour for five consecutive years.

Localized Concerns and Enhancement Actions (ORV 19)

There are no localized concerns for the Merced River’s Recreational ORV 19. 

Conclusion: Protecting and Enhancing Recreational ORV 19 (Wilderness Recreation 

above Nevada Fall)

The Merced River’s Recreational ORV 19 currently has no adverse impact or degradation but management 

concerns are present for the trail section between Echo Creek and Lewis Creek. This will be addressed 

through the actions described above.

Recreational ORV 20—River-Related Recreation in Yosemite Valley

ORV 20—Visitors to Yosemite Valley enjoy a wide variety of river-related recreational activities 

in the Valley’s extraordinary setting along the Merced River. 

Location: Segments 2A and 2B (Yosemite Valley)

Rationale: Every year millions of visitors from around the world come to Yosemite Valley to recreate in and along 

the Merced River. Well-known and iconic features such as El Capitan, Yosemite Falls, and Half Dome provide a 

dramatic backdrop shaping the experience of first-time and return visitors alike. Visitors realize these experiences 

through a wide variety of activities occurring in and along the river. Activities include active pursuits such as hiking, 

biking, swimming, floating and water play, climbing, camping, or fishing; creative pursuits such as writing, 

painting, photography, and other arts; and educational and interpretive pursuits such as attending ranger-led walks 

and programs. Social elements, such as group camping and picnicking, are integral to many activities, while others 

offer opportunities for solitude and reflection. 

Overall, the Yosemite Valley segment offers a variety of outstanding opportunities for front-country river recreation 

for people of all ages and abilities. The Merced River in this segment allows people to immerse themselves in their 

surroundings, taking in the sights, sounds, and feel of the river and its dramatic backdrop. These experiences, in 

turn, relieve stress and promote connection to the natural world. 

Management Objective: Provide for a diversity of high quality river-related recreational opportunities that allow 

visitors to directly connect with the river and its environs amidst the spectacular scenery of Yosemite Valley.

5-130 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Recreational ORVs

Condition Assessment

ORV Condition at the Time of Designation (1987)

The condition of ORV 20 at the time of designation is reported below for the following key attributes of the 

recreational experience: 1) types of activities and participation rates; 2) setting attributes; and 3) the quality 

of the experience provided. 

Recreational Activity Participation: At the time of designation, Yosemite National Park received roughly 

3.15 million visitors annually. Of this, an estimated 74 percent visited Yosemite Valley. Sightseeing was the 

single most popular visitor activity (reported by more than 90% of visitors surveyed) followed by 

photography, nature observations, day hiking, and self-guided tours (Gramman 1992).53 

Setting Attributes: Within both Valley segments, the Merced River enhanced scenic views, shaped the 

landscape, and provided the setting for a variety of recreational experiences such as fishing, floating, and 

sightseeing. Natural events, including rockfall and flooding, periodically altered setting attributes; 

sometimes dramatically. Support facilities for day use, camping and lodging were concentrated in East 

Yosemite Valley. The West Valley was largely undeveloped.

Recreational Experience Quality: Around the time of designation visitors to Yosemite reported a very high 

level of overall satisfaction. When surveyed in 1991, 93 percent of auto passengers rated their trip as “very 

good” or better (Gramman 1992). In most cases, visitors reported that the level of conditions and facilities in 

the Valley was either the “right amount” or “not enough.” The two exceptions were the amount of vehicle 

traffic and the number of people, which nearly half (45%) of respondents rated as “too much”, and 42%

indicated that crowds represented a problem. 

Current ORV Condition

As with the condition at the time of designation, the current condition for ORV 20 is described below with 

regard to recreational activity participation, setting attributes, and recreational experience quality. 

Recreational Activity Participation: In 2011, Yosemite National Park received an estimated 3.95 million

recreation visitors (NPS Public Statistics Office), and an estimated 70% of summer visitors go to Yosemite 

Valley (Blotkamp et al 2010). The river corridor continues to figure prominently in the recreational 

experience in the park, both as a scenic backdrop and by providing water-based recreation opportunities. 

The most common recreational activities in the park include viewing scenery, day hiking, wildlife viewing, 

and picnicking (Figure 5-7).54 Since designation, some recreational activities have been managed more 

intensively to protect natural resources and river values. For example, meadow restoration projects have 

restricted visitors from hiking in parts of certain meadows concentrating their use on defined trails and 

boardwalks. Efforts to protect meadows from roadside parking impacts have also removed some parking 

and required visitors to walk, bike, or take shuttle buses to access certain areas within Yosemite Valley (e.g., 

Happy Isles). 

53 Gramann (1992) presents useful information about the condition of the ORV at time of designation, as the park 

visitation remained relatively stable between these years (3.2 million in 1987 and 3.4 million in 1991). 

54 Visitors to Yosemite engage in a number of activities and use facilities that are not included in the Recreational ORV. 

As shown in Figure 5-7, such activities include shopping and eating in restaurants.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-131

 
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

During the 1997 Valley flood, several campsites and 

lodging units in the corridor were damaged and 

removed. However, many day-use, camping and 

lodging facilities are still available (primarily located in 

the East Valley). Most campsites today in Yosemite

Valley are reserved well in advance and fill to capacity 

throughout the summer season.

Setting Attributes: While the flood of 1997 reshaped 

parts of the river corridor, the fundamental attributes 

of the recreational setting that draw people to the 

Merced River have changed very little since 

designation.

Recreational Experience Quality: Currently, visitors 

to the Merced River in Yosemite Valley continue to 

report a relatively high level of overall satisfaction. 

According to the most recent visitor survey (2013), 

most visitor groups (98%) rated the overall quality of 

facilities, services, and recreational opportunities at 

Yosemite National Park as “very good” or “good” 

(University of Idaho 2013).

While overall satisfaction remains high, the issue of 

crowding has been a persistent theme in survey 

findings. A number of studies of visitor use, which 

collectively span more than a decade of research, 

indicate that crowding at attraction sites is a periodic 

problem in Yosemite Valley. Since designation, visitor 

perceptions of crowding have been periodically 

evaluated (Manning et al. 1998, 1999; White and Aquino 2008; Lawson et al. 2009). While methodologies 

and results varied across the studies, all of them found some perceptions of crowding among the visitors 

sampled. Notably, up to 80 percent of those sampled in one survey (regarding Bridalveil Fall) stated that 

they felt at least “somewhat crowded” during their visit (Manning et al. 1999). 

Management Indicator and Monitoring Program for ORV 20 

This section discusses the proposed management program for the Recreational ORV in Segments 2A and 

2B, including the indicator to be used to assess conditions and measureable thresholds for management 

standard, adverse impact, and degradation. 

Indicator – Visitor Densities

Indicator Description

Crowding, in terms of numbers of people or boats, has been shown to negatively affect the quality of the 

visitor experience (Whittaker and Shelby 2010). Normative research has found that people can identify siteFigure 5-7: Summer Visitor Activity Participation

(Blotkamp et al. 2010)

5-132 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Recreational ORVs

specific thresholds for crowding and that these norms can help inform social indicators and standards 

(Manning et al. 1999; Shelby et al. 1983; Shelby et al. 1989). The degree of crowding occurring at several 

locations in Yosemite Valley will be used to evaluate the condition of the Recreational ORV.

The term “visitor density” refers to the number of people in a given area; it is a common descriptive measure 

that is usually correlated with “perceived crowding,” which is a negative evaluation of that density. 

Densities (use levels) are monitored in units that are appropriate to the specific location being monitored. 

Monitoring locations have been chosen to represent a range of recreation opportunities, activities, and 

experiences in both the East and West Valley. 

Each site was selected to represent a certain level of use for the activity (e.g., low use trail or high use 

shoreline). If natural events (e.g., a rock slide or flood), or design changes (e.g., a trail is re-routed, widened, 

or narrowed) influence the fundamental character of the location, new monitoring sites will be identified as 

needed to ensure that the same mix of uses is represented in the monitoring program. For example, if a high 

use beach becomes low use because it partially washed away, or is muddy, a different beach may be chosen 

as a replacement. As another example, if the character of an attraction site (e.g., Bridalveil Fall viewing 

platform) fundamentally changes due to a natural event or is redesigned, additional visitor surveys may be 

conducted to assess perceptions of crowding based on the new configuration. The results may necessitate 

revision to site-level standards. 

The nine monitoring sites include many iconic attractions (such as Bridalveil Fall and Yosemite Falls) visited 

by more than half (52% and 59%, respectively) of all visitors to the park in the summer (Blotkamp et al. 

2010), and exhibit some of the highest levels of visitation in Yosemite Valley (Pettebone et al. 2008).55

Management standards for this indicator have been developed based on the analysis of visitor perceptions 

of crowding at a variety of locations within Yosemite Valley (Manning et al. 1998; Manning et al. 1999; 

Whittaker and Shelby 2012) and in other similar locations. The following definitions apply to this indicator: 

• Visitor Densities: Densities are a calculation of people within a known geographic space displayed 

as X feet2 per person.56

• Boats at one time (BAOT): Boats at one time is defined as the number of boats visible in a 

geographically defined section of the river at one point in time.

• People per Hour: People per hour is defined as the number of people passing by a specific location 

within an hour. It is used to measure use level on relatively low use trails where visitor density is not 

an appropriate measure. 

Research data to inform the standards were collected using a survey-based photo evaluation technique. In 

these studies, visitors were presented with a set of images depicting different levels of visitor use at particular 

locations (see Appendix S). Respondents were asked a series of questions to determine the number of other 

people (people-at-one-time, or PAOT) that they that they “preferred” to see, the number of other people that 

they found “acceptable,” and the number that would cause them to avoid visiting the location in the future 

(referred to as the “displacement” level). The “acceptable” level was used to inform both the management 

standard and the condition of adverse impact. The “displacement” level was used to inform the degradation 

value. Study findings were then converted into the visitor densities reported below by dividing the area in the 

photo frame by the number of people in the photo. Table 5-47 reports the area within the survey photograph, 

the PAOT correlating to visitor satisfaction levels, and resulting visitor densities.

55 Two of the “sites” are composite averages of three low-use trails and three low-use beaches.

56 Visitor densities will be used to describe visitation levels at viewing platforms, beaches, and high use trails. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-133

 
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

TABLE 5-47: CONVERSIONS FROM VISITOR-INFORMED “ACCEPTABLE” AND “DISPLACEMENT” PAOT TO VISITOR DENSITIES

Location Photo Area

“Acceptable”

PAOT/BAOT

“Acceptable”

Density

(ft2/person)

“Displacement”

PAOT/BAOT

“Displacement”

Density

(ft2/person)

Bridalveil Fall Viewing Platform 390 ft2 20 20 28 14

Yosemite Falls Viewing Platform 1225 ft2 61 20 94 13

Vernal Fall Trail 860 ft2 26 33 40 22

High Use Beach 4800 ft2 48 100 80 60

Boats At One Time 500 ft 14 NA 22 NA

Similarly, site monitoring will consist of counting the number of people-at-one-time within the constraints 

of a defined area to arrive at a density, expressed in terms of square feet per person (Lawson et al. 2009).57

For low use trails, automated trail counters will be used to count the number of people passing the location 

within each hour. 

To estimate current conditions at Yosemite Falls, Bridalveil Fall, and the Vernal Fall trail in terms of visitor 

densities and PAOT at the busiest times of the year and times of the day, simulation models were run (Lawson 

et al. 2008; RSG 2013). The models were developed in 2008 from data collected at each location about hiking 

patterns and travel times. Trail counter data were then entered into the pedestrian models to predict average 

PAOT (which can be converted to visitor densities) at each study location. For example, in 2011, the average 

PAOT on the trail to Vernal Fall during the busiest two weeks of the summer (late May-early June) and during 

the busiest six hours of the day, was 11 (each person had 80 square feet of space), which is a substantially better 

condition than what survey respondents said they would accept (33 square feet, Table 5-47)58. 

A similar procedure was used to calculate the density at the Lower Yosemite Fall viewing platform during 

the busiest two weeks of the year for that location (late June-early July, 2010). On average, during the busiest 

six hours of the day, each person had 35 square feet of space available to them, which is 15 square feetmore 

space than the “acceptable density” from the visitor survey (Table 5-47). Visitor densities were also modeled 

for the Bridalveil Fall viewing platform. For the six busiest hours of the day in the peak season of 2011 (late 

June-early July) the model projected an average PAOT of 35. This translates into 11 square feet per person; a 

condition that exceeds the displacement density for the site59. All action alternatives include management 

actions to address crowding at this location. 

In 2011, use levels were documented for two high-use beaches (Housekeeping and Swinging Bridge). 

Between noon and 6 pm, an average of 40 people-at-one-time (PAOT) was observed at Housekeeping 

Beach. Under these conditions, each visitor would have more than 300 square feet of space, even if all were 

57 The number of people present within a defined space (i.e., a density) is a preferable basis for standards as compared 

with the more generalized PAOT for several reasons. First, densities provide a standardized metric for evaluating 

crowding at different locations. Densities also provide a mechanism to maintain the same standard even if natural 

events or future design changes alter the size and configuration of a selected monitoring location. This is an especially 

critical component for shore locations that are subject to high water events that alter beach locations, sizes, and 

shapes. Water level changes during the summer also significantly alter the beach area that is accessible for recreation. 

Other locations such as trails and attraction sites might also be altered by natural events such as rock slides. The 

square footage of trail or viewing platform monitoring site might also change if the area is re-designed.

58 Monitoring data from June and July 2011 indicate that the average PAOT for the Vernal Fall trail is about 9.2 PAOT 

or 93.5 ft2 per person. 59 Modeling for the recreation sites was designed to measure the busiest times of the season during the baseline year 

(2011). More recent monitoring data, collected in June 2012 and June-July 2013, suggest that use at Bridalveil Fall is 

often not as busy as modeling suggested. Average PAOT for these more recent years was calculated to be 20.2 which 

translates to 19.3 ft2 per person. 

5-134 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Recreational ORVs

clustered near the shoreline. Use was slightly lower at Swinging Bridge (36 PAOT), which equates to at least 

525 square feet of space per person. 

Although the primary attraction sites of Bridalveil, Yosemite and Vernal falls attract large numbers of 

visitors, other locations along the Merced River experience much lower levels of use. For example, in July 

and August of 2013, trail counters revealed that on average only 21 people per hour hiked on eight low-use 

trails in Yosemite Valley (between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.). Similarly, visitor use counts at five low-use beaches in 

August 2013 found them to be unoccupied 87 percent of the time. When low-use beaches were occupied, 

each person had an average of at least 1,500 square feet of space.

As part of a larger study of river users in 2011 (a high water year), all rafts and boats (commercial and 

private) were counted in the vicinity of Swinging Bridge. During the peak boating season of July and August, 

and the peak time of the day (noon to 6 pm), researchers observed an average of six boats-at-one-time 

(BAOT) per 500 feet of river, far less than the visitor stated acceptable level of 14 BAOT. 

Definitions of Management Standards, Adverse Impact, and Degradation

Management Standard

The management standard for ORV 20 is that no more than half (50%) of the monitored locations may 

exceed their site-level standard (Table 5-48) for three consecutive years60. This standard for social

condition is adapted from peer-reviewed literature (Manning et al. 1999; Whittaker and Shelby 2012; 

Lawson et al. 2008; Manning and Lawson 2003) using professional judgment. The use of this standard 

accounts for temporary spikes in use that do not necessarily reflect segmentwide congestion and crowding. 

Exceeding the standard would indicate that more than half of the sites monitored are experiencing 

crowding beyond what visitors consider “acceptable,” on more than a transient basis. 

TABLE 5-48: SITE-LEVEL STANDARDS FOR THE RECREATION ORV VISITOR DENSITY INDICATOR

Location Units Current Condition Site-Level Standard Site-Level 

Displacement Value

Recreation Sites

Yosemite Falls Viewing Platform

Square 

Feet Per 

Person

35 20 13

Bridalveil Fall Viewing Platform 11 20 14

Vernal Fall Trail 80 33 22

Housekeeping Beach (High-use) 300 100 60

Swinging Bridge Beach (High-use) 525 100 60

Average of Three Low Use Beachesa 1,500 250 60

Average of Three Low Use Hiking Trailsb People 

Per Hour 21 50 100

Boating

Stoneman Bridge to Sentinel Beach (High Use) BAOT Per 

500 Feet

6 14 22

Sentinel Beach to Pohono Bridge (Low Use) N/A 6 22

NOTES:

a Low-use beaches include, but are not limited to: Slaughterhouse Meadow (East of Devil’s Elbow), El Cap Beach, and Superintendent’s Beaches 

b Low-use trails include, but are not limited to: East Valley Loop Trail between the Chapel and LeConte Memorial, West Valley Loop trail 

east of Slaughterhouse Meadow, and the West Valley Loop Trail east of Bridalveil Meadow. 

60 This standard is violated if any 5 sites exceed their site level standard each year for three years. They do not need to be 

the same sites each year.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-135

 
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

Adverse Impact

An adverse impact would occur when all monitored locations exceed their site-level standard (Table 5-48) 

for three consecutive years. Adverse impact for social standards is adapted from peer-reviewed literature 

(Manning et al. 1999; Whittaker and Shelby 2012; Lawson et al. 2008; Manning and Lawson 2003) using 

professional judgment. Reaching the point of adverse impact indicates a segmentwide problem, in that all 

sites are experiencing crowding beyond what visitors consider “acceptable,” on more than a transient basis. 

It is consistent with the definition of “adverse impact” used in this plan as a substantial, segmentwide 

reduction in the condition of an ORV requiring immediate action by the NPS to remedy.

Degradation

Degradation would occur for this ORV if more than half (50%) of the monitored locations exceeded their 

site level degradation value (Table 5-47) for three consecutive years. Using professional judgment, the 

condition equating to degradation was adapted from peer-reviewed literature on visitor-reported 

displacement levels (Manning et al. 1999; Whittaker and Shelby 2012; Lawson et al. 2008; Manning and 

Lawson 2003). Under a degraded condition, more than half the monitoring sites would reach visitor 

densities consistent with displacement, on more than a transient basis. This is consistent with the definition 

of “degradation” in this plan as a long-term loss in resource value that is segmentwide, and which can only 

be redressed through a sustained change in park management and a significant investment. 

Monitoring Program to Prevent Future Adverse Impacts or Degradation – RiverRelated Recreation in Yosemite Valley

All monitoring sites are located within Yosemite Valley (Segments 2A and 2B). The specific sites and types 

of locations were chosen to represent a range of recreation activities (visiting attractions, hiking on trails, 

boating, spending time on the shore or beach) and a range of use levels, as well as a mix of locations from the 

East and West Valley. Monitoring for each site will take place on at least 14 days during the primary 

visitation season (defined as May through September). Sampling will take place on weekends and weekdays 

during peak visitation hours and peak seasons of use at each location. Sampling times will vary by location 

type to account for differences in peak use times of the day for each activity.61 

The Yosemite Falls and Bridalveil Fall viewing platform monitoring areas are defined from prior visitor 

experience research. The Vernal Fall trail site (high use trail) is a 130-foot section approximately 0.25 mile 

up the paved trail to the fall. The Superintendent’s River Section (Stoneman Bridge to Sentinel Beach) and 

Sentinel Beach to Pohono Bridge River Section are monitored using a BAOT count, which counts the 

number of boats in a defined 500–foot section of the river. The observed densities at the three low-use 

beaches will be averaged and compared to the standard. Each site will be geo-referenced to quantify the area 

so that a density, or amount of area afforded to each person in that space, can be calculated. The number of 

visitors per hour using the three low use trails will be averaged and compared to the standard.

Table 5-49 lists triggers and specific management responses that would take place should conditions reach 

the trigger points. Each location (or multi-site location) will be monitored once every three years, unless a 

trigger is reached and action is taken to increase the monitoring frequency. 

61 For example, sampling will not begin along the shore or on the river (BAOT) until temperatures warm and flows are 

reduced enough to allow for those activities to occur. Waterfall attraction sites would be sampled earlier in the season 

when flows and visitation are highest.

5-136 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS

 
Recreational ORVs 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-137 

TABLE 5-49: MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND TRIGGER POINTS TO MAINTAIN DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR RIVER-RELATED 

RECREATION IN YOSEMITE VALLEY (VISITOR DENSITIES) 

Trigger Point(s) at Which 

Management Action 

Would Be Taken 

Required Management Actions 

(at least one action specified for 

each trigger will be taken) Rationale for Management Actions 

Trigger Point 1: One to four 

monitoring locations identified in 

Table 5-48 (less than 50%) 

exceed their site-level standard 

for one year. 

Monitor each location that exceeds the 

standard annually for the next two years. 

Educate visitors about crowding issues and 

inform them of alternate recreation 

opportunities. 

Take on-site management actions to reduce 

visitor densities at the location(s) where the 

standard has been exceeded. 

To protect the Recreational ORV, the NPS will 

continue to gather information about use levels and 

individual sites to take corrective action as needed 

to meet the management standard. 

Management actions, such as education and 

outreach to visitors, would help to maintain the 

level of use within the target condition by providing 

them with information to help plan their trip to 

avoid high use times. 

Each site has unique visitation characteristics. 

Therefore, management actions to reduce visitor 

densities will be customized to each location or type 

of location (i.e., shore, river, trail, or attraction site). 

Trigger Point 2: Five or more 

monitoring locations identified in 

Table 5-48 (more than 50%) 

exceed their site-level standard 

for two years. 

Monitor all locations annually for the next 

two years. 

Adjust commercial use and private vehicle 

use as needed to reduce crowding. 

Increase education efforts for overnight 

visitors to encourage early morning and 

evening use. 

Take additional site-specific actions to reduce 

visitor densities at location(s) where the 

standard has been exceeded. 

Adjustments to commercial use/tour visitation 

patterns would be made to alleviate crowding 

during the busiest times of the day and reduce the 

number of groups arriving at the same time at any 

given site. 

Overnight visitors have more flexibility to visit 

locations earlier or later in the day and messages 

targeted these audiences may be most effective in 

redistributing use.

Management to Protect and Enhance River-Related Recreation in Yosemite 

Valley (ORV 20) 

Current Findings Regarding Management Standard, Adverse Impact, and 

Degradation (ORV 20) 

Table 5-50 compares the current condition of the River-Related Recreation in Yosemite Valley to the 

definitions of management standard, adverse impact, degradation, and management concern. 

Both direct observation and simulation modeling indicate that, during peak periods of visitation, use levels 

at the Bridalveil Fall viewing platform are exceeding the site-level displacement value (RSG 2013). 
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

5-138 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 

TABLE 5-50: CURRENT CONDITION OF RIVER-RELATED RECREATION IN YOSEMITE VALLEY

Metric Current Conditions

Meets management standard: No more than half (50%) of the monitored 

locations may exceed their site-level standard (Table 5-48) for three 

consecutive years 

Management concerns present: One to four monitoring locations identified 

in Table 5-48 (less than 50%) exceed their site-level standard for one year 

(trigger 1) or five or more monitoring locations identified in Table 5-48 (more 

than 50%) exceed their site-level standard for one year (trigger 2). 

Use levels at Bridalveil Fall exceed the 

displacement value for this site. 

Adverse impact: All monitored locations exceed their site-level standard 

(Table 5-48) for three consecutive years. None present. Degradation: More than half (50%) of the monitored locations exceeded 

their site level degradation value (Table 5-48) for three consecutive years. 

Management Concerns and Protective Actions (ORV 20) 

Management concerns occur when the condition of a resource has reached one of the trigger points identified 

in Table 5-49. As noted above, the use levels at the Bridalveil Fall viewing platform exceed the displacement 

standard for this site, triggering the first trigger. In response, the Final Merced River Final Plan/EIS includes a 

commitment to redesign access and parking at this location to improve visitor access and provide less crowded 

conditions. Project level design and compliance will be initiated following plan completion. 

Using the outcome of simulation modeling coupled with direct observations at other locations, planners 

have confirmed that the Bridalveil Fall viewing platform is the only location where use levels exceed the sitelevel standards reported in Table 5-48. Any management concerns identified in future monitoring will be 

addressed in accordance with the provisions of Table 5-49. 

Localized Concerns and Enhancement Actions (ORV 20) 

While still somewhat below the threshold for management action, use levels at Yosemite Falls appear to be 

approaching the site-level standard on peak hours of peak days. Further monitoring is needed to assess the 

factors contributing to this situation to determine what management actions are likely to be effective if the 

standard is breached. 

Actions to address localized concerns pertaining to other ORVs will also enhance the Recreational ORV in 

these river segments by virtue of improving the recreation setting. For example, actions to restore 

riverbanks will diminish the visual impact of erosion while protecting riparian habitat. Additionally, the user 

capacity management program, along with targeted improvements to the transportation system, will 

improve access and facilitate the public use and enjoyment of all ORVs, including river-related recreation. 

Conclusion: Protecting and Enhancing Recreational ORV 20 (River-Related 

Recreation in Yosemite Valley) 

The Merced River’s Recreation ORV 20 currently has no adverse impact or degradation, but based on 

available information, there is one management concern at Bridalveil Fall, which is addressed through the 

actions described above. There are also localized concerns regarding crowding at a number of locations in 

Yosemite Valley. To prevent these issues, and others, from redeveloping, the NPS will manage user capacity 
Conclusion

standard and that the Recreational ORV is protected and enhanced. Should specific trigger points be hit at 

any given site, the NPS would implement a series of actions aimed at redistributing visitor use to maintain 

conditions at or above the management standard. 

CONCLUSION

Protecting river values will be accomplished through the means identified in this chapter, and actions 

designed to enhance river values are presented in “Alternatives” (Chapter 8). To ensure that visitation does 

not adversely affect or degrade all river values, the Final Merced River Plan/EIS specifies a user capacity for

each alternative as well as the means by which those capacities will be enforced.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 5-139
RIVER VALUES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

This page intentionally left blank

5-140 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
6. USER CAPACITY AND VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The intent of this chapter is to clarify how several components of the Final Merced River Plan/EIS work 

together to meet the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requirement to address user capacities when preparing a 

comprehensive river management plan. The user capacities presented in this chapter were derived from a 

series of interrelated analyses that are discussed in greater detail below, in Chapters 5 and 7, and in 

Appendix S. The following section provides a brief overview of the framework used to develop user 

capacities.

The 1982 National Wild and Scenic Rivers System: Final Revised Guidelines for Eligibility, Classification and 

Management of River Areas (Secretarial Guidelines) define carrying capacity as: 

“the quantity of recreation use which an area can sustain without adverse impact on the 

outstandingly remarkable values and free-flowing character of the river area, the quality of 

recreation experience, and public health and safety.”1

Under the Secretarial Guidelines, public use should be regulated and distributed where necessary to protect 

and enhance river values. Public use may be controlled by limiting public access to the river, by issuing 

permits, or by other means available to the managing agency through its general statutory authorities. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has interpreted the WSRA requirement for the NPS to 

“address...user capacities” to mean that the Merced River Plan “must deal with or discuss the maximum 

number of people that can be received in the river area.” To do so, the NPS must “adopt specific limits on 

user capacity consistent with both the WSRA and the instruction of the Secretarial Guidelines that such 

limits describe an actual level of visitor use that will not adversely impact the Merced’s ORVs.”2

Decisions about user capacity are embodied within a comprehensive set of management actions which are 

packaged together to form different alternatives in the plan (Haas 2003; Whittaker et al. 2010). The 

alternatives represent different choices about the type of land use that will occur in Yosemite Valley—a 

relatively small area bounded by rock fall hazard zones, floodplains, and riparian and meadow ecosystems.

Within this limited space, choices about the mix of overnight versus day-use accommodation and 

development versus open space have a direct link to the associated capacities for visitor use. Alternatives 

with higher levels of use require more intensive measures to direct and control that use, such as 

strategically-placed fencing to protect riparian habitat and guide users to more resilient river access points.

Given the interplay among resource protection measures, infrastructure placement and design, and the type 

of visitor experience to be provided, management alternatives can bracket a wide range of user capacities 

while remaining consistent with the protection of river values. All of these relationships have been examined 

and integrated into the development of the Final Merced River Plan/EIS.

1 Guidelines at 39455. Elsewhere in the Guidelines, carrying capacity is defined slightly differently as “the quantity and 

mixture of recreation and other public use which can be permitted without adverse impact on the resource values of 

the river area.” Id. At 39459.These definitions are similar, but the definition quoted in text above is somewhat broader 

in that it references protecting both the quality of the recreation experience and health and safety. WSRA and the 

Secretaries’ Guidelines use the terms “carrying capacity” and “user capacity” interchangeably.

2 Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Kempthorne, 520 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2008).

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 6-1 

 
USER CAPACITY AND VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT

During the early stages of the planning process, very high use (i.e. maximum capacity) scenarios were 

examined, some projected to result in over 25,000 visitors per day to Yosemite Valley. These scenarios 

produced unacceptable visitor densities at iconic attraction sites such as Yosemite Falls and Bridalveil Fall.

Moreover, transportation modeling for Yosemite Valley showed that these use levels could only be 

accommodated by widening (or adding) roads which would adversely impact the Biological ORV. This 

exercise determined a numerical limit to user capacity for Yosemite Valley and helped to define the range of 

reasonable alternatives developed for the Merced River Plan.

Because the protection and enhancement of river values is a primary goal of this plan, the planning process 

began by identifying measureable indicators for the quality of each river value. Each indicator was assigned 

a desired condition (management standard) that represented a healthy, fully functioning state. Metrics were 

also assigned for the conditions of adverse impact and degradation. This set of data points was used to 

identify the conditions the NPS needed to maintain in order to meet the intent of WSRA for each river 

value. To determine whether the kinds and amounts of use currently allowed in the river corridor were 

adversely impacting river values, each river value was assessed and compared to its desired condition. None 

were found to be adversely impacted or degraded. Some areas of concentrated use were identified for 

targeted restoration, and the most significant actions were included in the action alternatives. The complete 

analysis is presented in Chapter 5 and corrective measures are included within each action alternative, as 

described in Chapter 8.

Next, the NPS addressed whether the facilities and services provided to facilitate the public use and 

enjoyment of the park were having an adverse effect on river values. After reviewing all of the infrastructure 

and its placement throughout the river corridor, no adverse impacts to river values were identified. Again, 

some localized effects were observed and will be remedied through mitigation measures included in the 

action alternatives. Plans for new facilities and changes to existing operations were also analyzed to ensure 

that they are necessary for public use. Those facilities that are feasible to relocate outside the river corridor 

were identified. Those major public use facilities that are both necessary and infeasible to relocate were 

examined for any potential impacts to river values and modified as necessary to protect river values. The 

complete analysis is presented in Chapter 7. 

Transportation planning was another important part of the process used to determine user capacities. The 

transportation system serves as a well-documented constraint on the kinds and amounts of use that can be 

allowed in Yosemite Valley (Segments 2A and 2B). Traffic congestion can have a negative impact on the 

visitor experience and the use and enjoyment of all river values. Recent studies confirm this for river users 

(Whittaker and Shelby 2012). The Valley is a narrow box canyon with one road in (Southside Drive) and 

one road out (Northside Drive). The performance of the existing transportation system generally reaches its 

limits at approximately 7,000 total inbound cars to the Valley per day (as measured by permanent traffic 

counters on Southside Drive). At this volume, under the current design, outbound lanes reach capacity and 

the level of traffic congestion produces a low level of service for the roadway that may adversely impact the 

recreational experience for visitors. 

Traffic simulation models developed for this planning effort, and ongoing traffic monitoring, helped to 

identify the primary flaws in the transportation system. Intersections at the Yosemite Village Day Use 

Parking area and the pedestrian crossing near the entrance to Yosemite Lodge are especially problematic. At 

both intersections, poor road design and a high volume of vehicles and pedestrian traffic result in significant 

traffic delays, especially during the afternoon hours. 

6-2 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Introduction and Background

For higher-use alternatives, this Plan provides management actions that will address the existing limitations 

to the transportation system. Chapter 8 provides an array of solutions for this problem, each of which has 

been tested with traffic simulation models and has been shown to effectively reduce roadway congestion 

and to restore the level of service to an acceptable rating. 

The need to provide for public health and safety is addressed in all alternatives. For example, the 

alternatives are consistent with Yosemite Superintendent’s Directive 26 which outlines evacuation 

procedures for Yosemite Valley. Although evacuations may be required for a number of reasons, 

environmental conditions such as floods, fire, and rock fall have caused the majority of evacuations in the 

past. A hazardous material incident, a utility system failure, or simultaneous and sustained threats to more 

than one of the three roads which provide access to Yosemite Valley may also trigger an evacuation. Under 

all evacuation scenarios, visitor and staff safety take precedence over all other park management activities. 

These provisions have been integrated into the transportation planning efforts described above, and limit 

the degree to which the transportation network can be modified. 

Similarly, protecting the safety of visitors and employees necessitates restricting some types of development 

and/or use of existing structures in areas with high risk of rock-fall or flooding. Finally, all alternatives must 

retain important support infrastructure such as wastewater treatment systems that are sized appropriately 

for the expected use levels. All of these considerations have been factored into the design of the alternatives 

developed for this plan. Alternatives that would jeopardize public health and safety were not considered to 

be viable options.

The alternatives in the Final Merced River Plan/EIS provide comprehensive direction for the river corridor 

and are informed by recent assessments of the condition and quality of river values and the recreation 

experience. All actions incorporated into each alternative, including choices about user capacities, are 

designed to address the concerns identified in these assessments and to prevent past problems from 

recurring. The monitoring program explained in Chapter 5 (which ensures that river values remain 

protected), the user capacity management program explained in this chapter (which ensures that use limits 

are not exceeded), and the river value enhancement actions described in Chapter 8 and Appendix E are all 

key to managing the Merced as a Wild and Scenic River.

The information in this chapter is organized by river segment and provides detailed calculations of user 

capacity for the river corridor. Appendix S provides a conceptual overview of user capacities, addresses 

common misunderstandings about the subject, and includes a review of applicable research. Establishing 

user capacities is only one of many actions that help river managers protect river values, and it is assumed 

that the reader will consult other chapters in this document to gain a full appreciation of the suite of actions 

included in the plan to meet the overall objectives of WSRA.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 6-3 
USER CAPACITY AND VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT

USER CAPACITIES FOR THE MERCED RIVER CORRIDOR 

As indicated by recent literature (Whittaker, et al. 2010), user capacities have three basic components: units 

of use, location, and timing.

Units of Use

In the Final Merced River Plan/EIS, user capacities are organized into three primary units of use: overnight 

use, day use, and administrative use.

Overnight use: This category includes people camping and backpacking within the Merced River corridor

or staying overnight at one of the park’s lodges, camps, or hotels. Overnight capacity is set for each 

alternative depending upon the mix of overnight and day use to be provided based on public comment and 

participation, land constraints, construction costs, and other considerations .Planning for overnight use 

must address the need for lodging, campgrounds, adequate parking at accommodation sites, food service 

and retail operations (e.g., food and beverage, grocery, recreation equipment rentals) and other services 

necessary to support overnight visitation.

Day use: Day use capacities represent the maximum number of day users who can be accommodated in the 

river corridor at one time. Day users spend all or part of a day in the corridor but then spend the night 

outside the corridor. This includes individuals arriving by private vehicle, tour bus, or public transit. Day 

use levels reach a peak during mid-day and the average day user spends about seven hours inside the park

(Blotkamp 2009). Much of this use is concentrated in places that are easily accessible by car, such as 

Yosemite Valley and Wawona, although some day hikers journey further into the wilderness components of 

the wild river segments. Infrastructure supporting day use includes parking, restroom facilities, picnic areas 

and river access sites. Planning for day use must address the need for adequate transportation systems for 

arrival and departure from the river corridor and for distributing use within the corridor. Depending on the 

alternative, day users may require additional food service and retail operations beyond that provided for 

overnight use.

Administrative use: This category includes activities by NPS employees, concessioners, and contractors in 

support of park operations and programs and public visitation. Other park partners, volunteers and service 

personnel are also included in this use category. Planning for administrative use must address the need for 

office space, employee housing, parking (for commuters, residents, heavy equipment and service vehicles), 

food service, fire protection, law enforcement, and emergency medical services. 

Location of Use

In the Final Merced River Plan/EIS, user capacities are defined for each river segment and, in some instances, 

for smaller areas where management is needed to ensure that a quality recreation experience is provided.

Monitoring and management occur at different scales to control both the amount and distribution of use 

within the river corridor. This chapter includes a discussion of how visitor use will be managed at the 

segment level to ensure that all river values are protected and enhanced. Chapter 5 includes a discussion of 

how the quality of the recreation experience will be maintained by monitoring and managing use at smaller 

geographic scales (see ORVs 19 and 20).

6-4 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
User Capacities for the Merced River Corridor

Timing of Use

All user capacities in this plan are expressed in terms of the maximum number of people at one time (PAOT) 

that can be accommodated: 1) within each river segment, and 2) at smaller recreation sites that are 

representative of the Recreational ORV. In contrast, daily visitation is measured and reported as the total 

number of people that enter the river corridor over the course of a day. Estimates of daily visitation can be 

derived from capacities (PAOT) and are useful for projecting the economic activity associated with each 

alternative.

Segment 1 (Wild): Merced River Above Nevada Fall

Management Goals and Constraints

The three management goals related to user capacity in this segment include: protecting natural processes, 

promoting opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation, and reducing crowding where 

necessary. Management constraints that guide the development of user capacities for this segment are:

Level of development. The Wilderness Act states that a wilderness is “an area of undeveloped federal land 

retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation” 

(16 U.S.C. 1131-1136, Section 2c). Similarly, river classifications contained in WSRA guide the level of 

development appropriate in river segments. Accordingly, “wild” river segments are generally inaccessible 

except by trail, with watersheds and shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted.” Under the 

Guidelines, wild river segments are to have “little or no evidence of human activity,” and “shorelines and 

watersheds within the river area should be essentially free of structures.” A few inconspicuous structures of 

historical or cultural value that exist at the time of designation are permitted.3

Resource constraints and site suitability. Wilderness areas provide self-reliant recreation, with few 

constraints. To protect sensitive resources such as meadows and riparian areas, visitor-use management 

within Segment 1 is oriented toward encouraging leave-no-trace behavior which is emphasized in the 

wilderness permitting process and enforceable by law. Regulations regarding campsite location, food 

canister requirements, fire use and human waste disposal help to protect sensitive resources from human 

impacts, imposing constraints on the kinds of use that are allowed in the segment.

Wilderness experience. Outdoor recreation in this segment must be consistent with the provisions of the 

Wilderness Act and provide “outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of 

recreation.” The Merced Lake High Sierra camp existed prior to the designation of the Yosemite 

Wilderness in 1984. In that designation, Congress provided for the continued use of the camp within an area 

that is considered to be a “potential wilderness addition.” Under NPS policy, potential wilderness additions 

are to be managed as wilderness “to the extent that existing nonconforming conditions allow.”4

Overview of User Capacities

Visitor Overnight Use Capacity. Camping in the Yosemite Wilderness has been managed since the 1970s 

using a zoning and trailhead quota system. The entire wilderness area within the park has been split into 

zones that are assigned a maximum capacity for overnight use. Capacities are divided among the trailheads 

3 49 Fed. Reg. 39457 (1982).

4 Management Policies (2006), Section 6.3.1.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 6-5 

 
USER CAPACITY AND VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT

TABLE 6-1: SUMMARY OF USER CAPACITIES BY ALTERNATIVE: MERCED RIVER ABOVE NEVADA FALL (SEGMENT 1)

Alternative 1 (No Action) 2 3 4 5 (Preferred) 6 

Note: All capacities reported as People At One Time (PAOT)

Visitor Overnight Capacity

Wilderness Zone Camping Capacities

(Camping is not allowed prior to reaching Little Yosemite Valley Designated Camping Area from trailheads within Yosemite Valley.) 

Adjusted Wilderness zone capacities for area within river corridor and related planning boundary: assumes ability to camp out of 

sight and sound of other parties and the availability of minimum impact camping area along the segment.

Little Yosemite Valley Zone

(Camping only at designated sites) 

There are 4.5 miles of trail in this 

zone that parallel the river

150 25 75 100 150 150

Merced Lake Zone

Although 8.5 miles of hiking trail parallel the river in this zone, most camping occurs at the Merced Lake Backpackers Camp.

Estimated capacity of 50 people at one time for all alternatives.

Washburn Lake Zone

Although the river corridor includes only a fraction of this zone, most overnight use in the zone occurs along the river. Small 

amounts of camping occurs at Washburn Lake, along the Triple Peak Fork, and on the Lyell Fork. A small amount of camping 

occurs outside of the corridors at places like Harriet Lake or along the High trail. Study data show that use for the zone never 

exceeded 50% of capacity in 2009 (van Kirk 2011). A hiking trail parallels the river for 12 miles within the zone.

Estimated capacity of 100 people at one time for all alternatives.

Mount Lyell Zone

The river corridor overlaps with only a small fraction of this zone. A negligible amount of overnight use occurs in this rugged, trailless zone. Two hiking trails cross the Lyell Fork of the Merced, traversing the 1⁄2 mile width of the river corridor. No trails within the 

zone run parallel to the river corridor.

Estimated capacity of 10 people at one time for all alternatives.

Clark Range Zone

The river corridor accounts for only a small fraction of this zone. Most overnight use in this zone occurs at Lower Ottoway Lake, 

with minimal use also occurring at Red Devil Lake. A hiking trail crosses the highest reaches of Red Peak Fork and Merced Peak 

Fork (3 miles of trail in the corridor). No trails within the zone run parallel to the river corridor.

Estimated capacity of 10 people at one time for all alternatives.

Merced Lake High Sierra Camp 60 0 15 0 42 60

Total Visitor Overnight Capacity 380 195 260 270 362 380

Visitor Day-Use Capacity

Day Hikers to Half Dome 75a

Other Day Hikers 50

Total 125

Administrative Use Capacity (Overnight and Day-Use)

Employee Housing 25 5 15 10 25 25

Administrative Day-Use 5

Total 30 10 20 15 30 30

TOTAL SEGMENT CAPACITY 535 345 405 410 517 535

Stock-Use Capacity

Merced Lake HSC Routine Supply

Above Nevada Fall to Merced Lake 

No Limit MLHSC Closed

Season-long 

average of 

7.5 strings 

per week 

MLHSC 

Closed

Season-long average of 7.5

strings per week 

Grazing Capacity (Merced Lake 

East Meadow, NPS administrative 

stock only)

No Limit 0 nights (pellet 

feed only)

58 pack 

stock nights 

annually

0 nights 

(pellet feed 

only)

58 pack stock 

nights 

annually

58 pack 

stock nights 

annually

NOTE:

a The Half Dome permit system is designed to allow 225 day hikers to use the cables each day. As the Half Dome hike is located inside Segment 1 

for only one mile (each way), for purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that one-third of potential Half Dome hikers may be in the corridor at any 

one point in time. 

6-6 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
User Capacities for the Merced River Corridor

that access each zone and managed by mandatory entry permits. The Final Merced River Plan/EIS relies 

upon this permit system as the primary mechanism for ensuring that overnight use remains at or below the 

capacity established for each alternative.

Overnight capacities are listed in Table 6-1 for each wilderness zone that contains a part of the river 

corridor. The capacities reported here are adjusted zone capacities and are intended to account for use only 

within the area of intersection between the corridor and the wilderness zone. As such, they are not managed 

independently of their respective zone capacities, but are reported here to provide a complete accounting of 

the kinds and amounts of use likely to occur in the river corridor for Segment 1. As discussed below, the 

presence of hiking trails along the river corridor within the zone and the distance from trailheads is 

expected to influence use levels, with the more remote and less accessible sections of the river corridor 

assigned a relatively low percentage of total zone capacity. 

Camping in the Little Yosemite Valley wilderness zone is limited to the designated camping area within 

Little Yosemite Valley. Dispersed camping is allowed in the Merced Lake, Mount Lyell, Washburn Lake 

and Clark Range zones of this segment with additional designated camping areas located at Moraine Dome 

and Merced Lake camping areas.

As noted in Figure 6-1, the extent to which the river corridor overlaps with wilderness zone boundaries 

varies substantially. Established hiking trails run parallel to the river in the Little Yosemite Valley and 

Merced Lake zones, and for at least four miles in the Washburn Lake zone. Note that both the Mount Lyell 

and Clark Range zones include only a very small length of trail within the river corridor. Overnight use 

occurring in the corridor is likely to be minimal as a result. While the river corridor within the Washburn 

Lake zone includes a substantial length of trail, with the exception of Washburn Lake itself, locations in this 

part of the river corridor are less popular due to their remote location. Thus, the primary locations for 

overnight use in this river segment are the Little Yosemite Valley and Merced Lake Wilderness zones, both 

of which lie entirely within the river corridor and serve as overnight destinations for Half Dome hikers and 

hikers completing the High Sierra Camp loop. The proximity to Yosemite Valley, the popularity of the hike 

to Half Dome, and the opportunity to connect to the heavily traveled John Muir trail make the Little 

Yosemite Valley zone the most heavily visited and most intensively managed area in this segment.

The Final Merced River Plan/EIS proposes options that would change the Little Yosemite Valley zone user 

capacities to provide for a broader range of visitor experiences in Segment 1. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 reduce the 

Little Yosemite Valley zone capacity from 150 people to 25, 75, and 100 people, respectively. The lower use 

levels in these alternatives would require proportionately less infrastructure and lower-intensity management. 

The designated camping area at Little Yosemite Valley would be eliminated in Alternatives 2 and 3. The 

composting toilet facility at Little Yosemite Valley would be removed in Alternative 2. Essentially, campers 

would be able to select their own campsites further from the sight and sound of others in exchange for more 

limited access. In the remaining wilderness zones, capacities would remain at current levels under all 

alternatives. 

Another type of overnight use in this river segment is the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp in the Merced 

Lake Wilderness zone. This historic, rustic lodging facility is operated by the park concessioner. The camp 

is located in an area designated as a potential wilderness addition and surrounded by designated wilderness. 

The lodging facility provides showers and meal service for guests. Accommodations consist of 22 tent cabins 

with a current maximum guest capacity of 60 people per night. Camp capacity would be managed by 

advance reservation under those alternatives that retain camp operations. The current camp capacity is 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 6-7 
USER CAPACITY AND VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT

Figure 6-1: Segment 1 River Corridor and Wilderness Zones

retained in Alternative 6, reduced to 42 people in Alternative 5, and converted to a temporary pack camp 

with a capacity of 15 people in Alternative 3. Alternatives 2 and 4 eliminate the camp entirely. 

Visitor Day Use Capacity. To address day use capacity on the Merced Lake trail above Nevada Fall, the 

plan primarily relies upon the day use permit system established in 2013 which limits the number of day 

hikers using the Half Dome climbing cables to 225 per day (NPS 2012j). Visitors with Half Dome permits 

access the summit by passing through Segment 1 from the wilderness boundary above Nevada Fall to the 

intersection of the Half Dome trail with the main trail (a distance of roughly one mile). By limiting access to 

Half Dome, the largest component of day-use on this trail is managed and monitored. This trail section is 

also used by an estimated 150 day-hikers who explore for short distances upstream from Nevada Fall, with 

some going as far as Little Yosemite Valley. Day hiking beyond this point drops off significantly due to the 

round trip distance of at least 8 miles.

Administrative Use Capacity. Administrative use within Segment 1 is primarily associated with wilderness 

patrols, trail crews, utility and maintenance crews, and search-and-rescue operations. Overnight 

administrative camps are maintained at Little Yosemite Valley and Merced Lake during the summer. The 

administrative camps are located away from the river and have no direct impact on river values. Although 

the maximum overnight capacity for both ranger camps is roughly ten people, actual use levels are much 

lower. It is estimated that ten concessioner employees reside at the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp with an 

6-8 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
User Capacities for the Merced River Corridor

additional five employees that support camp operations on an intermittent basis. The Final Merced River 

Plan/EIS alternatives adjust the administrative capacity within this river segment to correspond with the 

reductions proposed for the wilderness zone capacities. The total overnight capacity for administrative use 

is set at ten people for Alternatives 2 and 4, 15 for Alternative 3, and the current capacity (25) for 

Alternatives 5 and 6. Across all alternatives, minimal administrative day use occurs in Segment 1, estimated 

at no more than five people at one time on day patrols. 

Stock Use Capacity. Stock use in the river corridor includes mules and horses traveling the Merced Lake 

Trail, generally in “strings” of six to seven animals each to supply the Merced High Sierra Camp. Smaller 

strings of two to three animals each are used for NPS law enforcement and backcountry utilities operations.

Generally, stock use is heavier in the opening and closing portions of the season as infrastructure is either 

being installed or decommissioned at the High Sierra Camp and Ranger camps. This category of use also 

includes grazing by NPS pack animals in the meadow located to the east of the Merced Lake Ranger Station. 

Stock use capacities were developed based on encounter standards with hikers, following from research in 

nearby Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. The study found that encounters with stock detract from 

the backcountry wilderness experience, and that average “acceptability” was “no more than three stock 

parties per day” (NPS, 2013, p. 56). A 2001(Newman and Manning) survey of Yosemite wilderness users 

also included questions about the acceptable level of stock encounters within parts of the wilderness that 

are heavily used and intensively managed. On average, respondents reported that the NPS should manage 

stock use so that hikers encounter no more than three stock parties per day (Newman and Manning 2001).

Currently, the concessioner utilizes seven to eight pack strings per week to supply the Merced High Sierra 

Camp along the Merced River Trail originating in Yosemite Valley. Because of the distance to the camp, 

stock animals are held overnight in a corral near the High Sierra Camp and return to the Valley stables the 

next day (for a total of 14-16 one-way trips per week). Concessioner stock are fed pellet feed and do not 

graze. Assuming most hikers travel this route once per day, they are unlikely to encounter more than two 

concessioner pack strings per day. 

Administrative stock use by the NPS for the trail section below Washburn Lake is estimated at 330 stocknights per season. One stock-night is equivalent to one animal spending the night at pasture and two days on 

the trail. Assuming pack strings of six animals each, NPS-related stock use equates to roughly 110 one-way 

pack-string trips for a typical 100-day season, or about one trip per day along the Merced River Trail 

originating in Yosemite Valley (Baseline Conditions Report, Table 2.1-1, page 2.1-14). 

Thus, currently a maximum stock encounter rate of three per day (2 concessioner and 1 NPS) is estimated 

for trails within this river segment. This is the level reported as acceptable by visitors to the Yosemite 

Wilderness (Newman & Manning 2001). To ensure that stock encounters remain at or below this level, all 

alternatives that maintain operations at the Merced High Sierra Camp impose a limit of 7.5 strings per week 

to support camp operations. It is acknowledged that during brief periods of camp set-up and take-down 

additional stock support may be required. Finally, grazing capacities for NPS stock are set at 58 stock nights 

per season for Merced Lake East Meadow. Seasonal closures will be implemented for the wet portion of the 

meadow to allow for recovery. This use is to be reevaluated once the meadow has recovered. Stock users 

will be required to pack in weed-free pellet feed for the remaining stock nights under all alternatives. This 

approach to managing grazing capacity responds to the management concern reported for the Biological 

ORV in Chapter 5 (ORV 1).

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 6-9 
USER CAPACITY AND VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT

Boating Capacity. Current regulations stipulate that “all free-flowing rivers creeks and streams within 

Yosemite National park, except the Main Stem and South Fork of the Merced River, as defined in this section 

are closed to the use of any type of vessel designed to carry passengers upon the water and any other device, 

such as air mattresses or inner tubes, that may be used” (Yosemite National Park Superintendent’s 

Compendium 2012 36 CFR § 1.5(a)(2); 36 CFR § 1.5(f)). This closure includes Segment 1 of the Merced River. 

All action alternatives allow non-motorized boating on Segment 1. The plan proposes to allow boating from 

the Headwaters of the Main Stem Merced River to the junction of the Half Dome and Merced Lake trails. 

Raft put-ins and take-outs are not designated or otherwise limited in the plan, and users will be free to 

choose acceptable locations for this use. 

TABLE 6-2: SUMMARY OF BOATING CAPACITIES ACROSS ALTERNATIVES

Segment 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6

Types of boating allowed Private only Private only Private only Private only Private only

Mechanism for private use limits None None Permitsa Permitsa Permitsa

Use levels Unrestricted Unrestricted 5 boats / day 20 boats / day 10 boats / day

NOTE:

a All permits for this use are issued as a supplement to the existing backcountry permit.

Commercial Use. Commercial use in Segment 1 is generally comprised of backpacking groups, stocksupported hiking groups, and Half Dome climbers, though other commercial use such as photography may 

be permitted. Capacity for this use is included within the wilderness zone quotas discussed above. As this 

segment of river is in designated wilderness, commercial uses are allowed only to the extent necessary for 

“activities which are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas.”5 See 

Appendix L for a complete discussion of the regulation and management of commercial use in wilderness. 

Relationship of User Capacity to River Values and the Recreation Experience

All river values in Segment 1 currently meet or exceed their established management standards, although there 

are some localized concerns that are related to the kinds and amounts of use occurring in the river corridor.

These include: informal trails at high country meadows, wetlands, and lakeshores; administrative stock grazing 

at Merced Lake-East Meadow; and localized areas of concentrated use (Chapter 5, ORVs 1 and 19). Solutions 

to these concerns are itemized in Chapter 5 for the relevant ORV and included as management actions to be 

carried forward in one or more of the plan alternatives (Chapter 8). 

User Capacity and the Recreational ORV. Wilderness Recreation above Nevada Fall (ORV 19) is the river 

value most directly affected by the amount of use allowed in Segment 1. The indicator for the quality of the 

recreation experience in this segment is the average number of groups encountered per hour along three 

sections of trail between Little Yosemite Valley and the Lyell Fork. As discussed in Chapter 5 (ORV 19), 

management standards vary by trail section. 

As illustrated in Chapter 5 (ORV 19) and below in Table 6-3, current conditions are within the management 

standard.6 Due to the trailhead quota system and the Half Dome Day Use Permit system, no increases in 

encounter rates are projected under any alternative. The monitoring program outlined in Chapter 5 for ORV 

5 Wilderness Act, 16 USC 1133 (d)(5)

6 The management standard for the Recreational ORV in Segment 1 is that any combination of two trail sections 

cannot be in violation of their associated section standards for four consecutive years. Additionally, no individual trail 

section can exceed its trail-section standard for four consecutive years. 

6-10 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS

 
User Capacities for the Merced River Corridor

19 provides a list of increasingly intensive management actions that will be taken in the event that use 

monitoring shows encounter rates trending toward unacceptable conditions. For more about indicator 

selection and the development of applicable standards, see the complete discussion of ORV 19 in Chapter 5. 

TABLE 6-3: TRAIL ENCOUNTER STANDARDS FOR TRAIL SECTIONS IN SEGMENT 1 

Trail Section

Categorya 

Current Condition b 

Mean Hourly Encounter Rates Trail-Section 

Standard

(mean encounters

2010 2011 2012 2013 per hour)

Above Little Yosemite Valley Campground to Bunnell Cascade 2,3c 2.11 1.64 1.75 1.98 3

Echo Creek to Lewis Creek 3 3.67 -

d 4.34 4.52 4

Lewis Creek to Lyell Fork 2 -

d .61 1.02 1.55 2

aCategories derived from Newman (2002). 

b Mean number of hourly encounters per day measure the average predicted hourly encounter rate based on a ten hour day. Predicted encounter 

rates are created from daily automated counter measurements that are related to actual encounter observations by trained observers through 

linear regression and then averaged across the season. c This section has been classified as both Category 2 (Bunnell Cascade area) and Category 3 (Moraine Dome area). The standard reflects a mean 

for the two categories.

d Data is not available for these years in these places.

In addition to human encounters, the recreation experience within Segment 1 is also affected by stock 

encounters. As discussed above, limits on stock use capacity have been proposed for Segment 1 to ensure that 

stock encounter rates remain at an acceptable level. 

User Capacity Management

The quality of the Recreational ORV in Segment 1 is expected to remain within the management standard 

under all alternatives, none of which proposes to increase capacity for this segment. Alternative 2 proposes 

reducing the zone capacity for Little Yosemite Valley and eliminating the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp, 

which will reduce trail encounters and increase opportunities for solitude. For alternatives that require 

stock-support to operate the High Sierra Camp, stock use limits are imposed, as described above, to 

enhance the quality of the recreation experience in this segment. 

With the newly-established permit system limiting access to Half Dome and the current trailhead quota 

system limiting access to the wilderness zones, most visitor use on the trail segment between Nevada Fall 

and Little Yosemite Valley is already regulated. With the exceptions noted above, the Final Merced River 

Plan/EIS proposes no additional restrictions in any alternative.

Segment 2A (Recreational) and Segment 2B (Scenic): Yosemite Valley

Management Goals and Constraints

The three management goals related to user capacity in this segment include: protecting natural processes, 

promoting visitor enjoyment, and reducing traffic congestion and crowding. Management constraints that 

guide the development of user capacity for this segment are: 

Resource constraints and site suitability. Natural hazards and highly valued resources include floodplains, 

rock-fall hazard areas, meadow and riparian areas, rare and sensitive plant and animal populations, scenic 

vista points, and cultural resource sites. Careful consideration must be given to placing development in 

proximity to these features, to protect the environment and the government’s financial investments. After 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 6-11
USER CAPACITY AND VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT

mapping river values and resource constraints, limited space remains in Yosemite Valley for the placement 

of visitor and administrative services and related infrastructure. Conceptual site drawings were completed 

for primary visitor use and administrative areas to ensure that biophysical constraints could be 

accommodated by site design. The alternatives propose options for working within these constraints to 

provide different types of visitor experiences and recreational opportunities.

Transportation system performance. Visitors rely upon personal vehicle, tour bus, and public transit to 

access Yosemite Valley. Transport within the Valley is supplemented by shuttle buses servicing primary 

visitor activity nodes. All components of the transportation system must be integrated and coordinated with 

allowable levels of visitation to ensure that public use is effectively distributed throughout the river corridor.

Due to the fact that existing Valley roads are bordered by several large meadow complexes, the Biological 

ORV serves as a significant constraint on creating additional parking areas or widening the road to improve 

traffic flow.

Quality of recreation experience. Traffic congestion can negatively impact the public use and enjoyment 

of river values by hampering access to the river and its recreational opportunities and impeding views of 

distant vistas. Therefore, an efficient transportation and parking system is needed to facilitate public use and 

is a prerequisite for a quality recreation experience in these segments. 

Providing quality recreational opportunities also requires that visitor use be managed and distributed to avoid 

unacceptable levels of crowding at popular recreation sites and primary attractions. Several social science 

studies have documented crowding and congestion problems during peak use periods in Yosemite Valley 

(Gramann 1992; Littlejohn et al. 2005; Manning, et al. 1998 and 1999; Whittaker and Shelby 2012). Further 

research has demonstrated the link between visitation, the number and density of people at popular attraction 

sites, and the quality of the recreation experience (Meldrum & DeGroot 2012). These relationships have been 

explicitly considered in the development of user capacities for the Merced River Final Plan/EIS and, along with 

the transportation system, were used to evaluate the upper numerical limit for user capacities in Yosemite 

Valley. 

Public Health and Safety. As discussed in the introduction to this chapter, the need to provide for public 

health and safety is a prerequisite for all plan alternatives. For Yosemite Valley, this includes ensuring that 

the transportation system provides for orderly evacuation. Because standards established for protecting the 

Biological ORV foreclosed widening the main roads into and out of the Valley, capacities in Alternatives 2-6 

were set at levels that would allow for safe and orderly evacuation in case of emergency. Additionally, all 

structures within the rock fall hazard zone with risk metrics greater than six have been removed or 

repurposed to reduce the risk of personal injury (Stock et al., 2012b). 

Overview of User Capacities

Visitor Overnight Use Capacity. Each alternative proposes a mix of overnight accommodations, including 

camping and a range of overnight lodging options for various budgets and family configurations (Table 6-6). 

As reported in Blotkamp el al. (2010), 14 percent of summer visitors to Yosemite participated in camping

and 15 percent stayed in park lodging. Overnight accommodations facilitate public use and enjoyment of 

river values and add to the types of recreation that can be enjoyed by visitors to the river corridor. 

Alternative 6 proposes the highest amount of overnight accommodations: nearly double that of Alternative 

2 and a 24 percent increase over 2011 conditions.

6-12 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
User Capacities for the Merced River Corridor

Segment 2A (East Valley) and Segment 2B (West Valley) have historically-different development patterns, 

and their segment classifications reflect this. With the exception of the Yellow Pines volunteer campground, 

no overnight use is currently supported in the West Valley, in part because of the lack of utility 

infrastructure. In keeping with the theme of lower density recreation opportunities in the West Valley, the 

action alternatives continue to consolidate overnight use in East Valley. An exception is the new drive-in 

campground proposed in Alternative 6 in the vicinity of the El Capitan picnic area. This adds an additional 

474 PAOT to the overnight capacity of West Valley and would require an extension to the main utility line 

that runs underneath Northside Drive. 

Visitor Day Use Capacity. There currently are no formal mechanisms for limiting the number of day users 

who gain access to Yosemite Valley. The user capacities reported in Table 6-4 reflect this situation, as the dayuse “capacity” reported for the No Action Alternative is higher than the day use capacity for any of the action 

alternatives. The No Action “capacity” includes circumstances and consequences that are not perpetuated 

under any of the action alternatives, such as vehicles parked in unmanaged roadside areas and overflow from

poorly-delineated parking lots, passengers sitting in traffic due to transportation system design failures, and a 

labor-intensive program of traffic management to keep transportation systems functioning at an acceptable 

level of service. 

Although day use capacity is reduced in Alternatives 4, 5 and 6, peak daily visitation is expected to remain 

similar to that observed in 2010 and 2011. This is possible because of planned improvements in transportation 

infrastructure, additional overnight capacity, provision of day use parking outside of East Valley, and

delineation and separation of parking for visitors and employees. The features that aim to better manage visitor 

use and vehicle access for each alternative are described in the “User Capacity Management” section that 

follows.

In addition to private vehicles, visitor day use capacity calculations include commercial bus tours and

regional transit. Currently, commercial tour buses are required to park in designated spaces to the west of 

Yosemite Lodge. Each alternative provides a limited number of spaces for this purpose, thereby limiting the 

number of people at one time that can arrive by tour bus. Growth in visitation from regional transit is 

ultimately driven by the economic viability of balancing the frequency of service with the costs of repeated 

trips to outlying communities. Given the time to travel from gateway communities to the Valley and back, a

maximum practical number of bus runs was estimated for each transit corridor. 

Finally, to fully account for all people in the corridor, the roadway capacity under free-flowing conditions 

was calculated using the transportation planning model described below (see section on Transportation 

System Performance and Recreation Experience). The resulting “acceptable roadway capacity” was 

included in the visitor day use capacities proposed for each action alternative. 

No actions are proposed in Alternatives 2-5 that would add capacity to West Valley. Alternative 6 proposes a 

250 car day-use parking lot in the vicinity of the El Capitan crossover from Southside Drive to Northside 

Drive. Although this lot is intended to provide parking for people who are bound for East Valley, for purposes 

of this discussion, the associated user capacity has been allocated to West Valley. This acknowledges the 

likelihood that some fraction of visitors parking in this lot may decide to delay travel to East Valley and instead 

explore the immediate vicinity, seeking easy access to the river and less crowded conditions. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 6-13
USER CAPACITY AND VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT

6-14 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 

TABLE 6-4: SUMMARY OF USER CAPACITIES BY ALTERNATIVE: YOSEMITE VALLEY SEGMENTS

Alternative 1 (No Action) 2 3 4 5 (Preferred) 6 

Note: All capacities reported as People At One Time (PAOT) 

Visitor Overnight Capacity Segment 2A: East Valley 

 Campgrounds 2,772 2,796 2,838 4,278 3,912 4,032 

 Lodging 3,672 1,842 2,069 2,826 3,799 4,380 

Sub-Total 6,444 4,638 4,907 7,104 7,711 8,412 

Visitor Overnight Capacity Segment 2B: West Valley 

 Campgrounds 120 120 120 120 120 594 

Total Visitor Overnight Use 6,564 4,758 5,027 7,224 7,831 9,006 

Visitor Day Use Capacity Segment 2A: East Valley 

 People arriving via Private Vehicle 9,485 4,717 4,172 5,278 6,519 6,070 

 People arriving via Regional Transita 293 241 241 337 684 788 

 People arriving via Commercial Tour Bus 720 720 720 720 1,056 720 

Sub-Total 10,498 5,678 5,133 6,335 8,259 7,578 

Visitor Day Use Capacity Segment 2B: West Valley 

 Roadside Parking and West Valley Day-Use Lot 1,254 1,141 1,219 1,219 1,219 1,871 

Total Visitor Day-Use Capacity 11,752 6,819 6,352 7,554 9,478 9,449 

Administrative Use Capacity Segment 2A: East Valley

 Employee Housing 1,315 658 1,086 1,087 1,029 1,136 

 Administrative Day Use 332 332 332 332 374 332 

Total Administrative Capacity 1,647 990 1,418 1,419 1,403 1,468 

 Sub-Total User Capacity Segment 2A 18,589 11,306 11,458 14,858 17,373 17,458 

 Sub-Total User Capacity Segment 2B 1,374 1,261 1,339 1,339 1,339 2,465 

TOTAL USER CAPACITY YOSEMITE VALLEY 

(rounded to nearest 10 PAOT) 19,960 12,570 12,800 16,200 18,710 19,920 

NOTE: 

a Both regional transit and commercial tour bus capacities have been allocated to Segment 2A (East Valley), as all tour buses are required 

to use designated parking in that segment and all transit drop-off and pick-up locations are located there. These components of the 

transportation system are common to all alternatives.

Kinds of Use. The preceding discussion of day use focuses on the amount of use to be allowed. User 

capacities also pertain to the kinds of use allowed in the river corridor. Public use and enjoyment of the 

outstandingly remarkable values of Yosemite Valley is not limited to participation in the Recreational ORV, 

but includes a variety of activities that allow visitors to appreciate and benefit from the protection and 

enhancement of all river values. For example, in 2009, the vast majority of visitors (93%) reported viewing 

scenery (i.e. enjoying the Scenic ORV) as an activity in which they participated (Table 6-5). All of the 

activities identified in Table 6-5 promote the public use and enjoyment of the outstandingly remarkable 

values of the Merced River and will continue under all action alternatives. As discussed below, these types 

of uses are not causing adverse impacts or degradation to river values. 

It is assumed that future visitors will enjoy the same mix of recreation opportunities in roughly the same 

proportions observed most recently. Where there are localized impacts from past use, they are addressed in 

all plan alternatives by redirecting use to more resilient areas and restoring high-use areas to natural 

conditions (see the sections in Chapter 8 entitled “Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values” for each 

alternative and Appendix E). 
User Capacities for the Merced River Corridor

TABLE 6-5: SELF-REPORTED ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION RATES FROM 2009 SUMMER VISITOR SURVEY

Activity Percentage of Visitors Participating 

Viewing Scenery 93%

Taking a Scenic Drive 64%

Day Hiking 54%

Wildlife Viewing / Bird Watching 43%

Picnicking 33%

Creative Arts 26%

Camping in a Developed Campground 16%

Attending Ranger Programs 15%

Bicycling 12%

Nature Study 7%

Rock Climbing 6%

Rafting .03%

Swimming .03%

Horseback Riding .03%

SOURCE: Blotkamp et al. 2010

The section of river upon which boating is allowed (and how that use is managed) is one exception to the 

pattern of stability in future recreational activity. During the peak boating season, 2011 use averages around 

230 boats per day (commercial rafts and private use) with peaks of about 330 boats per day (Whittaker and 

Shelby 2012). Changes in both the kinds and amounts of use in various sections of the river corridor can be 

expected as a result of implementing any of the action alternatives. Under Alternatives 4, 5 and 6, private 

boating is allowed in West Valley on the section of river extending west of Sentinel Beach to either 

Cathedral Beach (Alt. 4) or Pohono Bridge (Alts. 5 and 6). Under all alternatives, commercial boating

continues to be prohibited in West Valley and is not expanded beyond the current use area in East Valley. 

The length of river open for private boating is increased in East Valley under Alternatives 4, 5 and 6, all of 

which open the reach from Clarks Bridge to Stoneman Bridge to this use. 

Overall, boating activity is expected to decrease in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, remain close to 2011 levels in 

Alternative 5 (increased capacity for private use offsets reductions in commercial use) and increase in 

Alternative 6 (increased capacities for both commercial and private use). See “Alternatives” (Chapter 8) for a 

discussion of specific boating opportunities for each alternative and Appendix R for a more detailed 

discussion of current capacities and a general discussion of the amount of boating activity expected in 

various river reaches under the preferred alternative. The appendix also includes maps of all boating 

reaches which can be used to identify the open areas described above. As shown in Table 6-10, the resulting 

boating densities for all alternatives are expected to be within the associated management standards for the 

Recreational ORV. 

Administrative Use Capacity. All administrative use within the Yosemite Valley segments is located in East 

Valley, with the exception of the Yellow Pines campground which is used by park volunteers. Overnight 

administrative use includes all Valley-based concessioner employees and NPS employees, the latter which 

must reside in the Valley as a condition of employment. While NPS housing is located outside of the river 

corridor, the individuals associated with it must be included in user capacity calculations to fully account for 

the maximum number of people who may be present at any time in East Valley. Administrative day use in 

East Valley also includes NPS and concessioner employee-commuters, service and maintenance employees, 

medical professionals, delivery drivers and other similar personnel required to provide for the needs of

resident and visitor populations. All action alternatives reduce the current capacity for administrative use in 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 6-15
USER CAPACITY AND VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT

East Valley by either employing fewer people to run concessioner services, relocating employee housing out 

of the Valley, or both.

Relationship of User Capacities to River Values and the Recreation Experience

The ORVs identified for Segments 2A and 2B do not differentiate between segments, as most river values are 

the same throughout this 12-mile length of river corridor. Therefore, for purposes of managing user capacity 

and monitoring the condition of river values, indicators and standards have been set to account for a 

representative set of conditions in each segment. The intent is to ensure the protection of river values as intact 

systems and to distribute visitor use appropriately throughout the corridor to meet the management standards 

identified in Chapter 5. Thus, the remaining discussion will refer to the two segments jointly as Segment 2 and, 

unless otherwise specified, will pertain to the entire length of the corridor from the top of Nevada Fall to the 

junction of El Portal Road and Big Oak Flat Road.

River values most directly affected by the amount of use allowed in Segment 2 include meadows and riparian 

communities (ORV 2) and river-related recreation (ORV 20). The following sections explain why the user 

capacities established for the Merced River Plan are consistent with the protection and enhancement of these 

ORVs. Although Segment 2 also contains Geologic/Hydrologic, Scenic, and Cultural ORVs, the few 

concerns identified for these ORVs are not directly related to the amount of use allowed in the river 

corridor. They are best protected and enhanced by the appropriate design and placement of infrastructure, 

targeted restoration of historic structures, and vegetation management to maintain scenic viewpoints. These 

actions are included in plan alternatives and described in more detail in Chapters 5 and 8 and Appendix E. 

User Capacity and the Biological ORV. As explained in Chapter 5 (ORV 2), the Largest Patch Index Five 

(LPI5) measures meadow fragmentation and is intended to represent a host of potential impacts to Valley 

meadows, including impaired meadow hydrology, soil moisture, non-native species, habitat quality, and 

barriers to small mammals. The management standard, shown in Table 6-6 and described in more detail in 

Chapter 5, is held constant across all alternatives. Current conditions do not meet the management 

standard, primarily due to the high degree of social trailing in El Capitan meadow. This situation is 

addressed in all action alternatives by immediate implementation of corrective measures, including 

removing social trails and establishing unified access points and formal trails to manage access to and use of 

El Capitan, Cook’s, and Sentinel Meadows.

TABLE 6-6: MANAGEMENT STANDARDS FOR THE BIOLOGICAL ORV IN SEGMENT 2a

Alternatives 1 (Current Condition) 2 3 4 5 (Preferred) 6 

Indicator Standard

Meadow Fragmentation Index – % 

of meadow in 5 largest patches

Weighted mean LPI5 = 

88.65%, 3 meadows < 90% Weighted mean LPI5 of > 93%, with no meadow < 90%

Status of Riparian Habitat -- % of 

sites scored at high rating 20% At least 20% 

Status of Riparian Habitat -- % of 

sites scored at moderate or high ratings 80% At least 90% At least 80% 

NOTE:

a See Chapter 5 for more information about the selection of indicators and the development of applicable standards for all ORVs.

6-16 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
User Capacities for the Merced River Corridor

These actions have had demonstrated success. For example, in 1987, Stoneman Meadow was in such poor 

condition that it met the definition of a degraded meadow (LPI5 <40%). Subsequently, the NPS removed 

and restored numerous social trails and established a single formal pathway with a boardwalk surface across 

the meadow. Over the next twenty years, the index improved to 99 percent (full restoration). 

The indicator for riparian habitat conditions is the California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) score. 

Early application of this methodology to the Merced River corridor shows that poorer site conditions are 

generally associated with areas in the vicinity of campgrounds and lodging. Riparian area recovery is also

slower when informal trails are allowed to proliferate between areas of concentrated visitor use and the 

river.

To address these observations, new construction is prohibited within150 feet of the river’s ordinary high water 

mark and the alternatives further reduce development in proximity to the river to varying degrees (by 

removing campsites, lodging units, and other facilities). These setbacks are intended to help prevent future 

impacts to riparian conditions in Segment 2. Specific management actions have also been included in all action 

alternatives to direct river users to areas that are most resilient to recreation activity. Such actions include 

identifying and establishing formal river access points and strategically placing fencing near sensitive areas to 

guide visitors to locations that can handle more concentrated use without generating resource impacts. All 

action alternatives employ these visitor use management techniques to varying degrees. 

Table 6-7 includes a summary of the type and extent of improvements (e.g. boardwalks, trails, and split-rail

fencing) required to accommodate the user capacities proposed under the different alternatives. The design 

and placement of these structural improvements will reduce existing impacts and prevent new ones while 

allowing for continued public use and enjoyment of the river and its immediate environs.

Because all alternatives prohibit actions that would encroach upon meadow habitat (such as adding or 

expanding roadways), and because they include mitigation measures that directly respond to the observed 

effects of visitor use on meadows and riparian areas, the user capacities proposed for all action alternatives 

are consistent with the protection and enhancement of the Biological ORV in Segment 2. 

User Capacity and the Recreational ORV: Setting Standards. As explained in Chapter 5 (ORV 20), visitor 

densities at key attraction sites are the indicator for the condition of the Recreational ORV in Segment 2. 

Providing a quality recreation experience requires managers not only to understand the impact of use on 

natural and cultural resources, but to understand and manage for quality social conditions. This requires an 

understanding of the level of social interaction that visitors find to be acceptable as they engage in riverrelated recreational activities or gather at scenic viewpoints. Once these perceptions are known, visitor use 

can be managed to prevent the concentrations of use that equate to the negative experiences of congestion 

and crowding.

Past visitor surveys have identified crowding on trails and popular attractions as being the conditions that 

detract most from a visit to Yosemite Valley. Several researchers identified periodic crowding problems at 

individual locations in Yosemite Valley during the peak summer season (cf. Gramann 1992; Littlejohn et al. 

2005; Manning, et al. 1998 and 1999; Lawson et al 2008, 2009; Whittaker and Shelby 2012). Further research 

has clarified the linkages between vehicles entering the Valley, visitor densities at specific locations, and the 

quality of the visitor experience (DeGroot and Meldrum 2012, Lawson 2013). These relationships have been 

explicitly considered in the development of user capacities for all action alternatives in the Final Merced 

River Plan/EIS, and a brief summary of this work is provided below. Additional detail can be found in 

Chapter 5 and Appendix S.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 6-17
USER CAPACITY AND VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT

TABLE 6-7: COMPARISON OF STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS TO MANAGE VISITOR USE

Alternatives 1 (No Action) 2 3 4 5 (Preferred) 6 

Fencing to protect 

sensitive meadow 

and riparian areas 

(ft)

33,750 33,750 33,750 51,515 51,515 55,130

Meadows requiring 

boardwalks or 

other protective 

measures (linear 

feet to be 

addressed) 

Stoneman

Leidig (1000’)

Stoneman (275’)

Sentinel (150’)

Leidig (1000’)

Stoneman (275’) 

Sentinel (150’)

Ahwahnee

(350’)

Leidig (1000’)

Stoneman (275’)

Sentinel (150’)

El Capitan

(1,400’)

Ahwahnee 

(350’)

Leidig (1000’)

Slaughterhouse

(300’) 

Sentinel (150’)

El Capitan

(1,400’)

Ahwahnee 

(350’)

Leidig (1000’)

Slaughterhouse

(300’)

Sentinel (150’)

El Capitan

(1,400’)

Trails 

rerouted/removed 

(meadows)

N/A

El Capitan

Cooks

Ahwahnee

Bridalveil

Slaughterhouse

El Capitan

Cooks

Ahwahnee

Bridalveil

Slaughterhouse

El Capitan

Cooks

Ahwahnee

Bridalveil

Slaughterhouse

Pack-stock trail

El Capitan

Cooks

Ahwahnee

Bridalveil

Slaughterhouse

Pack-stock trail

El Capitan

Cooks

Ahwahnee

Bridalveil

Slaughterhouse

Pack-stock trail

Informal trails 

removed (miles) 0 6 6 6 6 6 

Redirect shore 

users/boaters

(locations)

N/A

• Upper Pines CG

• Upper/Lower Rivers CG

• Backpackers CG, Lower Pines CG and 

• North Pines CG

• Housekeeping Camp and Yosemite Lodge beach 

access

• Housekeeping Camp

Redirect river 

access along 

riverbanks 

(locations)

N/A

• Swinging Bridge, Sentinel Beach, Devil’s Elbow and 

Cathedral Beach Picnic Areas

• Riverside access points from Pohono Bridge to El 

Cap Road/Big Oak Flat Intersection

• Along Valley Loop Trail

Remove roadside 

parking (Sentinel 

Drive, Northside 

Drive (west of bank 

3-way), 

Superintendent’s 

Straight and other 

locations)

N/A -483 spaces -474 spaces -570 spaces -460 spaces -460 spaces

As discussed in Chapter 5, the number of people or boats at one time in each photo was then translated into 

densities (people per square foot or linear foot) based on the area included in the picture. For high-use trail 

segments, falls viewing areas, and beaches with defined boundaries, densities are reported as square feet per 

person. Boating densities are reported as boats per 500 linear feet in a given stretch of river (reach).

Table 6-8 provides a summary of the research findings for some of the locations to be monitored in this plan 

to assess the quality of the Recreational ORV and recreation experience in Yosemite Valley. Data is reported 

here for the areas of concentrated use that have been the focus of most social science research conducted in 

the Valley. 

6-18 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
User Capacities for the Merced River Corridor

TABLE 6-8: VISITOR EVALUATIONS OF ACCEPTABLE AND DISPLACEMENT DENSITIES AT KEY LOCATIONS

Location Photo Area

Photo Simulation Results

People/Boats at One Time

Density Equivalent

Square Feet per Person

Acceptable Displacement Acceptable Displacement

Yosemite Falls Viewing Platform 1,225 ft2 61 PAOT 94 PAOT 20 13

Bridalveil Fall 390 ft2 20 PAOT 28 PAOT 20 14

Vernal Fall Trail 860 ft2 26 PAOT 40 PAOT 33 22

High-Use Beaches 4,800 ft2 48 PAOT 80 PAOT 100 60

Stoneman Bridge to Sentinel BeachRiver Reach 500 ft 14 BAOT 22 BAOT N/A N/A

NOTE: These standards for social condition were adapted from peer-reviewed literature (Manning et al. 1999; Whittaker and Shelby 2012; 

Lawson et al. 2008; Manning and Lawson 2003).

The framework for managing the Recreational ORV consists of setting standards for crowding (visitor 

density) at two different scales. The site-level standard represents the threshold for acceptable conditions 

at the scale of the recreation site, and the management standard represents acceptable conditions at a 

segment-wide scale. The locations to be monitored were selected to represent a variety of recreational 

settings, including both the higher-use areas in East Valley and less-frequented attractions in West Valley.

Specific locations include the well-known attractions of Bridalveil Fall, Yosemite Falls, and the trail to 

Vernal Fall, as well as popular beaches in East and West Valley, two different boating reaches, and the 

averages of three low-use trails and three low-use beaches. 

As shown in Table 6-8 and Table 6-10, and described in Chapter 5, the site-level standards for visitor density 

have been set at the level reported as “acceptable” for visitors surveyed at each high-use location. 

Professional judgment, guided by peer-reviewed academic research was used to develop site -level standards

for places with lower use (such as those in West Valley) to ensure that these locations would retain their 

character across all of the alternatives. The standards have been set to explicitly acknowledge and maintain 

variation in the kinds and amounts of use occurring in the two Valley segments. 

The site-level standards in Table 6-9 define the thresholds for acceptable conditions during peak times at 

some of the highest use locations in the Valley (e.g., Yosemite Falls, Bridalveil Fall, Vernal Fall, and popular 

beaches in East Valley). Off-peak periods and less-popular locations will provide lower density conditions 

and higher-quality experiences for visitors sensitive to crowding. In addition, when locations such as 

popular beaches approach capacity, there is often a similar site that is far less crowded (Whittaker & Shelby 

2012). 

As described in Chapter 5, the management standard (at the scale of the river segment) is that at least half 

of the monitored locations must meet their associated site-level standard for three consecutive years. An 

adverse impact would occur if all monitored locations were in violation of their site-level standards for three 

consecutive years. The Recreational ORV would be degraded when more than half the monitored locations 

were experiencing the level of crowding that visitors considered “displacement” for three consecutive years. 

As discussed below, the user capacities established for each alternative were designed to meet site-level 

standards and, by doing so, avoid adverse impact and degradation. Thus, managing to the proposed 

capacities is consistent with protection of the Recreational ORV.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 6-19
USER CAPACITY AND VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT

TABLE 6-9: SITE-LEVEL STANDARDS FOR MONITORING LOCATIONS: YOSEMITE VALLEY RECREATIONAL ORV

Location Unit of Measure Site-Level Standard

Recreation Sites

Yosemite Falls Viewing Platform

Square 

Feet Per

Person

20

Bridalveil Fall Viewing Platform 20

Vernal Fall Trail 33

Housekeeping Beach (High-use) 100

Swinging Bridge Beach (High-use) 100

Average of Three Low-Use Beachesa 250

Average of Three Low-Use Hiking Trailsb People Per Hour 50

Boating

Boats at One Time: Stoneman Bridge to Sentinel Beach (High-Use) Boats Per 500 feet14

Boats at One Time: Sentinel Beach to Pohono Bridge (Low-Use) 6

NOTES:

a Low-use beaches include, but are not limited to: Slaughterhouse Meadow (East of Devil’s Elbow), El Cap Beach, and Superintendent’s 

Beaches. b Low-use trails include, but are not limited to: East Valley Loop Trail between the Chapel and LeConte Memorial, West Valley Loop trail 

east of Slaughterhouse Meadow, and the West Valley Loop Trail east of Bridalveil Meadow. 

User Capacity and the Recreational ORV: Managing to Standards. Research findings regarding visitor 

use patterns in Yosemite Valley were used to ensure that the proposed user capacities were consistent with

the site-level standards discussed above and protective of the Recreational ORV (Lawson, et al., 2008; 

Lawson 2013). A complex model of visitor behavior was developed to mimic patterns of use at the locations 

for which visitor surveys had been conducted. The model was developed from observed patterns of use at 

each location which included counting the number of people arriving at the site from all connected trails, 

the amount of time spent on the trails leading to the attraction sites, and time spent on the viewing platforms 

(or other area of measurement). Once these relationships were established, the model could be used to 

translate trail counts into visitor densities for the same areas surveyed in 1998 and 1999 (Manning, et al.). 

Thus, the connection between numbers of people arriving on any trail leading to Yosemite Falls (for 

example) and crowding on the Yosemite Falls viewing platform was established. 

The resulting model allows the NPS to estimate visitor densities at attraction sites using readily-available 

trail counter data. Should visitor densities at a particular site trend toward violating a management standard,

the model will inform the degree to which trail access needs to be reduced to correct the situation. This 

directly responds to the requirement in the Guidelines that “public use should be regulated and distributed 

where necessary to protect and enhance...resource values of the river area.”7 This step provides the 

information needed to better distribute visitor use spatially and temporally to address crowding at select 

locations. 

Table 6-10 displays the current (2010/2011) visitor use densities for all of the Recreational ORV monitoring 

sites. Also included are projected site densities for the alternatives based on the associated user capacities. 

For sites with the highest concentration of visitor use (Yosemite Falls, Bridalveil Fall, and Vernal Fall), the 

projections were derived from the simulation model described above. Linking user capacities to site arrivals 

at these locations required the following steps. First, regression analysis was used to quantify the 

relationship between traffic counter data collected in East Valley and trail counter data collected at each site 

under current conditions. Next, the user capacity for each alternative was translated into the corresponding 

traffic volume and the regression equation from the previous step was used to project trail counts for each 

7 Secretarial Guidelines at 39459

6-20 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS

 
User Capacities for the Merced River Corridor

site. Finally, the simulation model was used to translate the projected trail counts into the expected visitor 

densities for the areas to be monitored. The projected visitor densities show that site-level standards for 

crowding at each site will be met under all alternatives, with the exception of Bridalveil Fall. All alternatives 

result in crowding-related concerns at Bridalveil and all action alternatives address this problem by 

proposing a comprehensive site plan to better distribute use at this location.

Visitor densities at high-use beaches (Housekeeping and Swinging Bridge) are also projected to be at or 

below the site-level standard for all action alternatives. As shown in Table 6-10, densities at high-use 

beaches are currently well below the levels reported as being “acceptable” (100 square feet/person) in a 

recent survey of recreationists at these locations (Whittaker and Shelby 2012). None of the action 

alternatives propose actions to further concentrate use at beaches already receiving high levels of use. 

Moreover, several actions have been included in the alternatives to guide visitors to more resilient river 

access points and better distribute use relative to current conditions. The monitoring program described in 

Chapter 5 will ensure that corrective measures are taken, should conditions trend toward higher use levels 

in the future.

Use levels for low-use sites (beaches and trails) are inherently difficult to project with a high degree of 

confidence, because recreational activity at these locations can be highly varied. Sites of this nature are 

included in the monitoring program to ensure that changes in use at primary destinations do not 

fundamentally change the character of the recreation opportunities in West Valley. With the exception of 

Alternative 6, the action alternatives do not propose any additional parking or other infrastructure in this 

area of the Valley. Visitor use is expected to remain at or slightly above the levels currently observed for 

these locations across all alternatives. As described in Chapter 5, periodic monitoring will be conducted to 

validate this assumption.

In addition, the boating limits proposed for each alternative have been analyzed to determine whether the 

number of boats allowed on the river will exceed the site level standard. For example, under the preferred 

alternative, up to 50 boats at one time (BAOT) would be allowed for rent and an additional 110 BAOT are 

expected from private use. This would equate to a total of 160 BAOT on the river or about 9 boats per 500 

feet. This is slightly above 2011 observed levels (8 BAOT) but still well below the site-level standard of 14 

BAOT, which visitors found to be acceptable in survey research (Whittaker and Shelby 2012). Estimates of 

boating densities for each alternative are shown below (Table 6-10).

In conclusion, the user capacities established for each alternative were designed to meet site-level standards 

and, by doing so, avoid adverse impact and degradation. Thus, managing to the proposed capacities is 

consistent with protection of the Recreational ORV.

Transportation System Performance and the Recreational Experience

Currently, visitors to the Merced River in Yosemite Valley continue to report a relatively high level of 

overall satisfaction. According to the most recent visitor survey, most visitor groups (98%) rated the overall 

quality of facilities, services, and recreational opportunities at Yosemite National Park as “very good” or 

“good” (University of Idaho, 2013). An efficient transportation system is needed to continue to provide a 

quality recreation experience and to facilitate the public use and enjoyment of all river values. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 6-21
USER CAPACITY AND VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT

TABLE 6-10: CURRENT/PROJECTED VISITOR USE DENSITIES FOR MONITORING LOCATIONS: YOSEMITE VALLEY

Alternatives Current 

Condition

Site-Level 

Standard 2 3 4 5 (Preferred) 6 

Location Units Projected Visitor Use Densities

Yosemite Fall Viewing 

Platform

Ft2 Per 

Person

35 20 Notb

modeled 48 Not modeled 33 29

Bridalveil Fall Viewing 

Platforma 11 20 Not modeled 17* Not modeled 11* 10*

Vernal Fall Trail 80 33 Not 

modeled 112 Not modeled 76 69

Housekeeping Beach 300 100 Alts 4,5 & 6 provide additional camping in the vicinity of this 

beach. Use levels may increase as a result.

Swinging Bridge Beach 525 100 Access is limited by the size of the parking area.

Average of Low-Use 

Beaches (3 locations) 1500 250 No alternatives propose additional infrastructure to promote access to low-use beaches.

Average of Low-Use Hiking 

Trails (3 locations)

People 

Per 

Hour

21 25

Alt 6 provides parking and drive-in campground in West 

Valley, providing additional access points to lesser used trails 

in the immediate vicinity of these facilities.

Boating -- Stoneman Bridge 

to Sentinel Beach Boats 

per 

500 feet

6 14 1 2 8 9 12c

Boating – Cathedral Beach 

to Pohono Bridge 0 6 No boating allowed 2 5 

NOTES:

* Denotes standard exceeded at the site-level a Alternative estimates for Bridalveil Fall viewing platform assume the current infrastructure at this site. As a re-design of this site is called 

for in this plan, densities will be re-calculated when this site is re-designed. b Alternatives 3, 5, and 6 were modeled for projected densities assuming current use patterns as they represent the lowest use, preferred, 

and highest use alternatives respectively. c Alt 6 allows more boating on this reach (nearly double current peak use). Assuming use patterns similar to current conditions, this could 

equate to 12 boats per 500 feet; approaching but not exceeding the site-level standard.

Public access to the river corridor is reduced when traffic becomes congested and, in extreme cases, traffic 

congestion can diminish the quality of the visitor experience (White and Aquino 2008; Lawson et al. 2009). 

Traffic management has challenged the park’s infrastructure and operational staff more frequently in recent 

years (DEA 2012). Although representative of only a subset of visitors, a 2011 study of river users in Yosemite 

Valley indicated that they felt more crowded while using the park’s transportation system than when 

participating in other activities in the river corridor (Whittaker and Shelby 2012). 

Transportation models were developed to diagnose problems within the existing system and to determine a 

range of options for addressing them. The models showed that under current conditions, traffic congestion 

at peak times is caused by constricted roadways (particularly the two-way segment from Yosemite Lodge to 

Yosemite Village), vehicles slowed or stopped in search of parking spaces, and by poorly designed 

intersections and pedestrian crossings. Throughout the course of the day, as more vehicles enter the Valley, 

these impediments to free-flow begin to exponentially increase travel times, queue lengths, and vehicles per 

viewscape. 

User capacities and transportation solutions were developed in tandem to address these problems. First, traffic 

models were developed and tested to explore the relationship between circulation and infrastructure 

improvements (such as pedestrian underpasses/overpasses, intersection improvements, and parking

supply). Each action alternative was then evaluated by transportation planners to determine whether the 

kinds and amounts of use proposed were consistent with the goal of improving traffic circulation (DEA 

2012). Adjustments and refinements were made to use levels and infrastructure to generate a variety of 

solutions. Ultimately, transportation modeling helped to define the level of parking and infrastructure 

6-22 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
User Capacities for the Merced River Corridor

improvement needed to adequately accommodate the user capacities proposed for each alternative.

Explicitly incorporating transportation planning into the alternative development process ensures that the 

quality of the recreation experience will be enhanced under each alternative. See the section entitled 

“Visitor Day-Use Parking and Transit” and the conceptual site drawings for each alternative in Chapter 8 

for the actions proposed to improve traffic flow and public access. 

User Capacity Management

As noted above, user capacities for the Final Merced River Plan/EIS are reported as the number of people at 

one time (PAOT) within the river corridor. The following section focuses on how the NPS will ensure that the 

PAOT in the Yosemite Valley segments remains within the capacity calculations for each alternative. This goal 

will be attained by monitoring and managing the different forms of transportation to and from Yosemite 

Valley, including access by regional transit, tour bus, parking lot shuttle, and private vehicle. The way in which 

the NPS will manage each form of access is described below and the linkage between the user capacities 

reported earlier (Table 6-4) and the means of transport is illustrated in Table 6-11. 

Regional Transit and Remote Parking Lot Shuttle. Each alternative includes assumptions about the number 

of transit runs that can access the Valley each day and the number of riders transported. The potential for 

increased public transportation to the park has been incorporated into these calculations. Operational 

efficiencies and transit schedules will effectively serve to distribute use temporally. Thus, managing this 

component of user capacity simply requires periodic confirmation of these planning assumptions. The same 

applies to shuttle passengers from the El Portal remote parking lot in Alternatives 5 and 6. No further 

management action is needed to ensure that the user capacity associated with regional transit and shuttles is 

accounted for and within projected use levels.

Tour Bus. Tour buses are managed by providing a limited number of parking spaces and requiring bus 

operators to park in these specific locations. Monitoring and directing tour bus operations to the space 

allocated for their use will ensure that this component of user capacity remains stable and within plan 

projections. Capacity calculations have accounted for all tour buses to be carrying full passenger loads.

Private Vehicle. The primary form of transportation to the Valley is the private vehicle, and NPS must manage 

the number of vehicles entering Yosemite Valley as part of managing user capacity. After accounting for the 

number of individuals who arrive via transit or commercial tour bus, the remaining capacity is translated to 

private vehicle numbers, assuming a given number of individuals per vehicle, depending on user type. For 

example, vehicle occupancy for day users is estimated at 2.9 people per vehicle, while it is assumed that 

campers will travel in larger groups. Table 6-11 reports the resulting VAOT by alternative for each Valley 

segment. By monitoring vehicle accumulation in the Valley, the NPS can ensure that the number of people at 

one time in the river corridor remains within the established user capacity. The following sections describe the 

approach the NPS will use to manage private vehicle access to Yosemite Valley. 

East Valley User Capacity Management. The design of the road system in Yosemite Valley provides an 

excellent location for managing the number of visitors in the East Valley. The El Capitan Traffic Diversion 

(Figure 6-2) has been used by park staff for many years to mitigate and control traffic congestion during 

times of peak visitation. The crossover near El Capitan is ideally located for this purpose because access 

roads from all park entries join Southside Drive prior to reaching this location. Therefore, all in-bound 

vehicles must pass through this location and can be redirected to out-bound traffic lanes at this point, prior 

to reaching East Valley. Under all action alternatives, data regarding traffic accumulations will be collected 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 6-23
USER CAPACITY AND VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT

TABLE 6-11: USER CAPACITY MANAGEMENT

Alternative 1 (No Action) 2 3 4 5 (Preferred) 6 

Regional Transit/Shuttles

 Number of Bus/Shuttle Runs 12 11 11 15 30 34

 Associated PAOT 267 241 241 337 684 788

Tour Buses

 Buses Parked at One Time in East Valley 15 15 15 15 22 15

 Associated PAOT 720 720 720 720 1,056 720

Private Vehicle Segment 2A: East Valley

 Vehicles at One Time (VAOT) 6,300 4,040 4,290 4,700 5,300 5,360

 Associated PAOT 17,599 10,348 10,500 13,804 15,631 15,947

Private Vehicle Segment 2B: West Valley

 Vehicles at One Time (VAOT) 540 500 520 520 520 600

 Associated PAOT 1,374 1,261 1,339 1,339 1,339 2,465

Total User Capacity (PAOT) 19,960 12,570 12,800 16,200 18,710 19,920

NOTE: Both regional transit and commercial tour bus capacities have been allocated to Segment 2A (East Valley) as all tour buses are 

required to use designated parking in that segment and all transit drop-off and pick-up locations are located there. These components of 

the transportation system are common to all alternatives.

by automated traffic counters and reported in real time to park managers. When a specified VAOT is 

approached, park staff will begin re-routing traffic from Valley destinations until conditions improve. The 

El Capitan Traffic Diversion is the primary tool for managing the VAOT in the East Valley for Alternatives 5 

and 6.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 propose a day use parking reservation system in addition to the traffic diversion. 

Such a system offers visitors the opportunity to reserve a guaranteed parking space in advance of their visit 

and will allow visitors who make reservations to avoid the prospect of being diverted away from East Valley. 

The form and content of the reservation system would be developed using a public process and would likely 

require several rounds of testing and modification before full implementation. 

West Valley User Capacity Management. All of the above approaches to managing user capacity for 

Yosemite Valley rely upon the El Capitan Traffic Diversion to some degree. Because the diversion point is 

located in West Valley, technically, the system only manages vehicle numbers in the portion of West Valley 

that lies to the east of the crossover. However, none of the plan alternatives contemplate significant increases 

in use or promote access to the remainder of West Valley, with the exception of the day-use parking and 

camping provided in Alternative 6. Thus, user capacities for West Valley (Segment 2B) will be passively 

managed via the provision of limited parking and access for visitors and designated parking for employees and 

residents. For Alternative 6, the user capacity for West Valley has set higher to reflect the additional new 

development (a campground and parking), and those will be designed and managed to keep use within the 

established higher capacity.

6-24 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
User Capacities for the Merced River Corridor

Figure 6-2: El Capitan Cross-over Traffic Diversion

Interim Capacity Management. The Merced River Plan is a long-range planning document. Some of the 

management actions that are adopted by this Plan will require significant refinements to the transportation 

system and the development of additional transit options. These changes will be accomplished via staged 

implementation of plan components over the next 15-20 years. For example, in some alternatives a 

roundabout is constructed to facilitate traffic flow and improve the recreational experience. Additionally, 

three alternatives feature a remote parking lot to be built in El Portal that will eventually reduce traffic 

volumes in East Valley. Adjustments to the user capacity program will be necessary to respond to 

infrastructure improvements as they are completed. 

Until transit options are expanded and remote parking is provided, a greater proportion of visitors in 

Alternatives 5 and 6 can be expected to arrive in East Valley by private vehicle. Therefore, the vehicle 

numbers reported in Table 6-11 are representative of post-plan implementation levels. In the interim, the 

NPS will implement the El Capitan crossover to maintain use levels within established capacities and adjust 

vehicle numbers over time, as alternatives to private vehicle access are developed.

Before transportation system modifications are completed, occasional traffic delays may occur during peak 

periods of visitation. However, gradual improvement to the recreational experience can be expected over 

time and will stem from the implementation of key aspects of the plan. In this interim period, the NPS may 

employ additional temporary measures in order to protect the quality of the recreational experience as 

required by WSRA and NPS policy.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 6-25
USER CAPACITY AND VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT

Segment 3 (Scenic): Merced Gorge

Management Goals and Constraints

The three management goals related to user capacity in this segment include: protecting natural processes, 

promoting visitor enjoyment, and reducing crowding and congestion.

Resource constraints. The primary constraint to the kinds and amounts of use that can occur in the Merced 

Gorge segment is the location of the Highway 140 corridor (El Portal Road), which parallels the Merced River. 

There is limited space on either side of the road to provide visitor services outside of restrooms, garbage bins, 

and parking. Most road traffic passes through Segment 3 en route to other destinations within or outside 

Yosemite. Two-way traffic volumes along this road have not created noticeable congestion during peak-use 

periods, with the exception of periodic back-ups at the Arch Rock Entrance Station. 

Relationship of User Capacity to River Values and the Recreational Experience

Scenic Views in the Merced River Gorge (ORV 17) have improved since the river was designated, with the 

removal of the Cascades Diversion Dam and associated features in 2004. No new infrastructure is proposed 

under any alternative that would compromise the scenic quality of this river segment.

Recreation use in this area is primarily transient. However, some visitors engage in longer visits that include 

more immersive recreational activities (climbing, swimming, or fishing, for example). For example, the pullouts near Arch Rock, Cookie Cliff, and Ribbon Falls are popular for climbing. From the western Yosemite 

boundary to the former diversion dam, most roadside pull-outs in Segment 3 have been redeveloped and 

properly designed to reduce impacts to river values. A few popular swimming-related pull-outs, however, 

show parking and bank trampling impacts. The Final Merced River Plan/EIS proposes actions that would 

provide appropriate access, restore trampled vegetation, reduce erosion, and protect riverbanks, thereby 

enhancing the recreation experience in this segment. All action alternatives also provide for a minimal level 

of private boating to occur within the segment—a use that is currently prohibited (see Chapter 8 for details).

Overview of User Capacities

A summary of the user capacities for the Merced Gorge Segment is provided in Table 6-12. The only 

overnight use occurring in this segment is housing for the Arch Rock entrance station employees.

Parking availability in Segment 3 is very limited and remains constant under all alternatives. This limits the 

number of people who can spend extended time in this river segment. With regard to roadway capacities, 

current peak use averages 300 vehicles per hour traveling the El Portal road through the Gorge. Traffic 

volumes could nearly double without causing unacceptable congestion (DEA 2012). 

Visitor day-use capacities assume 90 percent occupancy of available parking and 2.9 people per vehicle. A 

further assumption is that transit and tour buses do not stop at turn-outs (transit does not stop due to 

schedule constraints and tour buses are prohibited from stopping). Roadway capacity was calculated 

assuming no traffic congestion and 20 vehicles per mile for a distance of 6.9 miles. Roadway capacities 

include both visitor and administrative use. Administrative capacities refer to NPS employees using day-use 

parking at the Arch Rock entrance gate or residing there. Nine employee beds exist along with two 

administrative parking spaces. 

6-26 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
User Capacities for the Merced River Corridor 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 6-27 

TABLE 6-12: SUMMARY OF USER CAPACITIES BY ALTERNATIVE: MERCED GORGE (SEGMENT 3) 

Alternatives 1 (No Action) 2 3 4 5 (Preferred) 6 

Note: All capacities reported as People At One Time (PAOT) 

Visitor Day-Use Capacity Segment 3: Merced Gorge 

Parking 470 470 

Roadway 399 399 

Total 869 869 

Administrative Use Capacity Segment 3: Merced Gorge

Employee Housing 9 9 

Administrative Day-Use 4 4 

Total 13 13 

TOTAL USER CAPACITY MERCED GORGE 

(rounded to nearest 10 PAOT) 880 880 

The Final Merced River Plan /EIS proposed no changes to the current user capacity for Segment 3 under any 

of the action alternatives. 

User Capacity Management 

Capacity is passively managed with the provision of limited parking spaces and access points. Existing Segment 

3 parking capacity will limit visitor use. For all action alternatives, the relatively slight increase in traffic volume 

associated with additional commuters to the Valley is well within the existing roadway capacity. 

Segment 4 (Recreational): El Portal 

Management Goals and Constraints 

The three management goals related to user capacity in this segment include: protecting natural processes, 

promoting visitor enjoyment, and reducing crowding and congestion. A further goal of providing for NPS 

administrative services is not directly associated with this plan, but must be recognized in planning for this 

river segment. 

Resource constraints and site suitability. To protect resources and financial investments, plans must 

address both natural hazards and high-valued natural and cultural resources. For Segment 4, these include: 

floodplains, scenic riverside views, and cultural resource sites. Development opportunities are also limited 

by the steep topography in proximity to the river, which greatly increases construction costs. After factoring 

in all of these constraints, very limited space remains in El Portal for the placement of NPS administrative 

services and visitor-related infrastructure. The alternatives propose options for working within these 

constraints, primarily in the amount and location of employee housing to be provided. 

El Portal Administrative Site Designation. The El Portal Administrative Site was authorized by Congress 

in 1958 (PL 85-9222) to provide administrative functions for the NPS outside of Yosemite Valley. Priorities 

for the El Portal site were to augment the supply of employee housing and to relocate industrial and 

administrative park functions outside of the Valley. Housing construction began in the Rancheria Flat area 
USER CAPACITY AND VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT

as a part of the Mission 66 initiative (Carr 2007). The El Portal Administrative Site (Segment 4) currently 

includes the primary wastewater treatment plant, maintenance personnel and equipment, offices for other 

park personnel, and employee housing for NPS, concessioner and park partners. 

Public Health and Safety. The El Portal Wastewater Treatment Plan services both El Portal and Yosemite 

Valley. This plant currently processes one million gallons of wastewater per day, well under its capacity. 

Although plant capacity is not a constraint, the presence of the facility is essential and prohibits alternative 

lands uses at the same location.

Relationship of User Capacity to River Values and the Recreational Experience

The two river values in Segment 4 are not currently affected by visitor use, nor are they sensitive to use levels.

Informal trails, non-essential roads, and abandoned infrastructure are proposed to be removed under all 

alternatives to enhance the condition of the El Portal Archeological District (ORV 11). The boulder bar in 

El Portal (ORV 7) is impervious to the kinds and amounts of use proposed under all alternatives. 

In El Portal, the recreation experience is primarily scenic driving, but some visitors make short stops at turnouts or longer stops to swim or fish (especially during low water periods in mid- to late summer). Although 

boating in this segment is currently allowed, some of the action alternatives impose daily use limits for this 

activity (see Chapter 8 for additional details). 

Transportation models developed for this planning effort were used to evaluate the ease of access to scenic 

viewing and recreation opportunities and parking availability and congestion at turn-outs and parking areas. 

The models indicate that the El Portal Road capacity in Segment 4 is currently underutilized and that vehicle 

traffic could nearly double without causing unacceptable traffic congestion (DEA 2012). None of the action 

alternatives propose this level of growth and the quality of the recreation experience in Segment 4 is expected 

to remain high.

Overview of User Capacities

A summary of Segment 4 user capacities by alternative is provided in Table 6-13. 

Because most visitors pass through this segment on their way to the Arch Rock Entrance station, visitor dayuse capacities are based on roadside parking availability and roadway capacity under free-flowing 

conditions. Segment 4 contains approximately 214 visitor parking spaces, depending on the size of vehicles 

and how efficiently they are able to park in informal turn-outs. Day-use capacities are based on the 

assumption that parking is utilized at 90 percent, with vehicle occupancy averaging 2.9 people per car. 

Roadway capacity was calculated assuming no traffic congestion and 20 vehicles per mile for a distance of 

3.1-miles. Roadway capacities include both visitor and administrative use.

For administrative use, overnight capacities assume full occupancy of all existing and proposed housing. 

Administrative day-use capacity is estimated based on the number of employee parking spaces at the NPS 

administrative and maintenance facility and assumes an average of two employees per vehicle 

With the exception of Alternative 5, no action alternatives propose changes to the visitor use capacities in 

Segment 4. Alternative 5 increases visitor overnight use capacity by providing a public campground at the 

El Portal Trailer Village. The alternatives propose a range of administrative capacities related to the 

construction of varying amounts of employee housing at Rancheria Flat, Old El Portal Village Center, and 

Abbieville.

6-28 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
User Capacities for the Merced River Corridor

TABLE 6-13: SUMMARY OF USER CAPACITIES BY ALTERNATIVE: EL PORTAL (SEGMENT 4)

Alternatives 1 (No Action) 2 3 4 5 (Preferred) 6

Note: All capacities reported as People at One Time (PAOT)

Visitor Capacity (day use and overnight)

Parking 559 559*

Roadway 181 181

Sub-Total 740 740

Campground 0 0 240 0 

Total Visitor Capacity 740 740 980 740

Administrative capacity

Employee housing 427 801 406 483 535 689

Administrative day-use parking 1,220 1,220

TOTAL SEGMENT CAPACITY

(rounded to nearest 10 PAOT) 2,390 2,760 2,340 2,440 2,740 2,650

NOTE:

*Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 include a remote parking lot in Segment 4 for visitors wishing to access Yosemite Valley by shuttle. This 

component of user capacity has been captured in the capacity calculations for Valley segments and is not repeated here. 

User Capacity Management

User capacity will continue to be passively managed in this segment via the provision of limited parking and 

access for visitors and designated parking for employees and residents. The slight increase in camping 

proposed in Alternative 5, will be managed to the design capacity. Appropriate river access points will be 

identified during site planning for the Abbieville and El Portal Trailer Village areas to direct visitor and resident 

use in proximity to the river. Existing Segment 4 roadside parking capacity will limit visitor use in other parts of 

this river segment. For all action alternatives, the relatively slight increase (between 25 and 160 additional 

vehicles) in daily traffic volume associated with additional commuters to the Valley is well within the existing 

roadway capacity. Additionally, most commuting traffic is on the roadway before and after the busiest times 

for visitor traffic. 

Segment 5 (Wild): South Fork Merced River Above Wawona

Management Goals and Constraints 

The two management goals related to user capacity in this segment include: protecting natural processes 

and promoting visitor enjoyment. 

Wilderness designation. Segment 5 is entirely located in designated Wilderness. The provisions of the 1964 

Wilderness Act direct that these areas be managed to provide “outstanding opportunities for solitude or a 

primitive and unconfined type of recreation.” Therefore, both the kinds and amounts of use allowed in this 

segment are limited to those consistent with Wilderness designation. Visitor use in the corridor is primarily 

associated with maintained trails that cross the river in three places along with a few commonly used 

informal campsites. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 6-29
USER CAPACITY AND VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT

Overview of User Capacities

The visitor use capacities reported in Table 6-14 include campers and day hikers. Administrative use 

capacity assumes up to five employees per day associated with Wilderness patrols, trail crews, or searchand-rescue operations. User capacities for Segment 5 are held constant across all alternatives. 

TABLE 6-14: SUMMARY OF USER CAPACITIES FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES: S. FORK MERCED ABOVE WAWONA (SEGMENT 5)

Rationale

Visitor Overnight Capacity Segment 5

South Fork Zone 15

The trails to Chain Lakes and to Fernandez Pass both cross the river corridor

(about 4.5 miles of trail in the corridor in total). Very little, if any cross-country 

use occurs in this area and the river corridor accounts for less than 15 percent 

of the area within the zone. Most camping occurs outside of the river corridor. 

Johnson Creek Zone 5 

There are no designated trails in the river corridor. Very little cross-country travel 

occurs in this area and the river corridor accounts for less than 5 percent of the 

area within the zone. 

Chilnualna Creek Zone 0 

There are no designated trails in the river corridor and no known use. The 

river corridor accounts for less than 10 percent of the area within the zone. 

No camping is allowed in the river corridor (within four miles of Wawona). 

Total Visitor Overnight Capacity 20

Visitor Day-Use Capacity Segment 5 6 Use in this segment is very low for day users. Capacity based on two groups 

of 3 persons each. 

Administrative Use Capacity Segment 5 1 Estimated based on a limited number of Wilderness patrols.

Total User Capacity

South Fork Merced Above Wawona 27 

Relationship of User Capacity to River Values and the Recreation Experience

Segment 5 contains two ORVs. The exemplary and wild scenic beauty of the river corridor (ORV 18) will 

remain intact under all alternatives. The Wilderness designation associated with this segment precludes 

development or resource extraction, and its scenic vistas are not threatened by the amount of use proposed 

in any alternative.

The condition of the regionally rare archeological features (ORV 12) in Segment 5 currently meets the 

management standard described in Chapter 5, although known impacts to one of the sites will require 

management action. One archeological site is located approximately 10 meters from a hiking trail and has been 

impacted by inappropriate visitor use, including a bonfire and construction of campfire rings. This isolated 

conflict with visitor use is site-specific and more related to management of use at the site level versus the 

management of overall segment capacity. All plan alternatives highlight this location for further monitoring 

and prescribe appropriate protection actions to be taken in response to site conditions. Currently, boating in 

this segment is not allowed; however, under all action alternatives some level of boating would be allowed in 

this segment (See Chapter 8 for additional details by Alternative). 

This part of the Merced River corridor currently provides very low-density, solitude-oriented recreation 

experiences and minimal visitor-related impacts. The action alternatives propose no changes that would 

change or otherwise diminish the quality of the recreation experience provided in this river segment. 

6-30 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
User Capacities for the Merced River Corridor 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 6-31 

Figure 6-3: Segment 5 River Corridor and Wilderness Zones 

User Capacity Management 

Visitor overnight use for Segment 5 is managed through the Wilderness permit system. Other details about 

the backcountry permit system are provided earlier in this chapter (see discussion for Segment 1). Active 

management of visitor day use is not proposed because use has historically been very low and confined to 

maintained trails which pass through only 4.5 miles of the river segment. 

Segments 6 and 7 (Recreational) Wawona Impoundment and Wawona 

Management Goals and Constraints 

The two management goals related to user capacity in the 4.6 mile Wawona segment include: protecting 

natural processes and promoting visitor enjoyment. The .05-mile Wawona Impoundment segment meets 

the goal of providing a domestic water supply for NPS operations and private use in Wawona. If alternative 

sources of water were to be developed, the segment would be merged with Segment 7. 
USER CAPACITY AND VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT

6-32 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 

Resource constraints and site suitability: In Segments 6 and 7, the floodplain and the location of cultural 

resources are the primary constraints on the location of visitor and administrative services. The 

checkerboard ownership of federal and privately-owned parcels within Section 35 (entirely within the 

boundaries of the river corridor) limits the size and placement of facilities to those that fit within the 

available space and provide for compatible land use. 

Water consumption: The NPS water treatment plant, located off Chilnualna Falls Road in Wawona, 

processes untreated water from a shallow impoundment on the South Fork Merced (Segment 6). Water 

availability serves as a limiting factor for further development in this river segment. To protect aquatic 

habitat, mandatory water conservation measures are implemented when the flow of South Fork Merced 

River drops below six cubic feet per second. This has become an annual event in recent years. 

Because of its short length and limited opportunities for visitor use, Segment 6 is not discussed further in 

this section. User capacity for Segment 7 will include any incidental use that may spill over into Segment 6. 

Overview of User Capacities 

Table 6-15 reports the proposed user capacities for the federal land within Segment 7 for all alternatives. In 

general, slight increases in day-use are offset by reductions in overnight use across alternatives. 

As previously discussed, Segment 7 includes an area with numerous residential inholdings (Section 35). 

Many other rivers include private lands within the boundaries of the designated river area. In all cases, 

management restrictions, including user capacity decisions, apply only to federal lands.8 As with other 

gateway communities, Wawona residents are included as day and/or overnight users of park facilities 

throughout the corridor. 

TABLE 6-15: SUMMARY OF USER CAPACITIES BY ALTERNATIVE: WAWONA (SEGMENT 7) 

Alternatives 1 (No Action) 2 3 4 5 (Preferred) 6 

Note: All capacities reported as People At One Time (PAOT) 

Visitor Overnight Capacity Segment 7: Wawona 

Campgrounds 618 426 456 456 540 540 

Lodging 247 247 

Total 865 673 703 703 787 787 

Visitor Day-Use Capacity Segment 7: Wawona

Private Vehicle 911 911 

Regional Transit 0 26 26 104 311 311 

Commercial Tour Bus 384 384 

Total 1295 1,321 1,321 1,399 1,606 1,606 

Administrative-Use Capacity Segment 7: Wawona

Employee Housing 121 121 

Administrative Day-Use 60 60 

Total 181 181 

TOTAL USER CAPACITY WAWONA 2,340 2,170 2,200 2,280 2,570 2,570 

 

8 Development and use on private land is guided by the Wawona Town Planning Areas Specific Plan, a component of the 

Mariposa County General Plan.
User Capacities for the Merced River Corridor

Visitor Overnight Capacity

Visitor overnight capacity in Wawona is limited to accommodations at the Wawona Hotel, Wawona 

Campground, and two camping areas for equestrian users. Variation in the visitor overnight capacity for the 

action alternatives can be attributed to the number of campsites removed from the Wawona Campground.

Visitor Day-Use Capacity

Day use in Wawona includes a variety of river-related activities (including fishing, swimming, boating), as 

well as non-river related activities (including picnicking, camping, lodging, horseback riding, and golfing). 

Additionally, the Pioneer History Museum, special events at the Wawona Hotel, and other attractions near 

the Wawona store attract visitors to this park destination. Most of these activities are expected to continue 

under all action alternatives. Currently, boating in this segment is allowed; however, under some action 

alternatives, daily use limits for boating would be established in this segment (See Chapter 8 for additional 

details by Alternative).

For all action alternatives, increased transit on the Highway 41 corridor between Fresno/Oakhurst and 

Yosemite Valley (see Segment 2A/2B discussion) is assumed to translate into more day-use in Wawona. To 

ensure that capacity calculations account for these transit riders, it is assumed that a maximum of 60 percent 

of total bus ridership on this corridor could remain in the Wawona area at any one point in time. 

No additional parking or visitor services are proposed in any alternative, although improvements to existing 

facilities are included as actions common to all. Day use capacity associated with private vehicles and tour 

buses will remain limited by the amount of parking provided. All alternatives retain approximately 290 

parking spaces for private vehicles and eight parking spaces for tour buses at the Wawona Store. Space for 

private vehicles is approximate because vehicle size varies and spaces are not delineated within turnouts. 

Transportation models were used to estimate the number of vehicles at one time in circulation on the 

Wawona road during free-flowing traffic conditions. Vehicle occupants are included in total day-use 

calculations.

The Wawona golf course provides a unique visitor use in the Wawona segment. Roughly 20 acres of the 

nine-hole course are within the river corridor. It is retained under Alternatives 4, 5, and 6, and removed 

under Alternatives 2 and 3. The presence or absence of the golf course does not change any of the user 

capacities proposed for this segment. The capacity of the golf course is limited by the course size and layout, 

and no changes to the operations of the course are proposed under the alternatives that retain it. 

Administrative Capacity

Administrative overnight-use capacity assumes full occupancy of the housing currently provided for a 

limited number of NPS and concessioner employees. Administrative day-use includes NPS rangers, fire 

personnel and maintenance staff, and concessioner employees working at the Wawona Hotel, store, and 

golf course. Administrative day-use capacity is assumed to be limited to the level that can be accommodated 

by the available administrative parking supply (30 spaces). No additional housing or administrative uses are 

proposed under any of the action alternatives.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 6-33
USER CAPACITY AND VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT

Relationship of User Capacity to River Values and the Recreation Experience

Segment 7 contains three ORVs. The condition of Sierra sweet bay population (ORV 3) meets the management 

standard described in Chapter 5. Visitor use related impacts include minor, localized trampling associated with 

recreational access near the Wawona Campground. All action alternatives propose permanent photo points to 

monitor the status of the population in the vicinity of the campground. The results will be used to determine 

whether and how visitor use in this area can best be directed to avoid future impacts. 

The condition of the Wawona Archeological District (ORV 13) currently meets the management standard 

described in Chapter 5. However, the concentration of visitor use in proximity to the Camp A. E. Wood 

archeological site increases the potential for damage to shallow deposits of historic artifacts. All action 

alternatives propose removing seven campsites in the Wawona campground to address this concern. 

There are no visitor use related impacts to the Wawona Historical District (ORV 14) in Segment 7.

As in the other Merced River segments, water quality is excellent in Segment 7. However, the Wawona 

campground currently relies upon a limited septic system and leach field for wastewater treatment. To alleviate 

concerns over the potential for mound failure, all action alternatives propose connecting the campground to 

the main sewer line servicing the Wawona community. 

Visitor overnight capacity is reduced in all action alternatives. However, there are numerous private rentals 

in close proximity that provide the opportunity for an overnight experience in the river corridor. Other 

actions common to all alternatives, including improvements to river access points and popular picnic areas, 

will enhance the quality of the recreation experience in this segment. 

User Capacity Management

User capacity will continue to be passively managed in this segment via the provision of limited parking for 

visitor-use and designated parking for employees and residents. Appropriate river access points will be 

designated and restroom facilities provided for areas of concentrated use. Current use-related impacts to 

river values are minimal and will be addressed by all action alternatives. No other actions are required at this 

time.

Segment 8 (Wild): South Fork Merced River Below Wawona

Management Goals and Constraints

Segment 8 is the shortest segment of the Merced Wild and Scenic River (with the exception of the Wawona 

impoundment). The two management goals related to user capacity in this 2.7 mile segment include: 

protecting natural processes and promoting visitor enjoyment.

Policy and regulation. Camping is prohibited within one air mile of any road in Yosemite. Thus, camping is 

prohibited in Segment 8 because, although difficult to access, the entire segment is located within one mile 

of the Wawona Road. 

6-34 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
User Capacities for the Merced River Corridor

Overview of User Capacities

Segment 8 is rarely visited. Recreational activity is typically low-impact and dispersed. For example, visitors 

at the Wawona campground may hike along the river to fish or swim. Similarly, a few highly-skilled 

whitewater boating groups (typically kayakers) may descend the Class V+ South Fork during a narrow 

window of boatable flows in early summer. Currently, boating in this segment is allowed; however, under 

some action alternatives, daily use limits for boating would be established in this segment (See Chapter 8 for 

additional details by Alternative). A few visitors each year may hike further into the river corridor seeking 

places to fish or relax in near-complete solitude, but the reach is short, and the terrain is steep and 

challenging with no trails. 

Although Segment 8 is not within designated Wilderness, management of the area would continue to focus 

on primitive and low-density recreation opportunities, consistent with the Wild classification under WSRA. 

User capacities for Segment 8 are intended to provide a measure of solitude, similar to areas without trails in 

the South Fork Merced River above Wawona (Segment 5). Research pertaining to low-density Wilderness 

use suggests that encounter rates should be lower than five per day to provide a similar experience in this 

segment of the river corridor (Vaske et al. 1986). Along the South Fork below Wawona, use levels of three or 

fewer groups per day (of no more than 5 people per group) are expected to be consistent with this standard. 

Based on NPS estimates, this low level of use has rarely, if ever, been exceeded. This is the basis for the dayuse capacities (which include both hikers and boaters) reported in Table 6-16. 

Administrative use capacity assumes up to five employees per day associated with Wilderness patrols and 

search-and-rescue operations.

No overnight use occurs in this river segment.

User capacities for Segment 8 are held constant across all alternatives.

TABLE 6-16: SUMMARY OF USER CAPACITIES FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES: S. FORK MERCED BELOW WAWONA (SEGMENT 8)

Rationale

Visitor Day-Use Capacity Segment 8 6 Use in this segment is very low for day users. Capacity based on 

two group of 3 persons each at one time.

Administrative Use Capacity Segment 8 1 Estimated based on a limited number of Wilderness patrols.

TOTAL USER CAPACITY

SOUTH FORK MERCED ABOVE WAWONA

7 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 6-35
USER CAPACITY AND VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT

This page intentionally left blank

6-36 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 7-1 

7. DEVELOPMENT OF LANDS AND FACILITIES 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) requires that management plans prepared for rivers designated under 

the act will address “development of lands and facilities” in the river area.1 The WSRA and the 1982 Final 

Revised Guidelines for Eligibility, Classification, and Management of River Areas Secretarial Guidelines 

(Secretarial Guidelines) provide direction on the types of facilities that may be located within river areas. In 

addition, the Ninth Circuit’s 2008 opinion in Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Kempthorne questioned whether the 

level of development in some parts of the river corridor was sufficiently protective of ORVs.2

This chapter addresses the development of lands and facilities in the river corridor, including the rationale for 

locating major public-use facilities within each segment. This chapter first discusses the legal requirements 

governing such development. It then reports the results of the NPS’s analysis of all major public-use facilities in 

the Merced River corridor. The content of this chapter informed the level of development proposed in the 

alternatives described in “Alternatives” (Chapter 8), including the actions that are common to Alternatives 2-6. 

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT AND FACILITIES 

WSRA, the Secretarial Guidelines, and judicial opinions interpreting the law all play a role in determining the 

permissibility of the level and type of development in the Merced Wild and Scenic River corridor. Guidance 

from WSRA and the Secretarial Guidelines pertains primarily to segment classifications and related amounts of 

development, with the Secretarial Guidelines providing additional direction for major public use facilities. 

Judicial opinions (mainly pertaining to previous versions of the Merced River Plan in Yosemite) have 

emphasized the importance of this task and clarified the direction from WSRA and the Secretarial Guidelines. 

Segment Classifications and Facilities 

WSRA provides important guidance on the type and intensity of development that is allowable in river 

segments, depending upon the segment’s classification.3 The Act and the Secretarial Guidelines describe 

development that may exist in river areas in terms of a continuum, with the least amount of development 

tolerated in wild segments. “Wild” segments are to be managed as “vestiges of primitive America,” containing 

little or no evidence of human activity, although a few inconspicuous structures may be present. These areas 

generally do not contain roads and are free of impoundments. “Scenic” river segments may contain more 

discernible development. A scenic segment retains its overall natural character but may have structures or 

concentrations of structures in short reaches of the total area. Scenic segments may be accessible in places by 

roads. Finally, “recreational” segments, such as East Yosemite Valley, are defined as being readily accessible by 

road and may have roads paralleling the river on one or both banks as well as bridge crossings. Recreational 

segments may also have some residential, commercial or similar development, and may have evidence of 

impoundment or diversion.4

The Secretarial Guidelines provide that the classification for each segment is one that best fits the existing level 

of development at the time of designation. Although each classification permits certain nonconforming existing 

 

1 16 U.S.C § 1274(d). 

2 Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Kempthorne, 520 F.3d 1024, 1035-36 n.5 (9th Cir. 2008) [hereinafter FYVIII]. 

3 16 U.S.C. Section 1273(b). 

4 47 Fed. Reg. 39457-58. 
DEVELOPMENT OF LANDS AND FACILITIES

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

development, “the criteria do not imply that additional inconsistent development is permitted in the future.”5

Accordingly, segment classifications affected the level of new development proposed in particular segments in 

this Plan. For example, Segment 2B, West Yosemite Valley, is classified “Scenic.” Therefore, large-scale 

residential and commercial development is not proposed within this segment. 

Limits on Major Public-use facilities 

In addition to limiting development based on segment classification, the Secretarial Guidelines contain 

additional criteria for facilities located in the corridor. Facilities are divided into two categories: major publicuse facilities and basic facilities. The Secretarial Guidelines state that “major public-use facilities such as 

developed campgrounds, major visitor centers and administrative headquarters will, where feasible, be located 

outside the river area. If such facilities are necessary to provide for public use and/or to protect the river 

resource, and location outside the river area is infeasible, such facilities may be located within the river area 

provided they do not have an adverse effect on the values for which the river area was designated.”6

Other facilities, such as picnic areas, public restrooms, roadside pull-outs, shuttle bus stops, and campground 

kiosks, are denominated “basic facilities” by the Secretarial Guidelines. Basic facilities may be located in river 

areas because they help to absorb the impacts from use and protect the river. Finally, the Secretarial Guidelines 

also make allowance for structures related to resource management, such as trail bridges, fences and other 

minor structures as long as they are compatible with the segment’s classification and the structures harmonize 

with the surrounding environment.7 Most segments of the Merced Wild and Scenic River contain basic 

facilities and minor structures. 

Judicial Opinions 

Previous versions of the Merced River Plan were the subject of litigation over the level of development and 

visitor use in the corridor.8 The most recent Ninth Circuit ruling was issued in 2008 in Friends of Yosemite 

Valley v. Kempthorne, and addressed the issue of “past degradation” in Yosemite Valley. The Court explained 

that the NPS could not presume that facility levels in existence in 1987 were protective of river values. Pointing 

to “dozens of facilities and services operating in the river corridor,” the court stated that the many recreational 

and commercial facilities located in the corridor were evidence of “past degradation” of the Merced, and held 

that NPS must “explain how maintaining these facilities inside the corridor would protect and enhance the 

river’s unique values as required under the WSRA, giving primary emphasis to the river’s esthetic, scenic, 

historic, archeologic, and scientific features.”9 This means that every facility must be evaluated to ensure it is 

consistent with the protection of river values regardless of whether it was present in the corridor at the time the 

Merced was designated as a Wild and Scenic River. 

 

5 47 Fed. Reg. at 39456-57.See also “Wild and Scenic River Management Responsibilities,” IWSRCC, pp. 4-6 (2002); “A 

Compendium of Questions and Answers Relating to Wild and Scenic Rivers,” IWSRCC, p. 31 (2011). 6 47 Fed. Reg. at 39459. 

7 47 Fed. Reg. 39459. 

8 FYVIII, 530 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2008); Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 366 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 2004) [hereinafter FYVII]; 

Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789 (9th Cir. 2003) [hereinafter FYVI]; Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Scarlett, 

439 F.Supp.2d 1074 (E.D. Cal. 2006). 

9 FYVIII, at 1035-36. 
Process Used to Evaluate Public-Use Facilities in this Plan

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 7-3 

PROCESS USED TO EVALUATE PUBLIC-USE FACILITIES IN THIS PLAN 

The Merced River corridor within Yosemite National Park and the El Portal Administrative Site contains major 

public-use facilities for purposes such as resource protection; camping and lodging; food, retail, and other 

commercial services; administration; and utility infrastructure. In order to comply with the legal requirements 

described above, the NPS evaluated all existing and proposed major public-use facilities pursuant to the 

direction in WSRA, the Secretarial Guidelines, and judicial opinions. NPS utilized a rigorous three-step process 

that determined: (1) whether it would be feasible to relocate the facility outside the river corridor; (2) if the 

facility would be infeasible to relocate, whether it is necessary for public use and/or resource protection; and (3) 

if the facility is both infeasible to relocate and necessary for public use or resource protection, whether it could 

be maintained without adverse impacts to river values. 

Feasibility 

“Feasible” is defined in this plan as “capable of being done, accomplished, or carried out; possible, 

practicable.”10 In making a determination as to whether or not a facility could feasibly be relocated out of the 

river corridor, the NPS considered a variety of constraints, including economic and technical issues in addition 

to resource and safety hazards. 

Necessary for Public Use or Resource Protection 

There are no universal criteria for what is “necessary” that can be applied to all of the diverse areas that 

comprise the National Wild and Scenic River System. Rather, what is necessary must be determined for each 

Wild and Scenic River area with reference to the particular resource and other concerns specific to that area. 

Because the Merced Wild and Scenic River is located in Yosemite National Park, determinations of the kinds of 

facilities that are necessary for public use were informed by the National Park Service’s Management Policies 

2006, and by the 1980 General Management Plan for Yosemite National park (GMP), in addition to WSRA. 

NPS Management Policies 2006 

Management Policies 2006 interprets the National Park Service Organic Act, which contains the agency’s wellknown dual mandate: “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.”11 The NPS Management Policies 2006 provide guidance on the 

development of facilities to support appropriate visitor use activities and administrative needs. For example, it 

directs that major facilities should be located outside park units where feasible. However, it also recognizes that 

many facilities, including overnight visitor use facilities and food services, may need to be provided inside parks 

when travel distance to similar facilities outside the park is too great to permit reasonable use or when having to 

leave the park would substantially detract from the quality of the visitor experience.12 

 

10 This is the definition from the Oxford English Dictionary, Online Edition (2013). Other dictionary definitions are similar, 

e.g., Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 29 July 2013. <http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/feasible>. The Oxford Dictionary (ODO) defines “feasible” as “possible to do easily or 

conveniently.” http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/feasible. 11 16 U.S. Code 1-1a-1; see also NPS Management Policies 2006, Section 1.4.3, page 21. 12 NPS Management Policies 2006, Section 9.3.2, page 136. 
DEVELOPMENT OF LANDS AND FACILITIES

7-4 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 

The Management Policies specify that each unit within the National Park Service is required to have a general 

management plan which serves as “the basic foundation for decision-making” within the park. A park’s general 

management plan is required by law to address the question of facilities and development, and NPS policy 

provides that decisions regarding facility planning must be consistent with an approved park general 

management plan.13 

1980 General Management Plan For Yosemite National Park 

The 1980 General Management Plan for Yosemite National Park (GMP) establishes direction for facility 

development within the park. It includes five broad goals for the park: reclaim priceless beauty, allow natural 

process to prevail, promote visitor understanding and enjoyment, markedly reduce traffic congestion, and 

reduce crowding.14 As discussed in Appendix A, these five goals remain valid and helped to inform decisions in 

the Merced River Plan. 

To achieve these goals, the GMP specified that many facilities would be removed from Yosemite Valley to 

reduce crowding and protect natural beauty and resources. Visitor facilities and commercial services that had 

become “intrusive” were to be reduced or relocated. The GMP established a desired level of development as 

one in which visitors would “step into Yosemite and find nature uncluttered by the piecemeal stumbling blocks 

of commercialism, machines, and fragments of suburbia.”15 The GMP described the park’s ultimate goal for 

visitor experience as one that would reduce “congested” conditions caused by “more than 1000 stores, homes, 

garages, lodging facilities, and restaurants” and refocus on assisting park visitors to grasp, appreciate, and 

participate in the park’s conservation mission. 

The 1980 General Management Plan for Yosemite National Park was completed before either the Yosemite 

Wilderness or the Merced River were designated; it therefore does not consider protection and enhancement 

of river values in accordance with WSRA. Consistent with the NPS Management Policies 2006, the Final Merced 

River Plan/EIS will revise the GMP to include those considerations. The specific amendments to the GMP 

resulting from this plan are outlined in Appendix A. 

The Merced River Plan exhibits a high degree of consistency with the facility and development decisions of the 

GMP. For example, the Concessioner General Office and Garage and the Ahwahnee Tennis Courts are all 

removed from the corridor in both plans. The GMP, like the Merced River Plan, reduced gift shop space in the 

Lodge and Village areas. The Curry Village Ice Rink is removed from its permanent location in both plans. Both 

plans pull campsite development back from the river, and both the GMP and the Merced River Plan remove 

units from Housekeeping Camp in order to protect river values. In addition, both the preferred alternative for 

the Merced River Plan and the GMP retain many facilities including park campgrounds, the Yosemite Lodge, 

Housekeeping Camp, Curry Village, the Ahwahnee Hotel; the Ahwahnee and Lodge swimming pools, the 

historic Wawona hotel complex including its swimming pool and golf course, and many other major public-use 

facilities. 

The Final Merced River Plan/EIS will revise the 1980 General Management Plan for Yosemite National Park 

regarding some public use facilities based on new information regarding the designation of the Merced Wild 

and Scenic River in 1987 and the Yosemite Wilderness in 1984, new information regarding resource conditions 

and natural hazards, changes in visitor use patterns, and new information that rendered some GMP actions as 

 

13 16 U.S.C. Section 1(a)-7(b) (2013); NPS Management Policies 2006, Section 9.1.1, page 124; NPS Management Policies 

2006, Section 2.2, page 22-23; NPS GMP Dynamic Sourcebook, Version 2.2, 

http://planning.nps.gov/GMPSourcebook/Purpose_new.htm# (last accessed 7/29/13). 

14 NPS, Yosemite General Management Plan, p.1-4 (1980) [hereinafter “GMP”]. 

15 GMP, pp. 1-3. 
Process Used to Evaluate Public-Use Facilities in this Plan

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 7-5 

impractical and infeasible.16 More information on each of these causes of difference follows. 

Changed Legal Environment 

The evolving legal environment since 1980 affected some of the facilities decisions in the GMP. In some 

instances, the 1987 designation of the Merced Wild and Scenic River itself required adjustments to the 1980 

GMP to protect and enhance river values and reduce the number of major public-use facilities in the corridor 

as required by law. For instance, the GMP retained the old Wells Fargo Bank building and repurposed it for 

visitor use.17 That facility now houses an art activity center and an ATM that feasibly could be relocated outside 

the river corridor. The old bank building could then be removed to allow for the redesign and partial 

restoration of the Camp 6 day use parking lot, which will protect and enhance biologic river values. In another 

example, the GMP called for removing Degnan’s Deli and its associated food and snack service, while retaining 

the Happy Isles food and snack stand. However, that decision predated the designation of the Merced, which 

placed the Happy Isles establishment within the river area. For that reason, the Merced River Plan retains 

Degnan’s and eliminates the Happy Isles stand instead. Table 7-2 lists those facilities within the corridor that 

the GMP proposed to remove but that the Merced River Plan retains, along with the reason for the decision; 

Table 7-3 provides similar information on facilities that the GMP proposed retaining, but which this plan 

removes. 

Natural Hazards 

Natural events and new knowledge regarding natural hazards required a reconsideration of certain GMP 

facilities decisions. For example, in 1997 a significant flood event occurred in Yosemite Valley that required the 

removal of some development from the floodplain, including some campground areas and lodging that were 

too close to the river. Rock-fall events over the past decade have prompted the closure of other areas to 

development to protect visitor safety. Natural hazards not only limited the area available for development 

inside the corridor, but also reduced the area outside the corridor that is available for relocation of facilities. 

New Information about Visitor Use, Land Availability, and Fiscal Constraints 

New information about patterns of visitor use, land availability, and fiscal constraints also resulted in some 

changes to the GMP. One factor considered by NPS in making the determination of whether a facility is 

“necessary” for public use is its utilization rate and the cost/benefit trade-off based on that rate of utilization. 

For example, commercial horseback day-rides in Yosemite Valley have a very low rate of usage. Fewer than 150 

such rides per day were provided during the period of June 1 through August 31, 2012, compared with an 

average daily park-wide visitation during that period of nearly 20,000 people.18 The stable facility in Yosemite 

Valley, which employs 45 full time seasonal workers who are housed in the corridor, maintains substantial 

overcapacity relative to the demand for this service. The land allocation within the corridor for the stables 

operation is disproportionately large given the declining number of users. This low rate of usage suggests that 

the facility can be reduced in size because the entire facility is not necessary. Similarly, the Ahwahnee tennis 

courts are obsolete and are no longer used by visitors. As a result, this facility is no longer necessary for public 

use. In this way, the Merced River Plan follows the direction of the GMP to “phase out other facilities and 

activities that are not directly related to resource enjoyment or that exceed visitor demand.”19 

 

16 See Appendix A for a complete description of all amendments to the GMP made by the Merced River Plan. 

17 GMP, p. 35, CSP, p. 26. 

18 National Park Service, Visitor Use Statistics, Yosemite National Park (2012) available at: https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/ 

SSRSReports/Park%20Specific%20Reports/Visitation%20By%20Month%20Year?Park=YOSE. 19 GMP, p. 36. 
DEVELOPMENT OF LANDS AND FACILITIES

7-6 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 

New information also led to a decision to amend the GMP provision that would have eliminated all private 

automobile travel in Yosemite Valley. Following an extensive public process, NPS determined that this specific 

decision is not feasible due to a number of factors including the lack of sufficient land for remote parking, fiscal 

constraints, and the lack of sufficient regional transit capacity. However, the MRP observes the GMP direction 

to markedly reduce traffic congestion by making other facilities decisions, including redesigning the 

transportation system and consolidating and delineating parking. 

In sum, while some of the details of the GMP and the Merced River Plan decisions regarding major public use 

facilities may differ, the overarching direction of Yosemite’s General Management Plan—to reduce the 

development footprint, limit commercial facilities, reduce traffic congestion, and refocus on protecting and 

enhancing natural and cultural resources—is wholly consistent with and reflected in Merced River Plan 

determinations of which major public use facilities are “necessary” in the Merced River corridor. Specific 

amendments to the 1980 General Management Plan for Yosemite National Park proposed by the Final Merced 

River Plan/EIS are found in Appendix A. 

Adverse Impacts 

Under the Secretarial Guidelines and the 2008 Ninth Circuit opinion interpreting them, facilities that are 

necessary for public use and/or resource protection and infeasible to relocate may be maintained in the 

corridor provided that they have no adverse impact on river values. The analysis of the impacts of major publicuse facilities on river values is based on the baseline conditions for river values and the management concerns 

and localized concerns described in “River Values and Their Management” (Chapter 5). As shown in Chapter 

5, there are no segment-wide adverse impacts to any river values. There may, however, be management 

concerns or localized concerns affecting a river value related to a major public use facility. Table 7-1 provides a 

summary of all facility-related management concerns and localized concerns, along with the necessary 

mitigation measures to protect river values. 

RESULTS: NECESSARY FACILITIES FOR THE MERCED RIVER CORRIDOR 

Table 7-1 presents an analysis of all public-use facilities within the corridor to meet the intent of the Secretarial 

Guidelines. The analysis includes all facilities in the river corridor that do not meet the definition of “basic” 

under WSRA. Those facilities that were found to be either feasible to relocate or unnecessary for public use or 

resource protection are either eliminated or relocated across all action alternatives. 

displays the treatment of major public-use facilities that are either removed or relocated across all alternatives. 

For example, the Ahwahnee Tennis Courts are removed in all alternatives because they are obsolete and no 

longer necessary for visitor use. 

In addition to those facilities found to be either feasible to relocate or unnecessary for public use or resource 

protection, some alternatives remove additional facilities. This is because a range of alternatives are being 

considered for managing the Merced River corridor, including a range of user capacities. Some alternatives 

propose reductions in visitor use and consequently have a lesser need for camping, lodging, food, retail outlets, 

administration, and employee housing. These alternatives consequently have fewer major public-use facilities. 

For example, Alternative 3 has a user capacity of 12,800 people at one time (PAOT). As a result of this reduced 

capacity, Housekeeping Camp as well as some of the lodging units from Curry Village and the Yosemite Lodge, 

and associated employee housing are removed in that alternative. Other alternatives eliminate some facilities in 

order to provide a differing mix of camping and lodging accommodations for overnight visitors. For example, 
Results: Necessary Facilities for the Merced River Corridor

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 7-7 

Alternative 2 eliminates Yosemite Lodge and replaces it with camping and day-use facilities. Table 7-4 presents 

a comparison of the actions taken with regard to facilities across the range of alternatives. 

Relationship of this Analysis with other Chapters 

Chapter 5: River Values and Their Management. Where it has been determined that development footprints, 

visitor use and / or administrative use are causing local effects to river values as defined in “River Values and 

Their Management” (Chapter 5), this plan calls for removal, re-design, and/or relocation of those facilities. The 

conclusions from this analysis of river value conditions with regard to existing and proposed facilities can be 

found in Table 7-1. 

Chapter 6: User Capacity. Chapter 6 details the kinds and amounts of public use that will be allowed under 

each alternative in order to protect and enhance river values. As noted above, the facilities needed for public 

use and resource protection may vary depending on the user capacity proposed for any given alternative. Table 

7-4 presents a comparison of major public-use facilities by alternative. 

Chapter 8: Alternatives. The Final Merced River Plan/EIS contemplates a wide range of reasonable and feasible 

alternatives, which propose varied levels of major public-use facilities needed to provide for public use and 

enjoyment or protection of the river resource. 

Chapter 9: Environmental Consequences. The environmental analysis of different alternatives varies 

depending upon the level and type of facilities provided. For example, Alternative 2 provides a greater amount 

of camping and reduces lodging units in Yosemite Valley. The economic impacts to gateway communities of 

providing fewer in-park lodging units are described under “Socioeconomics”, while the environmental impacts 

of reducing the number of lodging units in the corridor are described under “Hydrology, Floodplains, and 

Water Quality”. 

 
DEVELOPMENT OF LANDS AND FACILITIES

7-8 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 

This page intentionally left blank 
Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS TABLE 7-1: EVALUATION OF FACILITIES WITHIN THE RIVER CORRIDOR BY RIVER SEGMENT20

SEGMENT 1: WILDERNESS ABOVE NEVADA FALL (WILD) 

Facility 1980 GMP Action Feasible to relocate outside the river corridor? Necessary for public use or resource protection? Adverse Impacts Management Concerns 

ORV 1 

LODGING Merced Lake High Sierra Camp Retained 

No. The High Sierra Camp is located within potential Wilderness and is surrounded by designated Wilderness which precludes the construction of new facilities or the relocation of existing facilities outside the river corridor. 

Yes. This camp was authorized by Congress to continue as a nonconforming use in potential Wilderness. It provides rustic lodging to visitors traveling independently or as a part of the organized High Sierra Loop Trips offered by the concessioner. 

NONE NONE 

Informal trails incise meadow habitat in the vicinity. All alternatives would remove informal trails. 

NON

SEGMENT 2A: EAST YOSEMITE VALLEY (RECREATIONAL) 

Facility 1980 GMP Action Feasible to relocate outside the river corridor? Necessary for public use or resource protection? Adverse Impacts Management Concerns 

ORV 2 

LODGING Housekeeping Camp 

Retained at reduced capacity 

No. It is infeasible to locate Housekeeping Camp outside of the river corridor in Yosemite Valley because alternative locations would either directly impact river values or put visitors in harm’s way from rock fall. 

Yes. Housekeeping Camp, with its primitive accommodations, facilitates the public use and enjoyment of all river values. Overnight accommodations allow visitors to have the experience of being in a natural setting over the course of a day, experiencing the changing light conditions at dusk and ultimately, the nighttime sky. Support services such as the laundry, showers and grocery store are located on site to provide basic necessities at this key visitor services node. Consistent with the GMP, all action alternatives reduce capacity. 

NONE 

ORV 2: Biological and ORV 6: Geological/Hydrological Processes – 

Riverbank erosion in the corridor is in excess of 200 meters. Erosion in the proximity of Housekeeping Camp is contributing to this situation. 

Localized riverbank erosion in the vicinity of Housekeeping Camp is negatively affecting streambank stability. Alternatives 2 and 3 remove Housekeeping Camp. Alternatives 4,5 and 6 will use brush layering and other revegetation techniques to repair eroded banks. Visitor use will be guided to more stable and resilient river access points such as sandy beaches and low-angle slopes. Fencing and signs will be installed to protect high use areas that exhibit vegetation loss and eroded soils. Re-vegetated areas will be protected with closure signs, fencing, and/or natural barriers such as rocks and logs. 

Somunitand belomarremthe river

Curry Village Retained at reduced capacity 

No. It is infeasible to locate Curry Village outside of the river corridor in Yosemite Valley because alternative locations would either directly impact river values or put visitors in harm’s way from rock fall. 

Yes. Curry Village, with its rustic accommodations, facilitates the public use and enjoyment of all river values. Overnight accommodations allow visitors to have the experience of being in a natural setting over the course of a day, experiencing the changing light conditions at dusk and ultimately, the nighttime sky. Support facilities and services such as food service and groceries are located on site to provide basic necessities at this key visitor services node. In addition, Curry Village is an integral part of the Yosemite Valley Historic District. Consistent with the GMP, all action alternatives reduce capacity. 

NONE NONE NONE NON

20 GMP actions listed here include the amendments made by the 1992 Concession Services Plan for commercial services 
DEVELOPMENT OF LANDS AND FACILITIES

7-10 

TABLE 7-1: EVALUATION OF FACILITIES WITHIN THE RIVER CORRIDOR BY RIVER SEGMENT (CONTINUED) SEGMENT 2A: EAST YOSEMITE VALLEY (RECREATIONAL) (CONT.) 

Facility 1980 GMP Action Feasible to relocate outside the river corridor? Necessary for public use or resource protection? Adverse Impacts Management Concerns 

ORV 2 

LODGING (cont.) The Ahwahnee Hotel and Cottages 

Retained 

No. It is infeasible to locate Ahwahnee Hotel outside of the river corridor in Yosemite Valley because alternative locations would either directly impact river values or put visitors in harm’s way from rock fall. The Ahwahnee Hotel is also a National Historic Landmark and cannot be relocated outside the corridor without damage to its historic significance. 

Yes. The Ahwahnee Hotel and Cottages facilitate the public use and enjoyment of all river values. Overnight accommodations allow visitors to have the experience of being in a natural setting over the course of a day, experiencing the changing light conditions at dusk and ultimately, the nighttime sky. Moreover, hard-sided facilities allow wintertime enjoyment of river values. Guests and visitors to the Ahwahnee also gain a better understanding and appreciation of Yosemite Valley’s history. 

NONE NONE NONE NON

Yosemite Lodge Overnight Accommodations 

Retained with services at reduced capacity 

No. While some buildings within the Yosemite Lodge complex could be relocated to sites north of Northside Drive, doing so would disconnect lodging from support services and further exacerbate pedestrian-vehicle conflicts in this area. It is infeasible to relocate the entire complex out of the river corridor because alternative locations would either directly impact river values or put visitors in harm’s way from rock fall. 

Yes. Yosemite Lodge, with its mid-scale accommodations, facilitates the public use and enjoyment of all river values. Overnight lodging allows visitors to have the experience of being in a natural setting over the course of a day, experiencing the changing light conditions at dusk and ultimately, the nighttime sky. Moreover, hard-sided facilities allow wintertime enjoyment of river values. Support facilities and services such as food service and groceries are located on site to provide basic necessities at this key visitor services node. Consistent with the GMP, all action alternatives reduce retail and selected services at this location. 

NONE NONE 

Localized riverbank erosion in the vicinity of the Yosemite Lodge beach access s is negatively affecting streambank stability. All alternatives will use brush layering and other re-vegetation techniques to repair eroded banks. Visitor use will be guided to more stable and resilient river access points such as sandy beaches and low-angle slopes. Fencing and signs will be installed to protect high use areas that exhibit vegetation loss and eroded soils. Re-vegetated areas will be protected with closure signs, fencing, and/or natural barriers such as rocks and logs. 

NON

CAMPGROUNDS Camp 4 Campground Retained 

No. It is infeasible to locate Camp 4 outside of the river corridor because alternative locations would either directly impact river values or put visitors in harm’s way from rock fall. 

Yes. Camp 4 is the only walk-in, firstcome, first-served campground in the corridor. It is also the most affordable campground in the corridor, providing low-cost overnight accommodations that facilitate public use and enjoyment of all river values. Camp 4 is also listed on the National Historic Register in large part due to its location and prominence in the history of climbing 

NONE NONE NONE NON
Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 

TABLE 7-1: EVALUATION OF FACILITIES WITHIN THE RIVER CORRIDOR BY RIVER SEGMENT (CONTINUED) SEGMENT 2A: EAST YOSEMITE VALLEY (RECREATIONAL) (CONT.) 

Facility 1980 GMP Action Feasible to relocate outside the river corridor? Necessary for public use or resource protection? Adverse Impacts Management Concerns 

ORV 2 

CAMPGROUNDS (cont.) Upper Pines Campground 

Retained 

No. It is infeasible to locate campgrounds outside of the river corridor because alternative locations would either directly impact river values or put visitors in harm’s way from rock fall. Camping outside of Yosemite Valley does not serve as a close substitute for the recreational experience the Valley provides. 

Yes. Campgrounds provide low-cost overnight accommodations that facilitate public use and enjoyment of all river values. They also allow visitors to interact with river values directly and continuously into the late evening and nighttime hours. 

NONE 

ORV 2: Biological and ORV 6: Geological/Hydrological Processes – Riverbank erosion in the corridor is in excess of 200 meters. Erosion in the proximity of Upper Pines, Lower Pines, and North Pines Campgrounds is contributing to this situation. 

Localized riverbank erosion in the vicinity is negatively affecting riparian habitat. All action alternatives remove campsites within 150 feet of the ordinary high water mark to reduce the likelihood of future impacts. In addition, all action alternatives will employ brush layering and other re-vegetation techniques to repair eroded banks. Visitor use will be guided to more stable and resilient river access points such as sandy beaches and low-angle slopes. Fencing and signs will be installed to protect high use areas that exhibit vegetation loss and eroded soils. Re-vegetated areas will be protected with closure signs, fencing, and/or natural barriers such as rocks and logs 

NON

Lower Pines Campground North Pines Campground Upper River Walkin and Group Campground (New – Alternatives 4, 5, and 6) 

Retained and reduced by 15 sites 

No. It is infeasible to locate additional camping outside of the river corridor because alternative locations would either directly impact river values or put visitors in harm’s way from rock fall. Camping outside of Yosemite Valley does not serve as a close substitute for the recreational experience the Valley provides. 

Yes. Campgrounds provide low-cost overnight accommodations that facilitate public use and enjoyment of all river values. They also allow visitors to interact with river values directly and continuously into the late evening and nighttime hours. 

NONE NONE 

All new campsites will be located at least 150-feet away from the ordinary high water mark. Riverside areas of Backpackers and North Pines campgrounds will be restored to natural riparian conditions. 

All ccamleasordi

Lower River Walkin and Drive-in Campground (New – Alternatives 4, 5, and 6) 

Retained and reduced by 36 sites 

Backpackers Campground (Relocated to the west – Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) 

Not Addressed -- 

Upper Pines Walkin Campground (New – Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6) 

Not Addressed - 

East of Camp 4 Campground (New – Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) 

Not Addressed 

West of Lodge Campground (New – Alternatives 2 and 4) 

Not Addressed 

Yellow Pine Volunteer Campground 

Retained 
DEVELOPMENT OF LANDS AND FACILITIES

7-12 

TABLE 7-1: EVALUATION OF FACILITIES WITHIN THE RIVER CORRIDOR BY RIVER SEGMENT (CONTINUED) SEGMENT 2A: EAST YOSEMITE VALLEY (RECREATIONAL) (CONT.) 

Facility 1980 GMP Action Feasible to relocate outside the river corridor? Necessary for public use or resource protection? Adverse Impacts Management Concerns 

ORV 2 

MAJOR RETAIL AND FOOD SERVICE FACILITIES Curry Village Pavilion and Food Service 

Retained 

No. Food service must be colocated adjacent to overnight accommodations and primary shortterm parking lots. 

Yes. This food service is necessary to support day visitors and those overnight visitors who are staying at lodging facilities without kitchenettes. 

NONE NONE NONE NON

Curry Village Pizza Deck and Bar 

Retain Fast Food (type not specified) 

No. Food service must be colocated adjacent to overnight accommodations and short-term parking lots. 

Yes. This food service is necessary to support day visitors and those overnight visitors who are staying at lodging facilities without kitchenettes. 

NONE NONE NONE NON

Curry Village Grocery Store Retain 

No. The grocery store must remain proximate to lodging units and visitor services. 

Yes. This grocery store provides a limited range of merchandise, including packaged and fresh groceries, sundries, and outdoor products that are frequently needed by visitors. 

NONE NONE NONE NON

Village Store Retained 

No. The merchandise and food service offered for sale from this facility could not be relocated to other locations outside the river corridor in the Yosemite Village area. 

Yes. This grocery and retail facility is needed to support day use visitors, park residents and overnight visitors. It offers a limited range of merchandise including packaged and fresh groceries, sundries, and outdoor products frequently needed by campers and hikers. 

NONE NONE NONE NON

Village Sports Shop Removed 

Yes. The merchandise offered for sale from this facility could be relocated to other retail outlets offered in the Yosemite Village area, thereby allowing the facility to be repurposed for other visitor services. 

No. The service offered is duplicative of other retail offerings in the Yosemite Village area, which serves as geographically distinct visitor service node in Yosemite Valley. However, the facility is necessary to provide visitor orientation associated with the redesigned parking areas. 

NONE NONE NONE NON

Village Grill Retained 

No. Food service must be colocated adjacent to overnight accommodations and primary shortterm parking lots. 

Yes. This food service is necessary to support day visitors and those overnight visitors who are staying at lodging facilities without kitchenettes. 

NONE NONE NONE NON

Yosemite Lodge Mountain Room Bar/Restaurant 

Retained No. Food service must be colocated adjacent to overnight 

accommodations and primary shortterm parking lots. 

Yes. This food service is necessary to support day visitors and those overnight visitors who are staying at lodging facilities without kitchenettes. 

NONE NONE NONE NON

Yosemite Lodge Food Court Retained NONE NONE NONE NONYosemite Lodge Gift and Grocery / Convenience Shop 

Reduced and redesigned to include office and food service 

No. Some of the retail merchandise offered for sale from this facility could be relocated to other retail outlets; however the grocery component must remain proximate to the visitor lodging units. 

Yes. The facility provides visitors a limited range of merchandise including packaged and fresh groceries, sundries. 

NONE NONE NONE NON

Yosemite Lodge Nature Shop 

One gift shop retained with clothing sales removed. 

Yes. The merchandise offered for sale from this facility could be relocated to other retail outlets offered in the Yosemite Village area, thereby allowing the facility to be repurposed for other visitor services. 

No. The service offered is duplicative of other retail offerings in Yosemite Valley. NONE NONE NONE NON
Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 

TABLE 7-1: EVALUATION OF FACILITIES WITHIN THE RIVER CORRIDOR BY RIVER SEGMENT (CONTINUED) SEGMENT 2A: EAST YOSEMITE VALLEY (RECREATIONAL) (CONT.) 

Facility 1980 GMP Action Feasible to relocate outside the river corridor? Necessary for public use or resource protection? Adverse Impacts Management Concerns 

ORV 2 

DAY-USE PARKING Curry Village Orchard Parking Removed 

No. Visitor parking must be immediately adjacent to overnight lodging accommodations. 

Yes. This parking lot is needed to support day-use and overflow parking for east Yosemite Valley campgrounds. 

NONE NONE 

Visitor use in adjacent Stoneman Meadow leads to meadow fragmentation and trampling. All alternatives restore denuded vegetation in Stoneman Meadow, protect re-vegetated areas with fencing or other natural barriers, install signs to prevent trampling, and develop or extend boardwalks to accommodate visitors and reduce meadow trampling. 

NON

Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area (Camp 6) 

Employee Housing Removed 

No. No alternative areas of sufficient size or location are available outside the river corridor due to site constraints in Yosemite Valley (such as the floodplain and rockfall hazard zone). 

Yes. This facility will serve as the primary day-use parking lot for Yosemite Valley because it is proximate to numerous visitor services including the primary visitor center, museum, and the Valley shuttle. A day-use visitor parking area of this size is needed to support the level of public use that has been found to protect and enhance river values. 

NONE 

ORV 2: Biological – The scale of impacts to riverbanks is greater than 200 meters of riverbank. 

The preferred alternative would move the parking area 150 feet north of the ordinary high water mark and use best management practices to protect water quality.

NON

West of Yosemite Lodge Day-use and Bus Parking Area (New – Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) 

--- 

No. No alternative areas of sufficient size or location are available due to site constraints in Yosemite Valley (such as the floodplain and rockfall hazard zone). 

Yes. This facility will serve as a critical day-use parking lot for Yosemite Valley because substantial numbers of roadside parking spaces adjacent to meadows will be removed in the vicinity of the Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area. This new parking area will serve as trailhead parking for the upper and lower Yosemite Falls trail, and overflow evening parking for Camp 4 Campground. It will also be used for the Wahhoga Cultural Center. 

NONE NONE 

Localized riverbank erosion in the vicinity of the Yosemite Lodge beach access s is negatively affecting streambank stability. All alternatives will use brush layering and other re-vegetation techniques to repair eroded banks. Visitor use will be guided to more stable and resilient river access points such as sandy beaches and low-angle slopes. Fencing and signs will be installed protect high use areas that exhibit vegetation loss and eroded soils. Re-vegetated areas will be protected with closure signs, fencing, and/or natural barriers such as rocks and logs. 

NON

EMPLOYEE HOUSING Boys Town Employee Housing Area 

Retained 

No. This housing can be accommodated with other employee housing areas in the river corridor. 

No. Employee housing in this facility can be relocated to other employee housing facilities in the corridor in order to allow for repurposing of this area for visitor services. 

NONE NONE NONE NON

Huff House Employee Housing Area 

Not addressed 

No. There are no other suitable locations to move employee housing outside the river corridor in Yosemite Valley. Housing for employees needs to be proximate to guest services to accommodate shift work-schedules. 

Yes. This housing facility is necessary to accommodate employees who provide visitor services. 

NONE NONE NONE NON

Curry Stables Employee Housing Area 

Retained Yes. These employee housing units are 

occupied year-round and are hardsided units that are necessary to accommodate employees who provide visitor services. 

NONE NONE NONE NON

Ahwahnee Employee Dormitory 

Retained NONE NONE NONE NON
DEVELOPMENT OF LANDS AND FACILITIES

7-14 

TABLE 7-1: EVALUATION OF FACILITIES WITHIN THE RIVER CORRIDOR BY RIVER SEGMENT (CONTINUED) SEGMENT 2A: EAST YOSEMITE VALLEY (RECREATIONAL) (CONT.) 

Facility 1980 GMP Action Feasible to relocate outside the river corridor? Necessary for public use or resource protection? Adverse Impacts Management Concerns 

ORV 2 

EMPLOYEE HOUSING (cont.) Curry Village Employee Residential Area 

--- 

No. There are no other suitable locations to move employee housing outside the river corridor in Yosemite Valley. Housing for employees needs to be proximate to guest services to accommodate shift work-schedules. 

Yes. These employee housing units are occupied year-round and are hardsided units that are necessary to accommodate employees who provide visitor services. 

NONE NONE NONE NON

Ahwahnee Row Employee Housing 

Removed NONE NONE NONE NON

Lower Tecoya Employee Housing Area 

Removed NONE NONE NONE NON

Yosemite Lodge Thousands Cabins Employee Housing 

Not addressed NONE NONE NONE NON

Yosemite Lodge Employee Housing 

--- NONE NONE NONE NON

MAJOR ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES Curry Stables 

Relocated (site not specified); day-rides reduced and limited to eastern end and south side of Yosemite Valley 

No. There are no other suitable locations for a stable operation outside the corridor and in Yosemite Valley that is of sufficient size or proximity to the Valley trail system used to access the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp. 

Yes. The stable operation at Curry Village supports the High Sierra Camp operations and multi-day backcountry stock supported trips. 

NONE NONE NONE NON

Concessioner General Office Removed 

Yes. There are adequate facilities outside of the river corridor that could, with interior modification, absorb these functions. 

Yes. Concession administrative, managerial and logistical support functions are essential to support visitor services but the plan removes these functions from the river corridor. 

NONE NONE NONE NON

Concessioner Garage Removed 

Yes. There are adequate facilities outside of the river corridor that could, with interior modification, absorb these functions. 

Yes. The concession operated garage is a critical component of the park operation. Services offered at the garage include: maintenance of park shuttle fleet(s); maintenance of the concession fleet; sales of automotive accessories (including snow chains); and dispatching of tow trucks. The park shuttle fleets are dispatched from a central office located at the garage. 

NONE NONE NONE NON

Superintendent’s House (Residence 1) and Garage 

Removed 

Yes. There are suitable and appropriate locations outside the river corridor to accommodate a single residential structure. 

No. The facility has been obsolete since the 1997-flood when it last flooded and substantial damage to the building occurred and was no longer a practical location for park operations such as staff office space. 

NONE NONE NONE NON

Volunteer Fire Station 

Removed and replaced in redesigned Maintenance Area 

No. The volunteer fire station is largely staffed by nearby residences and needs to be sited near potential structural fires in employee housing and visitor service areas. 

Yes. Fire support services and apparatus are essential to provide for public health and safety and resource protection. 

NONE NONE NONE NON
Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 

TABLE 7-1: EVALUATION OF FACILITIES WITHIN THE RIVER CORRIDOR BY RIVER SEGMENT (CONTINUED) SEGMENT 2A: EAST YOSEMITE VALLEY (RECREATIONAL) (CONT.) 

Facility 1980 GMP Action Feasible to relocate outside the river corridor? Necessary for public use or resource protection? Adverse Impacts Management Concerns 

ORV 2 

MAJOR ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES (cont.) Yosemite Lodge Garden Terrace and Cliff Room 

Retained 

No. There are no comparable indoor group-spaces outside the river corridor in Yosemite Valley that could absorb these functions. 

Yes. These indoor group spaces are used daily for interpretive programming, administrative trainings, scientific symposiums and forums, meetings, and special events. 

NONE NONE NONE NON

Yosemite Lodge Post Office Not addressed 

Yes. This post office is no longer needed to serve visitors or employees in this area, required services can be obtained at the Yosemite Village Post Office outside the river corridor. 

No. This post office has been operated as a satellite of the main Yosemite Post Office. Prior to the 1997 flood it served employees who have since been relocated. This facility is no longer necessary 

NONE NONE NONE NON

NPS Volunteer Office --- 

Yes. The administrative support provided to volunteers could be relocated to other administrative facilities in Yosemite Valley outside the river corridor. 

Yes. Volunteers require access to administrative support functions to perform duties (i.e., coordination with NPS staff, communications, safety equipment, etc). 

NONE NONE 

Remove abandoned infrastructure (including tiles, pipes, and abandoned roads) from meadow, riparian, and floodplain habitat. Decompact soils, remove fill, and re-vegetate with riparian species. 

NON

RECREATIONAL/ EDUCATIONAL SERVICES [The following are not considered “major public use facilities”. However, the NPS has also evaluated these facilities and their associated activities for Raft Rental 

Raft rental relocated to site of ice rink 

Yes. A seasonal /mobile operation could provide commercial rentals of rafting equipment outside the corridor with no permanent infrastructure 

Yes. Rafting on the Merced is a recreational activity that enables visitors to experience a close connection to the river. 

NONE 

ORV 2: The scale of impacts and potential restoration is greater than 200 meters of riverbank. 

Localized riverbank erosion is negatively affecting streambank stability. All action alternatives will employ brush layering and other re-vegetation techniques to repair eroded banks. Visitor use will be guided to more stable and resilient river access points such as sandy beaches and low-angle slopes. Fencing and signs will be installed protect high use areas that exhibit vegetation loss and eroded soils. Re-vegetated areas will be protected with closure signs, fencing, and/or natural barriers such as rocks and logs 

NON

Ice Rink Retain 

Yes. A temporary/seasonal ice rink operation can be located outside the river corridor within the Camp Curry parking area which was the historic location for this winter activity. 

Yes. Many visitors value the uncrowded traditional winter recreational opportunities in Yosemite Valley. 

NONE NONE NONE NON

Bike Rentals Retained 

Yes. A seasonal /mobile operation could be located outside the river corridor in Yosemite Valley. 

Yes. The bike rental operation offers seasonal commercial bicycle and accessibility device rental for unguided visitor recreation. 

NONE NONE NONE NON

Art Activity Center Retained 

Yes. There are adequate facilities outside of the river corridor that could, with interior modification, absorb these functions. 

No. NONE NONE NONE NON

Tennis Courts Removed 

No. No alternative areas of sufficient size or location are available outside the river corridor in Yosemite Valley or Wawona. 

Yes. The Ahwahnee tennis courts are obsolete and have not been maintained since 2005. The Wawona court however is still used by park visitors and in good condition. 

NONE NONE NONE NON
DEVELOPMENT OF LANDS AND FACILITIES

7-16 

TABLE 7-1: EVALUATION OF FACILITIES WITHIN THE RIVER CORRIDOR BY RIVER SEGMENT (CONTINUED) SEGMENT 2A: EAST YOSEMITE VALLEY (RECREATIONAL) (CONT.) 

Facility 1980 GMP Action Feasible to relocate outside the river corridor? Necessary for public use or resource protection? Adverse Impacts Management Concerns 

ORV 2 

RECREATIONAL/ EDUCATIONAL SERVICES [The following are not considered “major public use facilities”. However, the NPS has also evaluated these facilities and their associated activities for Swimming Pools Retained 

No. These facilities are provided for lodge/hotel guests and other park visitors and must be co-located with overnight accommodations. 

Yes. The Yosemite Lodge pool has been operated as a public pool, open to Lodge guests as well as other patrons, including park employees and their dependents. This facility is used frequently during high temperatures often experienced in Yosemite Valley in the summer months. 

NONE NONE NONE NON

Snack Stands Retained 

No & Yes. The Yosemite Lodge snack stand is adjacent to the pool and serves as the entry point for users. However, there are suitable locations outside the corridor in Yosemite Valley for the Happy Isles snack stand. 

No. The snack stand serves a very limited menu of quick serve refreshments. 

NONE NONE NONE NON

Happy Isles Nature Center Retained 

No. The services provided from this facility could not be provided from an alternative location outside of the river corridor due to the unique interpretive service/activity it provides in the area for the relevant natural history and geology. 

Yes. Serves as the primary interpretation & education center for visitors to east Yosemite Valley and the John Muir / Mist Trail. This facility is used by Nature Bridge as a winter classroom. Classroom activities revolve around the river and water quality. 

NONE NONE NONE NON

SEGMENT 2B: WEST YOSEMITE VALLEY (SCENIC)

Facility 1980 GMP Action Feasible to relocate outside the river corridor? Necessary for public use or resource protection? Adverse Impacts Management Concerns 

ORV 2 

CAMPGROUND AND DAY-USE PARKING AREA Eagle Creek Campground (New - Alternative 6) 

--- 

No. No alternative areas of sufficient size or location are available due to site constraints in Yosemite Valley (such as the floodplain and rockfall hazard zone). 

Yes. Campgrounds provide a low-cost overnight accommodation that promotes river-related/river-dependent recreational opportunities for visitors of all socioeconomic backgrounds. This campground would be consistent with the level of development permissible in a scenic segment, with the shoreline remaining largely undeveloped and primitive. 

NONE NONE 

All campsites within new campgrounds will be located at least 150-feet away from the ordinary high water mark. 

All cacampleast 1ordina

West Yosemite Valley Overflow Vehicle Parking Area (New – Alternative 6) 

--- 

No. There are no other suitable locations outside the river corridor near El Capitan Crossover in Yosemite Valley that allow for the redirection of vehicle traffic entering east Yosemite Valley. 

Yes. This parking area will provide additional parking opportunities to successfully attain use levels in Alternatives 5 and 6. This parking lot would be consistent with the level of development permissible in a scenic segment, with the shoreline remaining largely undeveloped and primitive. 

NONE NONE NONE NONE 
Results: Necessary Facilities for the Merced River Corridor

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 7-17

TABLE 7-1: EVALUATION OF FACILITIES WITHIN THE RIVER CORRIDOR BY RIVER SEGMENT (CONTINUED)

SEGMENT 3: MERCED GORGE (SCENIC)

Facility 1980 GMP

Action

Feasible to relocate outside 

the river corridor?

Necessary for public use or resource 

protection? Adverse Impacts Management Concerns

ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES

Arch Rock 

Entrance Station 

Kiosk

Retained and 

redesigned

No. The entrance station facility is located 

at the park entrance on Highway 140.

Yes. This facility serves as one of the five entry 

points to Yosemite National Park. It is necessary 

to have Park staff working at this facility to collect 

entrance fees and provide visitors with 

information.

NONE NONE

Arch Rock 

Housing (2 duplexes) Removed

No. All suitable alternative locations for this 

amount of employee housing are also 

located within the river corridor.

Yes. This housing facility is necessary to 

accommodate employees who work at the 

entrance station to reduce traffic congestion on 

the roadways.

NONE NONE

Arch Rock VUA Office Not addressed No. This administrative space must be 

collocated with the entrance station.

Yes. This administrative space is necessary for 

employees who work at the Arch Rock Entrance 

Station. 

NONE NONE

SEGMENT 4: EL PORTAL (RECREATIONAL)

Facility 1980 GMP

Action

Feasible to relocate outside 

the river corridor?

Necessary for public use or 

resource protection?

Adverse 

Impacts

Management 

Concerns 

Localized Concerns and 

Enhancement Actions

ORV 11

CAMPGROUNDS

Abbieville / Trailer 

Village 

Administrative and 

RV Campground 

---

No. No alternative areas of 

sufficient size or location are 

available outside the river 

corridor.

Yes. Campgrounds provide a low-cost 

overnight accommodation that promotes 

river-related/river-dependent recreational 

opportunities for visitors of all 

socioeconomic backgrounds.

NONE NONE NONE

MAJOR RETAIL AND FOOD SERVICE

El Portal Market 

and Gas Station 

Complex

Retained

No. No alternative areas of 

sufficient size or location are 

available outside the river 

corridor adjacent to State Route 

140. The service station requires 

considerable underground fuel 

distribution equipment that 

would be infeasible to relocate.

Yes. These minimal community services 

and amenities are required to serve the 

residents in El Portal due to the distance 

of comparable services in gateway 

communities.

NONE NONE NONE
7-18 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management

DEVELOPMENT OF 

LANDS AND 

FACILITIES

TABLE 7-1: EVALUATION OF FACILITIES WITHIN THE RIVER CORRIDOR BY RIVER SEGMENT (CONTINUED)

SEGMENT 4: EL PORTAL (RECREATIONAL) (cont.)

Facility 1980 GMP

Action

Feasible to relocate outside 

the river corridor?

Necessary for public use or resource 

protection?

Adverse 

Impacts

Management 

Concerns

Localized Concerns and 

Enhancement Actions

ORV 11

DAY-USE VISITOR PARKING

El Portal Remote 

Parking Area at 

Abbieville / Trailer 

Village (New – 

Alternatives 3, 4, 5 

and 6)

---

No. No alternative areas of 

sufficient size or location are 

available outside the river 

corridor with direct access to 

Highway 140 before entering 

Yosemite National Park 

boundary. 

Yes. This parking area will provide access 

to Yosemite Valley for visitors through 

shuttle and transit service during peak 

use periods especially when the traffic 

diversion system at the El Capitan 

Crossover is implemented.

NONE NONE NONE

EMPLOYEE HOUSING

Rancheria 

Employee Housing Retained

No. All suitable alternative 

locations for this amount of 

employee housing are also 

located within the river corridor. 

Yes. These housing facilities are 

necessary to accommodate employees 

who provide visitor services. 

NONE NONE NONE

Old El Portal 

Employee Housing Retained NONE NONE

Informal trails, non-essential 

gravel roads and visitor use 

contribute to archeological site 

disturbances. All alternatives will 

remove informal trails, nonessential roads, and abandoned 

infrastructure to address the 

archeological site disturbances.

El Portal Town 

Center In-fill 

Employee Housing 

(New in Alternative 

5)

Not addressed NONE NONE

Construction of infill employee 

housing units will not adversely 

impact ORVs.

Abbieville / Trailer 

Village Employee 

Housing 

--- NONE NONE NONE

Motor Inn Cabins Retained NONE NONE NONE
Results: Necessary Facilities for the Merced River Corridor

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 7-19

TABLE 7-1: EVALUATION OF FACILITIES WITHIN THE RIVER CORRIDOR BY RIVER SEGMENT (CONTINUED)

SEGMENT 4: EL PORTAL (RECREATIONAL) (cont.)

Facility 1980 GMP

Action

Feasible to relocate outside 

the river corridor?

Necessary for public use or resource 

protection?

Adverse 

Impacts

Management 

Concerns

Localized Concerns and 

Enhancement Actions

ORV 11

ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES

El Portal 

Maintenance and 

Wastewater 

Treatment Complex

Retained and 

Expanded

No. No alternative areas of 

sufficient size or location are 

available outside the corridor in 

El Portal.

Yes. This facility houses wastewater 

treatment processing, large vehicle 

maintenance and fleet storage, shops for 

all maintenance operations; a central 

distribution point for supply, commissary, 

and warehouse operations, the park's 

emergency communications center and 

fire cache operation; and training, office, 

and critical administrative operations 

space for park operations. This facility is 

essential to support public use of the 

river corridor, public health and safety, 

and resource protection.

NONE NONE NONE

Murchison House Retained

No. Relocation outside the river 

corridor would diminish the 

historic significance of this 

facility because its setting is the 

primary characteristic for its 

significance.

Yes. This structure has served as employee 

residences and administrative offices 

previously. However, safety, access, and 

utility upgrades would be required to 

make the facility operable again. 

NONE NONE NONE

NPS Offices in Old 

El Portal Retained

No. No alternative areas of 

sufficient size or location are 

available outside the river 

corridor.

Yes. This facility provides necessary 

administrative space for park operations 

which support public use and resource 

protection efforts in the river corridor. 

However, the functions performed there 

can be relocated within the El Portal 

Administrative Complex.

NONE NONE NONE

NatureBridge 

Office & Employee 

Housing Building 

Retained

No. No alternative areas of 

sufficient size or location are 

available outside the river 

corridor.

Yes. NatureBridge hosts multi-day 

environmental education programs in 

Yosemite for school children. This facility 

provides necessary employee housing and 

administrative space for this park partner 

organization.

NONE NONE NONE

El Portal Post Office Retained

No. No alternative areas of 

sufficient size or location are 

available outside the river 

corridor.

Yes. These facilities provide necessary 

services for nearby residents. 

NONE NONE NONE

El Portal 

Elementary 

School/High school

Retained and 

expand if 

needed

NONE NONE NONE

Carroll Clark 

Community Hall Retained NONE NONE NONE
7-20 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management

DEVELOPMENT OF 

LANDS AND 

FACILITIES

TABLE 7-1: EVALUATION OF FACILITIES WITHIN THE RIVER CORRIDOR BY RIVER SEGMENT (CONTINUED)

SEGMENT 4: EL PORTAL (RECREATIONAL) (cont.)

Facility 1980 GMP

Action

Feasible to relocate outside 

the river corridor?

Necessary for public use or resource 

protection?

Adverse 

Impacts

Management 

Concerns

Localized Concerns and 

Enhancement Actions

ORV 11

El Portal Fire 

Station Retained

No. No alternative areas of 

sufficient size or location are 

available outside the river 

corridor.

Yes. Fire support services and apparatus 

are essential to provide for public health 

and safety and resource protection.

NONE NONE NONE

AT&T Building Not addressed

No. Due to transmission and 

receiving requirements of the 

system this facility cannot be 

relocated.

Yes. Serves as central distribution point 

for telecommunications network in El 

Portal. This telecommunication facility is 

necessary to support NPS’s management 

and administration of the river corridor. 

This facility is also required for the 

transmission of microwave signals.

NONE NONE NONE

Odger’s Bulk Fuel 

Storage Facility Not addressed

Yes. This facility must be 

removed from NPS land, in 

accordance with federal law (30 

USC § 185 - Rights-of-way for 

pipelines through Federal lands).

Yes. Bulk fuel storage needed for park 

operations serving utility infrastructure, 

back-up generators and heating / cooling 

systems for numerous visitor services can 

be obtained outside the river corridor.

NONE NONE NONE

Old Wastewater 

Treatment Plant Not addressed Yes. This facility has been obsolete for decades.

No. A plan of action to remove the 

above-ground obsolete infrastructure will 

be developed in consultation with 

American Indian tribes and groups.

NONE NONE

Abandoned infrastructure 

impacts the setting of a site with 

extremely sensitive cultural 

materials valued by traditionally 

associated American Indians. 

The site will be protected from 

any further development. A plan 

of action for addressing the 

abandoned infrastructure will be 

developed in consultation with 

traditionally associated American 

Indian tribes and groups. 

Solution(s) developed will also 

include a recommended 

approach for deterring visitor 

use within the site.
Results: Necessary Facilities for the Merced River Corridor

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 7-21

TABLE 7-1: EVALUATION OF FACILITIES WITHIN THE RIVER CORRIDOR BY RIVER SEGMENT (CONTINUED)

SEGMENTS 6 & 7: WAWONA (RECREATIONAL)

Facility 1980 GMP

Action

Feasible to relocate 

outside the river 

corridor?

Necessary for public use or 

resource protection?

Adverse 

Impacts

Manageme

nt Concerns

Localized Concerns and Enhancement Actions

ORV 13 ORV 14

LODGING

Wawona Hotel 

Complex Retained

No. The Wawona Hotel is

a National Historic 

Landmark, and relocation 

outside the river corridor 

would diminish its historic 

significance.

Yes. This National Historic 

Landmark provides overnight 

accommodations that promote 

river-related/river-dependent

recreational opportunities.

NONE NONE

The Wawona Archeological 

District is subject to site-specific 

impacts from park operations, 

visitor use, artifact collection, and 

vandalism. Monitoring frequency 

will be increased at affected sites, 

archeological site treatment

measures will be considered to 

address impacts, and informal 

trails will be removed.

NONE 

CAMPGROUND

Wawona 

Campground

Rehabilitate for 

year round use 

(100 sites + 30 

group sites)

No. No alternative areas of 

sufficient size, slope, 

aspect or location could 

accommodate this 

campground outside the 

river corridor.

Yes. Campgrounds provide a 

low-cost overnight 

accommodation that promotes 

river-related/river-dependent 

recreational opportunities for 

visitors of all socioeconomic 

backgrounds.

NONE NONE

Visitor use at Wawona 

Campground is potentially causing 

impacts to the shallow deposit of 

historic artifacts and features. 

Modern campsites sometimes 

obscure the historic setting of 

Camp A.E. Wood. Seven 

campsites that cause potential 

impacts to the archeological site 

are proposed for removal. 

Monitoring frequency will be 

increased at affected sites and the 

need for archeological site 

treatment measures to address 

impacts will be considered.

NONE
7-22 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management

DEVELOPMENT OF 

LANDS AND 

FACILITIES

TABLE 7-1: EVALUATION OF FACILITIES WITHIN THE RIVER CORRIDOR BY RIVER SEGMENT (CONTINUED)

SEGMENTS 6 & 7: WAWONA (RECREATIONAL) (cont.)

Facility 1980 GMP

Action

Feasible to relocate 

outside the river 

corridor?

Necessary for public use or 

resource protection?

Adverse 

Impacts

Manageme

nt Concerns

Localized Concerns and Enhancement Actions

ORV 13 ORV 14

RETAIL AND FOOD SERVICE

Wawona Store Retained and 

redesign

No. No alternative areas of 

sufficient size or location 

are available outside the 

river corridor. The services 

offered at the Wawona 

Store must be reasonably 

proximate to the lodging 

and employee housing. 

Parking facilities must be 

proximate to the Wawona 

Store and Picnic area.

Yes. This store is needed to 

support visitors, park 

employees, and private inholders. It offers a limited 

range of merchandise 

including packaged and fresh 

groceries, sundries, and 

outdoor products frequently 

needed by campers, hikers and 

residents. 

NONE NONE

Shoulder and off-road parking 

causes impacts to archeological 

resources. Monitoring frequency 

will be increased at affected sites 

and site treatment measures will 

be considered to address impacts. 

Alternatives remove informal trails 

and fire rings to prevent 

continuing disturbance.

NONE

Wawona Gas 

Station

Retained and 

redesign

No. No alternative areas of 

sufficient size or location 

are available outside the 

river corridor. This facility 

must be located along the 

Wawona Road. The service 

station requires 

considerable underground 

fuel distribution equipment 

that would be infeasible to 

relocate.

Yes. Serves visitors and local 

residents. Provides vehicle fuel, 

limited automotive services 

such as tire repair, and snow 

chain sales/installation. The 

concessioner currently 

operates a tow truck from this 

site. This garage provides 

necessary support services to 

park employees and private 

citizens who own property 

within the river corridor in 

Wawona. 

NONE NONE NONE NONE
Results: Necessary Facilities for the Merced River Corridor

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 7-23

TABLE 7-1: EVALUATION OF FACILITIES WITHIN THE RIVER CORRIDOR BY RIVER SEGMENT (CONTINUED)

SEGMENTS 6 & 7: WAWONA (RECREATIONAL) (cont.)

Facility 1980 GMP

Action

Feasible to relocate 

outside the river 

corridor?

Necessary for public use or 

resource protection?

Adverse 

Impacts

Manageme

nt Concerns

Localized Concerns and Enhancement Actions

ORV 13 ORV 14

ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES

Wawona 

Maintenance 

Yard Complex and 

Wildland Fire 

Station 

(New – Common To 

Alternatives 2 – 6)

Remove 

structures from 

floodplainRedesign and 

construct new 

district 

maintenance 

facility

No. No alternative areas of 

sufficient size or location 

are available outside the 

river corridor.

Yes. This facility provides large 

vehicle and fleet storage, 

indoor, outdoor and shop 

spaces for necessary 

maintenance operations; fire, 

law enforcement, entrance 

station, campground 

reservation, and the wilderness 

operation administrative office 

space. The facility houses 

critically important park 

operation functions, the 

absence of which would 

undermine NPS’s ability to 

support public use of the river 

corridor, public health and 

safety, and resource 

protection. 

NONE NONE

Informal trails and operational and 

visitor uses cause ground

disturbing impacts to surface and 

sub-surface archeological 

resources. Informal trails will be 

removed, and the stock camp will 

be relocated to an alternative site. 

New facilities will not impact 

ORVs. 

NONE

Wawona 

Wastewater 

Treatment Plant

Construct new 

wastewater 

treatment plant 

for year round 

disposal

No. No alternative areas of 

sufficient size or location 

are available outside the 

corridor in Wawona.

Yes. This facility provides 

wastewater treatment 

processing and water 

distribution monitoring. This 

facility is critically needed to 

support public use of the river 

corridor, public health and 

safety, and resource protection 

(by preventing discharge of 

untreated water into the 

Merced River).

NONE NONE NONE NONE
7-24 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management

DEVELOPMENT OF 

LANDS AND 

FACILITIES

TABLE 7-1: EVALUATION OF FACILITIES WITHIN THE RIVER CORRIDOR BY RIVER SEGMENT (CONTINUED)

SEGMENTS 6 & 7: WAWONA (RECREATIONAL) (cont.)

Facility 1980 GMP

Action

Feasible to relocate 

outside the river 

corridor?

Necessary for public use or 

resource protection?

Adverse 

Impacts

Manageme

nt Concerns

Localized Concerns and Enhancement Actions

ORV 13 ORV 14

ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES (cont.)

Wawona Stables Retained

No. No alternative areas of 

sufficient size or location 

are available outside the 

river corridor.

Yes. With the elimination of 

commercial horseback dayrides from Yosemite Valley and 

Tuolumne Meadows, this 

recreational activity will be 

expanded in Wawona. 

Because Wawona is less 

crowded than Yosemite Valley, 

there will be fewer conflicts 

between hikers and day-rides 

on Wawona trails.

NONE NONE NONE NONE

Wawona Store Retained and 

redesign

No. No alternative areas of 

sufficient size or location 

are available outside the 

river corridor. The services 

offered at the Wawona 

Store must be reasonably 

proximate to the lodging 

and employee housing. 

Parking facilities must be 

proximate to the Wawona 

Store and Picnic area.

Yes. This store is needed to 

support visitors, park 

employees, and private inholders. It offers a limited 

range of merchandise 

including packaged and fresh 

groceries, sundries, and 

outdoor products frequently 

needed by campers, hikers and 

residents. 

NONE NONE

Shoulder and off-road parking 

causes impacts to archeological 

resources. Monitoring frequency 

will be increased at affected sites 

and site treatment measures will 

be considered to address impacts. 

Alternatives remove informal trails 

and fire rings to prevent 

continuing disturbance.

NONE

RECREATIONAL/EDUCATIONAL SERVICES

Pioneer History 

Center Retained

No. This facility houses key 

operational functions that 

could not be relocated 

unless a suitable alternative 

site is identified.

Yes. This facility contains 

interpretive displays, historic 

structures and equipment used 

in NPS’s living history 

programs. This facility 

interprets the history of the 

Wawona area for park visitors 

and thus supports public 

understanding of the history 

and resources in this portion of 

the river corridor.

NONE NONE NONE NONE
Results: Necessary Facilities for the Merced River Corridor

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 7-25

TABLE 7-1: EVALUATION OF FACILITIES WITHIN THE RIVER CORRIDOR BY RIVER SEGMENT (CONTINUED)

SEGMENTS 6 & 7: WAWONA (RECREATIONAL) (cont.)

Facility 1980 GMP

Action

Feasible to relocate 

outside the river 

corridor?

Necessary for public use or 

resource protection?

Adverse 

Impacts

Manageme

nt Concerns

Localized Concerns and Enhancement Actions

ORV 13 ORV 14

ECREATIONAL/EDUCATIONAL SERVICES (cont)

Wawona Hotel 

Golf Course Retained

No. No alternative areas of 

sufficient size or location 

are available outside the 

river corridor.

Yes. The golf course was built 

in 1917 and has been 

determined to be contributing 

features of the Wawona Hotel 

National Historic Landmark 

which is a component of the 

Historic Resources ORV for this 

segment. In addition, the Golf 

Course serves as the spray field 

for gray water disposal in 

Wawona.

NONE NONE NONE NONE
DEVELOPMENT OF LANDS AND FACILITIES

7-26 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management

TABLE 7-2: MAJOR PUBLIC USE FACILITIES REMOVED IN GMP THAT ARERETAINED IN THE MRP21

Major Public-Use 

Facility

1980 GMP

Action MRP Action Reason for decision

Historic “Huff House” 

(Peterson House) Removed Retained

There are no other suitable locations to 

move employee housing outside the 

river corridor in Yosemite Valley. 

Housing for employees needs to be 

proximate to guest services to 

accommodate shift work-schedules.

Ahwahnee Row 

Employee Housing Removed Retained

There are no other suitable locations to 

move employee housing outside the 

river corridor in Yosemite Valley. 

Housing for employees needs to be 

proximate to guest services to 

accommodate shift work-schedules.

Lower Tecoya 

Employee Housing 

Area

Removed Retained

There are no other suitable locations to 

move employee housing outside the 

river corridor in Yosemite Valley. 

Housing for employees needs to be 

proximate to guest services to 

accommodate shift work-schedules.

Village Sports Shop Removed Repurposed for non

-

commercial visitor use

The service offered is duplicative of 

other retail offerings in the Yosemite 

Village area, which serves as a 

geographically distinct visitor service 

node in Yosemite Valley. However, the 

facility is necessary to provide visitor 

orientation associated with the 

redesigned parking areas. 

Curry Village Orchard 

Parking Removed Redeveloped

This parking lot is needed to support 

day-use and overflow parking for east 

Yosemite Valley campgrounds. Visitor 

parking must be immediately adjacent 

to overnight lodging accommodations.

Volunteer Fire Station

Removed and 

replaced in 

redesigned 

Maintenance 

Area

Retained

Fire support services and apparatus are 

essential to provide for public health 

and safety and resource protection. 

The volunteer fire station is largely 

staffed by nearby residences and needs 

to be sited near potential structural 

fires in employee housing and visitor 

service areas.

21 GMP actions listed here include the amendments made by the 1992 Concession Services Plan for commercial services

 
Results: Necessary Facilities for the Merced River Corridor

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 7-27

TABLE 7-2: MAJOR PUBLIC USE FACILITIES REMOVED IN GMP THAT ARE RETAINED IN THE MRP (CONTINUED) 

Major Public-Use 

Facility

1980 GMP

Action MRP Action Reason for decision Potential local adverse impacts to river value(s)

Actions Required to

protect river values

SEGMENT 2A: RECREATIONAL (cont.)

Curry Stables

Relocated; dayrides reduced 

and limited to 

eastern end 

and south side 

of Yosemite 

Valley

Retained

(commercial horseback dayrides eliminated)

There are no other suitable locations 

for a stable operation outside the 

corridor and in Yosemite Valley that 

are of sufficient size or proximity to the 

Valley trail system used to access the 

Merced Lake High Sierra Camp.

NONE N/A

Yosemite Lodge 

Nature Shop

One gift shop 

retained with 

clothing sales 

removed.

Repurposed for noncommercial use

The service offered is duplicative of 

other retail offerings in Yosemite 

Valley. However, the facility is 

necessary for non-commercial visitor 

use.

NONE N/A

SEGMENT 3: SCENIC

Arch Rock 

Housing (2 duplexes) Removed Retained

This housing facility is necessary to 

accommodate employees who work at 

the entrance station due to the lack of 

sufficient employee housing in El Portal 

or surrounding areas. All suitable 

alternative locations for this amount of 

employee housing are also located 

within the river corridor.

NONE N/A

SEGMENT 6 & 7: RECREATIONAL

Wawona Maintenance 

Yard Complex and 

Wildland Fire Station

Remove 

structures from 

floodplain; 

Redesign and 

construct new 

district 

maintenance 

facility

Retained

No alternative areas of sufficient size or 

location are available outside the river 

corridor. The facility houses critically 

important park operation functions the 

absence of which would undermine 

NPS’s ability to support public use of 

the river corridor, public health and 

safety, and resource protection.

Cultural – Informal trails and 

operational and visitor uses cause 

ground disturbing impacts to 

surface and sub-surface 

archeological resources.

Informal trails will be removed, 

and the stock camp will be 

relocated to an alternative site. 

New facilities will not impact 

ORVs.
DEVELOPMENT OF 

LANDS AND 

FACILITIES

7-28 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management

TABLE 7-3: MAJOR PUBLIC USE FACILITIES RETAINED IN GMP THAT ARE REMOVED IN THE MRP22

Major Public-Use 

Facility

1980 GMP

Action MRP Action Reason for decision Potential local adverse impacts to river value(s)

Actions Required to 

protect river values

SEGMENT 2A: RECREATIONAL

Happy Isles Snack 

Stand Retained Removed

This service is redundant; snacks are 

provided in many other locations in 

Yosemite Valley.

NONE N/A

Art Activity Center Retained Removed

There are adequate facilities outside of 

the river corridor that could, with 

interior modification, absorb these 

functions.

NONE N/A

22 GMP actions listed here include the amendments made by the 1992 Concession Services Plan for commercial services

 
Results: Necessary Facilities for the Merced River Corridor

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 7-29

TABLE 7-4: MAJOR PUBLIC-USE FACILITIES PROVIDED WITHIN THE RIVER CORRIDOR - ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON

Major Public Use Facility Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6

SEGMENT 1: WILDERNESS

Merced Lake High Sierra Camp Removed Converted to a

temporary pack camp Removed Reduced Retained

Merced Lake Backpackers Camping Area Converted to dispersed 

camping

Converted to dispersed 

camping

Retained /expanded as 

designated camping Retained Retained 

Little Yosemite Valley Camping Area Converted to dispersed 

camping

Converted to dispersed 

camping Retained Retained Retained 

Moraine Dome Camping Area Converted to dispersed 

camping 

Converted to dispersed 

camping Retained Retained Retained 

SEGMENT 2A: RECREATIONAL

CURRY VILLAGE & EAST YOSEMITE VALLEY CAMPGROUND AREA

Upper Pines Campground Reduced Increased Increased Increased Increased

Lower Pines Campground Reduced Reduced Reduced Reduced Reduced

North Pines Campground Removed Reduced Reduced Reduced Reduced

Backpackers Campground Reduced/Relocated Reduced/Relocated Reduced/Relocated Retained/partially 

relocated

Retained/partially 

relocated

Yosemite Valley Campground Reservation 

Center/Office Relocated Relocated Relocated Relocated Relocated

Housekeeping Camp Lodging Units Removed

Removed 

(converted to a day-use 

river access area)

Reduced Reduced Reduced

Housekeeping Camp Laundry Removed Removed Retained Retained Retained

Housekeeping Camp Shower Houses and 

Restrooms

Retained 1 restroom. 

Removed shower houses

and laundry.

Retained 1 restroom. 

Removed shower houses

and laundry.

Retained Retained Retained

Housekeeping Camp Grocery Store Removed Removed Removed Retained Retained

Curry Village Lodging and Shower Houses Lodging units increased Lodging units reduced Lodging units reduced Lodging units increased Lodging units increased

Curry Village Pavilion and Food Service Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Curry Village Overnight Parking Reduced Reduced Reduced Retained Retained

Curry Village Orchard Parking Retained Reduced Reduced Retained Retained

Curry Village Grocery Store Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Curry Village Pizza Deck and Bar Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained
DEVELOPMENT OF 

LANDS AND 

FACILITIES

7-30 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management

TABLE 7-4: MAJOR PUBLIC-USE FACILITIES PROVIDED WITHIN THE RIVER CORRIDOR - ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON (CONTINUED)

Major Public Use Facility Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6

SEGMENT 2A: RECREATIONAL (cont.)

CURRY VILLAGE & EAST YOSEMITE VALLEY CAMPGROUND AREA (cont.)

Curry Village Raft Rental Removed Removed Relocated Relocated Relocated

Curry Village Ice Rink Removed Removed Removed Relocated (outside the 

river corridor)

Relocated (outside the 

river corridor)

Curry Stables Removed Reduced Removed Retained Retained 

Curry Village Bike Rental Removed Removed Removed Relocated (outside the 

river corridor)

Relocated (outside the 

river corridor)

The Ahwahnee Rooms and Cottages Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

The Ahwahnee Parking Lot Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

The Ahwahnee Bar and Food Service Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

The Ahwahnee Dining Room Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

The Ahwahnee Gift Shop Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

The Ahwahnee Sweet Shop Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

The Ahwahnee Swimming Pool Removed Removed Removed Retained Retained

The Ahwahnee Tennis Court Removed Removed Removed Removed Removed

Boys Town Employee Housing Area Retained (as lodging) Removed Removed (converted to 

walk-in campground) Retained (as lodging) Retained (as lodging)

Curry Stables Employee Housing Area Removed Retained Removed Retained Retained

Ahwahnee Employee Dormitory Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Curry Village Employee Residence Area Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Historic Peterson House Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Huff House Temporary Employee Housing 

(Existing) Removed Removed Removed Reduced Removed

Huff House Employee Dormitory (New) Proposed Proposed Proposed Not proposed Proposed

Happy Isles Nature Center Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Happy Isles Snack Stand Removed Removed Removed Removed Removed

Le Conte Memorial Lodge (National Historic 

Landmark) Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Northside Drive (Stoneman Bridge to Yosemite 

Village Day-use Parking Area) Removed Removed Retained Retained Retained
Results: Necessary Facilities for the Merced River Corridor

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 7-31

TABLE 7-4: MAJOR PUBLIC-USE FACILITIES PROVIDED WITHIN THE RIVER CORRIDOR - ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON (CONTINUED)

Major Public Use Facility Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6

SEGMENT 2A: RECREATIONAL (cont.)

CURRY VILLAGE & EAST YOSEMITE VALLEY CAMPGROUND AREA (cont.)

Southside Drive 

(through Stoneman Meadow) Removed Removed Removed Retained Retained

Happy Isles Loop Road Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Sugar Pine Bridge Removed Removed Removed Retained Retained

Ahwahnee Bridge Removed Removed Removed Retained Retained

Stoneman Bridge Removed Removed Retained Retained Retained

Clark's Bridge Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Happy Isles Road Bridge Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Housekeeping Camp Bridge Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Upper River Walk-in and Group Campground 

(New) Not proposed Not proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed

Lower River Walk-in and Drive-in Campground 

(New) Not proposed Not proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed

West of Backpackers Campground (New) Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed

Upper Pines Walk-in Campground (New) Not proposed Not proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed

Upper Pines RV Campground Loop (New) Not proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed

YOSEMITE VILLAGE AREA

Concessioner General Office Removed Removed Removed Removed Removed

Ahwahnee Row Employee Housing Removed Retained Retained Retained Retained

Lower Tecoya Employee Housing Area Removed Retained Retained Retained Retained

Lost Arrow Employee Housing Area Removed/Redeveloped 

(administrative parking)

Removed/Redeveloped 

(administrative parking)

Re-developed (with 

permanent housing)

Re-developed (with 

permanent housing)

Re-developed (with 

permanent housing)

Concessioner Garage Removed Removed Removed Removed Removed

Volunteer Fire Station Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Village Store Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Village Grill Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Village Store Parking Lot Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Village Sports Shop Converted to visitor 

contact station

Converted to visitor 

contact station

Converted to visitor 

contact station

Converted to visitor 

contact station

Converted to visitor 

contact station

Art Activity Center/ Bank Building Removed Removed Removed Removed Removed

Superintendent’s House (Residence 1) Relocated Relocated Relocated Removed Retained

Yosemite Valley Chapel Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained
DEVELOPMENT OF 

LANDS AND 

FACILITIES

7-32 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management

TABLE 7-4: MAJOR PUBLIC-USE FACILITIES PROVIDED WITHIN THE RIVER CORRIDOR - ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON (CONTINUED)

Major Public Use Facility Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6

SEGMENT 2A: RECREATIONAL (cont.)

YOSEMITE VILLAGE AREA (cont.)

Sentinel Bridge Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Sentinel Drive Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Re-route Northside Drive south of Yosemite 

Village Day-use Parking Area at least 150 feet 

from the ordinary high-water mark (New)

Rerouted Rerouted Not proposed Rerouted Not proposed

Grade separated pedestrian crossing at 

Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area 

Intersection (New)

Not proposed Not proposed Not proposed Not proposed Proposed

Intersection of Northside Drive and Sentinel 

Drive (New) Realigned Realigned Retained Realigned Redesigned intersection with roundabout

Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area (Camp 

6)

Re-developed and 

expanded

Re-developed and 

expanded

Re-developed and 

expanded

Re-developed and 

expanded

Re-developed and 

expanded

Intersection of Northside Drive and Village Drive 

(New)

Removed with 

realignment of Northside 

Drive

Removed with 

realignment of Northside 

Drive

Redesigned intersection Redesigned intersection 

with roundabout

Redesigned intersection 

with roundabout

YOSEMITE LODGE AND CAMP 4 CAMPGROUND AREA

Camp 4 Campground Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Yosemite Lodge Overnight Accommodations Removed Reduced Retained Retained Expanded

Yosemite Lodge Overnight Parking Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Yosemite Lodge Garden Terrace 

and Cliff Room

Repurposed for NPS use 

to provide visitor services Retained Retained Retained Retained

Yosemite Lodge Swimming Pool Removed Removed Removed Retained Retained

Yosemite Lodge Snack Stand Removed Removed Removed Removed Removed

Yosemite Lodge Nature Shop Converted to noncommercial visitor use

Converted to commercial 

visitor use

Converted to commercial 

visitor use

Converted to commercial 

visitor use

Converted to commercial 

visitor use

Yosemite Lodge Housekeeping 

and Maintenance Building Removed Relocate within Yosemite Lodge Complex

Relocate within Yosemite 

Lodge Complex

Relocate within Yosemite 

Lodge Complex

Relocate within Yosemite 

Lodge Complex

Yosemite Lodge Gift and Grocery / 

Convenience Shop

Converted to noncommercial visitor use Reduced Reduced Reduced Reduced

Yosemite Lodge Mountain Room 

Bar and Food Service

Retained (Converted to 

non-commercial visitor 

use)

Retained Retained Retained Retained

Yosemite Lodge Mountain Room Restaurant Removed Retained Retained Retained Retained
Results: Necessary Facilities for the Merced River Corridor

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 7-33

TABLE 7-4: MAJOR PUBLIC-USE FACILITIES PROVIDED WITHIN THE RIVER CORRIDOR - ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON (CONTINUED)

Major Public Use Facility Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6

SEGMENT 2A: RECREATIONAL (cont.)

YOSEMITE LODGE AND CAMP 4 CAMPGROUND AREA (cont.)

Yosemite Lodge Food Court Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Yosemite Lodge Post Office Removed Removed Removed Removed Removed

Yosemite Lodge Bike Stand Removed Removed Removed Relocated Relocated

Yosemite Lodge Highland Court 

Employee Housing Removed Removed Removed Removed Removed

Yosemite Lodge Thousands Cabins Employee 

Housing Removed Removed Removed Removed Removed 

Yosemite Lodge Employee Housing (New) Not proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed

NPS Volunteer Office (former Wellness Center) Removed Removed Removed Removed Removed

Swinging Bridge Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Superintendent's Bridge Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

West of Yosemite Lodge Day-use 

and Bus Day-use Parking Area (New) Not proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed

East of Camp 4 Campground (New) Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed

West of Lodge Campground (New) Proposed Not proposed Proposed Not proposed Not proposed

Grade separated pedestrian crossing at 

Yosemite Lodge intersection (New) Not proposed Not proposed

Proposed

(Final alignment and type 

to be determined)

Proposed

(Final alignment and type 

to be determined)

Proposed

(Final alignment and type 

to be determined)

Yellow Pine Administrative Campground Removed Retained Retained Retained Retained

SEGMENT 2B: SCENIC

WEST YOSEMITE VALLEY

Eagle Creek Campground (New) Not proposed Not proposed Not proposed Not proposed Proposed

El Capitan Crossover Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

El Capitan Crossover Bridge Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Pohono Bridge Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

West Yosemite Valley Overflow Vehicle Parking 

Area (New) Not proposed Not proposed Not proposed Not proposed Proposed

SEGMENT 3: SCENIC

Arch Rock Entrance Station Kiosk Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Arch Rock Housing (2 duplexes) Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Arch Rock VUA Office Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained
DEVELOPMENT OF 

LANDS AND 

FACILITIES

7-34 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management

TABLE 7-4: MAJOR PUBLIC-USE FACILITIES PROVIDED WITHIN THE RIVER CORRIDOR - ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON (CONTINUED)

Major Public Use Facility Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6

SEGMENT 4: RECREATIONAL

El Portal Administrative Complex Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Murchison House Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Rancheria Employee Housing (Existing) Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Rancheria Employee Housing In-fill (New) Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed

Old El Portal Employee Housing (Existing) Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Old El Portal Employee Housing (New) Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed

El Portal Town Center In-fill Employee Housing 

(New) Not proposed Not proposed Not proposed Proposed Not proposed

Abbieville / Trailer Village Employee Housing 

(New) Proposed Not proposed Not proposed Not proposed Proposed

Abbieville / Trailer Village Employee Housing 

(Existing)

Removed Retained Retained Removed Removed

Motor Inn Cabins, historic El Portal Hotel Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

El Portal Remote Parking Area at Abbieville / 

Trailer Village (New) Not proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed

Abbieville / Trailer Village Administrative and RV 

Campground (New) Not proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Not proposed

NPS Offices in Old El Portal Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

NatureBridge Office / Employee Housing 

Building 

Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

El Portal Market and Gas Station Complex Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

El Portal Post Office Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

El Portal Elementary School / 

High school Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Carroll Clark Community Hall Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Mariposa County Pool Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

El Portal Fire Station Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

AT&T Building Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

SEGMENT 4: RECREATIONAL (cont.)

Bulk Fuel Terminal and Storage Facility Removed Removed Removed Removed Removed

Old Wastewater Treatment Plant

Develop action plan to 

address abandoned 

infrastructure

Develop action plan to 

address abandoned 

infrastructure

Develop action plan to 

address abandoned 

infrastructure

Develop action plan to 

address abandoned 

infrastructure

Develop action plan to 

address abandoned 

infrastructure
Results: Necessary Facilities for the Merced River Corridor

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 7-35

TABLE 7-4: MAJOR PUBLIC-USE FACILITIES PROVIDED WITHIN THE RIVER CORRIDOR - ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON (CONTINUED)

Major Public Use Facility Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6

SEGMENTS 6 & 7: RECREATIONAL

Wawona Campground Reduced Reduced Reduced Reduced Reduced

Wawona Hotel: Lodging Units Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Wawona Hotel: Clark Cottage Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Wawona Hotel Restaurant and Lobby Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Wawona Hotel Tennis Court Removed Removed Retained Retained Retained

Wawona Hotel Golf Course & Shop Removed Removed Retained Retained Retained

Wawona Hotel Swimming Pool Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Hill Studio Interpretation and Retail Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Wawona Maintenance Yard Complex and 

Wildland Fire Station

Retained and 

redeveloped

Retained and 

redeveloped

Retained and 

redeveloped

Retained and 

redeveloped

Retained and 

redeveloped

Wawona Wastewater Treatment Plant Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Wawona Gas Station Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Wawona Store Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Wawona Store Parking Area Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained

Wawona Stables Removed and converted 

to stock use campground 

Removed and converted 

to stock use campground

Removed and converted 

to stock use campground Retained Removed and converted to stock use campground

Pioneer History Center Retained Retained Retained Retained Retained
DEVELOPMENT OF 

LANDS AND 

FACILITIES

7-36 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management

TABLE 7-5: SUMMARY OF FACILITIES REMOVED OR RELOCATED OUTSIDE THE RIVER CORRIDOR COMMON TO ALTERNATIVES 2–6 

Major Public-Use Facility Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6

SEGMENT 2A: RECREATIONAL

CURRY VILLAGE & EAST YOSEMITE VALLEY CAMPGROUND AREA

Backpackers Campground Reduced (Relocated) Reduced (Relocated) Reduced (Relocated) Retained/(partially 

relocated)

Retained/(partially 

relocated)

Curry Village Raft Rental Removed Removed Relocated Relocated Relocated

Curry Village Ice Rink Removed Removed Removed Relocated outside the 

river corridor 

Relocated outside the 

river corridor 

Curry Village Bike Rental Removed Removed Removed Relocated outside the 

river corridor

Relocated outside the 

river corridor

The Ahwahnee Tennis Court Removed Removed Removed Removed Removed

Boys Town Employee Housing Area

Relocated to Huff House

Area/site converted to 

visitor accommodations

Relocated to Huff House 

Area/site ecologically 

restored 

Relocated to Huff House 

Area/site converted to 

walk-in campground

Relocated to Lost Arrow 

Dormitory and El Portal/ 

converted to visitor 

overnight 

accommodations

Relocated to Huff House 

Area/converted to visitor 

overnight 

accommodations

Huff House Employee Housing Tent cabins Removed/ 

Replaced with dormitories

Tent cabins Removed/ 

Replaced with dormitories

Tent cabins Removed/ 

Replaced with dormitories

Tent cabins Reduced/ 

beds relocated to El Portal

Tent cabins Removed/ 

Replaced with dormitories

Happy Isles Snack Stand Removed Removed Removed Removed Removed

YOSEMITE VILLAGE AREA

Concessioner General Office Facility Removed/

Function Relocated

Facility Removed/

Function Relocated

Facility Removed/

Function Relocated

Facility Removed/

Function Relocated

Facility Removed/

Function Relocated

Concessioner Garage Facility Removed/

Function Relocated

Facility Removed/

Function Relocated

Facility Removed/

Function Relocated

Facility Removed/

Function Relocated

Facility Removed/

Function Relocated

Art Activity Center/ Bank Building Facility Removed/

Function Relocated

Facility Removed/

Function Relocated

Facility Removed/

Function Relocated

Facility Removed/

Function Relocated

Facility Removed/

Function Relocated

YOSEMITE LODGE AND CAMP 4 CAMPGROUND AREA

Yosemite Lodge Snack Stand Removed Removed Removed Removed Removed

Yosemite Lodge Post Office Removed Removed Removed Removed Removed

Yosemite Lodge Bike Stand Removed Removed Removed Facility Removed/

Function Relocated

Facility Removed/

Function Relocated

Yosemite Lodge Highland Court 

Employee Housing Removed Removed / Replaced with dormitory

Removed / 

Replaced with dormitory

Removed / 

Replaced with dormitory

Removed / 

Replaced with dormitory

Yosemite Lodge Thousands Cabins Employee 

Housing Removed Removed / Replaced with dormitory

Removed / 

Replaced with dormitory

Removed / 

Replaced with dormitory

Removed / 

Replaced with dormitory

NPS Volunteer Office (former Wellness Center) Relocated Relocated Relocated Relocated Relocated

SEGMENT 4: RECREATIONAL

Bulk Fuel Terminal and Storage Facility Removed Removed Removed Removed Removed
8. ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the six alternatives proposed in the Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive 

Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (Final Merced River Plan/EIS) and identifies the agency’s 

preferred alternative. Substantial discussion is devoted to the alternatives considered in detail to assist readers

in evaluating their comparative merits. A review of other alternatives that were considered but eliminated from 

detailed study is also provided. Alternative 1 (No Action) represents a continuation of current management 

practices and provides a frame of reference for the actions proposed in the action alternatives. Finally, the 

chapter concludes with a comprehensive analysis of the cumulative effect to each river value from the suite of 

actions proposed in each alternative. 

The Process Used to Develop the Alternatives

The Merced River Planning Framework

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to rigorously explore a range of 

reasonable alternatives when proposing a major federal action. NEPA also mandates an early and open 

process to determine the scope of issues surrounding the proposed action, to develop options for 

addressing those issues, and to provide for public review and comment on the environmental analyses 

provided in the project’s environmental impact statement (EIS).

Using a full complement of park personnel, including experts in park operations, facilities, and cultural and 

natural resources, the National Park Service (NPS) devoted several years of effort (from 2009 to 2014) to 

develop five action alternatives for managing the river corridor (Table 8-1). In building the alternatives, the 

Merced River planning team worked within a framework that included nine major steps, which are 

explained below. Although this framework is described as a series of sequential activities, planning is

fundamentally iterative. At each step, new information is uncovered and new insight is gained that can trigger 

changes to prior decisions. Additionally, extensive internal review and public input influenced the process, 

leading to still more revisions. Although time-consuming, this process of review and revision ultimately led to a 

stronger end product, both in form and content. 

The NPS has identified a preferred alternative; however, all action alternatives protect and enhance river 

values. Collectively, the alternatives represent a wide range of options for future management of the Merced 

River corridor. The following sections provide greater detail about each step in the planning process. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-1 
ALTERNATIVES

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

Figure 8-1: Creating Alternatives for the Merced River Plan 

Step 1: Define River Values to be Protected and Enhanced 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) mandates that each wild and scenic river “... shall be administered 

in such manner as to protect and enhance the values which caused it to be included in said system” (WSRA, 

Section 10 (a)). The values to be protected include the river’s free-flowing condition, water quality, and 

other values that have been determined to be “outstandingly remarkable.” The Interagency Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Coordinating Council (Interagency Council) criteria for outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs) 

state that the value must be river-related and rare, unique, or exemplary in a regional or national context. 

The NPS began the process of identifying the ORVs for the Merced River in 1996. After completing other 

steps in the alternative development process (discussed below), the ORVs were revisited several times (in 

2000, 2005, and 2009). Each time, the NPS revised and updated the list, with further definitional clarification 

from the Interagency Council. 

The planning team conducted internal ORV workshops, drawing upon scientific information, subjectmatter expertise, peer review, government partners, management input, and expert guidance from other 

Wild and Scenic River managers. Public scoping comments regarding ORVs were integrated into the Draft 

2010 Outstandingly Remarkable Values Report for the Merced Wild and Scenic River, which represented the 

culmination of this work. 
Introduction

Step 2: Assess Baseline Condition of River Values

After the release of the 2010 report, public workshops were held to solicit additional information on ORV 

locations and important features, to acquire more knowledge and information about specific ORVs or their 

components, and to gather suggestions about how river values would best be protected. A revised ORV 

report was posted to the Yosemite National Park website in May 2011. Additional opportunities to 

comment on the ORVs were provided through the release of the fall 2011 and spring 2012 planning 

workbooks. Public comment and agency and tribal consultation resulted in yet another round of refinement 

and revision to the Merced River ORVs. Information used to evaluate the baseline condition of the ORVs 

included historic photos, maps, and archival materials; research studies and models of natural systems 

developed specifically for this planning effort; and the professional judgment of subject matter experts. 

External peer reviews were solicited for research conducted to inform the plan and to ensure that study

findings were used appropriately. 

All of this information was consolidated into the Merced Wild and Scenic River Values Draft Baseline 

Conditions Report. The report provides an assessment of river values at the time of the river’s designation 

(1987) and represents the existing (or “baseline”) condition of those values. This essential step in the 

planning process identified locations where management action was needed to improve conditions in the 

river corridor. The baseline condition assessment was used to inform the development of “River Values and 

Their Management” (Chapter 5) in the Final Merced River Plan/EIS. 

To share these findings with the public, the NPS facilitated a series of workshops and associated webinars in 

Spring 2011. The workshops provided an opportunity for individuals to learn more about the conditions of the 

Merced River and the issues that needed to be addressed in the Merced River Plan. The Merced Wild and 

Scenic River Values Draft Baseline Conditions Report was then posted on the Park website at 

http://www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/mrp_documents.htm and public review and comment was encouraged. All 

public comments received during this phase of the planning process were posted online in May 2011. 

Step 3: Define Desired Condition, Adverse Impact, and Degradation for River Values

During the process of assessing river value conditions, the NPS determined the management standard for 

those values. The standards selected were based on research findings, monitoring results, the best 

professional judgment of subject matter experts, and current trends in the relevant academic and public 

land management fields. Additionally, specific thresholds were identified for mandatory management 

actions that are intended to keep river value conditions at or above the management standard (Chapter 5). 

The NPS developed indicators for each river value’s condition that are sensitive to change, as well as

monitoring protocols needed to standardize data collection. By following these protocols, park managers 

will have early indications of changing conditions and be able to correct downward trends before they 

broach management standards. In some cases, a river value may not lend itself easily to monitoring. An 

example is “stair step river morphology,” which is affected only by massive geologic forces that are well 

beyond human control. Consequently, the NPS did not define a management standard for river values of 

this type. 

Step 4: Identify Management Concerns and Potential Corrective Actions

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and its implementing guidelines direct agencies to manage designated rivers 

to protect and enhance river values while allowing for public recreation and other resource uses, as long as 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-3 
ALTERNATIVES

such use does not degrade river values. The Act further directs that primary emphasis be given to the river’s 

esthetic, scenic, historic, archeologic and scientific features. A rigorous interdisciplinary process was used to 

ensure the protection of these primary emphasis values. This “primary scope evaluation” identified any

management concerns or localized concerns for river values, as well as actions needed to correct these 

conditions.

To determine if management concerns or localized concerns were present, an intensive review of all river 

values was conducted. Scientific and geospatial data—including floodplain maps, remote sensing imagery, 

rock-fall hazard zone models and maps, and channel migration history—informed this review. All 

comments received during public scoping were reviewed for content useful to this effort. Finally, subjectmatter experts used their knowledge of the river system to supplement and clarify the findings of the 

baseline conditions report prepared in Step 2. 

Next, by comparing the actual river value condition to the management standard (defined in Step 3), the 

NPS obtained a clear picture of which values needed protective actions to arrest a downward trending 

condition. Due to the comprehensive and systematic nature of this evaluation, a host of localized areas of 

concern—places where action could be taken to enhance river values—were also identified.

Although some historic manipulation of the river corridor (for example, blasting the El Capitan Moraine) is 

irreversible, past impacts must be corrected to the extent possible. The “primary scope evaluation” 

described above was completed first to ensure that all alternatives would include the actions needed to 

protect and enhance river values, with special attention given to the river values in primary emphasis areas. 

The resulting comprehensive restoration program outlined in Appendix E is the foundation from which all 

alternatives were crafted. Many actions included in the restoration plan are common to Alternatives 2-6.

The next stage, or “secondary scope evaluation,” pertained to issues related to visitor use, including 

recreation, traffic congestion, transportation infrastructure, and visitor experience. Transportation 

modeling identified the limitations associated with the existing road system design, as well as options for 

improving traffic flow. Various combinations of parking, overnight accommodations, camping, and services 

were packaged together to provide significantly different visitor experiences within the range of 

alternatives.

A summary of the primary and secondary scope issues, along with potential solutions, was developed and 

included in the Merced Wild and Scenic River Planning Workbook (fall 2011). The NPS conducted five 

workshops in conjunction with the release of the workbook to gather input on the range of potential 

options developed to protect and enhance river values. Comments on this workbook were posted on the 

Park website.

Step 5: Determine Size and Location of Necessary Facilities

Both WSRA and the 1982 National Wild and Scenic River System: Final Revised Guidelines for Eligibility,

Classification and Management of River Areas (Secretarial Guidelines) provide guidance on the level of 

development that is appropriate within different river segment classifications. In addition, the 2008 opinion 

of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the 2005 Merced River Plan questioned whether the 

level of development in some parts of the river corridor was protective of ORVs. As part of the planning 

process, the NPS evaluated all existing facilities and services within the river corridor to determine whether 

they should be retained, removed, or relocated to protect and enhance river values. 

8-4 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Introduction

Locations where specific facilities or infrastructure were found to be causing concerns for river values are 

identified in “River Values and Their Management” (Chapter 5) and summarized in “Development of Lands 

and Facilities” (Chapter 7). Chapter 7 also contains the results of the process used by the NPS to determine 

whether the facilities and services located within the river corridor were necessary for public use. 

Redundant and underutilized facilities were targeted for removal under Alternatives 2-6. When feasible, 

facilities and services were also moved to locations outside of the river corridor. Facilities deemed necessary 

for public use were evaluated for impacts to river values and all identified concerns were addressed in the 

alternatives with specific management actions. Any additional development (or re-development) proposed 

in the alternatives was also evaluated for its necessity and potential impact to river values. 

Step 6: Solicit Public Input on Organizing Themes for Alternatives 

Before beginning the alternatives development process, park managers solicited public input for the plan. 

While public input is addressed in some of the foregoing steps, it is reported here as a separate step 

because it was foundational to the process used to develop the alternatives. Public input was solicited on a 

regular basis throughout the project, from the earliest public scoping period in 1999 through the 

preparation and release of the Draft Merced River Plan/EIS. Major topics discussed included the ORVs, their 

current condition and indicators to assess those conditions, user capacity, organizing concepts or themes 

for the alternatives, site plan concepts, and the preliminary alternatives themselves. Two planning 

workbooks were distributed for public review and comment (fall 2011 and spring 2012) prior to releasing

the Draft Merced River Plan/EIS for public review in January 2013.

Step 7: Evaluate Operational and Financial Feasibility of Preliminary Alternatives 

After the preliminary alternatives were completed, they were refined through several rounds of review and 

critiqued by park managers, field staff, resource experts, and the public. Planners examined all site 

proposals and management actions, ensuring that no unresolvable operational or logistical conflicts 

remained within individual alternatives. Cost estimates were developed for the alternatives, and subjected to 

further scrutiny from professional engineers and project managers. 

Step 8: Establish User Capacities Consistent with Protection of River Values

During the early stages of the planning process, very high use (i.e., maximum capacity) scenarios were 

examined, some projected to result in over 25,000 visitors per day to Yosemite Valley. These scenarios 

produced unacceptable visitor densities at iconic attraction sites such as Yosemite Falls and Bridalveil Fall.

Moreover, transportation modeling for Yosemite Valley showed that these use levels could only be 

accommodated by widening (or adding) roads, which would adversely impact the Biological ORV. This 

exercise established the numerical limit for user capacity in Yosemite Valley and helped to define the range 

of reasonable alternatives developed for the Merced River Plan.

Decisions about user capacity are embodied within a comprehensive set of management actions that are 

packaged together to form different alternatives in the plan. Given the interplay of resource protection 

measures, infrastructure placement and design, and type of visitor experience desired, the alternatives could 

be designed to bracket a wide range of user capacities while remaining consistent with the protection of 

river values. Chapter 6 provides a summary of the process used to determine user capacity and describes the 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-5 
ALTERNATIVES

way in which the products generated at each stage of the planning process were used to accomplish this 

task.

Step 9: Revise Alternatives and EIS Following Public Review

The Final Merced River Plan/EIS has been developed through consultation with traditionally associated 

American Indian tribes and groups, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and other federal and state 

agencies. In addition, approximately 30,000 public comments were received on the Draft Merced River 

Plan/EIS. Appendix P includes responses to over 600 concern statements that were generated from the 

review of all public comments received on the Draft Merced River Plan/EIS. All told, the NPS conducted 66

public meetings, webinars, workshops, field visits, and open houses to listen to the public and gain their

insight and perspective. At every stage of the planning process, the NPS has made changes in response to 

public feedback. The results are reflected in the agency’s preferred alternative, presented later in this 

chapter. 

How the Alternatives are Organized

The following sections include the detailed descriptions for six alternatives, including Alternative 1 (No 

Action). Components that are shared by alternatives have been packaged together as “Actions Common to 

Alternatives 2-6,” for ease of reference and to avoid repeating this content in the description of each 

alternative. A complete alternative contains both these “common” actions and a set of actions unique to the 

alternative (Figure 8-2). The alternative descriptions are organized in sub-sections, as described below.

Overview

Each alternative description begins with an overview of the general theme of the alternative. The overview 

includes a summary of the visitor experience, restoration actions, user capacities, and land use and facilities 

proposals included in the alternative. 

Maps 

Maps of key locations in the Merced River Plan corridor follow the overview, to orient readers to the 

primary planning areas. 

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Segment

The maps are followed by a more detailed description of the actions included in the alternative. These 

actions are grouped under two main topic areas: actions to Protect and Enhance River Values (e.g.,

biological values and cultural values) and actions related to User Capacities, Land Use and Facilities 

Management (e.g. camping, lodging, transportation). These topic areas are organized by segment.

8-6 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Introduction

Figure 8-2: Components of the Final Merced River Plan/EIS Alternatives

Conceptual Site Drawings

Conceptual site drawings and detailed planning area descriptions are included for the following locations: 

Curry Village, Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area, Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4, Yosemite Valley 

Maintenance Area, and Wawona Maintenance Area. The illustrations show where facilities would be 

removed, relocated, or constructed, given the actions proposed in each alternative. They are included to 

give readers a general sense of the scale and location of visitor services envisioned under each alternative. 

The drawings do not represent a final proposal. Additional design and construction engineering must be 

completed before determining the precise location of all of the features within an individual design concept. 

Comprehensive River Value Analysis

All action alternatives are consistent with the mandate in Section 10(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to 

“protect and enhance the values which cause [the river] to be included in [the Wild and Scenic Rivers] 

system.” This chapter concludes with a detailed assessment of how each alternative accomplishes this goal. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-7 
ALTERNATIVES

This page intentionally left blank

8-8 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative

ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Overview 

Alternative 1 (No Action), is required by NEPA regulations to assess the environmental and socioeconomic 

impacts of continuing current management without additional provisions for protecting river values. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) also provides a baseline from which to compare the action alternatives. According 

to the Department of Interior’s regulations for implementing NEPA, the No Action Alternative is defined as 

either “no project” or “no change” from “the current management direction or level of management 

intensity” (43 C.F.R. Section 46.30). Alternative 1 (No Action) is based on “current guiding management 

documents.” It assumes that trends in the condition of natural and cultural resources and visitor 

experiences in the Merced River corridor would be shaped by currently approved plans without further 

revision. Actions that require additional planning and environmental compliance are not considered part of 

the No Action Alternative. 

The 1980 General Management Plan, as amended by the Concessions Services Plan (1992), is the current 

primary guiding document for park management. Other parkwide guidance can be found in the Wilderness 

Management Plan (1989), Fire Management Plan (2004, with operational updates in 2009), and the Invasive 

Plant Management Plan (updated in 2010). The NPS would also continue to comply with all federal laws, 

including the Organic Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Clean 

Water Act, directives, policies, and executive orders pertaining to park management.

Under Alternative 1(No Action), the NPS would not adopt a comprehensive management plan to protect 

and enhance river values and address user capacity and land use in the corridor. The two prior versions of 

the river plan would not be in effect because those plans were invalidated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Ninth Circuit in 2004 and 2008 respectively. Alternative 1 (No Action) would not satisfy the legal 

requirement to adopt a valid comprehensive river management plan for the Merced River Corridor. 

The river corridor would be one-quarter mile on either side of the ordinary high-water mark because the 

WSRA provides for these default boundaries in the absence of agency-designated boundaries. The segment 

classifications would be the same as those in the 1982 National Rivers Inventory in which the river was 

designated wild and scenic. There would be no Section 7 Determination Process. The Outstandingly 

Remarkable values would remain as articulated in Yosemite’s 1996 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan, with 

limited opportunities to enhance or improve upon their condition. 

Ecological restoration actions would be limited to those that would require only a Categorical Exclusion in 

compliance with NEPA, and those identified in the 2009 Settlement Agreement. There would be no changes 

to existing facilities, transportation systems or services and no established limit to the number of visitors or 

vehicles that would be allowed within the corridor. Park managers would continue to use an informal, 

labor-intensive approach to traffic management and parking. 

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

This section is intended to summarize the scope of the actions that could be taken by NPS to protect and 

enhance river values. It is not intended to summarize the entirety of resource management in the river

corridor; rather, the intent is to identify and describe ongoing management activities affecting only the 

outstandingly remarkable values of the Merced River. The limited program described below stands in sharp 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-9 
ALTERNATIVES

contrast to the robust program of protection provided under Alternatives 2-6. Under Alternative 1(No 

Action), the management concerns and localized concerns identified in Chapter 5 would persist for several 

river values. See the “Detailed Description of Alternative 1” for more information on river value conditions 

under this alternative.

Free-Flowing Condition

Impediments to free flow and their associated impacts would continue in all segments. 

Water Quality

Water quality would continue to be monitored and managed to meet NPS standards, which are higher than 

state water quality standards.

Biological Values 

Under Alternative 1 (No Action), ecological restoration actions would be limited to those requiring a 

categorical exclusion for NEPA compliance and actions authorized in the 2009 Settlement Agreement. The 

Settlement Agreement specifies that the NPS could proceed with limited restoration actions at the El Portal 

Greenemeyer sand pit; drainage improvements at Bridalveil, Cook’s, and El Capitan Meadows; planning for 

the comprehensive restoration of El Capitan Meadow; and riverbank restoration at North Pines 

Campground. Riverbank restoration at North Pines Campground would be limited to planting willows and 

alders along approximately 300 linear feet of riverbank, using a bobcat or small excavator to move rocks for 

planting; planting herbaceous plants on the terrace; and mulching with native leaves and duff. Small-scale 

riverbank restoration projects that could be completed under a categorical exclusion in compliance with 

NEPA compliance would also occur. 

The NPS would continue invasive species control where such plants are present, as well as conifer removal 

from some meadows. Some ecological restoration at North Pines Campground and Cook’s Meadow has 

already occurred and is listed under cumulative effects (Appendix B). Table 8-1 lists representative 

examples of ecological restoration actions in the Merced Wild and Scenic River corridor that would take 

place under Alternative 1 (No Action). 

TABLE 8-1: EXAMPLES OF ACTIONS TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE BIOLOGICAL VALUES - ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION) 

Yosemite’s Existing Ecological Restoration Program

Ecological restoration actions assist the recovery of damaged ecological systems with the aim to bring damaged systems back to a 

condition that is structurally and functionally similar to the pre-disturbance state. Restoration takes place on a case-by-case basis, 

in compliance with the 2009 Settlement Agreement. Any action taken will comply with NEPA and other laws and policies.

• Re-routing trails out of 

sensitive areas 

Example: Move established trails farther from the river

Example: Add boardwalks across sensitive meadow habitat

Example: Restore informal trails to avoid crossing sensitive areas

• Removing abandoned 

infrastructure

Example: Remove outdated utility infrastructure to restore a wetland’s hydrology and connectivity to 

adjacent riparian floodplain

Example: Remove an old building foundation and bring in topsoil to allow for native plant establishment

• Repairing damaged 

riverbanks 

Example: Fence highly eroded riverbanks

Example: Plant willows to stabilize riverbanks

Monitoring: An essential component in any restoration project is to monitor completed projects to ensure that project goals are met. 

8-10 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative

Cultural Values

Under Alternative 1 (No Action), park staff would continue to identify, document, monitor, evaluate, and 

protect significant archeological sites in consultation with traditionally-associated American Indian tribes 

and groups. This would be accomplished through monitoring for changing site conditions, developing and 

implementing treatment measures, implementing visitor and employee education, and conducting research.

However, some resource impacts related to visitor and administrative use in all segments would continue to 

be present. Undertakings with potential to impact archeological and ethnographic resources and activities 

would be subject to review and compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act and consultation 

with the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and 

traditionally associated American Indian tribes and groups. 

Scenic Values

Additional NEPA compliance would be required before the NPS could proceed with any actions proposed 

in the Scenic Vista Management Plan that are located within the Merced River corridor. 

Recreational Values 

The NPS would conduct operations and maintenance activities, correct accessibility deficiencies and carry 

out all other activities necessary to address the daily, routing, and intermittent operational requirements of 

the Park, as long as such operations and activities would not influence or predetermine the types, levels and 

location of uses, and were in full compliance with NEPA. No changes would be made to the transportation 

system and or number and type of lodging and camping units currently provided. 

User Capacities, Land Use and Facilities Management 

Alternative 1 (No Action) would continue to provide visitor services similar to those existing today. User 

capacities would remain at current levels (Table 8-2). 

Under Alternative 1 (No Action), the current approach to user capacity management would continue. This

includes the wilderness permit system for overnight use of the backcountry, and reservation systems for 

camping and lodging. Day-use would continue to be managed by traffic management staff directing visitor 

parking to maximize the capacity of existing day-use lots. During peak season, traffic staff would also manage 

pedestrian-vehicle conflicts at key intersections and divert traffic away from the Valley at the El Capitan 

Crossover when cars began to back up in East Valley. 

The NPS would continue pilot transit programs to test the feasibility of providing additional limited service 

to destinations within the river corridor and Yosemite Valley. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-11
ALTERNATIVES

8-12 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 

TABLE 8-2: USER CAPACITIES BY USE TYPE AND LOCATION – ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION) 

 Unit Type Units People 

Wilderness Above Nevada Fall 

Visitor Overnight Use Zone Capacities & Beds 380 380 

Visitor Day Use Day Hikers 125 125 

Employee Housing (in camps) Employee Beds 25 25 

Administrative Day Use Day Patrols 5 5 

Yosemite Valley 

Visitor Overnight Use Rooms & Campsites 1,500 6,564 

Visitor Day Use Parking Spaces & Buses - 11,752 

Employee Housing Employee Beds 1,315 1,315 

Administrative Day Use Parking Spaces 166 332 

Gorge

Visitor Overnight Use Rooms & Campsites - - 

Visitor Day Use Parking Spaces 180 869 

Employee Housing Employee Beds 9 9 

Administrative Day Use Parking Spaces 2 4 

El Portal

Visitor Overnight Use Rooms & Campsites - - 

Visitor Day Use Parking Spaces 214 740 

Employee Housing Employee Beds 220 427 

Administrative Day Use Parking Spaces 610 1,220 

South Fork Above Wawona

Visitor Overnight Use Permits 20 20 

Visitor Day Use Day Hikers 6 6 

Employee Housing Employee Beds - - 

Administrative Day Use Day Patrols 1 1 

Wawona

Visitor Overnight Use Rooms & Campsites 203 865 

Visitor Day Use Parking Spaces - 1,295 

Employee Housing Employee Beds 121 121 

Administrative Day Use Parking Spaces 30 60 

South Fork Below Wawona

Visitor Overnight Use Backpackers - - 

Visitor Day Use Day Hikers 6 6 

Employee Housing Employee Beds - - 

Administrative Day Use Day Patrols 1 1 

Visitor Overnight Capacity 

Camping 

Under Alternative 1 (No Action), campgrounds in the Merced Wild and Scenic River corridor, including 

Yosemite Valley, would remain in their current location and configuration, and at their current capacity. 

The total camping inventory in the corridor under Alternative 1 (No Action) would be 565 campsites 

accommodating up to 3,510 people per night. 

Table 8-3 identifies the existing campground locations in the river corridor and the number of sites at each 

location. 
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-13 

TABLE 8-3: CAMPING FACILITIES – ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION) 

Existing Locations Alt 1 (No Action) 

Segment 2: Yosemite Valley 

Backpackers Campground 25 walk-in sites 

Camp 4 Campground 35 walk-in sites 

Lower Pines Campground 76 sites 

North Pines Campground 86 sites 

Upper Pines Campground 240 sites 

Yellow Pine Administrative 4 group sites 

Segment 7: Wawona 

Wawona Campground 99 sites (including one group site and two stock-use sites) 

Total Camping in Corridor 565 sites 

Lodging 

Under Alternative 1 (No Action), lodging facilities in the Merced Wild and Scenic River corridor, including 

Yosemite Valley, would remain in their current location and configuration, and at their current capacity. 

The total lodging inventory in the corridor under Alternative 1 (No Action) would be 1,263 units 

accommodating up to 4,320 people per night (Table 8-4). 

TABLE 8-4: LODGING – ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION) 

Existing Locations Alt 1 (No Action) 

Segment 1: Wilderness 

Merced Lake High Sierra Camp 22 units (60 beds) 

Segment 2: Yosemite Valley 

Ahwahnee Hotel 123 rooms 

Housekeeping Camp 266 units 

Curry Village 400 units 

Yosemite Lodge 245 rooms 

Segment 7: Wawona 

Wawona Hotel 104 rooms 

Total Lodging in Corridor 1,263 units

Parking Inventory and Access Improvements 

Under Alternative 1 (No Action), no changes would be made to the current configuration of parking and 

transportation infrastructure. During peak-use periods, parking demand would frequently exceed the 

designated parking supply, and the excess number of vehicles searching for parking would continue to 

impact the transportation circulation system, contributing to traffic congestion and crowding. Under these 

conditions, traffic management personnel would respond to traffic circulation, flow, and parking problems 

as they developed. Such responses would include temporary traffic diversions and initiation of emergency 

vehicle lanes to provide for visitor safety and emergency response. Collectively, ad hoc traffic management 

actions (the El Capitan Traffic Diversion, emergency lane closures, directed parking at lots, and traffic 

management at pedestrian crossings) would continue to be stop-gap measures to control impact and avoid 

gridlock; but traffic and parking conditions during peak hours of visitation would continue to be poor. 

Because many of the locations currently used for parking are not delineated, existing vehicle counts were 

used to estimate the supply of parking currently available. Using this approach, under Alternative 1 
ALTERNATIVES

(No Action), the current supply of day-use parking in Yosemite Valley is estimated at 2,337 spaces (Table 

8-5). This figure includes vehicles that were, technically, parked improperly and in areas that were not 

originally designed or intended for this use. The total parking inventory in East Yosemite Valley (including 

day, overnight, and administrative uses) would be approximately 5,200 spaces. 

Under Alternative 1 (No Action), transit would continue to be provided to and around Yosemite Valley using a 

combination of free shuttle bus service, regional transit, and private tour buses. Under Alternative 1 (No 

Action), public transit options would include existing routes and limited pilot programs to test the viability of

expanding transit to and from additional locations. 

TABLE 8-5: DAY-USE PARKING AREAS – ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION) 

Location Alt 1 (No Action) 

Segment 2: Yosemite Valley 2,337 spaces

Segment 3: The Gorge 180 spaces

Segment 4: El Portal 214 spaces

Segment 7: Wawona 290 spaces

Total Parking 3,021 spaces

8-14 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
ad

s

ail

Housekeeping Camp Footbridge Stoneman

Bridge

eping 

p

Northside Drive

Clark's

Bridge

Tenaya

Bridge

Stoneman

Bridge

Happy Isles Bridge

ad

s

ail

Housekeeping Camp Footbridge Stoneman

Bridge

eping 

p

Northside Drive

Curry 

Village

Lower Pines

Campground

North Pines

Campground

Upper Pines

Campground

Clark's

Bridge

Tenaya

Bridge

River Corridor Boundary

Boys

Town Southside Drive

The Ahwahnee Backpackers

Campground

Stoneman

Bridge

Happy Isles Bridge

Merced River

W i l d e r n e s s

Stoneman

Meadow

Ahwahnee

Bridge

Sugar Pine

Bridge

Royal Arches

Meadow

Ahwahnee

Meadow

Yosemite Valley Archeological District

Huff

House

Concessioner

Stables

Tenaya Creek

Tennis Court

Former Upper and Lower

River Campground Area

an Point

Glacier Point

Ahwahnee

Parking

Wilderness

Parking

Curry Village

Orchard Parking Area

0 0.25 Miles

YOSEMITE WILDERNESS

NO ACTION

CURRY VILLAGE AND CAMPGROUNDS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

EAST YOSEMITE VALLEY: CURRY VILLAGE AND CAMPGROUNDS

1. The Ahwahnee

• Ahwahnee Meadow Former Golf Course and Tennis Court: Meadow and oak habitats around The Ahwahnee 

would continue to contain ditching, fill material, encroaching conifers and abandoned infrastructure. 

• Ahwahnee Hotel Parking: Parking at The Ahwahnee would not meet overnight and day-use demand, and the 

historic gate house would not be restored.

• Ahwahnee Hotel Services and Facilities: The National Historic Landmark would have 123 lodging units and 

provide visitor services, including food service, dining, bar, gift shop, sweet shop and pool.

2. Former Upper and Lower River Campground

• Former Upper and Lower River Campground: This area, which is critical to the hydrologic connectivity 

between Ahwahnee and Stoneman meadows, and once contained 262 campsites before the 1997 flood, 

would continue to passively restore to natural conditions. 

3. River Reach Between Clark’s and Sentinel Bridge

• River Reach Between Bridges: Between Clark's and Sentinel bridges, the river channel would continue to lack 

channel complexity and be shallower and wider than naturally would occur.

4. Curry Village Area

• Residential Area: Temporary accommodations at Huff House would continue to house concessioner employees.

• Curry Village Lodging: There would be 400 guest units. This includes 311 canvas tent cabins (91 of which are in 

Boys Town) 57 cabins-without-baths, 18 units in Stoneman Cottage, and 14 cabins-without-baths.

• Stoneman Meadow: Ditching, roads, and informal trails would remain in Stoneman meadow.

• Curry Orchard Parking Area: The parking lot would be unimproved and contain 424 parking spaces.

• Curry Village Services and Facilities: The facilities and services would be unchanged. The grocery store, pizza 

deck and bar, pavilion, swimming pool, bike stand, raft rental, Happy Isles Snack Stand, and the Nature Center at 

Happy Isles would continue to provide visitor services.

• Curry Village Wilderness Parking Area: The parking lot would be unimproved and contain 190 parking spaces.

5. North Pines and Backpackers Campground Area

• Backpackers Campground: There would be 25 sites in close proximity to Tenaya Creek.

• Royal Arches Meadow: The meadow would contain tiles, pipes and conifer saplings, as well as the remains of a 

former road bed.

• North Pines Campground: There would be 86 campsites.

• Concessioner Stables in Yosemite Valley: The stables would be used by the concessioner to provide day rides in 

the Valley and house stock animals used to operate the High Sierra camps. The kennel service would continue to 

operate.

• Valley Campgrounds: Campsites would remain in close proximity to the river, without formal designated river 

access points.

• Eroded Riverbanks: Heavy visitor use of the riverbanks along some river reaches would continue, leading to 

denuded areas and accelerated riparian erosion.

6. Lower Pines Campground Area

• Western Portion of Lower Pines Campground Loop: The closed portion of Lower Pines campground, damaged 

by the 1997 flood, would continue to passively restore. Compacted soils and fill material would remain.

• Lower Pines Campground: There would be 76 campsites. 

7. Upper Pines Campground Area

• Upper Pines Campground: There would be 240 campsites.

• Upper Pines RV Dump Station: The dump station would remain in close proximity to the river.

8. Happy Isles Area

• Happy Isles: Inadequate way-finding and unclear pedestrian circulation would continue, contributing to 

vegetation trampling. 

• Happy Isles Road Bridge, Stoneman, Clark’s, Ahwahnee and Sugar Pine Bridges: The historic bridges would 

continue to have footings within the bed and banks of the Merced River, constricting the hydrologic flow of the 

river. The berm connecting the Ahwahnee and Sugar Pine Bridge would remain.

• Pack Stock Trail: Trail from Concessioner Stables to Happy Isles would continue to be within the bed and banks 

of the river, subject to seasonal flooding, accelerated erosion, and sediment deposition in the river.

Scenic Vista Management: Conifers would continue to impinge views of iconic viewpoints and locations.

Cultural Resources: Informal and formal trails, pack stock trails, stock use and operational staging, vehicles and 

bicycles, camping, illegal campfires, graffiti, and trash would continue to impact culturally sensitive areas.

ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION

8-15
This page intentionally left blank

8-16 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
!5

!5

!i

!i

!i

!i

River Corridor Boundary

Merced River

Northside Drive

Ahwahnee Road

Southside Drive

Yosemite Creek

Bridge

Ahwahnee Meadow

Cook's Meadow

Sentinel Meadow

YOSEMITE WILDERNESS

Government 

Utility

Building

Valley Visitor

Center

Lost Arrow

Concessioner

Garage

Northside Drive

Sentinel Drive

Indian Creek

Concessioner

General

Office

Residence 1

Rangers'

Club

Le Conte

Memorial Lodge

Moran Point

Church Bowl

Picnic Area

Sentinel Bridge

Housekeeping

Bridge

Superintendent's

Bridge

Housekeeping Camp

Yosemite Village Day-Use 

Parking Area (Camp 6)

Village Store 

Complex

0 0.25 Miles

NO ACTION

YOSEMITE VILLAGE AND HOUSEKEEPING CAMP

 ̄

Yosemite Village

Yosemite Valley Archeological District

¬«1

¬«2

¬«3

¬«4

¬«5

EAST YOSEMITE VALLEY: YOSEMITE VILLAGE AND HOUSEKEEPING CAMP

1. Superintendent’s and Sentinel Bridge Areas

• Superintendent’s and Sentinel Bridges: The bridges would continue to have footings within the bed and

banks of the Merced River.

• Southside Drive Intersection: The three-way intersection at Sentinel Drive and Southside Drive would remain.

2. Cook’s Meadow Area

• Informal Shoulder Parking Along Meadows and Sensitive Habitat: Informal parking would continue along

meadow edges and sensitive habitats at Cook’s Meadow.

• Cook’s Meadow Abandoned Roadbed: The old roadbed north of Northside Drive between the Rangers’ Club 

and the three-way stop would remain in meadow habitat. 

3. Yosemite Village

• Way-finding from the Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area: Visitors would continue to have difficulty finding 

the Village visitor center from the Camp 6 day-use parking area. 

• Yosemite Village Day-Use Parking Area: This parking area would continue to be an unimproved parking lot in 

close proximity to the river (portions in the 5- and 10-year floodplain). Approximately 517 vehicles would be 

accommodated. The Yosemite Village parking lot would continue to have approximately 237 parking spaces.

• Concessioner General Office Building: The Concessioner General Office would remain in the river corridor and 

the 100-year floodplain.

• Lost Arrow: Concessioner employees would continue to be housed in these temporary accommodations. 

• Intersections: The three-way intersection at Sentinel Drive and Southside Drive would remain, and the offset 

four-way intersection at Village Drive and Northside Drive (Camp 6) would remain.

• Yosemite Village Services and Facilities: The level of services and facilities offered in Yosemite Village would 

remain unchanged.

• Valley Garage: The Valley Garage, located in the river corridor and 100-year floodplain, would continue to 

service shuttles, tour buses, and visitor and concessioner vehicles.

• Concessioner Employee Housing: Tecoya and Ahwahnee Row employee housing would continue to house 

concessioner employees. 

4. Ahwahnee Meadow Area

• Ahwahnee Meadow: Northside Drive, the adjacent bike path and other formal trails would continue to bisect

the meadow. 

• Ditches in Meadows: Human-constructed ditches would remain in meadows throughout Yosemite Valley.

5. Housekeeping Camp Area

• Housekeeping Camp Lodging: Many of the 266 Housekeeping Camp lodging units would continue to exist in 

the 2- to 10-year floodplain. The riprap that armors the riverbank to protect this infrastructure would be 

retained. High visitor use in this area would continue to result in denuded riverbanks in some areas. 

• Housekeeping Camp Services and Facilities: Visitor-use facilities would remain unchanged. Services would 

include shower houses, restrooms, laundry, and groceries.

Scenic Vista Management: Scenic Views: Conifers would continue to impinge views of iconic viewpoints and locations.

Cultural Resources: Informal trails and rock-climbing activities impact culturally sensitive areas. The LeConte Memorial 

Lodge National Historic Landmark would remain in “fair” condition.

ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION

8-17
This page intentionally left blank

8-18 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
!F

!5

!5

!i

!i

Superintendent's Footbridge

Norths

Sentinel

Meadow

Cook's

Meadow

Swinging

Bridge

Lower Yosemite Fall

Picnic Area

Southside

Drive

River Corridor Boundary

Camp 4 

Campground

Yosemite Village Archeological District

Leidig

Meadow

Swinging Bridge Picnic Area

Yosemite

Creek Bridge

S

West of Yosemite

Lodge

Highland Court

Residence 1

Merced River

;"

Sentinel

Meadow

Cook's

Meadow

Leidig

Meadow

Yosemite

Lodge

Northside

Drive

0 500 Feet

NO ACTION

YOSEMITE LODGE AND CAMP 4

¬«3

 ̄

¬«1

¬«2

¬«4

¬«5

¬«6

¬«7

EAST YOSEMITE VALLEY: YOSEMITE LODGE AND CAMP 4

1. West of Yosemite Lodge

• West of Yosemite Lodge: The west of Yosemite Lodge area would continue to provide over flow parking for

tour buses and transit buses, day use and overnight use. The area was formerly employee housing prior to the 

1997 flood.

• Bike Path: The bike path through Leidig Meadow would remain in close proximity to the river and be

inundated during parts of the year.

• River Access: There would continue to be no designated river access point for visitors.

• Former Yosemite Lodge Cabins: Fill and compacted soils would remain in the former cabins area, which were 

removed following the damage of the 1997 flood.

2. Camp 4 Area

• Camp 4 Shuttle Stop: Camp 4 shuttle stop would remain an informal shuttle stop.

• Camp 4 Campground: Camp 4 would have 35 campsites. 

• Camp 4 Parking: The unimproved parking lot at Camp 4 would contain 89 parking spaces.

3. Yosemite Lodge Area

• Yosemite Lodge: There would be 245 lodging units. Yosemite Lodge would continue to be used for overnight

 lodging, parking, and food service. There would be no change to the level of service and facilities; services

 would include post office, pool, bicycle rental and snack stand. Buildings would remain within the 100-year

 floodplain.

• Concession Employee Housing at Yosemite Lodge: Concessioner employees would continue to be housed at the 

Thousands Cabins and in temporary accommodations at Highland Court.

• Day-use Parking Demand: Demand for day-use parking would continue to exceed supply during summer

peak-use periods.

4. Yosemite Lodge Intersection at Northside Drive

• Yosemite Lodge Intersection: Traffic congestion resulting from visitors using the on-grade pedestrian crossing at 

Northside Drive to get to Yosemite Falls would continue.

5. Former Pine and Oak Area

• Former Pine and Oak cabins at Yosemite Lodge: The former Pine and Oak cabins area, removed following 

damage sustained from the 1997 flood, would continue to passively restore. Nonnative fill soils, soil compaction 

and an abandoned road network would remain. 

6. Sentinel Meadow

• Sentinel Meadow Trampling: Sentinel meadow would continue to receive visitor use impacts. 

7. Residence 1 

• Residence 1: This historic structure, also known as the Superintendent's House, would continue to be subject to 

recurring flooding and subsequent water damage. The poor condition of the historic interior finishes of the 

Superintendent’s House and structural issues related to settling of the foundation would remain. Visitor use in 

this area would continue to cause radiating informal trails in Cook's Meadow.

Scenic Vista Management: Conifers would continue to impinge views of iconic viewpoints and locations.

Cultural Resources: Non-technical climbing on a large bedrock mortar (pounding rock) near Lower Yosemite Falls 

would continue to cause impacts to the archeological resource. 

ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION

8-19
This page intentionally left blank

8-20 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
!F

!F

!F

!5

!5 !5

!5

!5

!5

;"

El Capitan

Meadow

Sentinel

Beach

Cathedral

Beach

El Capitan 

Bridge

Cathedral

Beach

Swinging

Bridge

Camp 4 Campground

Wild and Scenic River Corridor Boundary

Southside Drive

Northsi de Drive

Merced River

Leidig

Meadow

Yosemite Valley Archeological District

El Capitan

Picnic Area

Slaughterhouse

Meadow

E a gle C reek

Yosemite Wilderness

Sentinel

Rock

Lower Brother

Split Pinnacle

Cathedral Rocks

0 0.25 Miles  ̄

NO ACTION

WEST YOSEMITE VALLEY

¬«1

¬«2

¬«3

River Corridor Boundary

South Fork

Picnic Area

Old El Portal

Abbieville Trailer

Village

Rancheria

Flat

NPS Warehouse &

Administrative

Complex

F orest a Road

SIERRA NATIONAL FOREST

STANISLAUS NATIONAL FOREST

National Park Boundary

Greenemeyer

Sand Pit

H ig hway 14 0

Hwy. 140 

Bridge

El Portal Archeological District

Merced River

0 0.4 Miles

NO ACTION

EL PORTAL

1

2

3

River Corridor Boundary

4

5

WEST YOSEMITE VALLEY

1. El Capitan Meadow and Devil’s Elbow

• Valley Meadows: Conifers would continue to encroach into Yosemite Valley meadows.

• Upstream of El Capitan Moraine: The river reach upstream of the El Capitan moraine to the Sentinel picnic area would continue to lack channel 

complexity and large wood accumulation. 

• El Capitan Meadow: Soil compaction and trampled vegetation would continue to exist due to informal trails and easy access to the meadow from 

roadside parking. The NPS would continue to remove invasive non-native plants following the Invasive Plant Management Plan and continue 

with prescribed fire following the Fire Management Plan, including mechanical removal of conifer saplings to reduce fuel load.

• El Capitan Bridge, River access: No formal designated river access would be established along a high visitor use stretch of river with

sensitive riverbanks.

• El Capitan Shuttle Stop: The shuttle stop in this area would remain an informal shuttle stop.

2. Devil’s Elbow and Slaughterhouse Meadow Area

• Devil's Elbow: Visitor use between El Capitan Bridge and Devil's Elbow would continue to exceed the design of existing infrastructure.

Visitor parking and river access would continue to create safety and resource concerns.

• Valley Loop Trail impacts through meadows: The Valley Loop Trail would continue to pass through sensitive and sometimes inundated

meadow habitat in Slaughterhouse Meadow and Bridalveil Meadow.

• Cathedral Beach Picnic Area: Visitor use would continue to exceed the design of the existing infrastructure in this picnic area. There

would be no formal river access and the parking would not be delineated. Picnic benches would continue to be easily moved throughout the 

area.

3. Sentinel Beach and Swinging Bridge

• Eagle Creek meadow and drainage: The Eagle Creek/Rocky Point sewage plant infrastructure would remain underground in Eagle

Creek meadow. The natural braided morphology of Eagle Creek would continue to be channelized near Northside Drive. 

• Yellow Pine Administrative: Yellow Pine Campground would continue to be available for administrative use (four group sites for up to 120

people.)

• Sentinel Beach Picnic Area: The picnic area would continue to be affected by high visitor use that exceeds the design of the existing

infrastructure. 

• Leidig Meadow: Informal trailing in Leidig meadow would continue to cause extensive levels of habitat fragmentation, particularly in the

area surrounding the north side of Swinging Bridge.

• Valley Swinging Bridge river access: Current fencing along the bike path would continue to lead people to access the river upstream, river

right of Swinging Bridge, causing streambank erosion.

Scenic Vista Management: Trees would continue to impinge views of iconic viewpoints and locations.

Cultural Resources: Informal trails, rock climbing, camping, vandalism, human waste and fire rings, would continue to impact culturally sensitive areas.

EL PORTAL

1. Roadside Parking at the NPS Administrative Complex: Off-street parking between the Merced River and Foresta Road would continue to

lack design features to prevent water contamination from automotive fluids, surface water runoff, or sediment transport.

2. Employee Housing at Rancheria Flat: Vacant lots would continue to exist in the Rancheria Flat area of El Portal.

3. Greenemeyer Sand Pit: This former mine operation area would continue to contain fill material that precludes natural flooding and

regeneration of riparian plants. 

4. Abbieville and Trailer Village 

• Housing: This area, located outside the 100-year floodplain, would continue to occupy a large development footprint and provide for housing 

land use for temporary NPS employees and park partner employees. 36 private residences would remain.

• Riparian Zone: Development, including paved roads, parking and compacted soils, would continue to exist in the riparian zone. 

5. Old El Portal

• Valley Oak Restoration: The valley oak population at El Portal would continue to exist in a generally protected state, but oak seedling recruitment 

would be limited by competition from invasive species, parking under the drip lines of trees and associated soil compaction, herbivory, and 

existing development. 

• Odger’s Fuel Storage Facility: Presence of this facility in the floodplain would continue to be non-complaint with NPS Floodplains Guidelines that 

require fuel storage facilities to be located outside of the 500-year floodplain.

• Residential Area: Nine vacant lots would continue to exist in Old El Portal.

Cultural Resources: Informal trails, gravel roads, abandoned infrastructure, and visitor use would continue to impact culturally sensitive areas.

ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION

8-21
This page intentionally left blank

8-22 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Merced River

Merced Lake

Ranger Station !@

Merced

Lake Merced Lake

High Sierra Camp

Merced Lake

Backpackers

Camping Area

!9

!9

Merced Lake

East Meadow

YOSEMITE

WILDERNESS

NO ACTION 0 0.2 Miles

MERCED LAKE HIGH SIERRA CAMP

!(1

¬«2

 ̄

River Corridor Boundar

¬«

y

3

¬«4

River Corridor Boundary

Wawona Hotel

So ut h Fork Merced River

Big

Cree k

YOSEMITE WILDERNESS

Wawona 

Stables

Wawona

Golf Course

Wawona

Campground

Wawona

Maintenance

Area

Wawona Store Parking

South Fork Picnic Area

Wawona Store Picnic Area

0 0.1 0.2 Miles

NO ACTION

WAWONA

1

2

3

Wa w ona Road

4

5

6

MERCED LAKE HIGH SIERRA CAMP

1. Merced Lake Shore Meadow: Informal trails would continue to exist in Merced Lake Shore Meadow, adjacent to the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp.

2. Merced Lake High Sierra Camp and Merced Lake Backpackers Camping Area

• Merced Lake Backpackers Camping Area: Infrastructure at the camping area would include a water system with flush toilets and bear boxes for food storage. This would remain a 

designated camping area for the Merced Lake Wilderness Zone.

• Merced Lake High Sierra Camp: The High Sierra Camp would continue to have 22 lodging units (60 beds) and a water system with flush toilets.

3. Merced Lake Ranger Station Meadow: The meadow would continue to have high levels of bare ground associated with administrative pack stock grazing.

4. Special-Status Plants: Trails through sensitive habitats would continue to impact fragile plant species in several places in the river corridor.

OTHER SEGMENT 1 CAMPING AREAS (NOT SHOWN ON MAP)

• Little Yosemite Valley Camping Area: Infrastructure at the camping area includes a composting toilet and bear boxes for food storage. This would remain a designated camping 

area for the Little Yosemite Valley Wilderness Zone.

• Moraine Dome Camping Area: This area would remain as a designated camping area for the Little Yosemite Valley Wilderness Zone.

WAWONA

1. Wawona Campground and South Fork Picnic Area

• Wawona Campground would contain 97 campsites (96 individual sites and 1 group site) and would continue to be served by septic tanks and leach fields. 

• The South Fork Wawona picnic area would continue to be undelineated and have no designated river access. 

2. Wawona Store Area

• Roadside parking on Wawona Road would continue to create vehicle/pedestrian conflicts and associated traffic congestion.

• The Wawona Store parking facility would not accommodate parking demand.

• The restrooms, existing numbers of picnic tables, and parking spaces would continue to serve visitors in their present condition and configuration. There would be no formal river 

access point from the picnic area to the river.

3. Wawona Stables: The concessioner would continue to provide day rides originating from the Wawona Stables.

4. Wawona Hotel Complex

• The hotel would continue to have 104 lodging units, providing overnight guests with a swimming pool and tennis courts.

• A nine-hole golf course, associated with the hotel with retail and food service, would remain in service. The golf course would continue to serve as a spray field for the water

reclaimed by the Wawona wastewater treatment plant.

5. Recreational Vehicle Facilities: The RV dump site in Wawona would continue to be located in close proximity to the river. 

6. NPS Maintenance Area

• Maintenance Yard: The NPS maintenance facility would continue to exist in its current location, condition and configuration.

• Wawona Stock Camp: The stock camp with two sites would continue to be located in a sensitive resource area.

Cultural Resources: Ground disturbing activities, potential loss to shallow deposits of historic artifacts and features, abandoned infrastructure, informal trails and visitor use affect 

culturally sensitive areas.

ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION

8-23
This page intentionally left blank

8-24 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative

Detailed Description of Alternative 1 (No Action)

The following section describes the existing management concerns and localized concerns related to river 

values that would continue under Alternative 1 (No Action). This information is provided to help the 

reader compare the relative merits of the action alternatives (Alternatives 2-6).This section also describes 

existing conditions for user capacity, land use, and facilities management in the Merced River corridor. All 

of the descriptions are organized by river segment.

Segment 1: Wilderness above Nevada Fall (Wild Segment)

Issues Affecting River Values

Biological Values

The management concern identified in Chapter 5, regarding the degree of bare soil observed within the 

Merced Lake East Meadow, would not be addressed. Localized concerns for high-elevation meadows and 

riparian habitat would also persist. More specifically:

• Meadow trails – Informal trails, trails in wet and/or sensitive vegetation, and trails that fragment 

meadow habitat, including meadow trails along the Red Peak and Triple Peak Forks, wetlands near 

Echo Valley and Merced Lake shore, and the mineral springs between Merced Lake and Washburn 

Lake would remain, with no restoration program to address such problem areas. 

Recreational Values

The management concern identified in Chapter 5, regarding encounter rates on the section of trail from 

Echo Valley to Lewis Creek, would not be addressed. 

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Under Alternative 1 (No Action) visitor use would continue to focus on wilderness-oriented experiences 

characterized by opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation or opportunities for solitude.

Visitor Activities and Services

The primary recreational activities in Segment 1 would continue to include hiking, sightseeing, and 

backpacking.

• Merced Lake Backpackers Camping Area and the associated infrastructure, such as flush toilets, 

water system, and bear boxes, would remain.

• Merced Lake High Sierra Camp would continue to have a 60-bed capacity, offer the same level of 

service, and all associated infrastructure would remain.

• Designated camping areas would continue to include Little Yosemite Valley, Moraine Dome, and 

the Merced Lake Backpackers Camping Area. 

• Private boating would not be allowed in Segment 1.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-25
ALTERNATIVES

Visitor Overnight Capacity

The Merced Lake High Sierra Camp would remain at its current capacity of 22 units (60 people per night). 

For dispersed camping, including those staying in the designated areas mentioned above, wilderness zone 

capacities would remain unchanged. The capacities for both the entire wilderness zone and the portion of 

the zone within the river corridor are listed in Table 8-6. Figure 8-3 illustrates the overlap between the river 

corridor and relevant wilderness zones which was the basis for developing the corridor-specific capacities.

TABLE 8-6: WILDERNESS ZONE CAPACITIES – ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION) 

Wilderness Zones

Alt 1 

Overnight Zone Capacity

Alt 1 Overnight Zone Capacity 

Within River Corridor Only* 

Little Yosemite Valley Zone 150 people 150 people

Merced Lake Zone 50 people 50 people

Washburn Lake Zone 150 people 100 people

Mount Lyell Zone 50 people 10 people

Clark Range Zone 50 people 10 people

NOTE: 

* For some Wilderness zones, only a small portion of river corridor overlaps the zone. Therefore, the NPS calculated corridor-specific capacities that 

reflect the number of people in both the wilderness zone and the river corridor portion of the zone. These calculations assume visitors have the 

ability to camp out of sight and sound of other parties and that minimum impact camping is available within the segment.

Figure 8-3: Segment 1 River Corridor Wilderness Zones

8-26 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative

Visitor Day-use Capacity

Day use generally occurs along the trail between the top of Nevada Fall and Little Yosemite Valley. This use 

is primarily associated with hikers destined for Half Dome; a location outside of the river corridor. This 

specific activity is managed through a permit system. As this is a designated wilderness area, the only access 

to this segment is by way of hiking trails. Day-use parking for the trailheads used to access this segment is 

included in the parking inventory for Yosemite Valley (see Segment 2, below).

Administrative Activities

Administrative use in Segment 1 consists primarily of regular ranger patrols, backcountry utility work, and

occasional trail/restoration crew work. These activities are seasonal, minimal in comparison to visitor use, 

and do not significantly affect the overall user capacity. 

Employee Housing Capacity

The Merced Lake ranger station and the Little Yosemite Valley trail crew and ranger camp would remain as 

temporary housing for employees working in this area. Rangers are regularly stationed in these locations 

throughout the summer season and a small number of employees (5-10) may temporarily reside at either 

location. No permanent housing exists in this segment.

Employee and Administrative Parking Capacity

Employee and administrative parking for this segment is located in Yosemite Valley and is accounted for in 

the Segment 2 parking inventory reported below. 

Transit Options

The only access to this wild segment is via hiking trails, and the trailheads that provide access to this 

segment are located in East Yosemite Valley (Segment 2A). Thus, visitors to this river segment would use the 

transit options described under Segment 2 to access these trailheads. 

Segment 2 (including Segment 2A and 2B): Yosemite Valley (Recreational and Scenic 

Segments)

Issues Affecting River Values

Under Alternative 1 (No Action), localized concerns pertaining to free-flowing condition and water quality 

would persist. More specifically: 

Free-Flowing Condition

• Riverbank riprap –All riprap along the bed and banks of the Merced River within the park would 

remain.

• Abutments and abandoned infrastructure – The abutments and infrastructure associated with 

the former bridge at Happy Isles and the gauge base would remain in their current location and 

condition. The infrastructure associated with the Pohono Bridge gauging station would remain 

within the bed and banks of the river. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-27
ALTERNATIVES

Water Quality

• Pack Stock trail – The pack stock trail, north of the river between Clark’s Bridge and the 

Concessioner Stables, would remain within the ordinary high-water mark; the area would continue 

to be subject to seasonal flooding, accelerated erosion, and sediment deposition in the river. 

• Upper Pines (RV) Dump Station – The Upper Pines RV dump station would remain adjacent to 

the river along with the associated potential for water quality impacts. 

• Yosemite Valley Day-use Parking Area (Camp 6) – This unimproved parking area would remain 

without additional mitigation for water quality protection. It would continue to be located within 

the five- to ten-year floodplain in the potential channel migration zone. 

Biological Values

As described in the overview of this alternative, some ecological restoration could occur under Alternative 1 

(No Action). However, most of the management concerns regarding meadow fragmentation in several 

Yosemite Valley meadows and riparian conditions (identified in Chapter 5) would not be addressed. 

Localized concerns pertaining to meadow and riparian habitat would also persist. More specifically: 

• Ditching – Human-constructed ditches would remain in meadows throughout Yosemite Valley. 

• General meadow hydrology – Conifers would continue to encroach into Yosemite Valley 

meadows. While the NPS would continue the mechanical removal of conifers to reduce fuel loads 

under the park’s Fire Management Plan, no additional action would be taken to mitigate conifer 

encroachment. 

• Meadow habitat – Formal and informal trails, abandoned roadbeds, and informal roadside 

parking would remain in meadows and wetlands in Ahwahnee Meadow, El Capitan Meadow, 

Cook’s Meadow, Leidig Meadow, and Sentinel Meadow. Roads and bike paths would continue to 

bisect Ahwahnee Meadow, Stoneman Meadow, Leidig Meadow, and Sentinel Meadow without 

mitigation to enhance sheet flow. 

• Abandoned infrastructure– Abandoned infrastructure would remain in Eagle Creek Meadow, 

Royal Arches Meadow, Cook’s Meadow, Bridalveil Meadow, the western (closed) portion of

former Lower Pines Campground, and at the former lodge cabin/volunteer center at Yosemite 

Lodge. 

• Valley Loop trail – The Valley Loop Trail would continue to pass through sensitive and sometimes 

inundated meadow habitat in Slaughterhouse Meadow and Bridalveil Meadow. 

• Ahwahnee Meadow – Ahwahnee Meadow topography would continue to be modified by ditching, 

fill material found in the former golf course, a former roadbed in the southwest corner of the 

meadow, and large conifers that have become established along the former roadbed. Additionally, 

the tennis court would remain in a black oak community. 

• El Capitan Meadow- Soil compaction and trampled vegetation, resulting from informal trails and 

access to the meadow from roadside parking, would continue. The NPS would continue to remove 

invasive non-native plants following the Invasive Plant Management Plan. 

• River reach upstream of El Capitan Moraine – The NPS would take no action to enhance the 

riparian habitat and improve channel complexity in the river reach upstream of El Capitan moraine 

to the picnic area at Sentinel Beach. 

• Foot traffic – Heavy foot traffic associated with campgrounds, lodging, rafting operations, and 

picnic areas would continue to denude riparian vegetation. High levels of visitor use impacts would 

remain near the river at Valley Campgrounds, El Capitan Bridge, Swinging Bridge, and Sentinel 

Beach Picnic Areas. 

8-28 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative

• Pohono Bridge to site of former diversion dam – No designated river access points would be 

identified for this reach; as a result, soil erosion and loss of vegetation would continue. Unsafe 

parking practices resulting from improper roadside parking would also continue.

Geological/Hydrological Values 

Under Alternative 1 (No Action), localized concerns pertaining to geological/hydrological values would 

persist. More specifically: 

• Housekeeping Camp – Several Housekeeping Camp units would remain located within the 

ordinary high-water mark. 

• Yosemite Lodge – Several buildings would remain in the 100-year floodplain. 

• Bridges – All bridges and elevated roadways would remain in place without mitigation to address 

bridge-related impacts to alluvial processes; this includes footings within the bed and banks of the 

Merced River. 

• Eagle Creek drainage – No action would be taken to remove the berm or repair the channelization 

near Northside Drive. 

• River channel – The NPS would take no action to mitigate river widening and low channel 

complexity between Clark’s Bridge and Sentinel Bridge. 

Cultural Values

Under Alternative 1 (No Action), the management concern identified in Chapter 5, regarding the “serious” 

condition of the Ahwahnee Gatehouse, would not be addressed. Management concerns for cultural values 

associated with black oak recruitment rates, meadows, and riparian areas would also not be addressed. 

Localized concerns pertaining to historic and cultural values would persist. More specifically: 

• Traditionally used plant populations – Traditionally used plant populations would continue to be 

managed with the actions prescribed in the Park’s invasive plant management program. Conifers 

and abandoned infrastructure would remain in black oak habitat. 

• Archeological sites – Informal and formal trails, various types of visitor use, parking, and graffiti 

would continue to impact archeological sites in Yosemite Valley. 

• Historic resources – Sites representing the prominent historic patterns of development in 

Yosemite Valley would remain in their current locations and in their current status. Those 

resources that are in serious, poor, or fair condition remain as such. 

Scenic Values

Under Alternative 1 (No Action), management concerns regarding the visual impact of parking areas in 

Segment 2B (identified in Chapter 5) would not be further evaluated or mitigated. Localized concerns 

pertaining to visual resources would persist. More specifically: 

• Vegetation growth that has intruded on scenic viewpoints would not be removed, and actions 

proposed in the Scenic Vista Management Plan would not be implemented.

• Riverbank erosion, informal trails, and riparian vegetation would continue to impact direct and 

foreground views of the river, river-dependent resources, and the peaks and walls rising above the 

river.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-29
ALTERNATIVES

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Alternative 1 (No Action) would accommodate the same kinds and amounts of use that exist today. 

Visitor Activities and Services

Yosemite Valley would continue to provide a diversity of river-related and other recreational opportunities. 

Activities and Services:

• Yosemite Lodge Area – All accommodations would remain. Employee housing would continue to 

be temporary in nature, unsightly, and inadequate. The existing design of the pedestrian circulation 

system at this popular attraction site would continue to be inadequate for the level of visitor use it 

receives. A network of social trails would remain. 

• Yosemite Village – Visitor use facilities would remain at their current size and location in Yosemite 

Village. Industrial and administrative functions, such as the concessioner garage and general 

offices, would be co-located with visitor use facilities. Inadequate visitor way-finding at Yosemite 

Village Day-use Parking Area (Camp 6) would persist, along with pedestrian-vehicle conflicts and 

associated traffic congestion.

• Housekeeping Camp –All facilities, including lodging units that are regularly flooded, would 

remain at their current size and location at Housekeeping Camp. This location would continue to 

offer showers, restrooms, laundry facilities, and a grocery store.

• Curry Village – All accommodations and all visitor services would remain in their current 

configuration. Employee housing would continue to be temporary in nature, unsightly, and 

inadequate. The Concessioner Stables would remain at its current size and configuration, 

supporting both commercial horseback day rides and the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp. A kennel 

service would continue to be operated at the stables. 

• Bridalveil Fall –The design of the pedestrian circulation system at this popular attraction site 

would be inadequate for the level of visitor use it receives. A network of social trails would remain. 

• Boating – Commercial and private boating would continue on a 2.4-mile reach of the Merced River 

between Stoneman Bridge and Sentinel Picnic Area. Peak-use levels for this river reach currently 

range from 150 to 250 boats per day, but can be as high as 300 boats per day. About two-thirds of 

this use is associated with commercial raft rentals. This level of use would continue, under 

Alternative 1 (No Action) for both commercial and private boating. 

Visitor Overnight Capacity

Overnight capacities would remain the same. Reservation systems for both lodging and camping would 

continue. 

The campground inventory would be 466 sites, accommodating up to 2,892 people per night in Yosemite 

Valley. 

• Backpackers Campground – 25 campsites, including two administrative sites would remain 

adjacent to the river. 

• Former Upper River Campground – Ecological restoration of the former campground area would 

occur passively, with the passage of time. Asphalt and fill from the old campground would remain

in place. 

• Former Lower River Campground – Ecological restoration of the former campground area 

would occur passively, with the passage of time. Asphalt and fill from the old campground would 

remain in place. 

8-30 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative

• Lower Pines – 76 campsites would be retained (16 sites for administrative use; 18 sites RV-only). 

• North Pines – 86 campsites would be retained (5 sites for administrative use; 23 sites RV-only). 

• Upper Pines – 240 campsites would be retained (2 for administrative use; 44 sites RV-only). 

• Camp 4 – 35 walk-in campsites would remain at Camp 4. 

Lodging inventory would remain at 1,137 units, accommodating up to 4,013 people per night.

• The Ahwahnee Hotel– Existing services and facilities would be retained, including the bar and 

food service, dining room, gift shop, sweet shop, pool, and tennis courts. 

• Curry Village – 400 lodging units would be retained. 

• Housekeeping Camp – 266 lodging units would be retained, some of which would continue to 

flood periodically. 

• Yosemite Lodge – 245 lodging units would be retained. 

Visitor Day-use Capacity

No changes would be made to the parking supply in Yosemite Valley (2,337 spaces). 

• Parking at The Ahwahnee –Parking and traffic circulation at the Ahwahnee would continue to be 

inadequate to meet overnight and day-use demand.

• Wilderness Parking Lot –The Wilderness parking lot would continue to be undersized for 

demand. Soils in this location, which was once used as a landfill for Curry Village, would not be 

remediated.

• Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area (Camp 6/Village Store) – Vehicle-pedestrian conflicts 

would continue to cause significant traffic congestion at this location. Overflow from the day-use 

parking area would continue to encroach on sensitive habitat at Cook’s Meadow. Visitors would be 

directed to a roughly-defined dirt parking area with space for approximately 517 vehicles. 

Yosemite Village would continue to provide approximately 237 parking spaces for day-use. 

• Yosemite Lodge –Demand for day-use parking at this location would continue to exceed supply 

during summer peak-use period. The west portion of the Yosemite Lodge parking area would 

continue to be used for all types of overflow parking, including tour buses, transit, and visitor 

parking. Continuation of this mixed use would perpetuate parking inefficiencies. 

• Camp 4 –The Camp 4 parking lot (89 spaces) would continue to be inadequately sized for the 

current level of overnight use. 

Transit Options

Transit options for visitors and employees are as shown in Table 8-7. Additionally, at peak hours, 

approximately 15 tour buses are parked in the Valley. Tour buses are required to park in the vicinity of 

Yosemite Lodge, sharing this parking location with regional transit and private vehicles. 

Administrative Activities

Administrative uses are well-established in Segment 2. NPS administrative offices, essential facilities, and 

concessioner offices occupy land in Yosemite Valley along with NPS and concessioner employee housing.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-31
ALTERNATIVES

8-32 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 

TABLE 8-7: TRANSIT OPTIONS – ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION) 

Regional Transit Options 

HIGHWAY 140 

Merced/Mariposa to Yosemite Valley 

8 runs per day (4 from Merced; 4 from Mariposa) 

(summer season, reduced schedule during winter months) 

HIGHWAY 41 

Fresno/Oakhurst to Yosemite Valley No Service 

HIGHWAY 120 West 

Groveland/Sonora to Yosemite Valley 

2 runs per day- Sonora to Valley 

(summer only) 

HIGHWAY 120 East 

Inyo/Mono County (Mammoth Lakes) to Yosemite Valley 

1 run per day 

(summer only) 

Yosemite Valley Shuttle Options 

East Yosemite Valley 7 minute peak interval between buses 

Year round except Visitor Center direct 

Visitor Center Express Yosemite Valley Day-use Parking 

Area to Visitor Center 

15 minute interval between buses 

(summer only) 

El Capitan Crossover 30 minute interval between buses 

(summer only) 

West Yosemite Valley No service 

NOTE: *All Regional Transit runs are round trip. 

Employee and Administrative Capacity 

All existing employee housing would remain in Yosemite Valley, under Alternative 1 (No Action). The 

housing supply would include 1,151 beds for concessioner employees and 71 units (164 beds) for NPS 

employees who are required or permitted occupants. Substandard and visually-distracting temporary 

housing would remain at Curry Village (Huff House). Both the Tecoya Dorms and Ahwahnee Row Housing 

(with their associated parking) would remain within the 100-year floodplain, with no development setback 

from Indian Creek. Temporary housing would also remain in the middle of the Yosemite Lodge parking lot 

(Highland Court). Additional housing in the corridor would include the Thousands Cabins near the 

entrance to the Yosemite Lodge. The Yellow Pine Administrative Campground would remain available for 

administrative use (4 group sites for up to 120 people). 

Parking for administrative functions would be located within the land assignments for these uses and 

generally separated from visitor services. An estimated 1,169 parking spaces would be available for 

administrative uses (including parking spaces near residential areas). 

Segment 3: Merced Gorge (Scenic Segment) 

Issues Affecting River Values 

Scenic Values 

Under Alternative 1 (No Action), views from the river and roads in Segment 3 would continue to have high 

aesthetic value. Pull-outs and roadside interpretive displays would be maintained. 
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Visitor Activities and Services 

The kinds of use that are currently provided in Segment 3 would continue under Alternative 1 (No Action). 

The primary activity would remain scenic driving along Highway 140 for travelers to other park 

destinations. However, several pull-outs would continue to provide parking and access to the river and 

other parts of the corridor along this segment. 

• River-related recreational activities would continue to include swimming, fishing, and climbing. 

These activities occur in summer when the river is low and the air and water temperatures are 

warm. 

• This section of river is steep and rocky, and boatable only by the most advanced paddlers. 

Kayaking/boating would not be allowed in this segment under this alternative due to the safety 

concerns associated with accessing the river for search and rescue operations during high use 

periods. 

Visitor Overnight Capacity

No overnight accommodations are provided in Segment 3. 

Visitor Day-use Capacity 

The day-use parking inventory in Segment 3 would remain at 180 spaces. 

Transit Options

No additional transit options would be provided. 

Administrative Activities

The Arch Rock Entrance Station would remain within Segment 3, along with administrative vehicle access 

to Yosemite Valley and other park destinations. 

Employee and Administrative Capacity

The residential unit at the Arch Rock Area would continue to house up to nine NPS employees. 

Minimal designated parking would be provided for administrative use at the Arch Rock Entrance station. 

Segment 4: El Portal (Recreational Segment)

Issues Affecting River Values

Under Alternative 1 (No Action), localized concerns pertaining to water quality and the cultural values 

would persist. More specifically:

Water Quality

• NPS Maintenance and Administrative Complex– The ad-hoc off-street and roadside parking 

areas would continue to be located between the Merced River and Foresta Road. These areas were 

not designed or built to prevent water quality contamination from automotive fluids, surface water 

runoff or sediment transport. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-33
ALTERNATIVES

Cultural Values

• Archeological sites - Abandoned infrastructure located on site number CA-MRP-0181/H would 

continue to impact an area that is highly valued by traditionally-associated American Indians. In 

addition, informal trails, non-essential gravel roads, and visitor use that contribute to archeological 

site disturbances at CA-MRP-0250/H and CA-MRP-0251/H in Old El Portal would remain.

Biological Values

• Abandoned infrastructure– Abandoned infrastructure and imported fill at Abbieville and Trailer 

Village would remain. 

• Greenemeyer sand pit – Greenemeyer sand pit would remain, with fill materials that preclude 

natural flooding and regeneration of riparian plant communities.

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Visitor Activities and Services

Under Alternative 1 (No Action), recreational activities in Segment 4 would continue to be oriented toward 

the local community and the vast majority of park visitors would pass through en route to Yosemite Valley 

and other park destinations. However, a small number of park visitors would continue to visit the Merced 

River in the El Portal segment as a destination. Primary river-related recreation activities, including 

swimming, fishing, and boating, would continue.

Visitor Overnight Capacity 

There are no overnight accommodations for the public in Segment 4. 

Visitor Day-use Capacity 

The current inventory of visitor day-use parking (214 spaces) would be retained, consisting primarily of 

parking at the store and gas station and along the roadsides. 

Transit Options

As in the Yosemite Valley and Merced Gorge segments along Highway 140, public transit along this travel 

corridor would be maintained. No additional transit options would be provided.

Administrative Activities

The El Portal Administrative Site within this segment was established to accommodate administrative use in 

support of Yosemite National Park. These well-established administrative uses would remain. 

Employee Housing Capacity

The supply of employee housing would remain at 220 housing units (427 people) in Segment 4. 

Employee and Administrative Parking Capacity 

Parking for administrative functions would be located within the land assignments for these uses and would 

not compete with visitor parking. The NPS would maintain and estimated 610 parking spaces for 

administrative uses and 106 parking spaces for residents. 

8-34 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-35 

Segment 5: South Fork Merced River above Wawona (Wild Segment) 

Issues Affecting River Values 

Cultural Values 

Under Alternative 1 (No Action), informal trails and visitor use would continue to impact rock ring features 

and related archeological resources in Segment 5. 

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management 

Under Alternative 1 (No Action), visitor use levels in Segment 5 would continue to be minimal. 

Visitor Activities and Services 

Recreational activities in this segment would continue to include occasional backpacking and day hiking. 

Private boating would not be allowed in Segment 5. 

Visitor Overnight Capacity 

Very little overnight use occurs in Segment 5. The existing wilderness zone capacities would remain 

unchanged (Table 8-8). 

TABLE 8-8: WILDERNESS ZONE CAPACITIES – SEGMENT 5 

Wilderness Zones 

Alt 1 

Overnight Zone Capacity 

Alt 1 Overnight Zone for Within 

River Corridor Only* 

South Fork Zone 150 people 15 people 

Johnson Creek Zone 50 people 5 people 

Chilnualna Creek Zone 100 people 0 people 

NOTE: 

* Corridor capacities reflect the number of people within the section of the river corridor that overlaps the wilderness zone.

Visitor Day-use Capacity 

As this segment is located entirely in designated wilderness, the only immediate access to the segment is by 

trail. Trailhead parking is reported in the parking summary for the Wawona area. Very little day use would 

occur in Segment 5. 

Transit Options 

As discussed above, the only access to Segment 5 is provided by hiking trails. The trailheads that provide access 

to this area are located in Wawona (Segment 7) and at locations managed by the U.S. Forest Service. Visitors 

would continue to use the transit options for Wawona to access these trailheads. 

Administrative Activities 

Administrative use would be minimal in this segment. 
ALTERNATIVES

Employee and Administrative Capacity 

No employee parking or housing would be provided in this segment.

Segments 6 and 7: Wawona Impoundment and Wawona (Recreational Segments)

Issues Affecting River Values

Under Alternative 1 (No Action), localized concerns pertaining to free-flowing condition, water quality, and 

cultural values would persist. More specifically:

Free-Flowing Condition

• Wawona impoundment – The current water collection and distribution system would be retained. 

• Abandoned infrastructure – Abandoned metal pipes in side channels on the South Fork Merced 

River would remain, continuing to dewater the terrace. 

Water Quality

• Water withdrawals – Surface water withdrawals from the South Fork of the Merced River in 

Wawona would continue and the water conservation plan relating to the minimum flow analysis for 

the South Fork would guide this use. 

• Wastewater collection system for the Wawona Campground – The Wawona Campground 

would continue to be served by septic tanks and leach fields with the potential for effluent to 

migrate into ground water and the river nearby. 

• Wawona recreational vehicle (RV) dump station – The Wawona RV dump station would remain 

very close to the banks of the river, posing a potential risk to water quality.

• Wawona Store Picnic Area– During periods of peak visitation, visitor use levels would continue to 

exceed the design capacity for the Wawona Store Picnic Area near the Pioneer History Center. No 

formal river access point would be provided for the steep riverbank and erosion would continue. 

• South Fork Wawona Picnic Area - The South Fork Wawona Picnic Area would not be clearly 

delineated and no formal river access point would be identified. Visitors would continue to access 

the river by creating informal trails.

Cultural Values

• Archeological Sites - Visitor use would continue to cause ground disturbing impacts to surface 

and sub-surface archeological resources. 

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Overall, Alternative 1 (No Action) would continue to offer the kinds and amounts of use that currently exist 

in the Wawona area. Segment 6 includes the Wawona impoundment and visitor use would continue to be 

prohibited in this area due to water quality and safety concerns. Therefore, the summary of visitor activities 

and services provided below pertains only to Segment 7.

Visitor Activities and Services 

A range of visitor recreation activities would continue to be available. River-related activities would include 

swimming, fishing, and boating. 

8-36 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative

• Swimming opportunities would continue to be popular at the Wawona Swinging Bridge area.

• Private boating would continue to be allowed below Swinging Bridge, excluding the Wawona 

impoundment.

Other non-river-related recreational activities in this segment include picnicking, camping, lodging, 

education and interpretation at the History Museum, special events at the Wawona Hotel, and golfing. Each 

of these activities would continue under this alternative. 

• Picnicking would continue at the Wawona Store area and the South Fork picnic area. No 

improvements to these facilities would occur, other than routine maintenance. No designated river 

access would be provided.

Visitor Overnight Capacity

The Wawona Hotel would continue to provide 104 rooms, accommodating a maximum of 247 people per 

night.

The number of sites at the Wawona Campground would remain at 96 individual sites and one group site. 

Two stock-use campsites would also remain, bringing the total camping inventory to 99 sites, 

accommodating a maximum of 618 people per night.

Visitor Day-use Parking Capacity

Day-use parking capacity would remain at 290 spaces. 

Transit Options

Transit options would remain unchanged. The Wawona area shuttle would continue during the summer 

season, serving the Wawona Store, the South Entrance Station, and the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias. 

The daily concession-operated shuttle between Wawona and Yosemite Valley would also continue along 

Wawona Road. 

Administrative Activities

NPS Administrative uses are well-established in this segment and would continue. Both NPS administrative 

offices and visitor services offices would remain at their current locations. 

Employee Housing and Parking

The existing 79 employee housing units would remain. 

A total of 118 concessioner employees would continue to be housed in Wawona. 

Parking for administrative functions would be located within the land assignments for these uses and would 

not compete with visitor parking. Segment 7 includes 65 administrative parking spaces within the river 

corridor. 

Segment 8: South Fork Merced below Wawona (Wild Segment)

Issues Affecting River Values

There are no management concerns or localized concerns for river values in Segment 8. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-37
ALTERNATIVES

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Visitor Activities and Services

Recreational use in Segment 8 would continue to be primarily limited to swimming and hiking. Additionally, 

some rafters may continue to put in below the Wawona campground, attempting the Class 5 multi-day 

adventure down the South Fork through the Sierra National Forest to the junction with the main stem of 

the Merced River. However, the section of river within Yosemite National Park is very short, and few 

people attempt the trip given the high skill-level required. 

Visitor Overnight Capacity

Per existing camping regulations, overnight use would not be allowed in Segment 8. 

Visitor Day-use Parking Capacity

The only immediate access to Segment 8 is via hiking trails. Day-use parking for this use is provided in the 

Wawona area (see Segment 7 above). Very minimal day use would occur within this segment.

Administrative Activities

Little or no administrative use would occur within Segment 8. 

Employee Housing Capacity

No employee housing would be located in Segment 8. 

Employee and Administrative Parking Capacity 

No employee or administrative parking would be located in Segment 8. 

Transit Options

Transit services for access to this Segment 8 are described above under Segment 7. 

Necessity of Major Public-use Facilities and Services

Under Alternative 1 (No Action), all of the facilities and services evaluated in “Development of Lands and 

Facilities” (Chapter 7) would remain in the river corridor. A determination as to their necessity in 

accordance with the WSRA mandate would not be conducted. 

8-38 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Southside Drive Northside Drive

NORTH

Alternative 1: No Action

Curry Village

Yosemite National Park

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

1

11

12

10

Curry Village Residential Area

Huff House Temporary Employee Housing

Curry Village Ice Rink

Historic cabins (guest lodging)

Bicycle rental and raft rental stands

Stoneman Cottage

Curry Pavilion (food services)

2

2

1

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

8 Stoneman Meadow

8

8

6

7

9 Curry Orchard Parking Area

Campground Reservation Center

Boys Town guest lodging

11

10

Tents (guest lodging)

12

9

7
ALTERNATIVES

This page intentionally left blank

8-40 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 1: No Action

Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area

Yosemite National Park

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

NORTH

Food service

Village Mall

Parking area

Village Store

Art Activity Center

(former bank building)

Concessioner General Office

Concessioner Garage

Employee housing area

2

2

1

1

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

6

6

Yosemite Village Dayuse parking area (Camp 6)

Temporary restrooms and

visitor contact station

8

8 7

7

Sentinel Drive

9

9

Village Drive

11

11

10

10

10

13

13

12

12

12

Northside Drive
ALTERNATIVES

This page intentionally left blank

8-42 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Yosemite Lodge driveway 

and parking areas

Guest lodging

Swimming pool, snack and

bicycle rental stands, 

and post office

Thousands Cabins 

employee housing

Food service and retail stores

Lodge registration

Highland Court temporary

employee housing

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

8 Linen storage and laundry

8

7

7

9 NPS volunteer office

9

Former Yosemite Lodge 

Annex (disturbed area)

Former service station site

11

11

10

10

Camp 4 walk-in campground

Camp 4 parking facility

12

13

12

13

NORTH

Alternative 1: No Action

Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4

Yosemite National Park

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service
ALTERNATIVES

This page intentionally left blank

8-44 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 1: No Action

Yosemite Valley Maintenance Area

Yosemite National Park

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

NORTH

Open storage areas

NPS stables and corral

Search and Rescue operations

Fueling station

Covered storage structures

Government Utility Building

Service bay access

2

2

2

1

1

1

3

3

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

8 Utility buildings

8

8

7

7

Former construction

management office (removed)

9

9

Concessioner Maintenance

and Warehouse Building

10

10
ALTERNATIVES

This page intentionally left blank

8-46 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6 

ACTIONS COMMON TO ALTERNATIVES 2-6 

Many actions to protect and enhance river values and to relocate certain facilities and services are the same 

for Alternatives 2-6. To avoid repeating them in the description of each alternative, these “common” actions 

are reported in the following section. When evaluating the individual alternatives in the Final Merced River 

Plan/EIS, readers should include the material in this section, as it describes the comprehensive ecological 

restoration plan that will be used to protect river values and is an integral part of each action alternative. 

Many of the actions described in this section respond directly to the management concerns and localized 

concerns identified in “River Values and Their Management” (Chapter 5). Appendix E provides additional 

details about the specific equipment, techniques and timeframe for accomplishing individual restoration 

actions. Alternatives 2-6 also incorporate the boundaries, classifications, and Section 7 determination 

process described in Chapters 3 and 4, the monitoring program presented in Chapter 5, and the mitigation 

measures listed in Appendix C.

Ecological Restoration Goals

Ecological restoration responds to the National Park Service mission to allow natural processes to prevail, 

and to protect scenery and historic resources (NPS Management Policies 2006). Such actions also help to 

achieve the goals of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by enhancing the river’s free-flow, water quality, and 

outstandingly remarkable values. Restoration of riparian, riverine, and meadow habitats enhances the scenic 

quality of the river corridor, providing a more natural setting for reflection and inspiration. 

The overarching goal for restoration in the Final Merced River Plan/EIS is to: 

Promote the ability of the Merced River to shape the landscape by reducing impediments to free 

flow (as defined by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act), improving geologic/hydrologic processes, 

restoring floodplains and meadows, and protecting water quality.

In addition to this broad goal, the following specific goals guided the development of the restoration actions 

included in Alternatives 2-6: 

• Restore hydrologic function and connectivity with the floodplain including meadow and wetland 

habitats. 

• Restore overbank flooding frequency by narrowing the river channel. 

• Repair eroded riverbanks, restore riparian plant communities and prevent further human-caused, 

erosion-induced widening. 

• Improve hydrologic conditions at bridges during peak flow periods. 

• Increase channel complexity by increasing the amount of large wood in the river channel. 

• Restore and protect the ecological processes that support riparian and meadow communities 

including naturally high groundwater levels and sheet flow. 

• Remove impediments to natural hydrology including ditches, berms, and abandoned roadbeds in 

order to protect and maintain native plant communities. 

• Restore and maintain the function, structure, diversity and productivity of native riparian and 

meadow plant communities to protect species diversity, ethnographic resources, and wildlife 

habitat. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-47
ALTERNATIVES

• Protect and enhance scenic values.

• Mitigate impacts to archeological resources. 

Ecological Restoration Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6 

Multiple actions would be implemented under all alternatives to restore, protect and enhance 

hydrological/geological processes, free-flowing condition, water quality, and biological river values. A 

summary description of the major restoration actions is provided below and in Table 8-9. A detailed 

description of all common actions grouped by river segment follows the map series in this section. 

Riparian Buffer – A 150-foot setback from the ordinary high-water mark would apply to all new 

development or redevelopment, corridorwide. This riparian buffer would filter runoff, reduce the 

magnitude and velocity of overland flow, trap sediment, and attenuate compounds such as nitrogen and 

phosphorous and pathogens. It would stabilize riverbanks by providing root cohesion on banks and 

floodplains, reduce erosion, and allow surface water to infiltrate the soil. Vegetation within the riparian 

buffer would provide a source of large wood to the river and adjacent floodplain, which would dissipate 

river flow energy and regulate channel form. The riparian buffer would enhance important wildlife habitat 

by allowing establishment of new vegetation and persistence of a complex habitat structure. The buffer 

would also protect aquatic ecosystems by providing organic nutrients, by supplying woody debris that 

would improve habitat complexity, and by moderating water temperatures by vegetative shading of the 

river. 

Riprap removal and large wood management – Throughout the corridor, eroded riverbanks would be 

repaired through restoration, and vulnerable riverbanks and riparian vegetation would be protected from 

trampling. Visitor use would be redirected to resilient riverbanks, such as low-angle sandbar beaches. A 

substantial amount of riprap in Yosemite Valley would be removed to enhance free-flowing conditions and 

natural hydrologic processes and to improve riparian habitat. Large wood would be left in the river channel 

or incorporated into riverbanks to increase channel complexity and improve aquatic habitat. Refer to 

Yosemite Directive # 31: Large Wood Management in the Merced Wild and Scenic River, for additional detail.

Fire and Invasive Plant Management – Prescribed burning, conifer seedling removal and invasive plant 

removal are ongoing activities occurring in the corridor that have already been analyzed in other planning 

documents. Prescribed burning for resource benefits would follow the Fire Management Plan. Invasive plant 

removal would follow the guidelines of the Invasive Plant Management Plan. 

Meadows and Riverbanks – Under all alternatives, ditches in meadows would be filled, six miles of 

informal trails in meadows and riparian areas would be removed, and abandoned underground 

infrastructure would be removed. Roadside parking along meadows and associated fill material would be 

removed to restore these areas and protect meadows from informal trailing. All action alternatives 

(Alternatives 2-6) would return ecological and cultural processes—hydrology and fire—to restore meadows 

and oak woodlands from currently conifer-dominated portions of the landscape. River channel restoration 

would occur along the reach between Clark’s and Sentinel bridges, including placement of constructed log 

jams (CLJs), closure of sensitive riverbanks, and brush layering. A portion of Lower Pines campground that 

was damaged by the 1997 flood and subsequently removed would be restored to a mosaic of riparian, 

meadow and oak communities to enhance riparian and floodplain habitat. To protect water quality and 

improve riparian habitat, the pack stock trail between the stables and Happy Isles road would be removed 

8-48 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6 

and the riparian zone restored to natural conditions. In all alternatives, campsites within 100 feet of the 

ordinary high-water mark would be removed to protect and enhance riverbanks and the riparian zone. 

TABLE 8-9: SUMMARY OF MAJOR ACTIONS FOR PROTECTING AND ENHANCING RIVER VALUES—COMMON TO 

ALTERNATIVES 2-6

Ecological Restoration Actions (Free Flow, Water Quality, Geological/Hydrological, and Biological Values)

Corridorwide

Ecological 

Restoration Acreage 176 acres total (refer to Appendix E for specific locations)

Riprap to be 

Removed 5,700 linear feet (refer to Appendix E for specific locations)

Segment 2: Yosemite Valley

Free 

Flow/Geological/ 

Hydrological Values

 Place large wood into river banks and river channel and construct log jams between Clark’s and 

Sentinel bridges to enhance riparian habitat and channel complexity.

 Remove riverbank riprap in locations identified on the restoration maps included in Appendix E. 

 Remove the Happy Isles bridge footings and relocate outdated infrastructure at the Pohono gauging 

station.

Riparian Buffer / 

Floodplain

 At a minimum, remove existing campsites from within 100 feet of the bed and banks of the river. 

 Establish a riparian buffer to prohibit any new development within 150 feet of the bed and banks of 

the river.

 Move Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area north at least 150 feet away from the river.

 Implement a 50-foot development setback from Indian Creek.

 Direct river access to resilient sandy beaches and sandbars, fence off sensitive riparian areas and 

restore native riparian vegetation.

Meadow 

Restoration

 Remove abandoned infrastructure, including tiles, pipes, and abandoned roads, and ecologically 

restore sites.

 Improve meadow hydrology by removing artificial fill, filling ditches, constructing culverts, and 

removing remnants of abandoned underground utilities to enhance water flows into meadows. 

 Remove six miles of informal trails to reduce meadow fragmentation; restore disturbed areas to 

natural conditions. 

 Eliminate some roadside parking and fence some areas to reduce the potential for informal trailing 

through sensitive meadow habitat.

 Improve the condition of plant communities at specific locations in Yosemite Valley (67 potential acres 

targeted) by restoring the mosaic of meadow, riparian deciduous, black oak, and open mixed conifer 

forest vegetation. Management actions may include re-vegetation, prescribed fire, mechanical 

removal of conifers, and infrastructure redesign.

Segment 4: El Portal

Riparian Buffer / 

Floodplain

 Ecologically restore Greenemeyer sand pit. 

 Enhance Valley Oaks in Old El Portal by creating an oak recruitment area at least one-acre in size in 

the vicinity of the existing bulk fuel storage area. 

Segment 7: Wawona

Riparian Buffer / 

Floodplain

 Ecologically restore portions of the Wawona campground. Relocate or remove all campsites within 

100 feet of the bed and banks of the river.

 Designate river access points at picnic areas to prevent erosion and informal trails.

Scenic Values

Segment 2: Yosemite Valley

Iconic Scenic Views

 Reduce visual intrusions as part of the ecological restoration program.

 Ensure that new development is protective of scenic values.

 Implement actions in the Scenic Vista Management Plan, including removal of vegetation, to protect 

views from 47 vista points within the river corridor.

Cultural Values

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-49
ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 8-9: SUMMARY OF MAJOR ACTIONS FOR PROTECTING AND ENHANCING RIVER VALUES—COMMON TO 

ALTERNATIVES 2-6

Ecological Restoration Actions (Free Flow, Water Quality, Geological/Hydrological, and Biological Values)

Segment 2: Yosemite Valley

Ethnographic and 

Archeological 

Resources

 Remove informal trails, non-essential roads, and infrastructure that impacts archeological sites. 

 Delineate bike paths, roads, bridle paths, parking, staging, and trails away from sensitive cultural and 

ethnographic resource areas. 

 Remove graffiti, and install fencing around rock art and other sensitive features to discourage 

inappropriate visitor use.

 Develop site management plans for archeological sites with complex uses and impacts, such as 

Yosemite Village. 

Recreational Values

Segment 1: Wilderness Above Nevada Fall

Wilderness 

Recreation 

 Provide opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation or solitude in designated wilderness by 

managing overnight capacity through the wilderness trailhead quota and permit system, maintaining 

group size limits, monitoring resources to study the effects of visitor use, and implementing area 

closures where necessary to protect river values.

Segment 2: Yosemite Valley

River-related 

Recreation  Improve circulation and access while reducing crowding at key attraction sites.

8-50 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
d

ail

Housekeeping Camp Footbridge

eping 

p

Curry 

Village

Lower Pines

Campground

North Pines

Campground

Upper Pines

Campground

Clark's

Bridge

Tenaya

Bridge

River Corridor Boundary

Boys

Town Southside Drive

The Ahwahnee Backpackers

Campground

Stoneman

Bridge

Merced River

W i l d e r n e s s

Royal Arches

Meadow

Ahwahnee

Meadow

Stoneman

Meadow

Happy Isles

Bridge

Huff

House

Concessioner

Stables

Curry Village Orchard

Parking Area

Wilderness

Parking

YOSEMITE WILDERNESS

Tennis Court

Former Upper and Lower

River Campground Area

Northside Drive

Ahwahnee

Bridge

Sugar Pine

Bridge

an Point

Glacier Point

0 0.25 Miles

!«1

¬«2

¬«3

¬«4

¬«5

¬«6

 ̄

ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL

CURRY VILLAGE AND CAMPGROUNDS

EAST YOSEMITE VALLEY: CURRY VILLAGE AND CAMPGROUNDS

1. The Ahwahnee

Meadow Restoration: Restore 5.7 acres by removing conifers to reconnect isolated meadow portions to improve 

hydrologic connectivity. Remove tennis courts from black oak woodland and ecologically restore area. 

Scenic Views: Selectively thin trees that encroach on views toward Yosemite Falls and maintain views from inside the 

historic building.

Lodging: Retain the existing 123 units at The Ahwahnee Hotel.

Parking: Redesign existing parking lot; providing for proper drainage. Construct new 50-space parking lot east of the 

area. Follow Ahwahnee Historic Structure Report and cultural landscape report recommendations for parking area 

conguration and gatehouse restoration.

Services and Facilities: Retain bar and food service, dining room, gift shop, and sweet shop.

2. Stoneman Meadow and River Reach Between Bridges

Meadow Ecological Restoration: Use restoration fencing to protect the meadow’s north end. Remove encroaching 

conifers and invasive plants.

Interpretation of River Processes: Create an interpretive nature walk through Lower Rivers area that emphasizes 

river-related natural processes and stewardship. 

Large Wood Management: Leave large wood in river that does not compromise visitor safety or infrastructure. 

Incorporate large wood into riverbanks to provide structure for highly eroded riverbanks.

 Hydrologic Processes: Place eight naturally-looking constructed log jams to address river widening in the channel 

 between Clark’s and Sentinel Bridges. Restore riverbank erosion through brushlayering and revegetation.

Riparian Restoration: Ecologically restore 20 acres of the former Lower Pines Campground, which was closed after the 

1997 ood.

3. Curry Village 

Services and Facilities: Retain Curry grocery store, pizza deck and bar, pavilion and cafeteria, Happy Isles Nature Center, 

and Curry Village swimming pool. Remove the Happy Isles snack stand, bike and raft stand, and relocate the ice rink 

to a site outside the corridor. Eliminate commercial horseback day rides at Concessioner Stables in Yosemite Valley.

Wilderness Parking Area: Formalize parking using best management practices to protect water quality. Remediate soils 

and undertake a clean closure process for the abandoned landll. 

4. North Pines and Backpackers Campgrounds

Backpackers Campground Western Expansion: Construct 16 new camping sites west of Backpackers Campground.

Royal Arches Meadow Restoration: Selectively thin encroaching conifers, decompact soils, and revegetate area with 

native species. Remove infrastructure, such as tiles, pipes, and abandoned road. 

River Access: Direct visitors at Lower and North Pines campgrounds to four resilient sandy beaches through signage 

and maps.

5. Clark’s Bridge Area 

Clark’s Bridge: Place large wood to lessen scouring from the bridge, along with a constructed log jam.

Upper Pines RV Dump Station: Relocate RV dump station and utilities away from the river to mitigate potential threat to 

water quality.

Riverbank Restoration: Direct visitors to resilient river access point. Stabilize eroded riverbanks.

6. Happy Isles Area

Happy Isles Waynding: Improve waynding from the shuttle stop to Happy Isles and the Mist Trail.

Happy Isles Road Bridge: Place large wood to lessen scouring from the bridge along with brush layering and a 

constructed log jam. Remove former footbridge abutments.

Pack Stock Trail: Remove 3,800 feet of pack stock trail near the riverbank. Remove asphalt and decompact hardened 

surfaces. Re-vegetate with native plants.

Cultural Resource Protection

Delineate trails; remove informal trails; and remove grati to protect culturally sensitive resources. Also, direct visitor 

use for additional protection.

COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

8-51
This page intentionally left blank

8-52 MerMerced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EISve Manage
Draft: FOIA Exempt –

for internal review and deliberation only

River Corridor Boundary

Merced River

Northside Drive

Ahwahnee Road

Southside Drive

Yosemite Creek

Bridge Cook's Meadow

Ahwahnee

Meadow

Valley Visitor

Center Lost 

Arrow

Concessioner

Garage

Concessioner

General

Office

Residence 1

Indian

Creek

Northside Drive

Sentinel Drive

Government 

Utility

Building

Concessioner

Maintenance

and Warehouse

Building

Rangers'

Club

Le Conte

Memorial Lodge

Moran Point

Church Bowl

Picnic Area

Sentinel Bridge

Housekeeping

Bridge

Superintendent's

Bridge

Housekeeping Camp

Yosemite Village Day-Use 

Parking Area

Village Store

Complex

0 0.25 Miles

ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL

YOSEMITE VILLAGE AND HOUSEKEEPING CAMP

¬«1

¬«2

¬«3 ¬«4¬«5

 ̄

Yosemite Village

¬«6

EAST YOSEMITE VALLEY: YOSEMITE VILLAGE AND HOUSEKEEPING CAMP

1. Superintendent’s Bridge Area

Cook’s Meadow South Boardwalk: Selectively thin conifers encroaching on open vistas across the meadows and 

views of Yosemite Falls, Sentinel Rock, North Dome, and Glacier Point. 

Superintendent’s Bridge Free-Flowing Condition: Install constructed log jams on the Merced River, and utilize 

bioengineered stabilization on rip-rap to improve hydrologic function.

Superintendent’s Bridge Scenic Views: Thin conifers to maintain views of Sentinel Rock and North Dome.

Hutchings View: Selectively thin conifers to maintain distant views of Half Dome, Yosemite Falls, Sentinel Rock, 

North Dome, Glacier Point, Royal Arches, and Washington Column. 

2. Sentinel Bridge Area

Free-Flowing Condition: Place large wood to lessen scouring from the bridge. Place a constructed log jam to 

increase channel complexity. 

Scenic Views: Selectively thin encroaching conifers and burn undergrowth to open distant views of Half Dome. 

Informal Shoulder Parking: Remove roadside parking along Sentinel Drive that encroaches on sensitive habitat. 

Ecologically restore area to natural conditions.

3. West Yosemite Village

Informal Shoulder Parking: Remove roadside parking along Cook's Meadow. Restore meadow conditions.

 Roadbed Restoration near Cook’s Meadow: Remove ll of former roadbed north of Northside Drive between the 

Rangers’ Club and the three-way stop. Re-vegetate with native meadow species.

4. East Yosemite Village

Village Visitor Contact Center: Re-purpose the Village Sport Shop for public use with pathways leading from the 

Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area to the building. Remove the Art and Activities Center. 

Yosemite Village Services and Facilities: Retain Village Store and Grill. Re-purpose the Village Sport (Mountain) 

Shop as a visitor contact center.

Concessioner General Oce: Remove building from river corridor. Re-locate essential concessioner functions 

to the Concessioner Central Warehouse building.

Concessioner Garage Relocation: Remove Concessioner Garage building, and re-locate the function to the 

Government Utility Building area, outside the river corridor. Re-develop garage footprint as visitor parking. 

Provide essential visitor vehicle service and emergency repair at El Portal and Wawona service stations. 

Indian Creek Area: Create a setback for Indian Creek by removing parking and residential yard use within 50 feet 

of the creek. Fence area and restore native riparian vegetation.

5. Ahwahnee Meadow Area

Valley Meadow Ditch Restoration: Fill 2,155 feet of human-constructed ditches in Valley.

Ahwahnee Meadow Scenic Views: Selectively thin encroaching conifers from oak woodland and meadow to 

maintain distant view of Yosemite Falls, North Dome, Royal Arches, Half Dome, Glacier Point, and Castle Clis.

6. Housekeeping Camp Area

Ecological Restoration and River Access: Restore riverbank by brush-layering, decompacting soils, and planting 

riparian species. Direct visitors to two resilient beach locations at the western edge of camp. Fence o current 

eastern river access point on a steep eroded bank. 

Scenic Views: Selectively thin conifers to maintain views of Glacier Point and Yosemite Falls.

Revetment Removal: Remove 3,400 feet of revetment built into the riverbank that impacts hydrologic ow. 

Re-vegetate with riparian species. Replace 2,300 feet of revetment with bioengineered riverbank stabilization. 

Cultural Resource Protection

Remove informal trails that contribute to archeological site disturbance. Develop historic structure report and 

address recommendations for treatment to bring LeConte Memorial Lodge, which is a National Historic 

Landmark, to “good condition”.

COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

8-533
This page intentionally left blank

8-54 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Southside

Drive

River Corridor Boundary

Camp 4 

Campground

Yosemite

Lodge

Northside Drive

Leidig Meadow

Yosemite Creek

Bridge

West of Yosemite

Lodge

Highland

Court

Sentinel Meadow

Leidig Meadow

Merced River

Thousands

Cabins

Sentinel Bridge

Superintendent's Bridge

Swinging Bridge

Picnic Area

Lower Yosemite Fall

Picnic Area

0 500 Feet

ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL

YOSEMITE LODGE AND CAMP 4

¬«1

¬«2

¬«3

¬«4

 ̄

EAST YOSEMITE VALLEY: YOSEMITE LODGE AND CAMP 4

1. West of Yosemite Lodge

Leidig Meadow Bike Path: Replace a section of paved trail within the bed and banks of the river with an elevated 

 boardwalk.

Yosemite Lodge Beach Access: Direct river access to the Swinging Bridge sandbar and fence sensitive riparian 

area.

Former Yosemite Lodge Cabin Area Restoration: Restore 4.5 acres on western portion of Yosemite Lodge 

complex at site of lodging units removed after the 1997 ood. Remove ll, decompact soils, and plant native 

riparian species. 

2. Camp 4 Area

Parking: Construct a 41-space parking lot for the Camp 4 Campground. 

Camp 4 Campground: Retain 35 campsites. Expand Camp 4 eastward with 35 additional walk-in sites.

Camp 4 Shuttle Stop: Construct a formal shuttle stop near Camp 4.

3. Yosemite Lodge Area

Yosemite Lodge Portico Scenic Views: Selectively thin conifers to maintain views of Sentinel Rock and Yosemite 

 Falls.

Yosemite Lodge Concessioner Housing: Remove old and temporary housing at Highland Court and at the 

Thousands Cabins.

4. Sentinel Meadow

Meadow Boardwalk: Add a 150-foot section of boardwalk to the west of the existing boardwalk to

accommodate visitor use and reduce meadow trampling.

Meadow Scenic Views: Selectively thin conifers to maintain view of Half Dome, Yosemite Falls, Sentinel Rock, 

North Dome, Royal Arches, Cathedral Rocks, and Washington Column for boardwalk visitors .

Cultural Resource Protection

Divert visitor use away from large bedrock mortar next to trail. 

COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

8-55
This page intentionally left blank

8-56 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
!F

!F

!F

El Capitan

Meadow

Sentinel

Beach

El Capitan 

Bridge

Cathedral

Beach

Swinging

Bridge

Camp 4 Campground

Southside Drive

North side Drive

Merced River

Leidig 

Meadow

Slaughterhouse

Meadow

Cathedral Rocks

Sentinel

Rock

Lower Brother

Split Pinnacle

ower

0 0.25 Miles ̄

ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL

WEST YOSEMITE VALLEY

¬«1

¬«2

¬«3

¬«4

YOSEMITE WILDERNESS

Ea g l e Cre ek

WEST YOSEMITE VALLEY

1. El Capitan and West Valley Meadows

Plant Community Changes: Improve condition of plant communities at specic locations in Yosemite Valley (67 

potential acres targeted) by restoring the mosaic of meadow, riparian deciduous vegetation, black oak, and 

open mixed conifer forest. Management actions could include re-vegetation, prescribed re, mechanical 

removal of conifers, and infrastructure re-design. 

El Capitan Meadow Restoration: Re-route climber use trails on north side of road from meadow habitat to an 

appropriate upland route (a few meters to the east). Remove informal trails through meadow and oak 

woodland. Protect re-vegetated areas with fencing or other natural barriers and sign the area to reduce 

trampling of sensitive meadow vegetation. As opportunities arise through maintenance or restoration projects, 

improve hydrologic ow and meadow connectivity by extending the permeable road base across the entire 

segment of Northside Drive through El Capitan Meadow and add additional box culverts with bottom 

elevations equal to the meadow-surface elevation. Remove conifer saplings encroaching on meadow habitat.

El Capitan Bridge River Access: Re-direct visitors accessing the Merced River near El Capitan Bridge from 

sensitive riverbanks to resilient sandbar points. Fence and re-vegetate the eroded area.

El Capitan Shuttle Stop: Construct a formal shuttle bus stop in a location appropriate for the design for the 

restoration of the meadow and formalized river access.

Upstream of El Capitan Moraine: Localized ecological restoration would enhance channel complexity in the 

river reach upstream of the El Capitan moraine to the Sentinel picnic area. Restoration would include willow 

planting, brush layering, uninhibited accumulation and strategic placement of large wood.

2. Devil’s Elbow and Cathedral Beach

Devil’s Elbow Restoration: Relocate parking from Devil's Elbow to the east of current parking lot. Delineate a trail 

for river access to the large sandbar to the east. Remove the informal trail. Restore meadow conditions.

Cathedral Beach Picnic Area River Access: Designate a formal river access point, and direct use to more resilient 

areas. Remove infrastructure in the 10-year oodplain. Restore area by fencing sensitive areas, decompacting 

soils and planting native vegetation. Selectively thin conifers to maintain views of El Capitan.

3. Eagle Creek Area

Eagle Creek Meadow Restoration: Remove Eagle Creek/Rocky Point sewage plant abandoned infrastructure to 

restore 3.5 acres of meadow habitat. Remove berm and parking lot abutting the creek, add culverts to allow 

dispersed water delivery, and re-vegetate with native plants. 

4. Sentinel Beach and Swinging Bridge Area

Sentinel Beach Picnic Area: Redesign the picnic area in its current location to better accommodate visitor-use 

levels at this picnic area. Formalize parking. Designate formal river access point. Re-establish riparian

vegetation. Fence o sensitive areas, and re-direct use to more resilient areas. Selectively thin deciduous trees 

to open distant views upriver.

Leidig Meadow Restoration: Remove informal trails that incise and fragment meadow. Restore native meadow 

 vegetation. 

Swinging Bridge Ecological Restoration: Install protective fencing along denuded area. Re-vegetate with native 

plants. Connect new fencing to bridge to direct river access to a large sandbar downstream. Place a constructed 

log jam and large wood to lessen scouring from the bridge to improve hydrologic processes. 

Swinging Bridge Picnic Area: Delineate picnic area by fencing and re-vegetate the river terrace 50 feet from the 

river. Use fences to re-direct visitor use across the bridge to river access to the Swinging Bridge sandbar. 

Remove revetment. Rebuild riverbank through bioengineering techniques. Re-establish riparian vegetation.

Cultural Resource Protection

Rehabilitate informal trails that impact archeological sites. Prohibit climbing on rock art boulders. Divert visitor 

use away from prehistoric rock art shelter. Increase interpretation and education eort about cultural resources 

for climbers and other visitors.

COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

8-57
This page intentionally left blank

8-58 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Merced River Merced Lake

Ranger Station !@

Merced

Lake

Merced Lake

High Sierra Camp

Merced Lake

Backpackers

Camping Area

!9

!9

Merced Lake

East Meadow

ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL 0 0.2 Miles

MERCED LAKE HIGH SIERRA CAMP

¬«1

 ̄

River Corridor Boundary

Yosemite

Wilderness

¬«2

South Fork

Picnic Area

Old El Portal

Abbieville

Trailer

Village

Rancheria

Flat

NPS Warehouse &

Administrative

Complex

Fo rest a Road

SIERRA NATIONAL FOREST

STANISLAUS NATIONAL FOREST

National Park Boundary

Greenemeyer Sand Pit à

H i ghway 14 0

Hwy. 140 

Bridge

0 0.4 Miles

ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL

EL PORTAL

¬«1

¬«2

 ̄

River Corridor Boundary

M erced River

¬«3

¬«4

¬«5

MERCED LAKE HIGH SIERRA CAMP

1. Merced Lake Shore Meadow

Restoration: Ecologically restore the meadow adjacent to the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp. Remove informal trails, decompact soils, ll ruts with native soils, and re-vegetate 

denuded areas.

2. Special-Status Plants

Restoration: Re-route trails out of wetlands to avoid special-status plant habitat. 

EL PORTAL

1. NPS Administrative Complex

Parking: Formalize and pave dirt parking area located across Foresta Road from NPS Warehouse building, using best management practices, within existing footprint. Remove 

informal roadside parking, between Foresta Road and the Merced River, and ecologically restore the area.

2. Rancheria Flat

Employee Housing: Construct inll housing units to replace removed temporary housing in Yosemite Valley (the number of inll units varies across the alternatives).

3. Greenemeyer Sand Pit

Restoration: Ecologically restore the former mine operation area to natural conditions. Remove nonnative ll material and re-contour.

4. Abbieville and Trailer Village

Restoration: Remove asphalt and imported ll within the riparian buer. Re-contour and plant native riparian species and oaks within 150 feet of the river. 

5. Old El Portal

Employee Housing: Construct inll-housing units, for 12 beds, in Old El Portal to replace Yosemite Valley temporary housing. 

Valley Oaks Restoration: Protect valley oaks in El Portal through best management practices related to invasive species removal, overwatering, tree pruning, and prohibiting grading 

and parking in the drip line of valley oaks. 

Fuel Storage Facility in the Floodplain: Remove bulk fuel storage facility, all associated development, and non-native ll from the oodplain. Decompact soils, and plant appropriate 

native plant species, including valley oak. Relocate the fuel storage area outside the Merced River corridor or nd an alternate source for emergency fuel supplies.

Cultural Resource Protection

Address abandoned infrastructure, and remove informal trails, and non-essential roads to protect archeological resources. The plan to address abandoned infrastructure will be 

developed in consultation with traditionally associated American Indian tribes and groups. Any solution developed will include a recommended approach for deterring visitor use.

COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

8-59
This page intentionally left blank

8-60 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
River Corridor Boundary

Wawona Maintenance

Area

Wawona Hotel

Wawona Golf

Course

Wawona Store Picnic Area

South Fork Picnic Area

Wawona

Campground

Big

Creek

South For k Merced River

Wawona

Stables

ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL 0 0.1 0.2 Miles

WAWONA

¬«1

¬«2

¬«3

 ̄

¬«4

WAWONA

1. Wawona Campground and South Fork Picnic Area

Wawona Campground Septic System: Remove septic system, and connect to the sewer system. Build a lift 

station above the campground to connect to the existing water treatment plant.

South Fork Picnic Area: Delineate picnic area. Add formal river access and path to the South Fork Merced River 

that encourages visitors to walk in resilient areas.

2. Wawona Store Area

Picnic Area and River Access: Add picnic benches. Place fencing to direct visitors to three hardened river access 

points. Add a path to river that encourages visitors to walk in resilient areas.

Parking: Retain day-use parking. Formalize eight tour bus parking spaces at Wawona Store. Remove roadside 

parking between store and Chilnualna Falls Road.

Shuttle Stop: Re-design bus stop for both transit buses and shuttle buses to accommodate existing visitor-use 

 levels.

Public Restroom: Replace existing public restroom facilities with larger restrooms to accommodate existing 

visitor-use levels.

Wawona Recreational Vehicle Dump Station: Relocate the RV dump station to the Wawona Campground, away 

from the river. Design and construct the RV dump station on a new sewer line near the campground entrance, at 

least 150 feet away from the ordinary high water mark. 

3. Wawona Hotel Area

Lodging: Retain the existing 104 lodging units at the Wawona Hotel.

Services/Facilities: Retain hotel restaurant and swimming pool. 

4. Wawona Maintenance Area 

 Operations: Construct a building and grounds facility, a wildland re facility, and a roads facility. Remove CCC-

 era structures to facilitate ecological restoration objectives.

Ecological Restoration: Remove staged materials, abandoned utilities, vehicles, and parking lot within 150 feet 

of the river. Restore native ecosystem. 

Cultural Resource Protection

Relocate two stock use campground sites from sensitive resource area. Remove informal trails. Remove shoulder 

and o-road parking from sensitive resource area. Follow the Wawona Hotel Historic Structures Report to bring 

contributing elements to “good” condition.

COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

8-61
This page intentionally left blank

8-62 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6 

Detailed Description of Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6 by Segment

All River Segments 

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

Ecological Restoration

• Riparian Buffer – Protect the riparian zone from new development within 150 feet of the ordinary 

high-water mark. Relocate or remove all campsites at least 100 feet away from the ordinary highwater mark. The riparian buffer will protect water quality, hydrological processes, aquatic 

ecosystems, and riparian vegetation.

• Abandoned Infrastructure – In situations where abandoned underground infrastructure alters 

hydrology, develop case-by-case treatment strategies that ameliorate the ongoing impacts to 

hydrologic processes. This infrastructure includes remnants of abandoned sewer treatment 

facilities, sewer and water lines, and manholes. Treatment would be designed to avoid impacts to 

sensitive resources (including archeological sites) and may include removal, collapsing in place, 

plugging, or other measures (see the map series in Appendix E for known locations). Where 

infrastructure would be removed or relocated and restored to natural conditions, soils would be 

de-compacted and re-contoured, and the area re-vegetated with appropriate native plants. 

• Informal Trails – Remove six miles of informal trailing through meadows and restore to natural 

conditions. Use fencing and signage to direct visitors to less sensitive areas that can accommodate 

some use without compromising meadow health. Define and delineate accepted trails with closure 

signs, fencing, and/or other natural barriers such as rocks and logs. Remove informal trails by decompacting soils and filling ruts with native soils. Re-vegetate areas of denuded vegetation with 

appropriate native plants. 

• Conifer Encroachment – Manually or mechanically remove conifer seedlings and saplings from 

meadows and under oaks within the river corridor. 

• Restore Eroded Riverbanks – Re-vegetate areas devoid of vegetation with appropriate native 

plants. Protect re-vegetated areas using closure signs, fencing, and/or other natural barriers such as 

rocks and logs as deterrents. Stabilize eroded riverbanks using bio-engineering techniques such as 

brush layering of willow cuttings. 

• Vulnerable Riverbanks – Direct visitor use along the river to stable and resilient access points, 

such as sandy beaches and low-angle slopes, using delineated trails, signs, campground maps and 

brochures; establish fencing and signage to protect sensitive areas. Areas susceptible to erosion—

steep riverbanks, and high use areas exhibiting vegetation and soil loss from compaction—would be 

closed and restored using bioengineering and re-vegetation techniques. 

• Bridges and Associated Revetments – Install constructed log jams, and utilize bioengineered 

stabilization on riprap to improve hydrologic function, reduce bank erosion, and improve riverine 

habitat. Strategically placed log jams diffuse and direct high velocity flows, a property that makes 

them a valuable tool to mitigate altered flow regimes around bridges. Log jams, unlike traditional 

rock revetment, reintroduce habitat complexity within the channel by creating additional bars and 

scour holes, and by providing cover for aquatic organisms. Used in conjunction with a wood 

retention policy and riverbank re-vegetation, log jams form part of a comprehensive restoration 

and mitigation strategy designed to improve the hydrologic function of the Merced River.

• Revetments – Remove riprap where possible to restore natural river processes. Replace riprap with 

native riparian vegetation, using bioengineering techniques, if riverbank stabilization is still 

necessary for infrastructure protection. Develop a set of best management practices for revetment 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-63
ALTERNATIVES

construction and repair throughout the river corridor. Practices would include use of vertical 

retaining walls where possible to limit impacts on the river channel. 

• Large Wood – Manage large wood according to the policy outlined in Yosemite Directive # 31: 

Large Wood Management in the Merced Wild and Scenic River, leaving large wood that does not 

compromise visitor safety or infrastructure. Incorporate large wood into riverbanks to provide 

structure for highly eroded riverbanks and increase habitat quality. In developed areas where 

standing hazard trees must be removed for safety, rather than cutting and removing these trees, fall 

them into the river. Add engineered log jams in severely widened river reaches. 

• Trails in Sensitive Habitat – Re-route trails out of sensitive habitats or install boardwalks through 

wetlands. New trail routes should avoid wetlands and special status habitat. 

• Free-flowing River Conditions – To prevent future impacts to the free-flowing condition of the 

Merced River, the NPS would require all projects involving construction within the bed or banks of 

the river to undergo a Section 7 analysis as described in “Determination Process for Water 

Resources Projects” (Chapter 4). 

• Declining Reptile and Amphibian Species – In accordance with NPS policy, continue 

management toward removal of non-native species and re-introduction of extirpated or declining 

species, as priorities and opportunities are developed. Prioritize studies of the Western pond turtle 

and foothill yellow-legged frog.

Cultural Values

The National Park Service would coordinate with traditionally associated American Indian tribes and 

groups to protect ethnographic resources:

• Implement best management practices to ensure continued coordination between traditionally 

associated American Indian tribes, groups, and traditional practitioners (through the Park 

American Indian Liaison) with law enforcement, fire management, interpretation, invasive species 

management, ecological restoration, and facilities management programs; include operational 

guidelines for material staging areas, parking, etc. to protect ethnographic resources.

• Provide access for traditionally associated American Indians for participation in annually scheduled 

traditional cultural events. In addition, provide tribal access for the personal conduct of traditional 

cultural practices through the Yosemite tribal fee waiver pass program. 

• Continue to document the cultural and religious significance of historic properties (i.e., sites, 

objects, structures, districts, etc.) for Yosemite Valley. Build upon focused mapping and condition 

assessments for traditional use plants and archeological sites. Work in collaboration with 

traditionally associated American Indian tribes and groups, using staff expertise in cultural 

anthropology, botany, archeology, and oral history. Compile existing information gathered during 

previous ethnographic studies, fill gaps in the historical record through research in archival 

repositories, update and expand the oral history documentation, and complete detailed field 

mapping.

Many of the actions related to visitor use and ecological restoration common to Alternatives 2-6 would also 

protect archeological sites. In addition, all of the action alternatives would include ongoing inventory, 

documentation and monitoring. Other actions common to Alternatives 2-6 that would protect archeological 

resources include:

• Protect archeological sites by managing visitor use and development:

- Manage visitor use levels; design and locate facilities to direct use to avoid sensitive 

cultural and ethnographic resource areas. 

8-64 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6 

- Remove informal trails; use natural features to conceal and divert foot traffic around 

archeological sites. 

- Protect rock art by removing graffiti and installing fencing to discourage inappropriate 

visitor use.

- Increase interpretation and education about cultural resources.

- Increase law enforcement/archeology monitoring to protect cultural resources.

- Remove climbing hardware from sensitive cultural features.

• Mitigate the potential effects of ecological restoration activities on archeological sites by using 

noninvasive techniques wherever possible.

• Develop site management guidelines for archeological sites in areas with complex uses and impacts, 

such as Yosemite Village. The purpose of the guidelines would be to avoid and/or minimize

resource loss through park actions such as development, repair, and maintenance of facilities and 

underground utilities.

Segment 1: Wilderness above Nevada Fall (Wild Segment)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

Ecological Restoration

• Special Status Plants – Relocate sections of trail through wetlands in Echo Valley and through 

mineral spring outflow between Merced Lake and Washburn Lake. Re-surface the wet sections of 

the Mist trail to avoid trail widening. Prevent trail creep along the John Muir Trail using fencing 

and boardwalks. 

• Informal Trails in Meadows – Remove informal trails that incise meadow habitat, trails in wet 

and/or sensitive vegetation, and trails that fragment meadow habitat, including trails along the Red 

Peak and Triple Peak Forks meadow, wetlands near Echo Valley and Merced Lake shore, mineral 

springs between Merced Lake and Washburn Lake, and other areas as necessary.

• Merced Lake Shore Meadow – Remove informal trails, de-compact soils, fill ruts with native soils, 

and re-vegetate denuded areas with native plants. 

• Merced Lake East Meadow – Establish a preliminary grazing capacity for the Merced Lake East 

Meadow at a maximum of 58 pack stock nights annually, depending on meadow condition. 

Exclude pack stock from seasonally inundated portions of the meadow. Meadow grazing opening 

dates may vary annually. Use levels may be adjusted periodically to ensure the meadow condition 

meets the management standard for the bare soil indicator established for ORV 1 in Chapter 5. 

Scenic Values

• Conduct a Visual Resource Management (VRM) contrast analysis (described in Chapter 5) to 

ensure that proposed modifications to existing development would not exceed the contrast rating 

of four. 

Recreational Values 

• Establish a limit of 7.5 pack strings per week (for an average of 30 strings per month) for resupply

and operation of the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp. 

• Conduct direct observation of visitor use levels for the section of trail from Echo Creek to Lewis 

Creek to address the management concern identified for ORV 19 in Chapter 5.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-65
ALTERNATIVES

• Continue to concentrate visitor use at Little Yosemite Valley and Merced Lake by retaining 

designated camping areas in these wilderness zones. 

• Private boating would be allowed with put-in and take-out locations at the discretion of the user. 

Generally, this kind of use would consist of short floats using boats that can easily be carried into 

this remote area. (The alternatives propose varying levels of use.)

• Provide opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation or solitude in the Yosemite 

Wilderness by managing overnight capacity through the wilderness trailhead quota and permit 

system, maintaining group size limits, monitoring resources to study the effects of visitor use, and 

implementing area closures where necessary to protect river values.

• Commercial use would be managed in accordance with the findings of the Determination of Extent 

Necessary (Appendix L). The following is a summary of the limitations to commercial use in 

wilderness that would be included in Alternatives 2-6: 

- Disallow camping or travel by commercial groups more than 1⁄4 mile from a maintained trail or 

public access road.

- Limit all commercial stock trips to a 1:1.5 person-to-stock ratio. Accordingly, for every 

multiple of 3 persons (including employees), only two pack animals would be allowed (in 

addition to three riding stock). 

- Apply additional seasonal and weekend restrictions in the Mount Lyell, Merced Lake, and 

Little Yosemite Valley zones as specified in Appendix L.

Segment 2: Yosemite Valley (Recreational and Scenic Segments)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

Ecological Restoration

• Ditching in Meadows – Fill ditches (2,155’) not serving current operational needs, using adjacent 

berm material or pond and plug techniques. 

• Road Improvements over Meadows – Mitigate effects of roads on meadow hydrology with 

culverts or other engineered solutions that allow unimpeded groundwater flow. Use wide box 

culverts or other design components such as rolling dips, permeable subgrade, etc. to improve 

surface water flow. Examples include Southside Drive through Sentinel Meadow and Northside 

Drive through Cook’s and El Capitan meadows. 

• Informal Trails – Remove and restore six miles of informal trailing in meadows to natural 

conditions (Figure 8-4). Use fencing and signage to direct traffic to less sensitive areas that can 

accommodate some use without compromising meadow health. Define and delineate accepted 

trails with closure signs, fencing, and/or other natural barriers such as rocks and logs. Remove 

informal trails by de-compacting soils and filling ruts with native soils. Re-vegetate areas of 

denuded vegetation with appropriate native plants. 

8-66 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6 

Figure 8-4: The park has successfully removed networks of informal trailing in meadows. In this example 

before (left) and after (right) restoration of Stoneman Meadow, high visitor use was mitigated by adding 

fencing to direct people to a new boardwalk, which allowed access to the meadow without the associated 

impacts.

• Valley Meadows: conifer encroachment, loss of meadow extent – Improve condition of plant 

communities at specific locations in Yosemite Valley (targeted 67 potential acres) by restoring the 

mosaic of meadow, riparian deciduous vegetation, black oak, and open mixed conifer forest. 

Management actions may include re-vegetation, prescribed fire, mechanical removal of conifers, 

and redesign of infrastructure. These actions will enhance scenic vistas and maintain the cultural 

landscape, as well as enhance the condition of the Merced River ecosystem by sustaining the 

diverse mosaic of interconnected plant communities.

• Revetments – There are currently 15,589 feet of riprap along the bed and banks of the Merced 

River. Some riprap is needed to stabilize banks around critical infrastructure and would be 

retained. Under Alternatives 2-6, a total of 3,400 feet of riprap would be removed and re-vegetated 

with riparian species, where needed. An additional 2,300 feet or riprap would be removed and 

replaced with bioengineered riverbank stabilization. 

• Leidig Meadow: bike path – Replace a 1,000 foot section of paved trail that passes through the 

ordinary high-water mark. 

• Valley Loop Trail: delineation and river access – Reconstruct trail and designate river access, in 

locations such as Housekeeping Camp, Sentinel Beach, Cathedral Beach, Swinging Bridge, in the 

southwest area of the former River's Campground, and South of Slaughterhouse Meadow. 

Re-establish the Valley Loop Trail at Curry Village (where it currently ends). 

• Road bridge at Happy Isles: free-flowing condition – Place large wood in the channel and 

riverbank to lessen the scouring from the bridge. Use brush layering and place a constructed log 

jam. 

• Sentinel Bridge: free-flowing condition – Place large wood in the channel and riverbank to lessen 

the scouring from the bridge. Use brush layering and place a constructed log jam. 

• Swinging Bridge: free-flowing condition – Place large wood in the channel and riverbank to 

reduce scouring from the bridge. Use brush layering and place a constructed log jam. 

• Superintendent's Bridge: footbridge and associated revetments – Install constructed log jams, 

and utilize bio-constructed stabilization on riprap to improve hydrologic function. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-67
ALTERNATIVES

• Clark's Bridge: free flowing condition – 

Place large wood to lessen the scouring 

from the bridge. Use brush layering of 

willows to stabilize banks and place a 

constructed log jam in the area. 

• Pack Stock Trail from Concessioner 

Stables to Happy Isles – Remove 3,800 

feet of pack stock trail proximate to the 

riverbank. Remove residual asphalt and 

other fill material, de-compact hardened 

surfaces, re-contour surfaces, and plant 

riparian vegetation where needed (Figure 

8-5). 

• River Channel at Lower and North 

Pines Campgrounds – Repair eroded 

riverbanks at Lower and North Pines 

campgrounds with bioengineering 

techniques such as brush layering. Allow 

vegetation to accrete sediment to rebuild 

the banks. The erosion at North Pines campground is farther advanced and continuous. In such 

cases, plant willows further out into the river channel, beyond the vegetation that is currently 

established (Figure 8-6). 

Figure 8-6: Divot caused by river access at Lower Pines Campground where the riverbank is highly vulnerable 

to erosion at (left). Active restoration by brush layering will stabilize the riverbank, capture sediment to 

rebuild the bank over time and improve riparian habitat.

• Lower Pine Loop: within the bed and banks – Remove the Lower Pine Loop road located within 

the bed and banks of the river (between sites 60 and 62). 

• Housekeeping Camp: within the bed and banks – Remove 34 lodging units from within the 

ordinary high-water mark at Housekeeping Camp. Redirect visitor use (both shore users and 

boaters) to more stable and resilient river access points, such as sandbars, and designate 

appropriate river access sites. 

• River Reach between Clark’s and Sentinel Bridges: highly impacted riverbanks – To address 

river widening and low channel complexity, build eight constructed log jams (CLJs) in the channel 

between Clark‘s and Sentinel Bridges. Locations of CLJs are shown in the map series in Appendix 

E. Logs would be gathered locally, including naturally fallen or salvaged hazard trees when 

available. Coniferous trees with exposed roots along the bank in proximity to the log jam may be 

pushed over into the river to be incorporated into the constructed log jam. These trees with the 

Figure 8-5: Stock trail in Happy Isles reach passes through 

riparian habitat. Its hardened surface affects natural 

hydrologic processes by preventing sediment transport and 

capture.

8-68 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6 

root ball still attached at the bank would help to anchor the log jam to the bank. Burying ends of 

logs into the bank would also be used to anchor the log jam. Localized riverbank erosion would be 

repaired through brush layering and re-vegetation of the bank. 

• Swinging Bridge River Access – Remove river access upstream, river-right of Swinging Bridge. 

Add fencing along the bike trail to connect to the bridge and re-vegetate 2,000 square feet of 

denuded area with riparian species and native grasses. Direct visitor use to a large sandbar directly 

downstream of the bridge (Figure 8-7). 

Figure 8-7: The current river access point at Swinging Bridge (left) leads to a denuded riverbank. River access would 

instead be directed to the adjacent sandbar (right), which is naturally resilient to visitor use and provides a nice 

beach for visitor enjoyment.

• Sentinel Beach Picnic Area – Redesign the picnic area to better manage visitor use, designate the 

area as a formal river access point, fence off sensitive areas, re-direct use to more resilient areas, and 

reestablish riparian vegetation. 

• Indian Creek Drainage – Create a buffer zone for the creek by pulling parking and residential yard 

use back 50 feet. Restore native riparian vegetation and protect with restoration fencing. 

• El Capitan Meadow – Reroute climber use trails on north side of road to an appropriate upland 

route (a few meters to the east). Remove informal trails through meadow and oak woodland. 

Protect re-vegetated areas with fencing or other natural barriers and sign the area to reduce 

trampling of sensitive meadow vegetation. As opportunities arise through maintenance or 

restoration projects, improve hydrologic flow and meadow connectivity by extending the 

permeable road base across the entire segment of Northside Drive through El Capitan Meadow; 

add additional box culverts with bottom elevations equal to the meadow surface elevation. Remove 

encroaching conifer saplings. 

• Sentinel Beach Picnic Area to El Capitan Moraine: channel complexity – To enhance channel 

complexity in the river reach upstream of the El Capitan moraine to the Sentinel picnic area, 

localized restoration would include willow planting, brush layering, uninhibited accumulation, and 

strategic placement of large wood. 

• Stoneman Meadow – Slightly expand fenced area to protect wetlands on north end of meadow 

near Lower Pines Campground. Remove invasive non-native species and encroaching conifers. 

Remove ditch, fill with native soils, and re-vegetate. 

• Bridalveil Meadow: stream headcutting and absence of willows – Address headcuts in stream 

on west edge of meadow by planting willow cuttings in the impacted area, along the riverbank, and 

in the adjacent meadow. Reestablish the riparian shrub layer. Manually remove encroaching 

conifer saplings. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-69
ALTERNATIVES

• Cook’s Meadow Roadbed: abandoned infrastructure – Remove fill from a former road bed 

north of Northside Drive between the Ranger Club and the three-way stop. Re-vegetate with native 

meadow species. 

• Cook’s Meadow: informal shoulder 

parking – Roadside parking along 

meadow (along both Northside Drive and 

Sentinel Drive) would be removed and the 

area restored to meadow conditions

(Figure 8-8). Remove approximately 1,800 

cubic feet of fill and re-vegetate with 

native seed and transplanted native plants. 

• Leidig Meadow: informal trailing – 

Remove informal trails that incise or 

fragment meadow habitat. De-compact 

soils and re-vegetate trampled areas with 

seed collected from local native meadow 

plants. 

• Rocky Point Sewage Plant: abandoned 

infrastructure – Remove abandoned 

infrastructure occupying 9.5 acres at Eagle 

Creek Meadow. Remove remains of the 

abandoned Rocky Point Sewage Plant, 

including a two-unit reinforced concrete Imhoff settling tank, asphalt left from the demolition of 

the concrete sludge drying bed, and the circular reinforced chlorinating structure. Any remaining 

utility pipes would be removed. Re-establish natural landscape contours, including the distribution 

of ephemeral stream channels. Backfill with native soil and/or rehabilitate disturbed soils, and plant 

with native plant species. 

• Royal Arches Meadow: abandoned infrastructure – Remove abandoned tiles, pipes, and 

abandoned road. De-compact soils, remove conifers, and re-vegetate with riparian species. 

• Sentinel Meadow: trampling – Add a 150-foot section to the existing boardwalk in order to 

accommodate visitors and reduce meadow trampling. Substantial trampling is evident along river’s 

edge at the north section of the boardwalk. 

• Western Portion of Former Lower Pines Campground Loop: abandoned infrastructure – 

Restore 20 acres of the former Lower Pines 

campground to natural conditions. Remove 

any remaining asphalt and de-compact soils 

of former roadbed and campsite footprint. 

Treat invasive plants (velvet grass) (Figure 

8-9). Manually thin conifer saplings and 

trees to allow for a mosaic of deciduous 

riparian species including alder and 

cottonwood. Remove tree stumps with an 

excavator and tub grinder. Restore channel 

topography using the 1919 USGS maps as a 

guide. 

• Devil’s Elbow: riverbank erosion – 

Relocate parking from Devil’s elbow to the 

east of the current parking lot, and 

delineate a trail to access the large sandbar 

to the east of the “elbow,” river right. 

Figure 8-8: Roadside parking along Cook’s meadow 

encroaches on meadow. Vegetation is crushed, soils 

compacted and net area of meadows reduced. All 

alternatives eliminate informal parking along meadows.

Figure 8-9: Asphalt remains in former Lower Pines 

Campground floodplain.

8-70 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6 

Remove informal trails and restore to meadow conditions through soil de-compaction and revegetation. Designate river access with appropriate signage. 

• Eagle Creek Drainage: channelization– Remove berm and parking lot abutting Eagle Creek. Add 

culverts to allow more dispersed water delivery to the Eagle Creek Meadow. Re-vegetate with 

native upland species. 

• El Capitan Bridge: river access– Redirect visitors accessing the river near El Capitan Bridge to 

sandbars. Fence and re-vegetate eroded areas. 

• Swinging Bridge: riparian impacts – Delineate picnic area by fencing and re-vegetating the river 

terrace along the riparian zone (approximately 50 feet from the ordinary high-water mark) to 

reduce soil erosion. Fence off sensitive areas and reestablish riparian vegetation. Re-vegetate 

denuded area with riparian species and native grasses. Remove riprap and use bioengineering 

techniques to rebuild riverbank. Re-direct visitors to access the large sandbar on the north and 

downstream side of Swinging Bridge and designate the area as the river access point. 

• Valley Campgrounds: river access – Direct visitors staying in Lower and North Pines 

Campgrounds to resilient sandy beaches through signage and campground maps and brochures. 

There are four sandy beaches in the vicinity of the campgrounds (Figure 8-10). Fence off vulnerable 

steep slope and provide signs directing visitors to current access. 

Figure 8-10: Use of the riverbank at the current river access in Lower Pines Campground has caused vegetation 

trampling and heavy erosion of this highly susceptible riverbank (left). Use will instead be directed to resilient sandbars 

such as these, located a short walk downstream (middle and right).

• Yosemite Lodge: former lodge cabin area and NPS Volunteer Office, abandoned

infrastructure – Restore 4.5 acres of riparian ecosystem at the site of the former Yosemite Lodge 

units and cabins, and former NPS Volunteer Office located in the western portion of the Yosemite

Lodge complex (those that were damaged by the 1997 flood and subsequently removed). Remove 

fill, de-compact soils, and plant riparian plant species. 

• Sentinel Beach Picnic Area: riparian impacts – Redesign the picnic area to better manage visitor 

use and designate the area as a formal river access point. Fence off sensitive areas, redirect use to 

more resilient areas, and re-establish riparian vegetation. 

• Bridalveil Sewer Plant – Remove or demolish buried structures, including a 200-foot long and 5-

foot deep concrete chlorine contact chamber, aeration tanks, sludge digesters, and drying beds. 

Backfill with native soil and re-vegetate with native plants. Remove pipe leading to Black Springs. 

• Footings at the Former Happy Isles Footbridge (beyond gauge) – Remove former Happy Isles 

footbridge footings and former river gauge base (steel reinforced concrete and wet and dry wall 

masonry). Re-vegetate denuded areas and improve way-finding between Happy Isles and the Mist 

Trail from the shuttle stop. Re-contour and de-compact soils; plant appropriate riparian vegetation 

in all denuded areas. 

• Pohono Bridge: infrastructure within the bed and banks – Move the gauging station north of the 

river outside of the bed and banks. Re-vegetate denuded areas. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-71
ALTERNATIVES

• Clark’s Bridge to El Capitan Bridge: large woody debris management –Manage large wood 

according to Park policy (Yosemite Directive # 31: Large Wood Management in the Merced Wild and 

Scenic River). Trees that fall into the river would be retained in the river. Large wood may be 

strategically manipulated to protect critical infrastructure, to ensure visitor safety, and to prevent 

unnatural accumulation of wood near bridges. 

• Upper Pines: recreational vehicle dump station – Relocate the recreational vehicle dump station 

to a site within the parking area at Curry Village. 

• Cathedral Beach: picnic area – Designate area as a formal river access point, fence off sensitive 

areas, and direct use to most resilient areas. Remove parking in the riparian zone, de-compact soils, 

plant appropriate native vegetation, and delineate river access. Remove infrastructure (toilets, 

parking, and picnic tables) in the ten-year floodplain, de-compact soils, and re-vegetate. 

• Yosemite Lodge: beach access closure – Direct visitors to the sandbar at Swinging Bridge. Fence 

the riparian area at Yosemite Lodge. 

• Ahwahnee Meadow: former golf course and tennis court – Restore the impacted portion of 

Ahwahnee Meadow to natural meadow conditions, while allowing special functions, such as 

weddings, to continue on the lawn. Remove the tennis courts from the California black oak 

woodland. Restore topography by removing abandoned irrigation lines and fill, filling in ditches, 

and re-vegetating with native meadow vegetation. Reconnect disjointed portions of Ahwahnee 

Meadow by removing conifers to return approximately 5.65 acres to meadow habitat. 

• Pohono Bridge to Big Oak Flat Road Junction: river access – Pave and designate five roadside 

pull-outs for river access between Pohono Bridge and the intersection of the Big Oak Flat Road. 

Install curbing along pull-outs and along El Portal Road to prevent further encroachment toward 

the river and associated resource damage. Completely remove one pullout that is not protective of 

resources. In the areas that require ecological restoration, de-compact soil and re-vegetate with 

riparian species (including willow), following delineation of river access. Install drainage 

improvements and head walls at 11 locations. 

• Eagle Creek Meadow – Remove abandoned infrastructure from the vicinity of Eagle Creek; 

restore the meadow to natural conditions.

Cultural Values

• Impacts to Traditionally Used Plant Populations – The ecological restoration actions associated 

with this planning effort, implemented in concert with the existing invasive plant management 

program, would address impacts to some traditionally used plant populations in some locations. 

Conifers that are overtopping black oaks would be considered for removal and seedlings would be 

introduced into black oak stands with poor recruitment rates.

• CA-MRP-0046/47/74 – Reroute stock trail and hiking trail away from sensitive area, remove 

graffiti from rock art boulder. 

• CA-MRP-0052/H – Route bridle path away from site. 

• CA-MRP-0055/H – Remove informal trails and parking pull-out. Increase law enforcement and 

archeology monitoring to protect rock shelter/rock art. 

• CA-MRP-0057 – Remove graffiti in rock shelter and remove informal trails. Increase law 

enforcement and monitoring of rock shelter. 

• CA-MRP-0062 – Remove the logs, graffiti, and informal trails; ecologically restore to natural 

conditions. Relocate the parking area away from the site. 

• CA-MRP-0076 – Remove informal trails, restore to natural conditions, and prohibit climbing. 

8-72 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6 

• CA-MRP-0080 – Remove campsite 208 and bear box; reroute bathroom foot traffic away from 

milling feature and fence off.

• CA-MRP-0082/H – Remove climbing bolts from rock shelter boulder and prohibit climbing. 

Increase interpretation, education, and outreach efforts for climbers. 

• CA-MRP-0158/309 – Remove informal trails, restore to natural conditions, and prohibit climbing 

on rock art boulder. Increase interpretation, education, and outreach effort for climbers. 

• CA-MRP-0190/191 – Delineate trail/bike path to prevent access within the site. 

• CA-MRP-0240/303/H – Fence off/close access to milling feature next to trail. 

• CA-MRP-0902/H – Remove informal trails and restore to natural conditions. 

• Ahwahnee Gatehouse and Parking Lot: condition – When the Ahwahnee parking lot is 

redesigned, implement the recommendations from the Ahwahnee Historic Structures Report (1997) 

and the Ahwahnee Cultural Landscape Report (2010) to bring the Ahwahnee stone gatehouse and 

the Ahwahnee parking lot to “good” condition. 

• LeConte Memorial Lodge National Historic Landmark: condition – Develop a historic 

structures report for the LeConte Memorial Lodge to determine the rehabilitation needed to bring 

the building to “good” condition.

Scenic Values

Some actions designed to achieve ecological restoration goals (described above) will also improve natural 

scenery. They are included in the list of actions common to Alternatives 2-6 for the protection of scenic 

values in Yosemite Valley. 

• Ecologically restore eroded river banks, informal trails, and riparian vegetation that affect direct 

and foreground views of the river, river-dependent resources, and the peaks and walls rising above 

the river. 

• Implement a riparian buffer to avoid future visual intrusions into the riparian zone; require a 

150-foot setback from the ordinary high-water mark for any new or re-development.

• Eliminate visual intrusions to meadows associated with informal trails. 

• Follow the guidance provided in A Sense of Place: Design Guidelines for Yosemite Valley in the 

location and design of new facilities. These design guidelines are intended to promote harmony 

between the built and natural environments.

• Conduct a Visual Resource Management (VRM) contrast analysis (described in Chapter 5) to 

ensure that future development would not exceed a contrast rating of 13 for West Yosemite Valley 

(Segment 2B) or a contrast rating of 22 for East Yosemite Valley (Segment 2A).

• Selectively thin conifers and other trees and shrubs that encroach on selected scenic vista points (47

vista points, 14 of which have prominent views of the river in the foreground and 33 of which occur 

within the broader river corridor). See Appendix H for details regarding scenic vista actions.

Recreational Values

Many general actions regarding the recreational setting, recreational activities, and quality of the recreational 

experience in Yosemite Valley would be common to Alternatives 2-6. These are summarized below:

• Allow private boating. Expected watercraft would include rafts, kayaks, paddle boards, inner tubes,

and inflatable mattresses. The alternatives propose boating for different combinations of river 

reaches. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-73
ALTERNATIVES

• Create an interpretive nature walk through the Lower River area that emphasizes river-related 

natural processes, the park’s ecological restoration work, and what visitors can do to protect the 

river.

• Improve opportunities for picnicking at the Cathedral, Sentinel, and Swinging Bridge picnic areas.

Improve the “sense of arrival” for park visitors as they are guided toward the primary Yosemite 

Village Day-use Parking Area. 

• Reduce crowding at Bridalveil Fall by redesigning or otherwise improving trails, parking areas, and 

the viewing platform at the base of the fall; extend viewing area trail to a loop, if possible; improve

accessibility and restrooms.

• Manage visitor use in Yosemite Valley to the alternative-specific user capacities (as described in 

Chapter 6). The user capacity management program, along with targeted improvements to the 

transportation system, will improve access and facilitate the public use and enjoyment of all river 

values, including river-related recreation.

Land Use and Facilities Management

“Development of Lands and Facilities” (Chapter 7) outlines the assessment of facilities and services located 

within this segment of the river corridor. As a result of this assessment, a number of facilities have been 

proposed for removal from the river corridor under all alternatives. In some alternatives, a facility may be 

removed, but the service would still be made available to visitors at a new location outside the corridor. 

• Facilities removed from the river corridor under Alternatives 2-6 include the following: 

- The Ahwahnee Tennis Court

- Curry Village Temporary Employee Housing (242 of the existing 262 beds at Huff House 

are removed under all alternatives)

- Yosemite Village Concessioner General Office and Concessioner Garage

- Happy Isles Snack Stand

- Art Activity Center/Bank Building

- Yosemite Lodge Post Office

- Yosemite Lodge Bike Rental Stand

- Yosemite Lodge Snack Stand 

- Yosemite Lodge Temporary Employee Housing (Highland Court and Thousands Cabins) 

- NPS Volunteer Office (at Yosemite Lodge, former wellness center)

• Facilities that would be re-purposed for non-commercial visitor use under Alternatives 2-6 include 

the following: 

- Yosemite Village Sports Shop 

- Yosemite Lodge Nature Shop 

• Services that would be discontinued include:

- Commercial horseback day rides in Yosemite 

Valley would be eliminated. 

Preliminary drawings have been 

completed to illustrate the new 

locations for the Concessioner 

General Office and Concessioner 

Garage functions. See “Conceptual 

Site Drawings” at the end of this 

section for site details and design 

drawings.

8-74 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6 

Other facility-related actions that are common to Alternatives 2-6 include the following:

• Limited fleet maintenance functions would be provided at a redesigned Government Utility 

Building in the NPS Maintenance Yard, outside of the river corridor. Private vehicle repair service 

would be eliminated from Yosemite Valley.

• All Concessioner General Office functions would be moved to the location of the Concessioner 

Warehouse, outside of the river corridor. 

Camping

• Alternatives 2-6 propose new walk-in campsites east of Camp 4 (35 sites) and west of Backpackers 

Campground (16 sites). Additionally the following reductions in the campsite inventory would 

occur from implementing the restoration actions listed above:

- Backpackers Campground (-15 sites)

- Lower Pines Campground (- 5 sites)

- North Pines Campground (-14 sites)

- Upper Pines Campground (-2 sites)

The alternatives vary in the number and type of campsites provided at other locations in Segment 2. 

Lodging

• Alternatives 2-6 would remove 34 units at Housekeeping Camp that are located within the ordinary 

high-water mark. 

The alternatives vary in the total number and type of lodging units provided in Segment 2.

Parking and Transit

• Redesign the parking lot at the Ahwahnee Hotel to provide proper drainage. Construct an 

additional 50-space parking lot to the east of the existing parking lot to replace parking lost due to 

rock-fall activity. 

• Undertake a clean closure and stabilization process at the wilderness parking lot, which was once a 

landfill for Yosemite Park and Curry Company, and provide parking area for 190 vehicles.

• Remove ad hoc, unimproved roadside parking from natural areas where parking does resource 

damage or is in conflict with river values. Specifically, this includes 40 spaces along Cook’s 

Meadow, 89 spaces along Sentinel Drive, 34 spaces along Superintendent’s Straight, 85 spaces along 

Stoneman Meadow, and 14 spaces between Big Oak Flat Road/El Portal Road intersection and El 

Portal Bridge. 

• Support the establishment of public transit service between Fresno/Oakhurst and Yosemite Valley. 

• Discontinue the in-park shuttle service from Wawona to Yosemite Valley. 

• Provide a shuttle bus stop in the vicinity of the El Capitan Crossover Bridge. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-75
ALTERNATIVES

Segment 3: Merced Gorge (Scenic Segment)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

Ecological Restoration

• Cascades Picnic Area: abandoned infrastructure – Remove abandoned infrastructure including 

cement block, surface concrete and asphalt and imported rock. 

Scenic Values

• Conduct a Visual Resource Management (VRM) contrast analysis (described in Chapter 5) to 

ensure that any future development would not exceed the contrast rating of 13.

Land Use and Facilities Management

• Arch Rock Entrance Station – The current configuration of the Arch Rock Entrance Station 

creates significant traffic queues on busy summer days, affecting visitor experience and the 

efficiency of park operations. Alternatives 2-6 propose redesigning or relocating this entrance 

station. The details of this change would be determined with additional planning, NEPA 

compliance, and the appropriate level of public involvement. 

Segment 4: El Portal (Recreational Segment)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

Ecological Restoration

• Old El Portal: soil compaction around Valley oaks from parking – Establish a valley oak 

recruitment area of at least one acre in Old El Portal in the vicinity of the existing Odger’s bulk fuel 

storage area. De-compact soils, plant appropriate native understory plant species and treat invasive 

plants. 

• El Portal: river confined by riprap and road – Develop best management practices for revetment 

construction and repair throughout this river segment. Vertical walls should be used wherever 

possible. Provide CalTrans with best management practices recommendations when 

repair/replacement is necessary in Segment 4. 

• El Portal NPS Maintenance and Administrative Complex: roadside parking – Restore the 

informal roadside parking, which is southeast of the dirt parking area, between Foresta Road and 

the Merced River to natural conditions. 

• Abbieville and Trailer Village – Remove abandoned infrastructure, asphalt, and imported fill to 

restore 9.3 acres within the 150-foot riparian buffer; re-contour and plant native riparian species 

and oaks. Designate appropriate river access points and formalize trail(s) to the river from the 

parking and camping areas. 

• Greenemeyer Sandpit: flood and riparian plant impacts from fill material – Restore hydrologic 

function to 1.8 acres of floodplain and re-establish riparian habitat (Figure 8-11). Excavate 

4,000 cubic feet of angular imported rock, concrete, asphalt, and soil to return floodplain elevation 

to the 20-50 year flood level. Restore upland areas to natural topography, utilizing some of the fill 

soils which would reduce the amount needed to move off-site. Re-contour topographic features. 

Reestablish native vegetation through propagation and planting of local native plants, including 

Sambuccus mexicanus (blue elderberry). Retain road for utilities and to allow for river access. 

8-76 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6 

• Bulk Fuel Storage – Remove the Odger’s bulk fuel storage facility from its current location in the 

floodplain; relocate this facility outside the river corridor. Remove non-native fill and de-compact 

soils; plant appropriate native understory plant species; treat invasive plants.

Figure 8-11: Greenemeyer Sandpit current conditions (left) and target braided channel and riparian habitat conditions 

(middle and right).

Cultural Values 

In recognition of the high cultural significance of sites CA-MRP-0181/H, CA-MRP-0250/H and CA-MRP0251/H for traditionally associated American Indian tribes and groups, these sites would be protected from 

any further development:

• CA-MRP-0250/H – Remove informal trails and non-essential roads. 

• CA-MRP-0251/H – Remove informal trails. 

• CA-MRP-0181/H – Solutions for addressing the abandoned infrastructure on the site and 

deterring visitor use in the area will be developed in consultation with traditionally-associated 

American Indian tribes and groups. 

Land Use and Facilities Management

Alternatives 2-6 propose the addition of a public restroom in the vicinity of El Portal town center. 

Segment 5: South Fork Merced above Wawona (Wild Segment)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

Cultural Values

• CA-MRP-0218 – Protect rock rings by completing the documentation of rock ring features, 

removing informal trails and charcoal rings, and informing wilderness visitors about the 

importance of protecting archeological resources. Restrict wilderness camping in the area of the 

site, as necessary.

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

• The finding of the Determination of Extent Necessary (Appendix L) for commercial use in 

wilderness would be implemented across the action alternatives and would include the following 

actions: 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-77
ALTERNATIVES

- Disallow camping or travel by commercial groups more than 1⁄4 mile from a maintained trail or 

public access road.

- Limit all commercial stock trips to a 1:1.5 person-to-stock ratio. Accordingly, for every 

multiple of three persons (including employees), only two pack animals would be allowed, in 

addition to three riding stock. 

- Apply additional seasonal and weekend restrictions in the Mount Lyell zone, as specified in 

Appendix L.

• Private boating would be allowed with put-in and take-out locations at the discretion of the user.

Generally, this kind of use would consist of short floats using craft that could easily be carried into 

this remote area. (The alternatives propose varying levels of use.) 

Segments 6 and 7: Wawona Impoundment and Wawona (Recreational Segments)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

Ecological Restoration

• Wawona Water Conservation Plan – Retain current water collection and distribution system, 

including impoundment; however, implement a water conservation plan which requires a 

minimum-flow for the South Fork, especially critical during late summer/early fall months. 

• South Fork Side Channels: abandoned infrastructure – Remove abandoned metal pipes that 

dewater the terrace. 

• Wawona Campground: septic system – Develop a waste water collection system. Build a pump

station above the Wawona Campground to connect the facility to the existing waste water 

treatment plant. 

• Wawona Dump Station: proximity to river – Design and construct RV dump station on a new 

sewer line near the campground entrance, at least 150 feet away from the river's ordinary highwater mark. Remove existing dump station and re-vegetate the area with native plants. 

• South Fork Wawona Picnic Area: river access and water quality – Delineate picnic area and 

provide a path to the river to direct visitor use to more resilient areas. 

• Wawona Picnic Area: river access and water quality– Harden the three steep river access points 

using rockwork or staircase construction to prevent further erosion. If needed, place fencing to 

direct visitors to these hardened access points. Provide a path to the river to direct visitor use to 

more resilient areas. 

• Wawona Maintenance Yard: riparian impacts – Remove staged materials, abandoned utilities, 

vehicles, buildings, and parking areas from within the 150-foot riparian buffer and restore native 

ecosystem.

Cultural Values

• Wawona Archeological District: visitor use impacts – Increase monitoring frequency for 

affected sites. Increase management protection designed to counteract or minimize impacts, 

crafted to individual site specifications. At the districtwide level, amend National Register of 

Historic Places nomination to reflect district changes and impacts. 

• CA-MRP-0374 – Remove informal trail, delineate access road, and reduce hazard fuels. 

• CA-MRP-0008/H – Remove informal trails. Relocate stock camp away from archeological site to a 

location in the vicinity of the Wawona stables.

8-78 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6 

• CA-MRP-0171172/254/516/H – Remove informal trails and roadside parking.

• CA-MRP-0168/0329/H – Remove seven campsites from the Wawona Campground where use may 

impact this site. 

Land Use and Facilities Management

The following actions regarding facilities in Segments 6 and 7 are common to Alternatives 2-6:

• Replace the existing public restroom facilities in the parking area next to the Wawona Store with 

larger restrooms to better accommodate visitor use levels. 

• Increase the number of picnic tables to accommodate more picnicking near the Wawona Store. 

• Redesign the Wawona Store bus stop (for both transit buses and shuttles) with seating and shelter 

to support transit and visitor use.

• Improve access to the Wawona Swinging Bridge on the south side of the river on public land; 

include comfort stations, waste disposal, and parking. Delineate parking and provide restrooms for 

users of the Flat Rock swimming hole. 

• Remove roadside parking between the store and Chilnualna Falls Road to address resource and 

safety concerns. 

• Remove six campsites at the Wawona Campground that are within 100 feet of the river. The total 

number of campsites provided at the campground varies by alternative. 

• Move the stock camp to a location in the vicinity of the Wawona stables. 

Under Alternatives 2-6, the NPS Wawona Maintenance Yard would be redesigned and improved as follows:

• Construct a 4,300 square foot building and grounds maintenance facility, a 6,500 square foot 

combined structural and wildland fire station, and a 4,000 square foot roads maintenance facility to 

replace antiquated, inadequate, or temporary facilities. 

• Remove the existing wooden utility structures that were originally built by the Civilian 

Conservation Corps. 

• Remove staged materials, abandoned utilities, vehicles, and parking from the 150-foot riparian 

buffer at the Wawona Maintenance Yard, and restore native ecosystem. 

Conceptual Site Drawings and Details Common to Alternatives 2-6 

Parking along El Portal Road from the Big Oak Flat Road to Pohono Bridge

Within Segment 2, the 0.6-mile road segment of El Portal Road contains a number of non-delineated, dirt 

roadside pullouts between Pohono Bridge and the intersection of the Big Oak Flat Road. Five of the larger 

pullouts are located on the south side of the road immediately adjacent to the Merced River, while one is 

located on the north side of the road just west of the intersection with Northside Drive and Southside Drive. 

The use of these dirt pullouts and associated informal trails on the south side of the road is causing erosion 

and vegetation trampling in some locations on the riverbank. Three of the pullouts on the south side of the 

road would be paved to provide parking for a limited number of vehicles. Curbs would be constructed to 

prevent further encroachment on the river. The remaining roadside and riverbank soils would be decompacted and restored to natural conditions. The existing paved pullout on the north side of the road just 

west of the intersection with Northside/Southside Drive would also be improved to accommodate 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-79
ALTERNATIVES

six vehicles for a total parking capacity of 26 vehicles along this section of road. Curbs would be installed 

along the remaining south side of the road shoulder to prevent resource damage. Of the 13 existing drainage 

culverts along this segment of the road, two would be removed and the remainder either retained or 

reconstructed in a manner that is consistent with their historic character and function. (No site drawing is 

provided to illustrate these actions.)

NPS Maintenance Yard

The NPS Government Utility Building and Maintenance Yard, located just north of Yosemite Village, is the 

primary operations center for utilities, visitor and resource protection, and maintenance. It consists of a 

large, central operations building, multiple smaller outbuildings, administrative fueling station, NPS stables, 

yard, and search and rescue headquarters. Eleven of the buildings and sheds are contributing elements to 

the Yosemite Valley Historic District. In order to improve circulation at the complex and to provide parking 

spaces for larger vehicles, six of the non-historic outbuildings would be removed or relocated as NPS 

operations are further consolidated within existing facilities in El Portal. The historic Government Utility 

Building would be adapted to accommodate light maintenance and repair for park shuttle busses and 

concessioner service vehicles. A new roads and trails maintenance building would be built that would house 

essential winter park operations equipment, such as snow removal and sand spreading vehicles and 

equipment. The new building would include four vehicle bays with support functions. All anticipated 

development activities and improvements would occur within the existing 4.75-acre site. The NPS 

maintenance area lies outside the Merced River corridor, but proposed modifications are addressed herein 

as connected actions. 

Concessioner General Office

The existing 18,000 square foot Concessioner General Office building located in Yosemite Village, just 

south of the Village Store parking lot, would be removed under all alternatives to allow redesign and 

expansion of visitor parking, improved traffic and pedestrian circulation, and resource restoration. The 

park has developed two alternatives that would allow the concessioner to modify the existing central 

warehouse, with a limit of approximately 5,000 square feet in new construction of replacement office space 

and modifications to the existing building’s interior. The existing Concessioner Central Warehouse lies 

outside the Merced River corridor, but proposed modifications are addressed herein as connected actions.

Alternatives 2-4 

The office space would be replaced by reconfiguring the interior of the existing Concessioner Maintenance 

and Warehouse building. The existing structure would be updated to include office space on a mezzanine 

floor. Additionally, nearby concessioner employee housing would be converted to office use. The 

residential needs of employees displaced from housing facilities would be accommodated in other buildings 

in Yosemite Valley. 

Additional parking spaces would be provided near the facility to accommodate the increased occupancy of 

the remodeled worksite. Specific locations being considered for parking include formalizing approximately 

17 spaces along Village Drive, six spaces to the northeast of the warehouse building, approximately 16 

spaces along Boulder Lane, approximately 15 spaces along the north side of Tenaya Way, and an additional 

8-80 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6 

15 spaces north of the existing auditorium. Development of parking spaces behind the auditorium would 

require the removal of one existing employee residence.

Alternatives 5-6 

Under Alternative 5 (Preferred), the office space would be replaced by reconfiguring the interior of the 

existing Concessioner Central Warehouse building. A 5,000 square foot addition to this building would also 

be constructed. The expansion of the building would require the elimination of 10 to 12 parking spaces that 

would be replaced nearby along Village Drive. 

Additional parking spaces would be provided near the facility to accommodate the increased occupancy of 

the remodeled worksite. Specific locations being considered for parking include formalizing approximately 

17 spaces along Village Drive, six spaces to the northeast of the warehouse building, approximately 16 

spaces along Boulder Lane, approximately 15 spaces along the north side of Tenaya Way, and an additional 

15 spaces north of the existing auditorium. Development of parking spaces behind the auditorium would 

require the removal of one existing employee residence.

Wawona Maintenance Yard

This project includes the design and construction of site improvements (including infrastructure and 

utilities additions) and for a wildland fire and operations building at Wawona, not to exceed 6,500 square 

feet. This facility will include offices, three garage bays to house fire apparatus and vehicles, and 

maintenance work space to support wildland fire operations throughout the park. This facility may also 

include a sleeping area for an engine crew (of five persons) and will serve as an Incident Command Post for 

extended emergency incidents in the area. The facility will be constructed to meet all applicable codes and 

standards for general building construction, as well as those specific to fire stations to provide for the health 

and safety of fire personnel.

The existing fire station is located in a building that was constructed by the Civilian Conservation Corps in 

1934, to store tools and equipment; the building was later modified to accommodate fire apparatus. The

original building was neither designed nor intended to be a fire station and is not of adequate size to handle 

these operations. It also does not meet life-safety and egress building requirements, National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA) standards, or seismic codes and standards for fire stations. Modifications have been 

made in the past to house Yosemite’s existing fire engines and to accommodate operations staff. It has been 

determined that future modifications will not be cost effective. Completion of this project will consolidate 

fire management operations (currently operating out of nearby modular structures, to be removed) and 

emergency response functions into one building. Construction of this station will ensure that there is a 

facility able to house vehicles, equipment, and personnel necessary for the fire and emergency response 

capability required in Wawona, surrounding wildlands, and the rest of Yosemite National Park.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-81
ALTERNATIVES

This page intentionally left blank

8-82 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
*These drawings are provided to demonstrate where facilities would be removed, relocated, or constructed according to actions more fully described by project alternatives. The drawings 

 do not represent a final proposal. More detailed design and construction documents would be developed consistent with the general concepts presented here.

Alternatives 2,3,4,5,6

Conceptual Site Drawing for

Yosemite Valley Maintenance Area

Yosemite National Park

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

Relocate shuttle bus maintenance to existing service bays in the Government Utility Building.

Maintain NPS use and operation of historic Government Utility Building.

Construct a 4,500 square-foot building with light-duty service bays with administrative office space. 

Provide covered parking for road-clearing vehicles and equipment.

Relocate outdoor vehicle temporary storage yard.

Rehabilitate covered storage buildings for more efficient use.

Retain historic Camp 1 employee housing unit complex.

Construct a structural, load-bearing pad for emergency generator; improve access road.

Retain search and rescue operations.

Retain concessioner fueling station.

Retain NPS stables and corrals.

Maintain outdoor sand storage area for winter use.

Delineate flex parking and equipment staging area.

Delineate short-term, high-turnover shuttle bus parking spaces.

Provide additional shuttle bus parking or designated snow storage area.

Outdoor storage area to be re-organized and improved.

Maintain utility building use with park partner.

Reconstruct retaining wall to provide for bus access to existing bay door.

Construct a 10,000 square-foot mezzanine in the existing Concessioner Maintenance Building and 

Warehouse. Relocate Concessioner General Office from Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area; 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 only.

Construct a 4,000 square-foot office addition to the Concessioner Maintenance Building and 

Warehouse for Concessioner General Office use; Alternative 6 only.

NORTH

2

1

3 4

5

6

7

8

9

12

10

11

13

17

14

16

15

5

5

10

2

1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

18

19

19
ALTERNATIVES

This page intentionally left blank

8-84 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 2 through 6

Conceptual Site Drawing for 

Wawona Maintenance Area

Yosemite National Park

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

NORTH

These drawings are intended to illustrate where facilities would be removed, relocated, or constructed according to actions more fully described by the project alternative. The drawings do not represent a final proposal. 

The precise locations of structures and other facilities are subject to change pending archaeological investigation prior to design or construction. More detailed design and construction documents would be developed

consistent with the general concepts presented here.

Relocate the existing Building and Grounds Maintenance Facility to a 

new facility outside the 150-foot riparian buer. Construct a 4,500 

square-foot building consisting of storage and oce administrative 

space. Provide 20 parking spaces for employees and service vehicles.

Construct a two-story wildland re facility with three enclosed engine 

bays, administrative oce space and meeting space, not to exceed 

6,500 square feet. Provide access driveways, hose drying rack, and snow 

storage area. 

Remove modular structures currently used as wildland re facility and 

build 20 parking spaces for employee use (including seasonal sta).

Maintain existing use of the Wawona District interpretive services eld 

oce. Consider relocation of campground reservation center to 

Wawona Campground.

Construct a Wawona District Roads Maintenance Facility headquarters 

consolidated into one 4,000 square-foot building for a machine shop 

and equipment storage with administrative oce space.

Provide eight 15-by-30-foot oversized vehicle and heavy equipment 

parking spaces and eight 12-by-20-foot material stockpile bins accessed 

by a common drive aisle. 

Provide a 200-by-200-foot general outdoor storage area with a covered 

sand storage shed.

Provide 15 parking spaces for visitor and employee use.

Remove existing wooden buildings used for Buildings and Grounds, 

Roads Maintenance and re apparatus storage from the 150-foot 

riparian buer.

Relocate stock camp from sensitive resource area along the river to an 

alternative site located outside the riparian buer but in the same 

general vicinity. 

Protect and enhance area within the 150-foot riparian buer.

Maintain access to green waste transfer station.

2

2

1

1 3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

7

7

8

8

10

10

11

12

12

11

9

9
ALTERNATIVES

This page intentionally left blank

8-86 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 2: Self-Reliant Visitor Experiences and Extensive Floodplain Restoration

ALTERNATIVE 2: SELF-RELIANT VISITOR EXPERIENCES AND 

EXTENSIVE FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION

Overview

The guiding principles of Alternative 2 would include building removal and restoration within the 100-year 

floodplain, removing infrastructure that is not essential to resource-related recreation. The visitor 

experience would be more self-reliant, as fewer commercial services would be available. Visitor-use levels 

would be managed to allow for visitor experiences free of crowding and traffic congestion. 

Management actions in Alternative 2 would: 

• Restore 342 acres of meadow and riparian habitat. 

• Slightly reduce the campsites inventory in all river segments (-8%) and in Yosemite Valley (-3%).

• Significantly reduce lodging inventory at the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp (-100%) and in 

Yosemite Valley (-46%). 

• Reduce parking for Yosemite Valley day use (-23%).

• Minimize commercial services provided by the park’s primary concessioner. 

• Make significant changes to traffic-circulation patterns in Yosemite Valley to accommodate 

ecological restoration goals and to reduce traffic congestion.

• Establish a user capacity of 12,570 people at one time for Yosemite Valley, with peak visitation 

estimated at 13,900 visitors per day. 

• Continue to manage overnight use through reservation systems for lodging and camping and the 

wilderness permit system. 

• Manage user capacity for East Yosemite Valley using a day-use parking reservation system that 

would be required throughout the summer season. 

Under Alternative 2, visitors to Yosemite Valley would experience changes in traffic circulation and roadway

design, with priority given to adjustments needed to allow for ecological restoration. Meadow restoration 

would be accomplished by removing road segments through Ahwahnee and Stoneman Meadows. Visitors 

would experience a clear “sense of arrival” at a pedestrian-friendly parking area in Yosemite Village. This 

would be accomplished by moving parking away from the river, removing employee housing and 

administrative buildings, and redesigning roads and intersections in proximity to the Village. With limited 

visitation and a decrease in traffic volume, Southside Drive would be converted to a two-way road. During the 

peak summer season, parking reservations would be required for day-use visitors wishing to bring private 

vehicles into the east end of Yosemite Valley. 

At Curry Village, a number of new duplex and four-plex lodging units would be available in addition to the

tent cabins in the Curry Village Historic District. All tent cabins in the Boys Town area would be removed. 

The rental stands for bicycles and rafts would be removed, along with the ice skating rink. Food service, 

groceries, the swimming pool, and the mountaineering shop would remain. A limited number of private 

boaters would still be able to raft or kayak in Yosemite Valley, with additional reaches of the Merced River 

opened to boating. Cyclists would be able to ride bicycles in Yosemite Valley with personal equipment or 

equipment rented outside of the park. The stables near Curry Village would be removed and commercial 

horseback day rides discontinued. Private horseback riding would continue in Yosemite Valley and further 

into the high country. Temporary housing at Curry Village (Huff House) would be replaced with permanent 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-87
ALTERNATIVES

housing units in the same location. All lodging and associated facilities would be removed from 

Housekeeping Camp and the area would be repurposed for improved beach access and day use. The Happy 

Isles snack stand would also be removed. 

Overnight accommodations would be focused on camping. All overnight lodging units would be eliminated 

at Yosemite Lodge, although some food and limited retail services would remain. Camping would continue 

to be provided at Lower and Upper Pines, the North Pines campground would be removed, and 

Backpackers Campground would be relocated. A new walk-in campground would be constructed to replace 

the Yosemite Lodge, keeping the number of campsites in the Valley similar to the current level. The bike 

rental, pool, post office, snack stand and gift shops at Yosemite Lodge would be removed, with parking 

retained for day use. The pool and tennis courts would be removed at the Ahwahnee Hotel.

The West Valley would retain its overall natural character, with limited infrastructure, and continue to serve as 

a destination for lower impact recreational activities such as hiking, rock climbing, photography, and scenic 

viewing. 

Those visitors hiking to the Wilderness along the Merced River corridor would be able to camp with a 

permit. All facilities at the Merced Lake High Sierra camp would be removed, and the adjacent 

backpacker’s camp would be converted to dispersed camping.

Transit options would be improved for visitors travelling to Wawona, with a new bus run from Fresno to 

Yosemite Valley along Highway 41. Lodging would still be available at the Wawona Hotel, but the golf 

course and tennis courts would be removed. The Wawona campground would be reduced in size and 

commercial horseback day rides would no longer be provided at the Wawona stables. Private boating would 

be allowed on the South Fork Merced.

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

Alternative 2 would protect and enhance river values with significant ecological restoration directed to 

enhance the connection between the river and its floodplain. It would prioritize the enhancement of ecological 

river values, including large portions of the 100-year floodplain and riparian and meadow habitat, over the 

retention of existing infrastructure and circulation patterns. In addition to actions common to the other action 

alternatives, Alternative 2 would restore the areas currently occupied by the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp, 

campsites and lodging units in Yosemite Valley, the Wawona Golf Course, and the Concessioner Stables in 

Yosemite Valley, and it would create a large valley oak habitat protection area in El Portal. The alluvial 

processes of the river would be enhanced by removing three bridges that constrict flow during high-water 

events. The hydrologic connectivity of meadows to the riparian floodplain would be enhanced through the 

removal of certain road segments that bisect meadows.

Cultural and scenic values would be protected and enhanced as described under “Actions Common to 

Alternatives 2-6” (beginning on page 8-47). Certain recreational values would be enhanced with the removal 

of the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp and improvement in traffic circulation would benefit all visitors to 

Yosemite Valley. Table 8-10 provides a summary of the actions that would occur under Alternative 2 to 

protect and enhance river values.

8-88 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 2: Self-Reliant Visitor Experiences and Extensive Floodplain Restoration

TABLE 8-10: ADDITIONAL ACTIONS TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE RIVER VALUES, ALTERNATIVE 2

Ecological Restoration Actions (Free Flow, Water Quality, Geological/Hydrological, and Biological Values)

Corridorwide

Ecological 

Restoration Acreage

342 acres: 176 acres (common to all) plus an additional 166 acres (refer to Appendix E for specific 

locations)

Riprap to be Removed 6,664 linear feet: 5,700 linear feet (common to all) plus an additional 964 feet (refer to Appendix E for 

specific locations)

Segment 1: Wilderness above Nevada Fall

Riparian Buffer / 

Floodplain  Remove the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp and ecologically restore the site. 

Segment 2: Yosemite Valley 

Free Flow / 

Geological/ 

Hydrological Values

 Remove Ahwahnee, Sugar Pine, and Stoneman bridges to enhance the alluvial processes of the river.

Riparian Buffer / 

Floodplain

 Ecologically restore 35.6 acres of floodplain at the former Upper and Lower River Campgrounds. 

 Move Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area parking north outside the 10-year floodplain.

 Ecologically restore 25 acres of 100-year floodplain at the North Pines Campground, Backpackers 

Campground, Yellow Pine Administrative Campground, and part of the Lower Pines campground.

 Ecologically restore large areas of Yosemite Lodge and Housekeeping Camp. 

 Ecologically restore the Concessioner Stables, Ahwahnee Row, and Tecoya housing area.

Meadow Restoration

 Remove 900 feet of Northside Drive through the Ahwahnee Meadow to enhance connectivity of the 

meadow and floodplain.

 Remove 1,335 feet of Southside Drive through Stoneman Meadow to enhance connectivity of the 

meadow and floodplain.

Segment 7 : Wawona

Meadow Restoration  Ecologically restore the 42-acre Wawona Golf Course to meadow habitat.

Recreational Values

Segment 1: Wilderness above Nevada Fall

Wilderness 

Recreation

 Enhance Wilderness character by removing the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp and converting this 

area to designated Wilderness.

 Reduce zone capacities and convert overnight use to dispersed camping.

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Alternative 2 would provide a more self-reliant visitor experience, with a marked reduction in commercial 

services and facilities. As a result, peak visitor use levels would be lower than current conditions. Table 8-11

provides a summary of user capacities by type and location of use. 

Visitor Activities and Services

Alternative 2 would significantly reduce commercial facilities and services. Changes to facilities and services 

would include the removal of redundant retail services and snack stands, as well as the elimination of 

commercial horseback day rides from Yosemite Valley and Wawona. Alternative 2 would also remove bike 

rentals, raft rentals, the ice skating rink, the grocery store at Housekeeping Camp, and two swimming pools 

in Yosemite Valley.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-89
ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 8-11: USER CAPACITIES BY USE TYPE AND LOCATION – ALTERNATIVE 2

User Capacities by Use Type and Location Alt 1 (No Action) Alt 2

Unit Type Units People Units People

Wilderness Above Nevada Fall

Visitor Overnight Use Zone Capacities & Beds 380 380 195 195

Visitor Day Use Day Hikers 350 350 350 350

Employee Housing (in camps) Employee Beds 15 15 5 5 

Administrative Day Use People on Day Patrols 5 5 5 5 

Yosemite Valley

Visitor Overnight Use Rooms & Campsites 1,500 6,564 1,006 4,758

Visitor Day Use Parking Spaces & Buses 11,727 - 6,819

Employee Housing Employee Beds 1,315 1,315 658 658

Administrative Day Use Parking Spaces 166 332 166 332

Merced Gorge

Visitor Overnight Use Rooms & Campsites - - - -

Visitor Day Use Parking Spaces 180 869 180 869

Employee Housing Employee Beds 9 9 9 9

Administrative Day Use Parking Spaces 2 4 2 4

El Portal

Visitor Overnight Use Rooms & Campsites - - - -

Visitor Day Use Parking Spaces 214 740 214 740

Employee Housing Employee Beds 220 427 599 801

Administrative Day Use Parking Spaces 610 1,220 610 1,220

South Fork Above Wawona

Visitor Overnight Use Zone Capacities 20 20 20 20

Visitor Day Use Day Hikers 6 6 6 6

Employee Housing Beds - - - -

Administrative Day Use Day Patrols 1 1 1 1

Wawona

Visitor Overnight Use Rooms & Campsites 203 865 171 673

Visitor Day Use Parking Spaces & Buses - 1,295 - 1,321

Employee Housing Beds 121 121 121 121

Administrative Day Use Parking Spaces 30 60 30 60

South Fork Below Wawona

Visitor Overnight Use Zone Capacities - - - -

Visitor Day Use Day Hikers 6 6 6 6

Employee Housing Employee Beds - - - -

Administrative Day Use Day Patrols 1 1 1 1

Visitor Overnight Capacity

Camping

Under Alternative 2, the campsite inventory in the Merced Wild and Scenic River corridor, including 

Yosemite Valley, would be reduced by approximately 8% as a result of natural and cultural resource 

protection measures. All campsites within the 100-year floodplain would be removed. Campsite losses would 

be offset by the addition of walk-in camping at Yosemite Lodge, east of Camp 4, and west of Backpackers 

Campground. Under Alternative 2, the total number of campsites in Yosemite Valley would be 450 sites, and 

the total number of campsites available in the corridor would be 521 sites. Table 8-12 provides a summary of 

the proposed changes to camping.

8-90 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 2: Self-Reliant Visitor Experiences and Extensive Floodplain Restoration

TABLE 8-12: CAMPING FACILITIES – ALTERNATIVE 2 

Existing Locations

Alt 1 

(No Action) Alt 2 Details

Backpackers 25 sites 0 sites 25 walk-in sites removed from the 100-year floodplain; 16 of these 

will be relocated west of Backpackers

Camp 4 35 sites 35 sites No change to this National Historic Register Site

Lower Pines 76 sites 44 sites 32 sites removed from the 100-year floodplain

North Pines 86 sites 0 sites 86 sites removed from the100-year floodplain

Upper Pines 240 sites 216 sites 22 sites removed from the 100-year floodplain and 2 sites for 

cultural resource concerns 

Yellow Pine Administrative 4 sites 0 sites 4 group administrative sites removed from the 100-year floodplain

Wawona Campground 99 sites 67 sites 32 sites removed from the 100-year floodplain or in culturally 

sensitive areas 

Total Existing Locations 565 sites 362 sites

New Locations

Alt 1

(No Action) Alt 2 Details

West of Backpackers 0 sites 16 sites 16 walk-in sites relocated from Backpackers Campground to less 

sensitive area outside 100-year floodplain

East of Camp 4 0 sites 35 sites 35 walk-in sites constructed in area east of Camp 4

Yosemite Lodge walk-in 0 sites 104 sites 100 walk-in sites and 4 group sites constructed

Abbieville / Trailer Village 0 sites 4 sites 4 group administrative sites constructed in El Portal to replace 

Yellow Pine administrative sites

Total New Camping 0 sites 159 sites

Total Camping in Corridor 565 sites 521 sites

Lodging

In-park lodging availability would be reduced by approximately 43% relative to existing conditions. 

Management actions related to lodging would focus on removing all overnight lodging at Yosemite Lodge, 

Housekeeping Camp, and from the Yosemite Wilderness. New permanent lodging would be constructed in 

Curry Village to partly offset the loss of year-round accommodations at Yosemite Lodge. As a result of these 

actions, the in-corridor lodging inventory would be reduced from 1,160 units to 660 units. Table 8-13 provides 

a summary of the proposed changes to lodging and the reasons for those proposed changes.

TABLE 8-13: LODGING FACILITIES – ALTERNATIVE 2

Wilderness Alt 1 

(No Action) Alt 2 Details

Merced Lake High Sierra 

Camp (MLHSC)

60 beds

(22 units) 0 beds Remove all infrastructure and expand dispersed camping into re-purposed MLHSC area

Yosemite Valley Alt 1 Alt 2 Details

Ahwahnee Hotel 123 rooms 123 rooms No change at this National Historic Landmark

Housekeeping Camp 266 units 0 units Remove all units from 100-year floodplain

Curry Village 400 units

433 units 

(290 canvas tent 

cabins and 143 

hard-sided units)

 Retain 290 canvas tent cabins

 Retain 47 hard-sided cabin-with-bath units 

 Retain 18 units at Stoneman House

 Construct 78 hard-sided units in Boys Town 

Yosemite Lodge 245 rooms 0 rooms Remove entire lodging complex, including those 

units in the 100-year floodplain 

Wawona Alt 1 Alt 2 Details

Wawona Hotel 104 rooms 104 rooms No change at this National Historic Landmark 

Total Lodging in Corridor 1,160 units 660 units 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-91
ALTERNATIVES

Parking Inventory and Access Improvements

Parking capacity for day-use in Yosemite Valley would be reduced by 23% relative to current levels. Dayuse capacity would be actively managed and potentially restricted during season (May through September). 

A day-use parking reservation system would be implemented in this alternative for East Yosemite Valley

during the peak summer season. Table 8-14 provides a summary of the total number of day-use parking

spaces provided in each river segment.

TABLE 8-14: NUMBER OF DAY-USE PARKING SPACES BY SEGMENT, ALTERNATIVE 2 

Location Alt 1 (No Action) Alt 2

Segment 2: Yosemite Valley 2,337 spaces 1,800 spaces

Segment 3: The Gorge 180 spaces 180 spaces

Segment 4: El Portal 214 spaces 214 spaces

Segment 7: Wawona 290 spaces 290 spaces

Total Parking 3,021 spaces 2,484 spaces

The most significant changes to parking and traffic circulation would take place in the vicinity of the 

Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area and Yosemite Lodge. Day-use visitors would find a total of 550 

parking spaces within a redesigned parking area at this location. At Yosemite Lodge, proposed changes 

include a new day-use parking area north of the core visitor service area, and additional overnight parking 

west of Yosemite Lodge to serve new camping areas. The parking inventory for East Yosemite Valley 

(including day, overnight, and administrative uses) would total 4,000 spaces.

Transit services would remain unchanged on the Highway 140, Highway 120 West, and Highway 120 East 

corridors; one round-trip run per day would be added to the Highway 41 corridor. Within-park shuttle 

services would remain unchanged with the exception of the shuttle service between Wawona and Yosemite 

Valley. This service would be discontinued due to the increase in public transit on this corridor. The East 

Valley shuttle would increase in frequency, with intervals of five minutes.

8-92 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Housekeeping Camp Footbridge

Northside Drive

Curry 

Village

Lower Pines

Campground

North Pines

Campground

Upper Pines

Campground

Clark'sBridge

Tenaya

Bridge

River Corridor Boundary

Boys

Town

Southside Drive

The Ahwahnee Backpackers

Campground

Happy Isles Bridge

Merced River

Royal Arches

Meadow

Ahwahnee

Meadow

Stoneman

Meadow

Concessioner

Stables

Tennis Court

Former Upper and Lower

River Campground Area

Ahwahnee

Parking

Wilderness

Parking

Curry Village

Parking

0 0.25 Miles

1

2

3

4

5

6

ALTERNATIVE 2CURRY VILLAGE AND CAMPGROUNDS

Huff

House

Tenaya Creek

EAST 1. Fo

• 

flw

2. Riv

• A

et

• S

S

3. Cu

• 

c

• 

c

• C

sv

• • C

v

4. No

• 

fl

• 

fl

• C

a

5. Low

• C

6. Up

• C

t

ALTERNATIVE 2: SELF-RELIANT VISITOR EXPERIENCES AND EXTENSIVE FLOODPLAIN 
This page intentionally left blank

8-94 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
!5

River Corridor Boundary

Merced River

Northside Drive

Ahwahnee Road

Southside Drive

Yosemite Creek

Bridge Cook's Meadow

Ahwahnee

Meadow

Lost Arrow

Rangers' 

Club

Le Conte 

Memorial Lodge

Church Bowl

Picnic Area

Sentinel Bridge

Housekeeping

Bridge

Superintendent's

Bridge

Housekeeping Camp

Yosemite Village Day-Use 

Parking Area

Village Store Complex

0 0.25 Miles

ALTERNATIVE 2YOSEMITE VILLAGE AND HOUSEKEEPING CAMP

¬«2

¬«3

¬«4

¬«5

¬«6

 ̄

Yosemite Village

¬«7

Government 

Utility Building

¬«1

Sentinel Drive

EAST 1. Lo

spa

2. Yo

10pro

3. Flo

res

4. Pe

Coan

pa

5. Ind

Ahveg

6. Ah

to Ahori

7. Ho

anpo

ALTERNATIVE 2: SELF-RELIANT VISITOR EXPERIENCES AND EXTENSIVE FLOODPLAIN 
This page intentionally left blank

8-96 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
!F

;"

!i

!i

!i

Southside

Drive

Camp 4 

Campground

Yosemite

Lodge

Sentinel Meadow

Merced River

Leidig Meadow

Cook's

Meadow

Northside

Drive

Yosemite Lodge

Parking Area

Residence 1

0 500 Feet

ALTERNATIVE 2YOSEMITE LODGE AND CAMP 4

¬«1

 ̄

¬«2

¬«3

¬«4

EAST 1. We

• 

2. Yo

• Y

afl

• 

ata

• C• • S• C

c

3. Yos

• T

a

4. Res

• 

atc

ALTERNATIVE 2: SELF-RELIANT VISITOR EXPERIENCES AND EXTENSIVE FLOODPLAIN 
This page intentionally left blank

8-98 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
!F

!F

!F

!5

!5

!5

!5

ÆQ

El Capitan

Meadow

Sentinel

Beach

El Capitan 

Bridge

Cathedral

Beach

Swinging

Bridge

Camp 4 Campground

Southside Drive

Northsi d

e

Drive

Merce

d River

Leidig 

Meadow

Slaughterhouse

Meadow

Sentinel

Rock

Lower Brother

Split Pinnacle

Cathedral Rocks

0 0.25 Miles

 ̄

ALTERNATIVE 2WEST YOSEMITE VALLEY

¬«1

¬«2 ¬«3

River C

orridor Boundary

Old El Portal

Abbieville Trailer

Village

Rancheria

Flat

NPS Warehouse &AdministrativeComplex

F orest a

Road

SIERRA NATIONAL FOREST

STANISLAUS NATIONAL FOREST

National Park Boundary

Greenemeyer

Sand Pit

H ig

hway 14 0

Hwy. 140 

Bridge

0 0.4 Miles

ALTERNATIVE 2EL PORTAL

1

2

River Corridor B

o

u

n

d

ary

M

erced

River

3

WEST YOSEMITE VALLEY1. El Capitan Meadow Area 

• El Capitan Meadow Ecological Re

Disperse and reduce roadside parsome roadside parking for searchprotect the meadow from trampl

2. Valley Loop Trail

• Trail Re-Route: Re-route trail throu

through Bridalveil Meadow to the 

3. Yellow Pine Campground

• Ecological Restoration: Remove a

administrative camping to Abbiev

EL PORTAL1. Rancheria Flat

• Employee Housing: To replace tem

2. Abbieville and Trailer Village

• Abbieville and Trailer Village Hous

re-developed as both concessionValley, develop high-density hous

• Administrative Camping: Develop 

administrative site in Yosemite Va

3. El Portal Village Center

• Valley Oak Restoration: Restore th

practices. Create a valley oak recrthe adjacent parking lots. Decomconstruction within the oak recru

• Odger’s Fuel Storage Facility: Rem

soils, and plant appropriate native alternate source for emergency fu

ALTERNATIVE 2: SELF-RELIANT VISITOR EXPERIENCES AND EXTENSIVE FLOODPLAIN 
This page intentionally left blank

8-100 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Merced River

Merced Lake

Ranger Station !9

Merced

Lake

Merced Lake

High Sierra Camp

Merced Lake

Backpackers

Camping Area !9

Merced Lake

East Meadow

ALTERNATIVE 2 0 0.2 MilesMERCED LAKE HIGH SIERRA CAMP

¬«1

¬«2

 ̄

River Corridor Boundar ¬« y 3

River Corridor Boundary Wawona Maintenance

Area

Wawona Hotel

Wawona Golf

Course

Wawona

Campground

Wawona

Stables

South Fork Picnic Area

Wawona Store Picnic Area

0 0.1 0.2 Miles

ALTERNATIVE 2WAWONA

1

2

3

MERCED LAKE HIGH SIERRA CAMP1. Merced Lake Backpackers Camping Area: Discontinue designated ca

Remove waste-water system and flush toilets. 

2. Merced Lake High Sierra Camp: Close and remove this lodging facilit

footprint. Remove all permanent infrastructure, including the buildi

3. Merced Lake East Meadow: Remove the meadow from grazing permOTHER SEGMENT 1 CAMPING AREAS (NOT SHOWN ON MAP)

• Little Yosemite Valley: Discontinue designated camping in this are• Moraine Dome: Discontinue designated camping in this area, but 

WAWONA1. Wawona Campground: Retain 64 campsites and one group site. Rem2. Wawona Meadow Restoration: Remove nine-hole golf course and re3. Wawona Stables: Eliminate stable operation and commercial day rid

ALTERNATIVE 2: SELF-RELIANT VISITOR EXPERIENCES AND EXTENSIVE FLOODPLAIN 
This page intentionally left blank

8-102 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 2: Self-Reliant Visitor Experiences and Extensive Floodplain Restoration

Detailed Description of Alternative 2 by Segment

Segment 1: Wilderness above Nevada Fall (Wild Segment)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

In addition to the “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” (beginning on page 8-47), Alternative 2 would 

include the following actions to protect and enhance river values:

Biological Values

• Discontinue administrative pack stock grazing at Merced Lake East Meadow. Administrative stock

will carry pellet feed. 

Recreational Values

• Wilderness character would be further enhanced with the removal of the Merced Lake High Sierra 

Camp and conversion of this area to designated Wilderness.

• Visitor use would be reduced at Little Yosemite Valley and Merced Lake by converting all 

designated camping areas to dispersed camping. Visitors would have the opportunity to camp out 

of sight and sound of other campers. Zone capacity and associated trailhead quotas would be 

reduced for the Little Yosemite Valley zone. 

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Alternative 2 would reduce the amount of infrastructure and the amount of use in Segment 1 to promote 

dispersed camping and increase opportunities for solitude. In addition to the “Actions Common to 

Alternatives 2-6” (beginning on page 8-47), Alternative 2 would include the following actions to manage user 

capacity, land use and facilities:

Visitor Activities and Services 

Overnight use in this segment would consist of visitors dispersed throughout the corridor and throughout 

the Wilderness. 

Under Alternative 2, private boating would be allowed in Segment 1. Generally, this kind of use would 

consist of short floats using inflatable rafts or boats that could be carried into this remote area. Use levels 

would not be restricted, given the significant reduction in Wilderness zone capacities proposed under this 

alternative.

No commercial use would be allowed in Segment 1. 

Visitor Overnight Capacity

Overnight capacities would be reduced through the trailhead quota system, as shown in Table 8-15, and 

services would be managed as follows:

• Remove the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp and convert the area to designated Wilderness. 

• Transition the designated backpackers camping areas at Merced Lake, Little Yosemite Valley, and 

Moraine Dome to dispersed camping zones and remove all infrastructure.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-103
ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 8-15: WILDERNESS ZONE CAPACITIES – ALTERNATIVE 2 

Wilderness Zones Alt 2 Zonewide Capacity

Alt 2 Zone Capacity** 

Specific to the River Corridor

Little Yosemite Valley Zone 25 people (-125 people*) 25 people (-125 people*)

Merced Lake Zone 50 50

Washburn Lake Zone 150 100

Mount Lyell Zone 50 10

Clark Range Zone 50 10

NOTES: 

* Number of people reduced from Alternative 1 (No Action) to Alternative 2 

** For some Wilderness zones, only a small portion of river corridor overlaps the zone. Therefore, the NPS calculated capacities that itemize the 

number of people in both the Wilderness zone and the river corridor portion of the zone. These calculations assume that visitors have the ability 

to camp out of sight and sound of other parties and that minimum impact camping is available within the segment.

Visitor Day-use Capacity

Day-use access to this segment does not vary across the alternatives and is addressed under “Actions 

Common to Alternatives 2-6,” beginning on page 8-47.

Administrative Activities

• Reduce administrative activities as a result of the reduced zone capacities, removal of the 

designated camping area, and removal of infrastructure. Backcountry utilities would no longer be 

needed in this segment following the removal of infrastructure at Little Yosemite Valley and 

Merced Lake High Sierra Camp.

Segment 2: Yosemite Valley (Recreational and Scenic Segments)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

In addition to the “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” (beginning on page 8-47), Alternative 2 would 

include the following actions to protect and enhance river values:

Geological/Hydrological Values 

• Remove Stoneman Bridge and restore the riverbanks to natural conditions.

• Remove Sugar Pine and Ahwahnee bridges and associated berm/elevated trail connecting them; 

restore riverbanks to natural conditions; reroute multiuse trail north along the river.

Water Quality

• Remove the Concessioner Stables in Yosemite Valley and the pack trail from the stables to Happy 

Isles; restore to natural conditions.

Biological Values

Alternative 2 would restore major portions of the floodplain:

• Remove all existing campsites and infrastructure within the 100-year floodplain and restore natural 

floodplain and riparian habitat (25 acres). 

8-104 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 2: Self-Reliant Visitor Experiences and Extensive Floodplain Restoration

- Backpackers Campground – Remove all 25 sites, 21 of which are in the 100-year 

floodplain. (Replace 16 sites to the west of the current campground in less sensitive area 

out of the 100-year floodplain.) 

- North Pines Campground – Remove all 86 campsites and restore the 100-year floodplain 

to natural conditions.

- Lower Pines Campground – Remove 32 campsites and restore the 100-year floodplain to 

natural conditions.

- Upper Pines Campground – Remove 22 campsites and restore the 100-year floodplain to 

natural conditions. An additional two sites are removed under Alternatives 2-6 to protect 

cultural resources.

• Former Lower and Upper River Campgrounds – Remove all facilities, including the Lower River 

amphitheater structure, and restore 35.6 acres of natural floodplain topography and riparian/ 

wetland habitat within the 10-year floodplain; temporarily fence restoration areas to allow for 

recovery.

• Yosemite Lodge – Remove most buildings at Yosemite Lodge, including the four that are within 

the 100-year floodplain; restore the 100-year floodplain to natural conditions.

• Former Pine and Oak Units – Restore 10.9 acres of riparian ecosystem at the site of the VIP Office 

and the former Yosemite Lodge units and cabins (those that were removed after the 1997 flood) 

while maintaining access to the well house.

• Ahwahnee Row and Tecoya Dorms – Remove concessioner housing and development between 

the Village Store and Ahwahnee Meadow; re-contour topography (using 1919 maps as a guide), decompact soils, and plant native meadow vegetation. Restore stream hydrologic function. 

• Yosemite Village – Move the Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area northward, out of the 10-year 

floodplain of the Merced River and outside of a designated 50-foot setback from Indian Creek; 

remove fill material and restore the floodplain to natural conditions. 

• Housekeeping Camp – Remove all 266 lodging units and associated facilities at Housekeeping 

Camp (restrooms, shower houses, laundry, grocery store, and office) out of the 100-year 

floodplain. Restore the floodplain to natural conditions by de-compacting soils and planting 

riparian species. Direct visitor use and river access to the resilient beach locations on the western 

edge of Housekeeping Camp and across the footbridge; fence off the current eastern river access 

point located on a steep eroded bank and actively restore the riverbank with brush layering.

Alternative 2 would enhance meadow connectivity by removing segments of roads and trails that currently

bisect meadows, interrupt sheetflow, and cause habitat fragmentation.

• Bridalveil Meadow – Reroute the 780-foot segment of the Valley Loop Trail that crosses Bridalveil 

Meadow closer to the base of the fill slope of the Valley Loop Road.

• Slaughterhouse Meadow – Reroute the Valley Loop Trail to an upland area outside of the 

wetlands at Slaughterhouse Meadow. 

• El Capital Meadow – Reduce roadside parking along El Capitan Meadow (approximately 30 

spaces) to reduce the amount of social trailing into the meadow. Fence if necessary to further 

protect the meadow from trampling. 

• Ahwahnee Meadow – Remove 900 feet of Northside Drive and relocate the bike path to the south, 

restoring Ahwahnee Meadow and riparian floodplain connectivity; restore meadow contours and 

native vegetation. Reroute trails through Ahwahnee Meadow to avoid wetlands, consolidating use 

with the Housekeeping footbridge trail where possible; remove associated fill and restore trails 

within wetlands.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-105
ALTERNATIVES

• Stoneman Meadow – Remove the segment of Southside Drive that bisects Stoneman Meadow 

(1,335 feet); realign Southside Drive through Boys Town. Extend the boardwalk through wet areas 

to Curry Village (up to 275 feet). 

Scenic Values

• Eliminate the visual intrusion of Southside Drive through Stoneman Meadow to enhance scenic values. 

• Eliminate the visual intrusion of Northside Drive through Ahwahnee Meadow to enhance scenic values.

Cultural Values

• Remove four structures representing the prominent historic patterns of development in Yosemite 

Valley: Sugar Pine Bridge, Ahwahnee Bridge, Stoneman Bridge, and Superintendent’s House and 

Garage (Residence 1).

• Remove and relocate Superintendent’s House and Garage (Residence 1) to the NPS housing area 

and, at a minimum, stabilize the building per the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties (NPS 1995). 

Recreational Values

• Allow boating of up to 25 people per day using private vessels only. Restrict use to specific stretches 

of river in Yosemite Valley. This reduction in boats would enhance dispersed recreation along the 

river corridor.

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Visitor Activities and Services 

Alternative 2 would enhance river-related recreation by making critical infrastructure improvements where 

necessary, while reducing activities and visitor services that are not directly related to resource-based 

recreation. The changes to facilities and services proposed under Alternative 2 would accomplish objectives 

for both ecological restoration and the type of visitor experience to be provided. Alternative 2 would 

include the following changes to visitor activities and services in addition to those common to Alternatives 

2-6 (see page 8-47): 

• Allow only private boating in this river segment. Private boats would be limited to the section of 

river between the Pines campgrounds and Sentinel Beach. Put-ins and take-outs would be limited 

to designated locations within the Pines campgrounds and established day-use sites. This use would 

be monitored by a river patrol ranger with use levels anticipated to be approximately 25 boats per 

day. 

• Remove Housekeeping Camp shower houses, restrooms, laundry, and grocery store. Retain at least 

one restroom when reconfiguring the area for day use. 

• Remove the Concessioner Stables, eliminate commercial horseback day rides that originate from 

Yosemite Valley, and restore the stables area to natural conditions. 

• Remove Curry Village raft rental, bike rentals, and ice skating rink.

• Remove the bike rental facility at Yosemite Lodge.

• Remove the swimming pools at the Ahwahnee Hotel and the Yosemite Lodge.

8-106 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 2: Self-Reliant Visitor Experiences and Extensive Floodplain Restoration 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-107 

Visitor Overnight Capacity: Camping 

The camping inventory for this segment would be reduced to 450 sites accommodating 2,916 people per 

night. The loss of campsites removed from sensitive riparian areas would be offset by a new 100-site 

campground built to replace Yosemite Lodge. The following actions would occur at specific locations: 

 Backpackers Campground – Remove all 25 sites, 21 of which are in the 100-year floodplain. 

Construct 16 new walk-in campsites west of Backpackers Campground outside of the 100-year 

floodplain. 

 North Pines Campground – Remove all 86 campsites; restore the floodplain to natural conditions. 

 Upper Pines Campground – Retain 216 campsites. Remove 22 campsites from the 100-year 

floodplain; restore natural floodplain conditions. 

 Lower Pines Campground – Retain 44 campsites. Remove 32 sites that are within the 100-year 

floodplain. 

 Camp 4 – Retain 35 walk-in campsites and 35 parking spaces. Construct 35 additional campsites 

east of Camp 4; establish a new parking area (41 spaces) for the Camp 4 campground expansion in 

the disturbed footprint of the former service station near Camp 4. 

 Yellow Pine – Remove campsites at Yellow Pine Administrative Campground (4 group sites for up 

to 120 people). 

 New Construction – Construct a new campground with 100 walk-in campsites and 4 group sites in 

the area formerly occupied by Yosemite Lodge. 

Visitor Overnight Capacity: Lodging 

Under Alternative 2, lodging would be significantly reduced 

to facilitate ecological restoration, day use, and camping. 

The lodging inventory would total 556 units, 

accommodating 1,842 people per night. Common to 

Alternatives 2-6, the Ahwahnee Hotel would continue to 

provide 123 rooms. The following additional lodging would 

be retained, removed, or constructed under Alternative 2: 

 Curry Village – Retain 355 lodging units: 290 canvas tent cabins, 18 units at Stoneman House, and 

47 hard-sided cabins-with-bath. Remove all existing cabins and associated structures at Boys Town. 

Construct 78 new lodging units suitable for year-round use at Boys Town (25 duplex buildings and 

seven 4-plex buildings, all with private baths); construct a new guest check-in building and 

pedestrian pathway; provide 78 new parking spaces along the existing roadway. Provide 420 

designated overnight parking spaces at the Curry Orchard Parking Area. 

 Housekeeping Camp – Remove all 266 lodging units and associated facilities from the 100-year 

floodplain. (Convert the site to a day-use river access point and picnic area, retaining one restroom 

for day use.) 

 Yosemite Lodge – Remove all 245 lodging units; retain the core portion of the lodge containing the 

cafeteria. (Redevelop area for visitor day use and camping.) 

Visitor Day-use Parking Capacity and Transit 

Alternative 2 would significantly reduce peak daily visitation to Yosemite Valley. Collectively, day-use 

parking, regional transit, and tour bus capacities would accommodate up to 6,819 people at one time in 

Segment 2: 

Preliminary drawings for lodging 

improvements at Boys Town under 

Alternative 2 have been completed to assess 

the feasibility of this project. See 

“Conceptual Site Drawings” at the end of 

the Alternative 2 discussion for site details 

and design drawings. 
ALTERNATIVES

• Reduce available day-use parking and implement an East Yosemite Valley day-use parking 

reservation system to reduce crowding at key attraction sites, along roadways, and in parking lots 

and other facilities. 

• Reduce available day-use parking spaces (- 537 spaces) to provide a total of 1,800 parking spaces 

Visitor circulation would be improved to reduce traffic congestion and to improve the visitor experience. 

Major actions would include the following:

• Re-design day-use parking at Yosemite Village to 

provide 550 designated spaces. Re-route 

Northside Drive to the south of the Yosemite 

Village Day-use Parking Area. Consolidate 

parking to the north of the road and out of the 10-

year floodplain. Provide walkways leading to 

Yosemite Village, separating vehicle and 

pedestrian traffic and eliminating conflicts. 

• Construct a new parking lot and a comfort station

west of Yosemite Lodge, providing 150 parking 

spaces for day visitors and 15 spaces for tour buses. 

• Move the on-grade pedestrian crossing west of the intersection of Northside Drive and Yosemite 

Lodge Drive to alleviate pedestrian/vehicle conflicts.

• Re-design the intersection at Sentinel Bridge, and switch Southside Drive (between Curry Village 

and Sentinel Drive) to a two-way road.

Due to the reductions in the day-use parking supply in this alternative (as compared to current peak 

demand), an East Yosemite Valley day-use parking reservation system would be required. The majority of 

day-use parking spaces would be reserved, with a small number being made available for more spontaneous 

users (to be distributed on-site along with spaces available from cancellations and no-shows). A reservation 

system is needed for this alternative, as demand for day-use visitation is expected to be high relative to the 

available capacity and continual East Valley traffic diversions are likely to be inadequate to handle the 

disparity (displacing East Valley crowding to other parts of the park on a regular basis). Although details of

the system will require additional planning, general characteristics may include: 

• Seasonality – The system would likely apply through the entire peak season, which can begin as 

early as mid-April and continue through October. 

• Daily hours – The system would apply to day-use parking in East Valley from 10 A.M. to 5 P.M.

(periods of potential day-use crowding and congestion). Day-use visitors who arrived at parking 

areas before 10 A.M. or after 5 P.M. would not need a pass. 

• Primary allocation mechanism – Reservations would be made through an online system. Inperson reservations may also be made at entrance stations and visitor centers. 

• Secondary allocation mechanism – Cancelled reservations and no-shows would be filled at 

entrance gates or visitor centers after a certain hour of the day. Late arrivals would not be 

guaranteed a space in the day use lots. 

• Timing of availability – Approximately 80% of total spaces would be made available for 

reservations at intervals of six months (20%), three months (20%), one month (20%), and one week

(20%) before a given date. Twenty percent would remain in the secondary system for spontaneous 

use (along with cancellations and no shows). The online reservations system would continually 

track cancellations and make those passes available.

Preliminary drawings for the Yosemite 

Village Day-use Parking Area and the new 

parking lot west of Yosemite Lodge, as 

proposed in Alternative 2, have been 

completed to assess the feasibility of these 

projects. See “Conceptual Site Drawings” 

at the end of the Alternative 2 discussion 

for site details and design drawings.

8-108 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 2: Self-Reliant Visitor Experiences and Extensive Floodplain Restoration

• Compliance – Parking passes would need to be shown when visitors arrive at entrance gates and 

displayed when using the day-use lots or parking for more than one hour at trailheads or roadside 

viewing areas. Visitors without passes could obtain passes at entrance stations (if they are available) 

or travel to other parts of the park, but they would not be allowed to use day or overnight use 

parking areas in East Valley. 

• Fees – An administrative fee may be collected with reservations. 

• Combining Parking Fees with Park Entrance Fees – The NPS would explore options to pay park 

entrance fees when making parking pass reservations. This concept would allow visitors to enter a 

faster lane at entrance gates (because they only have to show previous payment). 

• Overnight visitor parking passes – Visitors with overnight reservations would receive a parking 

pass for their vehicles. These visitors could park in overnight visitor lots, campgrounds, or for more 

than one hour at trailheads and roadside viewing areas. They would not be allowed to park in East 

Valley day-use lots. 

Regional transit service would be reconfigured to expand the number of routes and reduce the number of 

runs provided on some routes (consistent with anticipated demand, as shown in Table 8-16). Shuttle service 

would also be improved as shown in the table below.

TABLE 8-16: TRANSIT OPTIONS- ALTERNATIVE 2 

Regional Transit Options

HIGHWAY 140

Merced/Mariposa to Yosemite Valley

8 runs per day (4 from Merced; 4 from Mariposa)

(year round)

HIGHWAY 41

Fresno/Oakhurst to Yosemite Valley 1 run per day

HIGHWAY 120 West

Groveland/Sonora to Yosemite Valley

1 run/day- Sonora to Valley

(summer only)

HIGHWAY 120 East

Inyo/Mono County (Mammoth Lakes) to Yosemite Valley

1 run per day

(summer only)

Yosemite Valley Shuttle Options

East Yosemite Valley 5 minute peak interval between buses

Year round except Visitor Center direct

Visitor Center Express Yosemite Valley Day-use Parking Area to 

Visitor Center

15 minute interval between buses

(summer only)

El Capitan Crossover 30 minute interval between buses 

(summer only)

West Yosemite Valley No service

Administrative Activities

Administrative activities would be reduced commensurate with the reduction in services:

• Remove the Yosemite Lodge maintenance and housekeeping facilities.

Employee Housing and Employee Parking

Concessioner employee housing would be reduced commensurate with the reduction in services. 

Compared to existing conditions, 657 fewer concessioner employees would be housed in Yosemite Valley. 

In this alternative, 861 parking spaces would be allocated for administrative uses (including parking spaces 

near residential areas). The remaining housing for 494 concessioner employees would be provided as 

follows:

• Provide housing for 387employees at Curry Village.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-109
ALTERNATIVES

- Retain permanent employee housing in the Curry Village residential area (223 beds). 

- Remove employee housing at the Concessioner Stables (49 beds). 

- Construct 16 dormitory-style buildings to house 164 employees.

• Provide housing for 65 employees at Yosemite Village:

- Retain permanent housing at Indian Creek and Upper Tecoya Management Housing 

(28 employees). 

- Remove Ahwahnee Row homes, Y Apartments, garage housing, and Hospital Row 

(43 employees). 

- Remove Tecoya Dorms (232 employees). 

An additional 426 concessioner employees working in Yosemite Valley would be housed in El Portal.

Segment 3: Merced Gorge (Scenic Segment)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

All actions to protect and enhance river values in Segment 3 for Alternative 2 are included in the “Actions 

Common to Alternatives 2-6” (beginning on page 8-47).

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

This alternative would provide for the same kinds and amounts of use that exist today. The majority of 

actions for Alternative 2 in Segment 3 are discussed in the “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” (page 8-

47). Alternative actions that are not included in that section are listed below. 

In addition to the “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” (beginning on page 8-47), Alternative 2 would 

include the following actions to manage user capacity, land use and facilities: 

Visitor Activities and Services 

Under Alternative 2, only private boats would be allowed in this Segment 3. It is expected that kayaks would 

be the craft used in this segment. Boaters would be allowed on the river below Pohono Bridge (in Segment 

2) through El Portal (Segment 4). Boaters would be allowed to put in and take out at any of the roadside 

pull-outs. This use would be managed by a permit system and restricted to five boats per day. 

Transit Options

Public transit options along this segment would be expanded as described in the Yosemite Valley segment 

(see Segment 2 - Transit Options above). 

Segment 4: El Portal (Recreational Segment)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

All actions to protect and enhance river values in Segment 4 under Alternative 2 are addressed in “Actions 

Common to Alternatives 2-6” (beginning on page 8-47).

8-110 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 2: Self-Reliant Visitor Experiences and Extensive Floodplain Restoration 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-111 

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management 

Alternative 2 would provide for the same kinds and amounts of use that exist today. User capacity in this 

segment for this alternative is primarily affected by the increase in employee housing proposed for El Portal. 

While all new units would be built outside of the 100-year floodplain, most of them would be within the 

river corridor. Increasing the amount of housing in El Portal would offset the reduction in employee 

housing in Yosemite Valley. 

Visitor Activities and Services 

Most visitor activities and services in Segment 4 are considered in “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” 

(beginning on page 8-47). Additional actions are listed below: 

 Allow only private boats in Segment 4. Expected use would be mostly rafts and kayaks. Boaters 

would be allowed to paddle the stretch of river from below Yosemite View Lodge to beyond the 

Foresta Bridge (at which point boaters would enter river reaches managed by the U.S. Forest 

Service). Boaters would be able to use put-ins and take-outs west of the hotel, at the store/gas 

station and at the Red Bud launch site. This use would be regulated through a permitting system 

that allows for five boats per day. 

Visitor Overnight Capacity 

No visitor overnight accommodations are proposed on NPS lands in this alternative. 

Visitor Day-use Parking Capacity 

Day-use and parking capacities would remain the same as current conditions, with a total of 214 spaces 

accommodating up to 740 people at one time. 

Administrative Activities 

All administrative activities in Segment 4 are considered in “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” (see page 

8-47). 

Employee Housing Capacity 

In Alternative 2, high-density employee housing would be added to the Abbieville and Trailer Village site 

(405 beds). Infill units would also be constructed in the El Portal Village Center (12 beds) and in Rancheria 

Flat (9 beds). All new units would be located outside of the 100-year floodplain. The new housing proposed 

for El Portal would replace 426 concessioner employee beds removed from Yosemite Valley. 

Administrative use at the Yellow Pine Administrative Campground would be relocated to Abbieville and 

Trailer Village. 

Employee and Administrative Parking Capacity 

Most employee and administrative parking actions are discussed in “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6”. 

Additionally, nine spaces would be added with the Rancheria Flat housing expansion, 12 spaces would be 

added with the El Portal housing expansion, and 405 spaces would be added for residents of the Abbieville 

and Trailer Village site. 
ALTERNATIVES

Transit Options

Regional transit options would maintain existing service along the Highway 140 corridor. 

Segment 5: South Fork Merced above Wawona (Wild Segment)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

There are no actions in Alternative 2 that are specific to this segment.

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Alternative 2 would provide for the same kinds and amounts of use that exist today in Segment 5. The 

majority of actions for Alternative 2 in Segment 5 are discussed in “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” 

(beginning on page 8-47). Alternative actions that are not included in that section are listed below. 

Visitor Activities and Services

Private boating would be allowed in this segment. Generally, use in this segment would consist of short 

floats using craft that could easily be carried into this remote area. Use levels would not be restricted, as 

minimal use is expected due to the remote location of the segment. 

Transit Options

Specific transportation options for reaching the trailheads providing access to Segment 5 are listed below 

under Segment 7. 

Segments 6 and 7: Wawona Impoundment and Wawona (Recreational Segments)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

In addition to the “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” (see page 8-47), protection and enhancement of 

cultural values and water quality would be accomplished through the actions described below.

Cultural Values/Water Quality

• Stock Campground – Relocate stock campground (two sites) from a culturally sensitive area to the 

Wawona stables area. 

• Wawona Campground – Remove 32 sites that are either within the 100-year floodplain or in areas

with sensitive cultural resources. 

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Alternative 2 would enhance river-related recreation by making critical infrastructure improvements where 

necessary, while reducing activities and visitor services that are not directly related to resource-based 

recreation. The changes to facilities and services proposed under Alternative 2 would accomplish objectives 

for both ecological restoration and the type of visitor experience to be provided. The majority of actions for 

Alternative 2 in Segment 7 are discussed in “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” (beginning on page 8-47). 

Alternative actions that are not included in that section are listed below.

8-112 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 2: Self-Reliant Visitor Experiences and Extensive Floodplain Restoration 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-113 

Visitor Activities and Services 

Most visitor activities and services in Segment 7 are considered in “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” 

(beginning on page 8-47). Additional actions are listed below: 

 Boating – Only private boating would be allowed. Expected use would be kayaks and other small 

whitewater boats. Boaters would be permitted below Swinging Bridge to beyond the park 

boundary, with the exception of the Wawona impoundment. Boaters would be able to use put-ins 

and take-outs at Swinging Bridge, the Wawona Store area, South Fork Picnic Area, and below the 

campground. This use would be regulated through river patrol and monitoring, as the use level is 

expected to be low (and therefore would not be limited). 

 Golfing – Remove the Wawona Golf Course and shop to accommodate ecological restoration. A 

wastewater treatment spray field would remain. 

 Tennis – Remove the tennis court at the Wawona Hotel. 

 Wawona Commercial Stables – Discontinue commercial horseback day rides and remove the 

historic Wawona stables; adapt the stables area as a stock use campground. 

Visitor Overnight Capacity 

The total overnight capacity for Segment 7 would be 171 units accommodating 426 people. 

The Wawona Campground would be reduced to 65 campsites (414 people at one time). This includes a 

group site (to accommodate up to 30 persons). The two campsites at the Wawona stock camp would be 

relocated to the vicinity of Wawona stables (accommodating 12 people per night). 

Visitor Day-use Capacity 

Total visitor day-use capacity for this area would be increased from 1,295 to 1,321 people at one time. This 

increase is due to new regional transit options that are assumed to add up to 26 people at one time to this 

segment. 

Transit Options 

Regional transportation options on Wawona Road, between Yosemite Valley and Mariposa Grove would 

continue at existing service levels. One run would be added between Fresno/Oakhurst and Yosemite Valley. 

Segment 8: South Fork Merced below Wawona (Wild Segment) 

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values 

There are no actions in Alternative 2 that are specific to this segment. 

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management 

Alternative 2 would provide for the same kinds and amounts of use that exist today in Segment 8. The 

majority of actions for Alternative 2 in Segment 8 are discussed in “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6”. 

Alternative actions that are not included in that section are listed below. 
ALTERNATIVES

Visitor Activities and Services 

Private boating would be allowed in Segment 8 and would consist of short floats using inflatable rafts, or 

pass-through trips by experienced kayakers. Permits would not be required as the anticipated use level is 

very low. 

Transit Options

Transit services for access to Segment 8 are described above under Segment 7.

Conceptual Site Drawings

Boys Town 

In Alternative 2, Southside Drive would be removed from Stoneman Meadow to allow restoration, and 

visitor traffic would be re-routed through Curry Village. All tent cabins and cabins-without-bath structures 

would be removed and replaced with 78 new lodging units suitable for year-round accommodation. This 

would consist of 25 duplex buildings and seven 4-plex buildings, all with private baths. A new 2,840-foot 

long pedestrian pathway and 78 new overnight guest parking spaces would be constructed along a new 

roadway connecting Curry Village and the campgrounds. The Campground Reservation Center would be 

relocated to a more accessible location, closer to East Valley campgrounds. The Curry Orchard Parking 

Area would be improved using best management practices to have a total of 420 parking spaces. New 

ground disturbance within the 8.4-acre project area would include: approximately 33,000 square feet for 

new buildings; 56,800 square feet of utility service trenching; 14,200 square feet for pedestrian pathways; 

and 23,400 square feet of new parking, for a total of 2.9 acres. Temporary construction staging would cover 

approximately 1.4 acres and would likely take place within the existing Curry Orchard Parking Area. 

Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area

In Alternative 2, the existing 12-acre Yosemite Village (Camp 6) day-use parking area and all associated 

roadway improvements would be removed from the 10-year floodplain of the river to facilitate riparian 

restoration goals and prevent further resource damage. Restoration actions would remove non-native fill 

material, re-contour the topography, and reintroduce native vegetation to restored areas. A re-designed 

parking area would be improved to provide 550 parking spaces. Northside Drive would be abandoned east 

of the intersection with Village Drive (access to the Ahwahnee Hotel) and realigned to the south edge of the 

parking area (where it would connect Sentinel Drive and Village Drive). By consolidating the parking area

behind the Village Store, adding new and improved walkways to Yosemite Village, and realigning the 

roadway around the parking area, vehicle and pedestrian conflicts would be eliminated. A new bus 

passenger unloading area would be established east of the Village market, and five new spaces would be 

provided for bus parking. The Concessioner General Office, Concessioner Garage, Art Activity Center 

(former bank building) would be removed, while the Village Sport Shop would be repurposed as a visitor 

contact station.

The project area for the Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area in Alternative 2 would encompass 

approximately 22 acres, most of which is currently developed, and include: 1.2 acres for existing building 

removal; 1,000 square feet for the new restroom; 5.4 acres of pavement removal; 1.7 acres of new roadway; 

8-114 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 2: Self-Reliant Visitor Experiences and Extensive Floodplain Restoration

2.4 acres for new parking; 14,900 square feet of utility service trenching; and 38,000 square feet for new 

pedestrian pathways. Temporary construction staging would cover approximately 2 acres. 

Yosemite Lodge

In Alternative 2, all lodging units would be removed while the central food service and retail structures would 

remain available to support day-use visitation. The sites north and east of the remaining lodge would be 

improved as a day-use parking area with 250 spaces. The area west of Yosemite Lodge, currently used as 

parking for tour buses and transit buses would be redeveloped as a walk-in campground with 104 sites, 150 

parking spaces, parking for 15 buses, and a 3,000-square-foot comfort station. The VIP Office, linen storage 

and laundry buildings, temporary housing at Highland Court, and the historic employee Thousands Cabins

would be removed. 

The project area for improvements west of the Lodge would cover 11.9 acres, most of which is currently 

developed, and include: 55,850 square feet of existing building and pavement removal; 8,300 square feet of 

utility service trenching; 2.9 acres for parking; and 2,500 square feet for pedestrian pathways. Construction 

staging for the redesigned parking area and the campground would take place over a 2 acre area within the 

existing footprint. Existing vegetation would be retained to separate and screen parking bays, while bioswales 

would serve to filter and treat storm water run-off.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-115
ALTERNATIVES

This page intentionally left blank

8-116 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
*These drawings are provided to demonstrate where facilities would be removed, relocated, or constructed according to actions more fully described by project alternatives. The drawings 

 do not represent a final proposal. More detailed design and construction documents would be developed consistent with the general concepts presented here.

NORTH

Huff House Employee Housing

Replace temporary housing with permanent facilities,

164 beds and 164 parking spaces

Boys Town Guest Lodging

Replace tent cabins 78 permanent guest cabins

and 78 parking spaces

Alternative 2

Conceptual Site Drawing for

Curry Village

Yosemite National Park

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

Construct 4 two-story buildings for 32 occupants, 8 occupants per building.

Construct 11 two-story buildings for 132 occupants, 12 occupants per building.

Provide common recreational area, approximately 3,600 square feet.

Build plaza areas and walkways with site furnishings, accent paving, and 

enhanced landscaping.

Construct a shuttle bus stop.

Remove ice rink and bicycle rentals. Construct an employee parking facility with 

164 spaces.

Retain historic residence for housing purposes.

Construct 25 duplex buildings replicating historic cabins, or 50 units subtotal.

Construct 7 four-plex buildings, or 28 units subtotal.

Relocate the Campground Reservation Center. Provide 8 parking spaces.

Construct a roadway to connect Curry Village and East Valley Campgrounds, with 78 guest 

parking spaces.

Improve parking area with 420 spaces and landscape buffers with trees and bioswales that 

will treat storm water run-off.

Remove Stoneman Road and adjacent recreation trail, 

extend boardwalk from existing terminus (at Stoneman 

Road) to Curry Village Pavilion area. Improve hydrology, 

remove invasive species, promote weed control and 

plant native species. Provide pedestrian walkways.

Retain existing historic cabins and Stoneman Cottage 

(65 lodging units).

Retain existing Curry Pavilion.

Retain 290 tents.

Curry Orchard Parking Area

Meadow Restoration Area

Existing Curry Village Visitor Services

2

1

3

4

5

6

7

10

11

12

13

14

14

8

9

2

1

3

4

7 5 6

10

11

12

13

8

9

15

16

15

16
ALTERNATIVES

This page intentionally left blank 

8-118 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
*These drawings are provided to demonstrate where facilities would be removed, relocated, or constructed according to actions more fully described by project alternatives. 

 The drawings do not represent a final proposal. More detailed design and construction documents would be developed consistent with the general concepts presented here.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Conceptual Site Drawing for

Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area

Yosemite National Park

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

Use the 10-year floodplain to establish limits of development. Restore 

wetlands and meadow.

Reroute Northside Drive to conform to the floodplain extent and south edge 

of day-use parking area. Northside Drive is eliminated east of this location.

Eliminate Concessioner General Office and Garage between the Village Store 

and Ahwahnee Meadow, providing more space for visitor parking. Employee 

dormitories and housing would be removed in Alternative 2 (as drawn), but 

retained in Alternative 3.

Provide 550 day-use parking spaces in between Northside Drive and Yosemite 

Village. Integrate landscaped areas to retain large numbers of trees, and 

include bioswales that will treat storm water run-off. Improve access through a 

system of pedestrian pathways leading to the Yosemite Village mall.

Retain existing shuttle stops on Visitor Center Loop Drive.

Establish bus passenger unloading area east of the Yosemite Village mall.

Replace Village Sport Shop with visitor contact station.

Eliminate art activity center and improve pedestrian access.

Improve pedestrian connections and bike paths east and west of the day-use 

parking area. 

NORTH

8

9

9

2

2

1

3

3

3

4

5

5

6

7

1

8

9

2

3

4

5

6

7
ALTERNATIVES

This page intentionally left blank 

8-120 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
NORTH

*These drawings are provided to demonstrate where facilities would be removed, relocated, or constructed according to actions more fully described by project alternatives. 

The drawings do not represent a final proposal. More detailed design and construction documents would be developed consistent with the general concepts presented here.

Alternative 2

Conceptual Site Drawing for

Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4

Yosemite National Park

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

Construct 250 day-use parking spaces. Remove all 

existing lodging units. Locate new parking within 

disturbed area. Maintain existing vegetation as 

buffers to separate and screen parking bays, provide 

pedestrian pathways and bioswales that will retain 

storm water run-off.

Construct shuttle stop with shelter.

Retain core visitor service buildings and courtyard. 

Limit visitor services to food service, interpretive 

displays and restroom facilities.

Modify food service delivery area.

Move pedestrian crossing to Yosemite Falls west of the 

existing intersection.

Create 104 walk-in campsites. Provide 100 standard 

campsites and 4 group walk-in sites. Occupancy 

is limited to 6 campers per site. Standard walk-in 

campsite is 3,850 square feet (70-foot diameter), 

including 1,200 square feet of clearance with a 15-

foot perimeter buffer. Of the 104 sites, 4 are group 

walk-in sites.

Retain 35 existing walk-in campsites at Camp 4. 

Construct 35 additional walk-in sites opposite existing 

parking facility.

Construct a total of 191 parking spaces; 41 spaces for 

Camp 4 and 150 spaces for the walk-in camp sites. 

Maintain existing vegetation as buffers to separate 

and screen parking bays, provide pedestrian pathways 

and bioswales that will retain storm water run-off.

Construct a shuttle bus stop at Camp 4.

Protect and enhance a 150-foot riparian buffer.

Remove employee housing and restore vegetation and 

hydrological processes.

Construct 15 tour bus parking spaces.
ALTERNATIVES

This page intentionally left blank

8-122 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 3: Dispersed Visitor Experience And Extensive Riverbank Restoration

ALTERNATIVE 3: DISPERSED VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND EXTENSIVE 

RIVERBANK RESTORATION 

Overview

The guiding principles of Alternative 3 would include restoration of large portions of the floodplain and the 

riparian area within 150 feet of the river. This alternative would accommodate the lowest peak visitor use 

levels and offer fewer commercial services and facilities. Visitor use levels would be managed to allow for 

dispersed visitor experiences free of crowding or congestion. 

Management actions in Alternative 3 would:

• Restore 308 acres of meadow and riparian habitat. 

• Reduce the campsite inventory in all river segments (-3%) and increase campsite inventory in 

Yosemite Valley (+2%). 

• Reduce the lodging inventory in all river segments (-38%) and in Yosemite Valley (-40%). 

• Reduce parking for Yosemite Valley day use (-32%). 

• Minimize commercial services provided by the park’s primary concessioner.

• Make significant changes to the traffic circulation pattern in Yosemite Valley to accommodate 

ecological restoration goals and to reduce traffic congestion. 

• Establish a user capacity of 12,800 people at one time for Yosemite Valley, with peak visitation 

estimated at 13,200 visitors per day.

• Continue to manage overnight use through the Wilderness permit system and reservation systems 

for lodging and camping. 

• Manage user capacity for East Yosemite Valley through permits and a reservation system required 

during the peak summer season. 

Under Alternative 3, visitors to Yosemite Valley would experience the same changes described by 

Alternative 2, namely in circulation, roadway realignments, ecological restoration, better defined access to 

parking and improved pedestrian circulation. 

At Curry Village, Boys Town tent cabins would be removed to allow meadow restoration and re-routing of 

the road. The bicycle rental, raft rentals, and ice skating rink would be removed, while food service, 

groceries, pool, and the mountaineering shop would be retained. A limited number of private boaters would 

still be able to raft or kayak in Yosemite Valley, with additional reaches of the Merced River opened to

boating. Cyclists would be able to ride bicycles in Yosemite Valley with personal equipment or equipment 

rented outside the park. The commercial stables near Curry Village would be removed and commercial 

horseback day rides discontinued. Private horseback riding would continue in Yosemite Valley and further 

into the high country. All lodging and associated facilities would be removed from Housekeeping Camp, 

and that area would be repurposed for improved beach access and day use. The Happy Isles snack stand 

would also be removed. 

Overnight accommodations would be focused on camping, with a reduction in hotel units associated with 

the removal of tent cabins at Curry Village and the removal of four of the Yosemite Lodge buildings located 

in the floodplain. Camping would continue to be provided at Lower, Upper, and North Pines campgrounds,

and Backpackers Campground would be relocated west of its current location. A new walk-in campground 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-123
ALTERNATIVES

would be constructed to the east of Camp 4 so that the total number of campsites in Yosemite Valley would 

only decrease slightly. The bike rental, pool, post office, and snack stand would be removed at Yosemite 

Lodge, while food service would continue to be provided. Four lodging buildings (102 units) would be 

removed from the floodplain. A new day-use parking area would be provided west of the Lodge in an area 

currently used for bus parking and storage. The pool and tennis courts would be removed at the Ahwahnee 

Hotel.

The West Valley would retain its overall natural character, with limited structures, and continue to serve as a 

destination for lower use recreational activities such as hiking, rock climbing, photography, and scenic 

viewing. 

Those visitors hiking to Wilderness along the Merced River corridor would be able to camp with a 

Wilderness permit, but the formally-designated backpackers campgrounds would be converted to dispersed 

camping and the Merced Lake High Sierra camp permanent facilities would be removed and replaced by an 

outfitter’s camp. 

For those visitors travelling to Wawona, there will be improved transit; YARTS will add a run from Fresno 

to Yosemite Valley along Wawona Road. Lodging would still be available at the Wawona Hotel, although 

the golf course and tennis courts would be removed. The Wawona campground would be reduced in size, 

and commercial horseback riding rentals would no longer be available. Private boating would be allowed on 

the South Fork Merced.

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

Alternative 3 would protect and enhance river values through extensive ecological restoration that would 

include portions of the 100-year floodplain and riparian and meadow habitat corridorwide. Similar to 

Alternatives 2 and 4, it would prioritize enhancement of ecological river values over the retention of existing 

circulation patterns and infrastructure. Ecological restoration actions would target priority meadow and 

riparian habitat for enhancement, including the area currently occupied by the Wawona Golf Course and 

the dynamic ten-year floodplain area formerly occupied by the Upper and Lower River Campgrounds. A

large valley oak habitat protection area would be created in El Portal. The alluvial processes of the river 

would be enhanced by removing three bridges within the bed and banks that constrict flow during highwater events. Hydrologic connectivity of meadows to the riparian floodplain would be enhanced through 

the removal of certain road segments that bisect meadows.

Cultural and scenic values would be protected and enhanced as described under “Actions Common to 

Alternatives 2-6” (beginning on page 8-47). Recreational values would additionally be protected and 

enhanced under Alternative 3 by reducing camps and numbers of visitors to the Wilderness above Nevada 

Fall, by improving access to key attraction sites, and by managing boating to improve dispersed recreation 

along the river in Yosemite Valley. Table 8-17 provides a summary of the proposed ecological restoration 

actions and the reasons for those proposed actions. 

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Alternative 3 would focus on providing a dispersed visitor experience, with marked reduction in 

commercial services and facilities. The overall visitor use levels would be lower than current levels, in order

to allow for increased resource restoration and reduced crowding and congestion in the most popular areas of 

the river corridor. Table 8-18 provides a summary of user capacities by use type and location.

8-124 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 3: Dispersed Visitor Experience And Extensive Riverbank Restoration

TABLE 8-17: ADDITIONAL ACTIONS TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE RIVER VALUES, ALTERNATIVE 3 

Ecological Restoration Actions (Free Flow, Water Quality, Geological/Hydrological, and Biological Values)

Corridorwide

Ecological Restoration 

Acreage

308 acres: 176 acres (common to all) plus an additional 132 acres (refer to Appendix E for specific 

locations)

Riprap to be Removed 6,135 feet: 5,700 linear feet (common to all) plus an additional 435 feet (refer to Appendix E 

Restoration Map Series for specific locations)

Segment 1: Wilderness above Nevada Fall

 Remove Merced Lake High Sierra Camp and restore to natural conditions.

Segment 2: Yosemite Valley 

Free Flow / Geologic / 

Hydrologic Values

 Remove Ahwahnee, Sugar Pine, and Stoneman bridges to enhance the alluvial processes of the 

river.

Riparian Buffer / 

Floodplain

 Ecologically restore 35.6 acres of habitat in former Upper and Lower River campgrounds. 

 Move Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area north, outside the 10-year floodplain. 

 Ecologically restore riparian habitat within 150 feet of the river at Backpackers Campground and 

portions of North Pines, Lower Pines, and Wawona Campgrounds. 

 Remove all of Housekeeping Camp and portions of Yosemite Lodge from the 100-year floodplain 

and restore natural floodplain conditions. 

Meadow Restoration

 Remove 900 feet of Northside Drive through Ahwahnee Meadow to enhance connectivity of the 

meadow and floodplain.

 Remove 1,335 feet of Southside Drive through Stoneman Meadow to enhance connectivity of the 

meadow and floodplain.

Segment 7 : Wawona

Meadow Restoration  Ecologically restore 42-acre Wawona Golf Course to meadow habitat.

Recreational Values

Segment 1: Wilderness above Nevada Fall

Wilderness Recreation

 Convert Merced Lake High Sierra Camp to temporary stock camp with reduced overnight capacity 

and convert area to designated Wilderness.

 Reduce zone capacities and convert overnight use to dispersed camping.

Visitor Activities and Services

Alternative 3 would significantly reduce commercial facilities and services. Reduced facilities and services 

would include the removal of some duplicative retail stores and snack stands, as well as the elimination of 

commercial horseback day rides in Yosemite Valley. Alternative 3 would also remove the bike rentals, raft 

rentals, ice skating rink, grocery store at Housekeeping Camp, and two swimming pools in Yosemite Valley.

TABLE 8-18: USER CAPACITIES BY USE TYPE AND LOCATION – ALTERNATIVE 3

User Capacities by Use Type and Location Alt 1 (No Action) Alt 3

Unit Type Units People Units People

Wilderness Above Nevada Fall

Visitor Overnight Use Zone Capacities and Beds 380 380 260 260

Visitor Day Use Day Hikers 350 350 350 350

Employee Housing (in camps) Employee Beds 15 15 10 10

Administrative Day Use Day Patrols 5 5 5 5 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-125
ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 8-18: USER CAPACITIES BY USE TYPE AND LOCATION – ALTERNATIVE 3

User Capacities by Use Type and Location Alt 1 (No Action) Alt 3

Unit Type Units People Units People

Yosemite Valley

Visitor Overnight Use Rooms & Campsites 1,500 6,564 1,098 5,027

Visitor Day Use Parking Spaces & Buses - 11,727 - 6,289

Employee Housing Employee Beds 1,315 1,315 1,086 1,086

Administrative Day Use Parking Spaces 166 332 166 332

Merced Gorge

Visitor Overnight Use Rooms & Campsites - - - -

Visitor Day Use Parking Spaces 180 869 180 869

Employee Housing Employee Beds 9 9 9 9 

Administrative Day Use Parking Spaces 2 4 2 4 

El Portal

Visitor Overnight Use Rooms & Campsites - - - -

Visitor Day Use Parking Spaces 214 740 214 740

Employee Housing Employee Beds 192 192 223 223

Administrative Day Use Parking Spaces 610 1,220 610 1,220

South Fork Above Wawona

Visitor Overnight Use Permits 20 20 20 20

Visitor Day Use Day Hikers 6 6 6 6

Employee Housing Employee Beds - - - - 

Administrative Day Use Day Patrols 1 1 1 1 

Wawona

Visitor Overnight Use Rooms & Campsites 203 865 176 703

Visitor Day Use Parking Spaces & Buses - 1,295 - 1,321

Employee Housing Employee Beds 220 427 205 406

Administrative Day Use Parking Spaces 30 60 30 60

South Fork Below Wawona

Visitor Overnight Use Permits - - - - 

Visitor Day Use Day Hikers 6 6 6 6 

Employee Housing Employee Beds - - - -

Administrative Day Use Day Patrols 1 1 1 1 

Visitor Overnight Capacity

Camping

The campsite inventory in the Merced Wild and Scenic River corridor, including Yosemite Valley, would be 

reduced by approximately 3% as a result of natural and cultural resource protection actions. All campsites 

within 150 feet of the river would be removed. Campsite losses would be offset with the addition of new 

camping adjacent to Upper Pines Campground and east of Camp 4, as well as new sites west of Backpackers 

Camp. Under Alternative 3, the total number of campsites in Yosemite Valley would increase to 477; the 

total number of campsites available in the corridor would be 549. Table 8-19 provides a summary of the 

proposed changes to camping and the reasons for those proposed changes.

8-126 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 3: Dispersed Visitor Experience And Extensive Riverbank Restoration

TABLE 8-19: CAMPING FACILITIES – ALTERNATIVE 3 

Existing Locations

Alt 1 

(No Action) Alt 3 Details

Backpackers 25 sites 0 sites 25 walk-in sites removed, of which 21 are within 150 feet of the 

river; 16 of these sites would be relocated west of Backpackers

Camp 4 35 sites 35 sites No change to this National Historic Register Site

Lower Pines 76 sites 61 sites 15 sites within 150 feet of the river removed

North Pines 86 sites 52 sites 34 sites within 150 feet of the river removed

Upper Pines 240 sites 238 sites 2 sites removed for archeological resource concerns 

Yellow Pine Administrative 4 sites 4 sites No changes to these group administrative sites

Wawona Campground 99 sites 72 sites 27 sites within 150 feet of the river or in culturally sensitive areas 

removed

Total Existing Locations 565 sites 462 sites

New Locations Alt 1 Alt 3 Details

West of Backpackers 0 sites 16 sites 16 walk-in sites relocated from Backpackers Campground to less 

sensitive area outside 100-year floodplain

East of Camp 4 0 sites 35 sites 35 walk-in sites constructed in area east of Camp 4

Upper Pines 0 sites 36 sites 36-site RV loop constructed

Total New Camping 0 sites 87 sites

Total Camping in Corridor 565 sites 549 sites

Lodging

In-park lodging availability would be reduced by approximately 38% compared to Alternative 1 (No 

Action). Management actions related to lodging would focus on removing lodging units from the 100-year 

floodplain at Yosemite Lodge, and Housekeeping Camp, and in Wilderness. All permanent infrastructure at 

the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp would be removed. A pack camp with a maximum capacity of 15 people 

would replace the High Sierra Camp, accommodating limited overnight lodging in this location while still 

allowing the area to be converted to designated Wilderness. No new permanent lodging would be 

constructed in Alternative 3. As a result of these actions, the in-park lodging inventory would be reduced 

from 1,160 units to 725 units. Table 8-20 provides a summary of the proposed changes to lodging and the 

reasons for those proposed changes.

Parking Inventory and Access Improvements

Day-use parking capacity in Yosemite Valley would be reduced by 32% compared to current levels. For day 

use, restrictions would be set due to proposed reductions in day-use parking in Yosemite Valley. Day-use 

capacity would be actively managed and potentially restricted during peak use season (May through 

September). A day-use permit system would be implemented in this alternative during the peak summer 

season. . The most significant changes to parking and circulation would take place in the vicinity of the dayuse parking area near Yosemite Village and Yosemite Lodge. Day-use visitors would park at a redesigned 

parking area at Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area, with a total of 550 parking spaces. Another day-use 

parking area with 150 parking spaces would be added to the west of Yosemite Lodge, along with day-use 

tour and transit bus parking. Total parking for East Yosemite Valley (including day, overnight and 

administrative uses) would be approximately 4,300 spaces. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-127
ALTERNATIVES

8-128 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 

Transit services would remain unchanged on the Highway 140 (El Portal Road) and Highway 120 East 

(Tioga Road) corridors; service would be reduced to one round-trip per day on the Highway 120 West (Big 

Oak Flat) corridor. One round-trip run per day would be added to the Highway 41 (Wawona Road) 

corridor. All within-park shuttle services would remain the same, and the East Valley shuttle would decrease 

shuttle intervals to five minutes. Table 8-20 provides a summary of the total number of parking spaces for 

each relevant segment of the corridor. 

TABLE 8-20: LODGING FACILITIES – ALTERNATIVE 3 

Wilderness 

Alt 1 

(No Action) Alt 3 Details 

Merced Lake 

High Sierra Camp 

22 units 

(60 beds) 

0 units 

(15 people) 

All permanent infrastructure removed. Wilderness lodging 

facility converted to 15-person temporary pack camp. 

Yosemite Valley Alt 1 Alt 3 Details 

Ahwahnee Hotel 123 rooms 123 rooms No change at this National Historic Landmark 

Housekeeping Camp 266 units 0 units Remove all 266 units from 100-year floodplain 

Curry Village 400 units 

355 units 

(290 canvas tent 

cabins and 65 

hard-sided units) 

 Retain 290 canvas tent cabins 

 Retain 18 units at Stoneman House 

 Retain 47 cabin-with-bath units 

 At Boys Town, Southside Drive is re-routed and the area 

restored. 

Yosemite Lodge 245 rooms 143 rooms Remove 102 rooms (four buildings) from 100-year floodplain 

Wawona Alt 1 Alt 3 Details 

Wawona Hotel 104 rooms 104 rooms No change at this National Historic Landmark 

Total Lodging in Corridor 1,160 units 725 units

The most significant changes to parking and circulation would take place in the vicinity of the day-use 

parking area near Yosemite Village and Yosemite Lodge. Day-use visitors would park at a redesigned 

parking area at Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area, with a total of 550 parking spaces. Another day-use 

parking area with 150 parking spaces would be added to the west of Yosemite Lodge, along with day-use 

tour and transit bus parking. Total parking for East Yosemite Valley (including day, overnight and 

administrative uses) would be approximately 4,300 spaces. 

Transit services would remain unchanged on the Highway 140 (El Portal Road) and Highway 120 East 

(Tioga Road) corridors; service would be reduced to one round-trip per day on the Highway 120 West (Big 

Oak Flat) corridor. One round-trip run per day would be added to the Highway 41 (Wawona Road) 

corridor. All within-park shuttle services would remain the same, and the East Valley shuttle would decrease 

shuttle intervals to five minutes. 

TABLE 8-21: NUMBER OF DAY-USE PARKING SPACES IN SEGMENTS – ALTERNATIVE 3 

Location Alt 1 (No Action) Alt 3 

Segment 2: Yosemite Valley 2,337 spaces 1,597spaces 

Segment 3: The Gorge 180 spaces 180 spaces 

Segment 4: El Portal 214 spaces 214 spaces 

Segment 7: Wawona 290 spaces 290 spaces 

Total Day-use Parking 3,021 spaces 2,281 spaces 
Housekeeping Camp Footbridge

Northside Drive

Curry 

Village

Lower Pines

Campground

North Pines

Campground

Upper Pines

Campground

Clark'sBridge

Tenaya

Bridge

River Corridor Boundary

Boys

Town

Southside Drive

The Ahwahnee Backpackers

Campground

Happy Isles Bridge

Merced River

Royal Arches

Meadow

Ahwahnee

Meadow

Stoneman

Meadow

Huff

House

Concessioner

Stables

Tennis Court

Former Upper and Lower

River Campground Area

Ahwahnee

Parking

Wilderness

Parking

Curry Village

Parking

0 0.25 Miles

1

2

3

4

5

6

ALTERNATIVE 3CURRY VILLAGE AND CAMPGROUNDS

Tenaya Creek

EAST 1. Fo

• 

flw

2. Riv

• A

et

• S

S

3. Cu

• 

c

• C• 

w

• • C

v

4. No

• 

a

• • 

C

• C

a

5. Low

• C

6. Up

• C• 

ALTERNATIVE 3: DISPERSED VISITOR EXPERIENCES AND EXTENSIVE RIVERBANK RES
This page intentionally left blank

8-130 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
!5

River Corridor Boundary

Merced River

Northside Drive

Ahwahnee Road

Southside Drive

Yosemite Creek

Bridge Cook's Meadow

Ahwahnee

Meadow

Lost Arrow

Sentinel Drive

Rangers'

Club

Le Conte

Memorial Lodge

Church Bowl

Picnic Area

Sentinel Bridge

Housekeeping

Bridge

Superintendent's

Bridge

Housekeeping Camp

Yosemite Village Day-Use 

Parking Area

Village Store Complex

0 0.25 Miles

ALTERNATIVE 3YOSEMITE VILLAGE AND HOUSEKEEPING CAMP

¬«2

¬«3

¬«4

¬«5

¬«6

 ̄

Yosemite Village

¬«7

Government 

Utility Building

¬«1

EAST 1. Lo

spa

2. Yo

Fowa

3. Eco

me

4. Pe

Coanrou

5. Co

ha

6. Ah

to Ahori

7. Ho

anres

ALTERNATIVE 3: DISPERSED VISITOR EXPERIENCES AND EXTENSIVE RIVERBANK RES
This page intentionally left blank

8-132 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
!F

ÆQ

!i

!i

!i

Southside

Drive

Camp 4 

Campground

Yosemite

Lodge

Sentinel Meadow

Merced River Northside

Drive

Yosemite Lodge

Parking Area

Residence 1

0 500 Feet

ALTERNATIVE 3YOSEMITE LODGE AND CAMP 4

¬«1

 ̄

¬«2

¬«3 Cook's Meadow

Leidig Meadow

¬«4

EAST 1. We

• 

fq

2. Yo

• 

aAta

• • S• T

t

• C

eT

3. Yo

• T

a

4. Res

• 

atc

ALTERNATIVE 3: DISPERSED VISITOR EXPERIENCES AND EXTENSIVE RIVERBANK RES
This page intentionally left blank

8-134 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
!F

!F

!F

!5

!5

!5

!5

ÆQ

El Capitan

Meadow

Sentinel

Beach

El Capitan 

Bridge

Cathedral

Beach

Swinging

Bridge

Camp 4 Campground

Southside Drive

Northsi d

e

Drive

Merce

d River

Leidig 

Meadow

Slaughterhouse

Meadow

Sentinel

Rock

Lower Brother

Split Pinnacle

Cathedral Rocks

0 0.25 Miles

 ̄

ALTERNATIVE 3WEST YOSEMITE VALLEY

¬«1

¬«2 ¬«3

River C

orridor Boundary

Old El Portal

Abbieville Trailer

Village

Rancheria

Flat

NPS Warehouse &AdministrativeComplex

F orest a

Road

SIERRA NATIONAL FOREST

STANISLAUS NATIONAL FOREST

National Park Boundary

Greenemeyer

Sand Pit

H ig

hway 14 0

Hwy. 140 

Bridge

0 0.4 Miles

ALTERNATIVE 3EL PORTAL

1

2

River Corridor B

o

u

n

d

ary

M

erce

d

River

3

WEST YOSEMITE VALLEY1. El Capitan Meadow Area 

• El Capitan Meadow Ecological Re

in sensitive and frequently inundameadow access points. No boardw

2. Valley Loop Trail

• Trail Re-Route: Reroute trail throu

through Bridalveil Meadow to the 

3. Yellow Pine Campground

• Administrative-Use Campground

EL PORTAL1. Rancheria Flat

• Employee Housing: To replace tem

plus units for seven additional em

2. Abbieville and Trailer Village Area

• Abbieville and Trailer Village Hous

employees and volunteers at this 

3. El Portal Village Center

• Valley Oak Restoration: Restore th

practices. Create a valley oak recrthe adjacent parking lots. Decomconstruction within the oak recru

• Odger’s Fuel Storage Facility: Rem

soils, and plant appropriate native alternate source for emergency fu

ALTERNATIVE 3: DISPERSED VISITOR EXPERIENCES AND EXTENSIVE RIVERBANK RES
This page intentionally left blank

8-136 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Merced River

Merced Lake

Ranger Station !@

Merced

Lake Merced Lake

High Sierra Camp

Merced Lake

Backpackers

Camping Area !9

Merced Lake

East Meadow

ALTERNATIVE 3 0 0.2 Miles

MERCED LAKE HIGH SIERRA CAMP

¬«1

 ̄

River Corridor Boundary

¬«3

¬«2

MERCED LAKE HIGH SIERRA CAMP

1 Merced Lake Backpackers Camping Area: Discontinue designated camping in this camping area, but allow dispersed camping both here and in the former Merced Lake High Sierra 

Camp area. Remove waste water system. Replace flush toilets with composting toilets. 

2 Merced Lake High Sierra Camp: Convert Merced Lake High Sierra Camp to a temporary pack camp with a maximum group size of 15 people. Remove permanent infrastructure, 

 including buildings, water system and septic system. Ecologically restore the area and convert area to designated Wilderness. Establish a maximum limit of 2.5 pack strings-per-

 week for re-supply of the temporary outfitter camp for each season.

3 Merced Lake East Meadow: Establish a preliminary grazing capacity for the Merced Lake East Meadow of a maximum of 58 pack stock nights annually depending on meadow 

condition. Exclude packstock from seasonally inundated portions of the meadow. Meadow grazing opening dates may vary annually. Use levels may be adapted to ensure the 

meadow condition meets the Management Standard for Bare Soil Indicator. 

OTHER SEGMENT 1 CAMPING AREAS (NOT SHOWN ON MAP)

• Little Yosemite Valley: Discontinue designated camping but allow dispersed camping in this area. Remove all infrastructure, except for the composting toilets.

• Moraine Dome: Discontinue designated camping but allow dispersed camping in this area.

WAWONA

1 Wawona Campground: Retain 64 campsites and one group site. Remove 32 sites that are located within the 100-year floodplain or culturally sensitive areas.

2 Wawona Meadow Restoration: Remove golf course and restore to meadow conditions. Retain spray field associated with waste water treatment facility.

3 Wawona Stables: Eliminate stable operation and commercial day rides. Relocate two stock-use campground sites from a sensitive resource area to the existing stables area.

ALTERNATIVE 3: DISPERSED VISITOR EXPERIENCES AND EXTENSIVE RIVERBANK RESTORATION

8-137
This page intentionally left blank

8-138 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 3: Dispersed Visitor Experience And Extensive Riverbank Restoration

Detailed Description of Alternative 3 by Segment

Segment 1: Wilderness above Nevada Fall (Wild Segment)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

In addition to the “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” (beginning on page 8-47), Alternative 3 would 

include the following actions to protect and enhance river values:

Biological Values

• Establish a preliminary grazing capacity for the Merced Lake East Meadow: a maximum of 58 pack 

stock nights annually depending on meadow condition. Exclude pack stock from seasonally 

inundated portions of the meadow. Meadow grazing opening dates may vary annually. Use levels 

may be adapted to ensure the meadow condition meets the management standard for the bare soil 

indicator. 

Recreational Values

• Enhance Wilderness character by replacing the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp with a temporary 

stock camp, and converting this area to Wilderness.

• Reduce crowding by converting all designated camping areas to dispersed camping.

• Reduce trailhead quotas for trailheads that lead to Little Yosemite Valley.

• Establish a maximum limit of 2.5 pack strings per week for re-supply of the temporary outfitter 

camp. 

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of infrastructure in the river corridor in Segment 1, reduce the 

capacity of the Little Yosemite Valley Wilderness zone, re-purpose the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp as a 

temporary outfitter camp, and maintain the existing Wilderness zone quotas for all other zones in the river 

corridor. In addition to the “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6”, Alternative 3 would include the 

following actions to manage user capacity, land use and facilities: 

Visitor Activities and Services 

Primary activities in Segment 1 would continue to include hiking and overnight backpacking. Backpackers 

would stay overnight at dispersed areas throughout the Wilderness, rather than at designated camping 

areas. 

Private boating would be allowed in Segment 1 under Alternative 3. Generally, this kind of use would 

consist of short floats using craft that can easily be carried into this remote area. Put-ins and take-outs 

would be dispersed and the use level would be unrestricted (due to the expected low use levels associated 

with this remote area of the river). 

Under Alternative 3, the findings of the Determination of Extent Necessary (DEN) (Appendix L) would be 

implemented. Following is a summary of the commercial use permitted: 

• Allowance of one overnight commercial group per Wilderness zone.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-139
ALTERNATIVES

• No camping or travel allowed more than one-quarter mile from a maintained trail or public access 

road.

• All commercial stock trips are limited to a 1:1.5 stock to person ratio. Accordingly, for every 

multiple of three persons (including employees), only two pack animals are allowed in addition to 

three riding stock. 

• Additional seasonal and weekend restrictions would apply in the Mount Lyell, Merced Lake, and 

Little Yosemite Valley zones as indicated in Appendix L.

Visitor Overnight Capacity 

The Wilderness trailhead quota system would be maintained, with the changes proposed in Table 8-22. 

Services would be managed as follows under Alternative 3: 

• Convert the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp to a pack camp with a maximum of 15 people allowed; 

remove permanent infrastructure, including the water treatment system, and convert area to 

designated Wilderness. 

• Convert the Merced Lake Backpackers Camping Area to dispersed camping; replace the flush toilet 

with a composting toilet. 

• Convert the Little Yosemite Valley designated backpackers camping area to dispersed camping; 

retain the composting toilet. Reduce the capacity of the Little Yosemite Valley Wilderness zone.

• Eliminate the designated backpackers camping area at Moraine Dome.

TABLE 8-22: WILDERNESS ZONE CAPACITIES – ALTERNATIVE 3 

Wilderness Zones Alt 3 Zonewide Capacity

Alt 3 Zone Capacity**

Specific to the River Corridor

Little Yosemite Valley Zone 75 people (-75 people*) 75 people (-75 people*)

Merced Lake Zone 50 50

Washburn Lake Zone 150 100

Mount Lyell Zone 50 10

Clark Range Zone 50 10

NOTES: 

* Number of people reduced from Alternative 1 (No Action) to Alternative 3 

** For some Wilderness zones, only a small portion of river corridor overlaps the zone. Therefore, the NPS calculated capacities that itemize the 

number of people in both the Wilderness zone and the river corridor portion of the zone. These calculations assume that visitors have the ability 

to camp out of sight and sound of other parties and that minimum impact camping is available within the segment.

Visitor Day-use Capacity

Day-use access to this segment is addressed under the “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6.” 

Administrative Activities 

• Continue current administrative activities, which consist primarily of regular ranger patrols, 

backcountry utility work, and occasional trail/restoration work. These activities are seasonal and 

minimal in comparison to visitor use and would not affect overall user capacity.

8-140 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 3: Dispersed Visitor Experience And Extensive Riverbank Restoration

Segment 2: Yosemite Valley (Recreational and Scenic Segments)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

In addition to the “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” (beginning on page 8-47), Alternative 3 would 

include the following actions to protect and enhance river values:

Geological/Hydrological Values

• Remove Stoneman Bridge and restore the riverbank to natural conditions.

• Remove Sugar Pine and Ahwahnee bridges and associated berm/elevated trail connecting them; 

restore banks to natural conditions; re-route multi-use trail north along the river.

Biological Values

Alternative 3 would remove all campsites within 150 feet of the high-water mark:

• Remove all existing campsites and infrastructure within 150 feet of the ordinary high-water mark 

and restore natural floodplain and riparian habitat (12 acres).

- Backpackers Campground – Remove all 25 sites, 21 of which are within 150 feet of the 

ordinary high-water mark. (Replace 16 sites to the west of the current campground, in less 

sensitive area outside the 100-year floodplain.)

- North Pines Campground – Remove 34 sites from within 150 feet of the ordinary highwater mark; restore native riparian vegetation.

- Lower Pines Campground – Remove 15 sites from within 150 feet of the ordinary highwater mark; restore native riparian vegetation.

- Upper Pines Campground – Retain 238 campsites, removing 2 sites for archeological 

resource concerns. 

• Former Lower and Upper River Campgrounds – Remove all facilities, including the Lower River 

amphitheater structure, and restore 35.6 acres of natural floodplain topography and 

riparian/wetland habitat within the 10-year floodplain; temporarily fence restoration areas to allow 

for recovery.

• Yosemite Lodge – Remove four buildings at Yosemite Lodge containing 102 lodging units that are 

currently within the 100-year floodplain; restore the floodplain to natural conditions. 

• Former Pine and Oak Units – Restore 10.9 acres of riparian ecosystem at the site of the wellness 

center and former Yosemite Lodge units and cabins (removed after the 1997 flood) while 

maintaining access to the pump house and Yosemite Creek lift station. 

• Yosemite Village – Move the Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area northward, out of the 10-year 

floodplain of the Merced River and outside a designated 50-foot setback from Indian Creek; 

remove fill material and restore the floodplain to natural conditions.

• Housekeeping Camp – Remove all 266 lodging units and associated facilities at Housekeeping 

Camp (restrooms, shower houses, laundry, grocery store, and office) from the 100-year floodplain; 

convert area to a day-use access point. Direct visitor use and river access to resilient beach locations 

on the western edge of Housekeeping Camp and across the footbridge. Fence off the current 

eastern river access point located on a steep eroded bank, and actively restore the riverbank with 

brush layering. Where infrastructure is removed, de-compact soils and plant riparian species.

Alternative 3 would enhance meadow connectivity by removing segments of roads and trails that currently 

bisect meadows, interrupt sheetflow, and cause habitat fragmentation.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-141
ALTERNATIVES

• Bridalveil Meadow – Reroute the 780-foot segment of the Valley Loop Trail (that crosses the

meadow) closer to the base of the fill slope of the Valley Loop Road.

• Slaughterhouse Meadow – Reroute the portion of the Valley Loop Trail to an upland area out of 

wetlands. 

• El Capitan Meadow – Fence the northern perimeter of meadow to protect the restoration area; 

designate appropriate access points using boardwalks and viewing platforms. 

• Ahwahnee Meadow – Remove 900 feet of Northside Drive from the meadow; relocate the bike 

path to the south, restoring the meadow and riparian floodplain connectivity; restore meadow 

contours and native vegetation. Reroute trails through the meadow so they do not pass through 

wetlands, consolidating use with the Housekeeping footbridge trail where possible; remove 

associated fill and restore trails within wetlands.

• Stoneman Meadow – Remove the segment of Southside Drive that bisects the meadow (1,335 

feet); realign access via Curry Village and a new road through Boys Town. Extend the boardwalk 

through wet areas to Curry Village (up to 275 feet).

Scenic Values

• Eliminate visual intrusion of Southside Drive through Stoneman Meadow. 

• Eliminate visual intrusion of Northside Drive through Ahwahnee Meadow.

Cultural Values

• Remove three structures from sites representing the prominent historic patterns of development in 

Yosemite Valley: Sugar Pine Bridge, Ahwahnee Bridge, and Stoneman Bridge.

• Remove and relocate Superintendent’s House and Garage (Residence 1) to the NPS housing area 

and, at a minimum, stabilize the building per the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties (NPS 1995). 

Recreational Values

• Allow boating for up to 50 people per day using private vessels only, and restrict use to specific 

reaches of the river in Yosemite Valley. This reduction in boats would enhance dispersed 

recreation along the river corridor.

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Visitor Activities and Services

Alternative 3 would protect river-related recreational through infrastructure improvements where 

necessary, while reducing recreational activities that are not related to the river. These reductions would be 

made to accommodate high levels of ecological restoration activity and the objectives for visitor experience 

in this alternative. Alternative 3 would include the following changes to visitor activities and services, in 

addition to those common to Alternatives 2-6:

• Allow only private boating in this river segment. Private boats would be limited to the section of 

river between Housekeeping Camp and Cathedral Beach. Put-ins and take-outs would be limited to 

designated locations within Housekeeping Camp, Sentinel Beach, and Cathedral Beach. This use 

would be monitored by park law enforcement rangers and would be limited to 50 trips per day.

• Remove Housekeeping Camp shower houses, restrooms, laundry, and grocery store. Retain at least 

one restroom when reconfiguring the area for day use.

8-142 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 3: Dispersed Visitor Experience And Extensive Riverbank Restoration

• Continue to provide staging at the Concessioner Stables for temporary pack camp operations at 

Merced Lake High Sierra Camp; eliminate commercial horse day rides originating from Yosemite 

Valley; reduce the stable size and provide overflow parking for campgrounds; retain kennel service. 

• Remove Curry Village raft rental and bike rental stand. 

• Remove the bike rental stand at Yosemite Lodge.

• Remove the ice skating rink at Curry Village.

• Remove the swimming pools at the Ahwahnee Hotel and the Yosemite Lodge.

Visitor Overnight Capacity: Camping

Camping would be slightly increased under Alternative 3 to 477 sites accommodating 2,958 people per night:

• Backpackers Campground: – Remove all 25 sites, 21 of which are within 150 feet of the ordinary 

high-water mark. Construct 16 new walk-in campsites west of Backpackers Campground, in less 

sensitive area out of the 100-year floodplain. 

• North Pines Campground – Retain 52 campsites. Remove 34 sites from within 150 feet of the 

ordinary high-water mark; restore native riparian communities. 

• Upper Pines Campground – Retain 238 campsites, removing 2 sites for archeological resource 

concerns. Construct a new recreational vehicle campground loop with 36 RV sites.

• Lower Pines Campground – Retain 61 campsites. Remove 15 sites from within 150 feet of the 

ordinary high-water mark.

• Camp 4 – Retain 35 walk-in campsites and 35 parking spaces. Construct 35 additional campsites 

east of Camp 4; establish a new parking area (41 spaces) for the Camp 4 campground expansion in 

the disturbed footprint of the former service station near Camp 4.

• Yellow Pine – Four group campsites (up to 120 people) would be retained at the Yellow Pine 

Administrative Campground.

Visitor Overnight Capacity: Lodging

Lodging would be reduced to facilitate ecological restoration, day use, and camping. Lodging would total 621 

units accommodating 2,069 people per night. Common to Alternatives 2-6, The Ahwahnee Hotel would 

continue to provide 123 lodging rooms. The following additional 

lodging would be retained, removed, or constructed under 

Alternative 3: 

• Curry Village – Retain 355 lodging units including 290

canvas tent cabins, 18 units at Stoneman House, and 47 

hard-sided cabin-with-bath units. Remove all existing 

cabins and associated structures at Boys Town. Provide 300 

designated overnight parking spaces at the Curry Orchard

Parking Area; restore ecological conditions to part of the 

existing parking area (removing 50 spaces) to improve 

natural surface flows to Stoneman Meadow.

• Housekeeping Camp – Remove all 266 lodging units and associated facilities from the 100-year 

floodplain. Convert area to a day-use river access point and picnic area. Retain one restroom for 

day use.

• Yosemite Lodge – Retain 143 lodging units; remove 4 buildings (containing 102 lodging units) from 

the 100-year floodplain. 

Preliminary drawings of road and 

parking improvements at Boys 

Town, as proposed in Alternative 3, 

have been completed to assess the 

feasibility of this project. See 

“Conceptual Site Drawings” at the 

end of the Alternative 3 discussion 

for site details and design drawings.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-143
ALTERNATIVES

Visitor Day-use Parking Capacity and Transit

Alternative 3 would significantly reduce peak daily visitation to Yosemite Valley. The day-use parking, 

regional transit, and tour bus capacities would accommodate up 

to 6,352 people at one time in Segment 2: 

• Reduce available day-use parking spaces (- 740 spaces) 

for a total of 1,597 parking spaces. 

• Retain tour bus parking at 15 spaces. 

• Visitor circulation would be improved to reduce traffic 

congestion and provide a better arrival experience for 

visitors. Major actions would include the following:

• Redesign day-use parking at Yosemite Village to 

provide 550 designated spaces. Re-route Northside 

Drive to the south of the Yosemite Village Day-use 

Parking Area. Consolidate parking to the north of the road and out of the dynamic 10-year 

floodplain. Provide walkways leading to Yosemite Village separating vehicle and pedestrian traffic 

and eliminating conflicts. Redesigned traffic circulation patterns would not require roundabouts or 

pedestrian road crossings.

• Construct a parking lot with 150 designated day parking spaces and a new 3,000 square foot 

comfort station west of Yosemite Lodge; provide 15 bus loading/unloading spaces. Move the ongrade pedestrian crossing west of the intersection of Northside Drive and Yosemite Lodge Drive to 

alleviate pedestrian/vehicle conflicts.

• Redesign the intersection at Sentinel Bridge; switch Southside Drive to a two-way road between 

Curry Village and Sentinel Drive. 

Due to the reductions in the day-use parking supply in this alternative (as compared to current peak 

demand), an East Yosemite Valley day-use parking reservation system would be required. The majority of

day-use parking spaces would be reserved, with a small number being made available for more spontaneous 

users (to be distributed on-site along with spaces available from cancellations and no-shows). A reservation 

system is needed for this alternative, as demand for day-use visitation is expected to be high relative to the 

available capacity and continual East Valley traffic diversions are likely to be inadequate to handle the 

disparity (displacing East Valley crowding to other parts of the park on a regular basis). Although details of 

the system will require additional planning, general characteristics may include: 

• Seasonality –The system would likely apply through the entire high use season, which can begin as 

early as mid-April and continue through October. 

• Daily hours –The system would apply to day-use parking from 10 A.M. to 5 P.M. (periods of 

potential day-use crowding and congestion). No pass would be required for day-use visitors who 

leave parking areas before 10 A.M. or arrive after 5 P.M. 

• Primary allocation mechanism – Reservations would be made through an online system. Inperson reservations may also be made at entrance stations and visitor centers. 

• Secondary allocation mechanism – Cancelled reservations and no shows would be filled at 

entrance gates or visitor centers after a certain hour of the day. Late arrivals will not be guaranteed 

a space in the day-use lots. 

• Timing of availability – Approximately 80% of total spaces would be made available for 

reservations at intervals of six months (20%), three months (20%), one month (20%), and one week

(20%) before a given date. Twenty percent will remain in the secondary system for spontaneous use 

Preliminary site drawings for the Yosemite 

Village Day-use Parking Area and the new 

parking lot west of Yosemite Lodge, as 

proposed under Alternative 3, have been 

completed to assess the feasibility of 

these projects. See “Conceptual Site 

Drawings” at the end of the Alternative 3 

discussion for site details and design 

drawings.

8-144 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 3: Dispersed Visitor Experience And Extensive Riverbank Restoration

(along with cancellations and no shows). The online reservations system will continually track 

cancellations and make those available.

• Compliance – Parking passes will need to be shown when visitors arrive at entrance gates and 

displayed when using the day-use lots or parking for more than one hour at trailheads or roadside 

viewing areas. Visitors without passes can obtain passes at entrance stations (if they are available) or 

travel to other parts of the park; they would not be allowed to use day- or overnight-use parking 

areas in East Valley. 

• Fees – An administrative fee may be collected with reservations. 

• Combining parking fees with Park Entrance Fees – The NPS will explore options to pay park 

entrance fees when making parking pass reservations. This concept would allow visitors to enter a 

faster lane at entrance gates (because they only have to show previous payment). The Arch Rock

entrance station would be relocated to a wider road section in El Portal. 

• Overnight visitor parking passes – Visitors with overnight reservations would receive a parking 

pass for their vehicles. These visitors could park in overnight visitor lots, campgrounds, or for 

longer than one hour at trailheads and roadside viewing areas. They would not be allowed to park 

in East Valley day-use lots. 

Regional transit service would be reconfigured to expand the number of routes but reduce runs on some 

routes (consistent with anticipated demand), as follows: 

• Highway 140/El Portal Road (Merced to Yosemite Valley): Maintain service at 8 runs per day.

• Highway 41/Wawona Road between Fresno/Oakhurst and Yosemite Valley: Implement new public 

transit service at 1 run per day.

• Highway 120 West/Big Oak Flat Road (Groveland to Yosemite Valley: Reduce service to 1 run per 

day (summer only).

• Highway 120 East/Tioga Road (Mammoth Lakes to Yosemite Valley): Maintain service at 1 run per 

day (summer only).

TABLE 8-23: TRANSIT OPTIONS – ALTERNATIVE 3 

Regional Transit Options

HIGHWAY 140

Merced/Mariposa to Yosemite Valley

8 runs per day (4 from Merced; 4 from Mariposa)

(year round)

HIGHWAY 41

Fresno/Oakhurst to Yosemite Valley 1 run per day

HIGHWAY 120 West 

Groveland/Sonora to Yosemite Valley

1 run per day- Sonora to Yosemite Valley

(summer only)

HIGHWAY 120 East

Inyo/Mono County (Mammoth Lakes) to Yosemite Valley

1 run per day

(summer only)

Yosemite Valley Shuttle Options

East Yosemite Valley 5 minute peak interval between buses

Year round except Visitor Center direct

Visitor Center Express Yosemite Valley Day-use Parking Area 

to Visitor Center

15 minute interval between buses

(summer only)

El Capitan Crossover 30 minute interval between buses 

(summer only)

West Yosemite Valley No service

NOTE: *All Regional Transit runs are round trip.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-145
ALTERNATIVES

Under all the action alternatives, including Alternative 3, shuttle bus service would be improved by 

increasing the frequency of the year-round east Yosemite Valley service to five minute intervals during peak 

use periods. The Visitor Center Express service (summer only) would continue to run at 15 minute 

intervals. The El Capitan Crossover service (summer only) would continue to run at 30-minute intervals.

Administrative Activities

Administrative activities would be relocated further from the river:

• Relocate the Yosemite Lodge housekeeping and maintenance facilities to a location behind the 

Yosemite Lodge cafeteria.

Employee Housing and Employee Parking

Concessioner employee housing would be reduced. Compared to existing conditions, 229 fewer 

concessioner employees would be housed in Yosemite Valley. The remaining housing for 922 concessioner 

employees would be provided as follows:

• Provide housing for 436 employees at Curry Village.

- Retain permanent housing in the Curry Village residential area (223 employees). 

- Retain employee housing at the Concessioner Stables in Yosemite Valley (49 employees).

- Construct 16 dormitory buildings housing 164 employees.

• Provide housing for 340 employees at Yosemite Village:

- Retain permanent housing at Indian Creek and Upper Tecoya (28 employees).

- Retain Ahwahnee Row, Y Apartments, garage housing, and Hospital Row (43 employees). 

- Retain Tecoya Dorms (232 employees). 

• Provide housing for 104 employees at Yosemite Lodge:

- Construct new housing for 104 employees at Yosemite Lodge (two dormitory structures 

with 26 double-occupancy units each). 

In this alternative, 967 parking spaces would be allocated for administrative uses (including parking spaces 

near residential areas). 

Segment 3: Merced Gorge (Scenic Segment)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

Actions to protect and enhance river values in Segment 3 are all detailed in the section titled, “Actions 

Common to Alternatives 2-6” (beginning on page 8-47). 

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

This alternative would provide for kinds and amounts of use similar to those that exist today. The majority 

of actions for Alternative 3 in Segment 3 are discussed in the “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6”. 

Alternative actions that are not included in that section are listed below. 

8-146 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 3: Dispersed Visitor Experience And Extensive Riverbank Restoration

Visitor Activities and Services

Private boats would be allowed in this segment for this alternative; commercial use would remain 

prohibited. Boating would be allowed from Pohono Bridge to El Portal (Segment 4). Boaters would be 

allowed to put in and take out at any of the roadside pull-outs. This use would be managed by a permit 

system and limited to five boats per day.

Transit Options

Public transit options along this segment would be expanded as described in Segment 2, above.

Segment 4: El Portal (Recreational Segment)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

All actions to protect and enhance river values in Segment 4 for Alternative 3 are addressed in “Actions 

Common to Alternatives 2-6” (see page 8-47).

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Alternative 3 would provide for kinds and amounts of use similar to those that exist today. User capacity in 

Segment 4 for Alternative 3 is mostly affected by the increase in employee housing in El Portal. While all 

new units would be built outside of the 100-year floodplain, most would fall within the river corridor 

boundary. 

Visitor Activities and Services 

Most visitor activities and services in Segment 4 are considered in “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6”. 

Additional actions are listed below. 

• Boating – Private boats would be allowed in Segment 4. Anticipated use would be mostly rafts and 

kayaks. Boaters would be allowed to paddle the stretch of river from the park boundary at 

Yosemite View Lodge to the Foresta Bridge (at which point river use is managed under the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service). Boaters would be able to use put-ins and take-outs west of

the hotel, at the store/gas station and at the Red Bud launch site. This use would be regulated 

through a permitting system that allows for up to five boats per day. 

Visitor Overnight Capacity 

No NPS overnight accommodations for the public are proposed in Segment 4 under any alternative. The 

Yosemite View complex is located on private land near the park boundary, upon which land use is regulated 

by the County of Mariposa. 

Visitor Day-use Capacity 

Day-use parking capacities would not change for Segment 4 in Alternative 3 (214 spaces). 

Administrative Activities

All administrative activities in Segment 4 are considered in “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” (see 

page 8-47).

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-147
ALTERNATIVES

Employee Housing Capacity 

In Alternative 3, high density employee housing would be added to the El Portal Village Center (12 beds) 

and Rancheria Flat (19 beds). All new units would be outside of the 100-year floodplain. These units would 

be added to accommodate for the units removed from Yosemite Valley. 

Employee and Administrative Parking Capacity

Most employee and administrative parking actions are discussed in “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” 

(see page 8-47). The additional housing proposed in Alternative 3 would also include 27 employee overnight 

parking spots for new units in El Portal Village Center and in Rancheria Flat.

Transit Options

Regional transit options would maintain existing service along the Highway 140 corridor. For a complete 

summary of transit activity that passes through this segment, see the Segment 2 summary of transit options 

above.

Segment 5: South Fork Merced above Wawona (Wild Segment)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

No actions are required to protect river values under Alternative 3.

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Alternative 3 would provide for kinds and amounts of use similar to those that exist today in Segment 5. The 

majority of actions for Alternative 3 in Segment 5 are discussed in the “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-

6”. Alternative actions that are not included in that section are listed below. 

Visitor Activities and Services 

Private boating would be allowed in this segment. Use in this segment is likely to consist of short floats using 

inflatable rafts or other craft that can be carried into this remote area on foot. Use levels would be 

unrestricted, given the expected low use (due to the remoteness and inaccessibility of this segment and the 

level of effort required to enjoy this activity).

Transit Options

Specific transportation options for reaching Segment 5 trailheads are listed below under Segment 7. 

Segments 6 and 7: Wawona Impoundment and Wawona (Recreational Segments)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

In addition to the actions detailed in the section titled “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” (see page 8-

47), protection and enhancement of cultural values and water quality would be accomplished through the 

actions described below. 

8-148 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 3: Dispersed Visitor Experience And Extensive Riverbank Restoration

Cultural Values/Water Quality

• Stock campground – Relocate stock campground (2 sites) from area with sensitive cultural 

resources to the vicinity of the Wawona stables. 

• Wawona Campground – Retain 69 sites. Remove 27 sites that are either within the 100-year 

floodplain or in culturally sensitive areas. 

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Alternative 3 would provide for kinds and amounts of use similar to those that exist today. Notable changes 

to these segments in Alternative 3 would be the removal of the Wawona Golf Course and changes to the 

capacity of the Wawona Campground. The majority of actions for Alternative 2 in Segment 7 are discussed 

in “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6”. Alternative actions that are not included in that section are listed 

below.

Visitor Activities and Services

• Boating – Private boats would be allowed in Segment 7. Expected use would be kayaks and other 

small whitewater boats. Boating will be permitted below Wawona’s Swinging Bridge to the park 

boundary, where river use is subject to U.S. Forest Service management standards. Boaters would 

be able to use put-ins and take outs at Swinging Bridge, the Wawona Store area, South Fork Picnic 

Area, and below the campground. Because of seasonal limitations and low river volumes, use level 

is expected to be low, and therefore would not be limited. River use and management will be 

subject to monitoring by NPS resources management staff, and enforcement by NPS law 

enforcement rangers. 

• Golfing – Remove the Wawona Golf Course and ecologically restore the area while retaining use as 

a spray field for reclaimed water. Adapt the Golf Shop for another use that supports Wawona Hotel 

operations. 

• Tennis – Remove the Wawona Hotel Tennis Court. 

• Eliminate commercial horseback day rides originating from the Wawona stables. Remove the 

stables and re-purpose area as a stock use campground.

Visitor Overnight Capacity

The Wawona Campground would be reduced from 97 to 70 sites (444 people), including a group camping 

site (to accommodate up to 30 persons). The two campsites at the Wawona stock camp would be relocated 

to the Wawona stables and would accommodate six people per night each (12 people per night total). Total 

overnight capacity for the Wawona Campground would be 456 people.

Total overnight capacity for Segment 7 would be 104 lodging units and 72 campsites that, together,

accommodate 703 people. 

Visitor Day-use Capacity

Total visitor day-use capacity for this area would be increased from 1,295 to 1,321 people at one time. This 

increase is due to new regional transit options that contribute up to 26 people at one time to this segment. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-149
ALTERNATIVES

Transit Options

In-park shuttle options between Wawona and Yosemite Valley and Wawona and Mariposa Grove would 

continue. New regional transit options would be provided along the Highway 41/Wawona Road corridor 

with one run between Fresno/Oakhurst and Yosemite Valley daily. Alternative 3 would have a maximum 

capacity of 26 people at one time arriving via regional transit.

Segment 8: South Fork Merced below Wawona (Wild Segment)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

There are no actions in Alternative 3 that are specific to this segment.

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Alternative 3 would provide for kinds and amounts of use similar to those that exist today in Segment 8; 

significant changes are not proposed. The majority of actions for Alternative 3 in Segment 8 are discussed in 

“Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6”. Alternative actions that are not included in that section are listed 

below. 

Visitor Activities and Services 

Private boating would be allowed in this segment. Use in this segment would consist of short floats and

pass-through trips by only the most experienced kayakers. Permits would not be required as the anticipated 

use level is very low. 

Transit Options

Transit services for access to this segment are described above under Segment 7 (see above).

8-150 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 3: Dispersed Visitor Experience And Extensive Riverbank Restoration

Conceptual Site Drawings

Boys Town 

In Alternative 3, Southside Drive would be removed from Stoneman Meadow and visitor traffic re-routed 

through Curry Village. All of the Boys Town cabins and facilities would be removed, and the area would be 

restored to natural conditions. The Curry Orchard Parking Area would be partially restored to facilitate 

Stoneman Meadow restoration, while retaining approximately 300 parking spaces.

Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area 

In Alternative 3, as in Alternative 2, the 12-acre Yosemite Village (Camp 6) day-use parking area (and all 

associated roadway improvements) would be removed from the 10-year floodplain to facilitate riparian 

restoration goals and prevent further resource damage. Restoration actions would remove non-native fill 

material, re-contour the topography, and re-introduce native vegetation to restored areas. A redesigned 

parking area would be improved to provide 550 parking spaces. Northside Drive would be abandoned east 

of the intersection with Village Drive (access to the Ahwahnee Hotel) and realigned to the south edge of the 

parking area (where it would connect Sentinel Drive and Village Drive). By consolidating the parking area

behind the Village Store, adding new and improved walkways to Yosemite Village, and realigning the 

roadway around the parking area, vehicle and pedestrian conflicts would be eliminated. A new bus 

passenger unloading area would be established east of the Village market, and five new spaces would be 

provided for bus parking. The Concessioner General Office, Concessioner Garage, and Art Activity Center 

(former bank building) would be removed, while the Village Sport Shop would be repurposed as a visitor 

contact station.

The project area for improvements at the Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area in Alternative 3 would 

cover approximately 22 acres, most of which is currently developed, and would include: 1.2 acres for 

existing building removal; 1,000 square feet for the new restroom; 5.4 acres of pavement removal; 1.7 acres 

of new roadway; 2.4 acres for new parking; 14,900 square feet of utility service trenching; and 38,000 square 

feet for new pedestrian pathways. Construction staging would cover an area of approximately 2 acres.

Yosemite Lodge

In Alternative 3, the area west of Yosemite Lodge (once known as the annex, but vacated after buildings 

were damaged in the 1997 flood) would be redeveloped to provide 150 day-use parking spaces, parking for 

15 buses, a new 3,000-square-foot comfort station, and a re-located shuttle stop. The existing tour bus drop 

off area would be relocated to the Highland Court area. The VIP Office, linen storage and laundry buildings, 

modular housing at Highland Court, and historic employee Thousands Cabins would be removed. Linen 

storage and laundry would be replaced by an addition to the food service building.

The project area for improvements west of the Lodge would cover 11.2 acres, most of which is currently 

developed, and would include: 55,850 square feet of existing building and pavement removal; 3,000 square 

feet for the new comfort station and shuttle stop; 13,300 square feet of utility service trenching; 2.5 acres for 

parking; and 2,500 square feet for pedestrian pathways. Temporary construction staging would take place 

over a 2-acre area within the existing footprint. Existing vegetation would be retained to separate and screen 

parking bays while bioswales would serve to filter and treat storm water run-off.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-151
ALTERNATIVES

Also in Alternative 3, the temporary modular housing at Highland Court and the Thousand Cabins would 

be removed and replaced with two new buildings housing 104 concessioner employees. In addition, a new 

parking area would provide 78 employee parking spaces, parking for 3 shuttle buses, and 53 day-use parking 

spaces for the public. The project area for the two housing sites would cover a total of 7.4 acres and would 

include 45,500 square feet of preparation for the new buildings; 5,500 square feet of utility service trenching; 

and 1.8 acres for parking.

8-152 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
*These drawings are provided to demonstrate where facilities would be removed, relocated, or constructed according to actions more fully described by project alternatives. The drawings 

 do not represent a final proposal. More detailed design and construction documents would be developed consistent with the general concepts presented here.

NORTH

Alternative 3

Conceptual Site Drawing for

Curry Village

Yosemite National Park

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

Huff House Employee Housing

Replace temporary housing with permanent facilities, 

164 beds and 164 parking spaces

Boys Town

Construct 4 two-story buildings for 32 occupants, 8 occupants per building.

Construct 11 two-story buildings for 132 occupants, 12 occupants per building.

Provide common recreational area, approximately 3,600 square feet.

Build plaza areas and walkways with site furnishings, accent paving, and 

enhanced landscaping.

Construct a shuttle bus stop.

Remove ice rink and bicycle rentals. Construct an employee parking facility with 

164 spaces.

Retain historic residence for housing purposes.

Improve parking area with 300 spaces and landscape buffers with trees and bioswales that 

will treat storm water run-off. Provide pedestrian walkways.

Remove Stoneman Road and adjacent recreation trail. Extend boardwalk from existing 

terminus (at Stoneman Road) to Curry Village Pavilion area, improve hydrology, remove 

invasive species, promote weed control and plant native species.

Remove existing guest accommodations and 

ecologically restore lands.

Relocate Campground Reservation Center and provide 

8 parking spaces.

Construct a roadway to connect Curry Village and 

East Valley campgrounds. Provide additional roadside 

parking.

Retain existing historic cabins and Stoneman Cottage 

(65 lodging units).

Retain existing Curry Pavilion.

Retain 290 tents.

Curry Orchard Parking Area

Stoneman Meadow Restoration

Existing Curry Village Visitor Services

2

1

3

4

5

6

7

10

11

12

8

9

1 2

3

4

5

6

7

10

11

12

10

8

9

13

14

15

13

14

15
ALTERNATIVES

This page intentionally left blank

8-154 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
*These drawings are provided to demonstrate where facilities would be removed, relocated, or constructed according to actions more fully described by project alternatives. 

 The drawings do not represent a final proposal. More detailed design and construction documents would be developed consistent with the general concepts presented here.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Conceptual Site Drawing for

Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area

Yosemite National Park

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

Use the 10-year floodplain to establish limits of development. Restore 

wetlands and meadow.

Reroute Northside Drive to conform to the floodplain extent and south edge 

of day-use parking area. Northside Drive is eliminated east of this location.

Eliminate Concessioner General Office and Garage between the Village Store 

and Ahwahnee Meadow, providing more space for visitor parking. Employee 

dormitories and housing would be removed in Alternative 2 (as drawn), but 

retained in Alternative 3.

Provide 550 day-use parking spaces in between Northside Drive and Yosemite 

Village. Integrate landscaped areas to retain large numbers of trees, and 

include bioswales that will treat storm water run-off. Improve access through a 

system of pedestrian pathways leading to the Yosemite Village mall.

Retain existing shuttle stops on Visitor Center Loop Drive.

Establish bus passenger unloading area east of the Yosemite Village mall.

Replace Village Sport Shop with visitor contact station.

Eliminate art activity center and improve pedestrian access.

Improve pedestrian connections and bike paths east and west of the day-use 

parking area. 

NORTH

8

9

9

2

2

1

3

3

3

4

5

5

6

7

1

8

9

2

3

4

5

6

7
ALTERNATIVES

This page intentionally left blank 

8-156 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
NORTH

*These drawings are provided to demonstrate where facilities would be removed, relocated, or constructed according to actions more fully described by project alternatives. 

 The drawings do not represent a final proposal. More detailed design and construction documents would be developed consistent with the general concepts presented here.

Alternative 3

Conceptual Site Drawing for

Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4

Yosemite National Park

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

Move pedestrian crossing to Yosemite Falls west of the 

existing intersection.

Maintain parking for overnight guests.

Enhance pedestrian circulation system.

Construct tour bus loading and unloading area, 

with shelter.

Construct employee housing in 2 two-story buildings 

with 52 occupants per building and 39 employee 

parking spaces per building.

Relocate linen storage and laundry buildings to an 

loading and unloading area.

vegetation and hydrological processes.

Construct 150 day-use parking spaces at Yosemite 

Lodge Day-use Parking Area. Maintain existing 

vegetation as buffers to separate and screen parking 

bays, provide pedestrian pathways and bioswales that 

will retain storm water run-off.

Construct 15 tour bus parking spaces.

Construct a shuttle bus stop with shelter and 

comfort station.

Construct 41 additional parking spaces at Camp 4.

Retain 35 existing walk-in campsites at Camp 4. 

Construct 35 additional walk-in sites opposite existing 

parking facility. Occupancy is limited to 6 campers per 

site. Standard walk-in campsite is 3,850 square feet 

(70-foot diameter), including 1,200 square feet of 

clearance with a 15-foot perimeter buffer.

Protect and enhance a 150-foot riparian buffer.
ALTERNATIVES

This page intentionally left blank

8-158 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 4: Resource-Based Visitor Experiences and Targeted Riverbank Restoration

ALTERNATIVE 4: RESOURCE-BASED VISITOR EXPERIENCES AND 

TARGETED RIVERBANK RESTORATION

Overview

The guiding principles of Alternative 4 include restoration of portions of the floodplain and the riparian 

area within 150 feet of the river. This alternative focuses on providing only those commercial services and 

facilities that facilitate resource-based visitor experiences. It accommodates lower maximum visitor use 

levels than today, with increases in overnight camping capacity and a decrease in the overnight lodging 

capacity.

Management actions in Alternative 4 would: 

• Restore 225 acres of meadow and riparian habitat. 

• Significantly increase the campsite inventory in all river segments (+37%) and in Yosemite Valley (+50%).

• Reduce the lodging inventory in all river segments (-20%) and in Yosemite Valley (-20%).

• Reduce parking for Yosemite Valley day use (-12%). 

• Reduce commercial services provided by the park’s primary concessioner from current levels.

• Make targeted changes to the traffic circulation pattern in Yosemite Valley to accommodate 

ecological restoration goals and reduce traffic congestion. 

• Establish a user capacity of 16,200 people at one time for Yosemite Valley, with peak visitation 

estimated at 17,000 visitors per day. 

• Continue to manage overnight-use capacity through reservation systems for lodging and camping, 

and through wilderness permits. 

• Manage user capacity for East Yosemite Valley through permits and a mandatory day-use parking 

reservation system during peak season.

Under Alternative 4, visitors to Yosemite Valley would experience some changes in circulation and 

roadways that will allow for meadow and floodplain restoration while improving the visitor experience.

Additional restoration would be accomplished by removing a road segment from within Stoneman 

Meadow. Visitors would experience a clear “sense of arrival” at a pedestrian-friendly parking area in 

Yosemite Village. As in other alternatives, the parking area would be moved away from the river, some 

administrative buildings would be removed, and roads and intersections would be modified to increase 

efficiency. During the peak summer season, day-use visitors wishing to park private vehicles in the east end 

of Yosemite Valley would be required to obtain a reservation and would be directed to park in designated 

areas. A remote parking area would be provided in El Portal with a transit connection to Yosemite Valley. 

At Curry Village, the tent cabins at Boys Town would be removed and replaced by a campground. The 

bicycle rental and ice skating rink would be removed, while food service, groceries, pool, raft rental, and the 

mountaineering shop would remain. Private boaters and those renting commercial rafts would still be able 

to raft or kayak in Yosemite Valley, with additional reaches of the Merced River opened to boating. Cyclists 

would be able to ride bicycles in Yosemite Valley with personal equipment or equipment rented outside the 

park. The stables near Curry Village would be removed and commercial horseback day rides discontinued.

Private horseback riding would continue in Yosemite Valley and further into the high country. At 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-159
ALTERNATIVES

Housekeeping Camp, many of the lodging units would be removed from the floodplain and improved beach 

access for day use would be provided. The Happy Isles snack stand would be removed. 

Overnight accommodations would include a slight reduction in lodging, and the largest increase in camping

among all the alternatives, including changing Boys Town (in Curry Village) and the Concessioner Stables to 

campgrounds. Camping would continue to be provided at Lower, Upper, and North Pines campgrounds, 

and Backpackers Campground would be relocated to a site further west. The bike rental, pool, snack stand 

and post office would be removed at Yosemite Lodge, while food service would remain. A new day-use 

parking area would be provided west of the Lodge in an area currently used for bus parking and storage. A 

new grade-separated pedestrian crossing would be constructed to alleviate pedestrian and vehicle conflicts 

at the intersection of Yosemite Lodge Drive and Northside Drive. The pool and tennis courts would be 

removed at the Ahwahnee Hotel.

The West Valley would retain its overall natural character, with limited structures, and continue to serve as a 

destination for lower impact recreational activities such as hiking, rock climbing, photography, and scenic 

viewing. 

Those visitors hiking to the Wilderness along the Merced River corridor would be able to camp in 

designated backpackers campgrounds. The Merced Lake High Sierra Camp and all associated infrastructure 

would be removed. 

In Wawona, lodging would remain available at the Wawona Hotel and the golf course and tennis courts 

would be retained. The Wawona campground would be reduced in size and commercial horseback riding 

would no longer be available at the Wawona stables. Private boating would be allowed on the South Fork 

Merced. Transit service would be expanded by the addition of a new run from Fresno to Yosemite Valley 

along Highway 41 (Wawona Road). 

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

Alternative 4 would protect and enhance river values through ecological restoration efforts focused on 

improving both the habitat quality of the riparian zone and the hydrologic function of the river. River values

would be maintained without impacting the existing traffic circulation pattern and infrastructure. This 

alternative would ecologically restore lands currently occupied by the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp and a 

portion of Housekeeping Camp that is frequently inundated with flood waters. All campsites and associated 

infrastructure within 150 feet of the river would be removed. Alternative 4 would establish a Valley Oak 

habitat protection area in El Portal. The alluvial processes of the river would be enhanced by removing two 

bridges. The hydrologic connectivity of meadows to the riparian floodplain would be enhanced by 

removing a segment of road bisecting Stoneman Meadow. 

Cultural and scenic values would be protected and enhanced as described under “Actions Common to 

Alternatives 2-6” (beginning on page 8-47). Certain recreational values would be enhanced with the removal 

of the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp, and improvement in traffic circulation would benefit all visitors to 

Yosemite Valley. Table 8-24 provides a summary of the proposed actions that would occur under 

Alternative 4 to protect and enhance river values.

8-160 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 4: Resource-Based Visitor Experiences and Targeted Riverbank Restoration

TABLE 8-24: ADDITIONAL ACTIONS TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE RIVER VALUES, ALTERNATIVE 4 

Ecological Restoration Actions (Free Flow, Water Quality, Geologic/Hydrologic, and Biological Values)

Corridorwide

Ecological Restoration 

Acreage

225 acres: 176 acres (common to all) plus an additional 49 acres (refer to Appendix E for specific 

locations)

Riprap to be Removed 6135 linear feet: 5,700 linear feet (common to all) plus an additional 435 feet (refer to Appendix E 

Restoration Map Series for specific locations)

Segment 1: Wilderness above Nevada Fall

Riparian Buffer / 

Floodplain  Remove the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp and restore the site to natural conditions.

Segment 2: Yosemite Valley 

Free Flow /Geological/ 

Hydrological Values  Remove Ahwahnee and Sugar Pine bridges to enhance the alluvial processes of the river.

Riparian Buffer / 

Floodplain 

 Ecologically restore 19.7 acres of habitat in the Upper and Lower River Campgrounds area; 

construct campsites 150 feet away from the river. 

 Move Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area parking north at least 150 feet away from the river. 

 Remove portions of North Pines, Lower Pines, and Wawona Campgrounds that are within 150 

feet of the river.

 Remove portion of Housekeeping camp that is within the ordinary high-water mark and in areas 

of frequent inundation and restore these areas to natural conditions.

Meadow Restoration  Remove 1,335 feet of Southside Drive through Stoneman Meadow to enhance connectivity of the 

meadow and floodplain.

Recreational Values

Segment 1: Wilderness above Nevada Fall

Wilderness 

Recreation

 Enhance Wilderness character by removing the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp and converting this 

area to designated Wilderness. 

 Reduce zone capacities and the size of the Little Yosemite Valley camping area.

 Expand the footprint of the Merced Lake designated camping area into the area vacated by the 

High Sierra Camp (to reduce person density in this location). 

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Alternative 4 would focus on providing resource-based visitor experiences, increasing camping 

opportunities, and reducing commercial services. Although the overall number of visitors to Yosemite 

Valley would be reduced, overnight use levels would slightly increase. Table 8-25 provides a summary of 

user capacities by use type and location.

Visitor Activities and Services

Alternative 4 would reduce commercial facilities and services. Redundant retail stores and snack stands 

would be removed and commercial horseback day rides that would be discontinued in Yosemite Valley and 

Wawona. Alternative 4 would also remove the bicycle rentals at Curry Village and Yosemite Lodge, the ice 

skating rink, the grocery store at Housekeeping Camp, and two swimming pools in Yosemite Valley.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-161
ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 8-25: USER CAPACITIES BY USE TYPE AND LOCATION – ALTERNATIVE 4

User Capacities by Use Type and Location Alt 1 (No Action) Alt 4

Unit Type Units People Units People

Wilderness Above Nevada Fall

Visitor Overnight Use Zone Capacities & Beds 380 380 270 270

Visitor Day Use Day Hikers 350 350 350 350

Employee Housing (in camps) Employee Beds 15 15 10 10

Administrative Day Use Day Patrols 5 5 5 5 

Yosemite Valley

Visitor Overnight Use Rooms & Campsites 1,500 6,564 1,524 7,224

Visitor Day Use Parking Spaces & Buses - 11,727 - 7,554

Employee Housing Employee Beds 1,315 1,315 1,087 1,087

Administrative Day Use Parking Spaces 166 332 166 332

Merced Gorge

Visitor Overnight Use Rooms & Campsites - - - - 

Visitor Day Use Parking Spaces 180 869 180 869

Employee Housing Employee Beds 9 9 9 9 

Administrative Day Use Parking Spaces 2 4 2 4 

El Portal

Visitor Overnight Use Rooms & Campsites - - - - 

Visitor Day Use Parking Spaces 214 740 414 740

Employee Housing Employee Beds 220 427 190 483

Administrative Day Use Parking Spaces 610 1,220 610 1,220

South Fork Above Wawona

Visitor Overnight Use Zone Capacities 20 20 20 20

Visitor Day Use Day Hikers 6 6 6 6 

Employee Housing Employee Beds - - - - 

Administrative Day Use Day Patrols 1 1 1 1 

Wawona

Visitor Overnight Use Rooms & Campsites 203 865 176 703

Visitor Day Use Parking Spaces & Buses - 1,295 - 1,399

Employee Housing Employee Beds 121 121 121 121

Administrative Day Use Parking Spaces 30 60 30 60

South Fork Below Wawona

Visitor Overnight Use Permits - - - - 

Visitor Day Use Day Hikers 6 6 6 6 

Employee Housing Employee Beds - - - - 

Administrative Day Use Day Patrols 1 1 1 1 

Visitor Overnight Capacity

Camping

Under Alternative 4, the campsite inventory in Yosemite Valley would be increased by 50%. All campsites 

within 150 feet of the river would be removed and replaced by new campsites at numerous locations 

throughout the East Valley. A total of 701 campsites would be provided in Yosemite Valley and 773 

8-162 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 4: Resource-Based Visitor Experiences and Targeted Riverbank Restoration 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-163 

campsites would be provided in the river corridor. Table 8-26 provides a summary of the proposed changes 

to camping. 

TABLE 8-26: CAMPING FACILITIES – ALTERNATIVE 4

Existing Locations 

Alt 1 

(No Action) Alt 4 Details 

Backpackers 25 sites 0 sites 25 walk-in sites removed, of which 21 are within 150 feet of the river; 

16 of these walk-in sites would be relocated west of Backpackers 

Camp 4 35 sites 35 sites No change to this National Historic Register Site 

Lower Pines 76 sites 61 sites 15 sites within 150 feet of the river removed 

North Pines 86 sites 52 sites 34 sites within 150 feet of the river removed 

Upper Pines 240 sites 238 sites 2 sites removed for archeological resource concerns 

Yellow Pine Administrative 4 sites 4 sites No changes to these group administrative sites 

Wawona Campground 99 sites 72 sites 27 sites removed within 150 feet of river or in culturally sensitive areas 

Total Existing Locations 565 sites 462 sites 

New Locations Sites Alt 4 Details 

West of Backpackers 0 sites 16 sites 16 walk-in sites relocated from Backpackers Campground to less 

sensitive area outside 100-year floodplain 

East of Camp 4 0 sites 35 sites 35 walk-in sites constructed in area east of Camp 4 

Upper Pines 0 sites 87 sites 36-site RV loop and a walk-in campground with 49 sites and 2 group 

sites constructed 

Upper River 0 sites 32 sites 30 walk-in and 2 group sites constructed 150 feet from river in the 

area of the Upper River Campground 

Lower River 0 sites 40 sites 40 walk-in sites constructed 150 feet from the river in the former 

footprint of the Lower River Campground 

Yosemite Lodge 0 sites 20 sites 20 RV sites constructed west of Yosemite Lodge and adjacent to 

parking area 

Boys Town 0 sites 40 sites 40 walk-in sites constructed 

Concessioner Stables 0 sites 41 sites Stables redeveloped as a campground with 41 drive-in sites 

Total New Camping 0 sites 311 sites 

Total Camping in Corridor 565 sites 773 sites 

Lodging 

In-park lodging availability would be reduced by approximately 20%, as compared to Alternative 1 (No 

Action). Management actions related to lodging would focus on removing lodging units that are frequently 

inundated by flood waters at Housekeeping Camp. All existing infrastructure at the Merced Lake High 

Sierra Camp would be removed, allowing the area to be converted to designated Wilderness. Curry Village 

lodging would remain with the exception of Boys Town, which be replaced with a new campground. No 

new permanent lodging would be constructed in Alternative 4 in any part of the river corridor. As a result of 

these actions, the in-park lodging inventory would be reduced from 1,160 units to 927 units. Table 8-27 

provides a summary of the proposed changes to lodging and the reasons for those proposed changes. 

Parking Inventory and Access Improvements 

Day-use parking capacity in Yosemite Valley would be reduced by 21% compared to current levels. Day-use 

capacity would be actively managed and potentially restricted during peak use season (May through 
ALTERNATIVES

8-164 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 

September). A day-use parking reservation system for East Yosemite Valley would be implemented during the 

peak season. 

TABLE 8-27: LODGING FACILITIES – ALTERNATIVE 4

Wilderness 

Alt 1 

(No Action) Alt 4 Details 

Merced Lake High Sierra 

Camp 

22 units 

(60 beds) 0 units Lodging facility removed and area converted to designated Wilderness 

Yosemite Valley Alt 1 Alt 4 Details 

Ahwahnee Hotel 123 rooms 123 rooms No change at this National Historic Landmark 

Housekeeping Camp 266 units 100 units Remove 166 units that are seasonally inundated, 34 of 

which are within ordinary high-water mark 

Curry Village 400 units 

355 units 

(290 canvas 

tent cabins and 

65 hard-sided 

units) 

Retain 290 canvas tent cabins 

Retain18 units at Stoneman House 

Retain 47 cabin-with-baths 

At Boys Town, Southside Drive would be re-routed and 

redeveloped as a 40-site campground 

Yosemite Lodge 245 rooms 245 rooms No changes at this lodging facility 

Wawona Alt 1 Alt 4 Details 

Wawona Hotel 104 rooms 104 rooms No change at this National Historic Landmark 

Total Lodging in Corridor 1,160 units 927 units 

Table 8-28 provides a summary of the total number of parking spaces provided in each river segment. 

The most significant changes to parking and circulation would take place in the vicinity of Yosemite Village 

Day-use Parking Area, Yosemite Lodge, and El Portal. The Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area would be 

redesigned to provide 750 parking spaces. At Yosemite Lodge, proposed changes include a new day-use 

parking area west of the lodge designed to provide 150 parking spaces. Overflow parking during times of peak 

visitation would be provided in El Portal at the Abbieville site (200 parking spaces). The NPS shuttle system 

would be expanded to serve locations in West Yosemite Valley, including Bridalveil Fall. The total parking 

inventory in East Yosemite Valley (including day, overnight, and administrative uses) would be approximately 

4,800 spaces. Including the remote parking in El Portal, a total of 5,000 parking spaces would be provided for 

visitor and administrative access to Yosemite Valley. 

Transit services would remain unchanged on the Highway 140 and Highway 120 East corridors. Service on 

the Highway 120 West corridor would maintain two round-trip runs per day. Four round-trip runs per day 

would be added to the Highway 41 corridor. All within-park shuttle services would maintain the existing 

base levels of service. Additionally, East Yosemite Valley shuttle intervals would be reduced to five minutes 

and service would be expanded to serve Bridalveil Fall during the peak summer season. 
Alternative 4: Resource-Based Visitor Experiences and Targeted Riverbank Restoration 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-165 

TABLE 8-28: NUMBER OF DAY-USE PARKING SPACES IN SEGMENTS – ALTERNATIVE 4 

Location Alt 1 (No Action) Alt 4 

Segment 2: Yosemite Valley 2,337 spaces 1,845 spaces 

Segment 3: The Gorge 180 spaces 180 spaces 

Segment 4: El Portal* 214 spaces 414 spaces* 

Segment 7: Wawona 290 spaces 290 spaces 

Total Parking 3,021 spaces 2,729 spaces 

NOTE: 

* The 200 new spaces in El Portal are located in the Abbieville Remote Parking area. While these spaces are located in 

El Portal and are therefore counted as part of the parking inventory of Segment 4, most of the use associated with 

these spaces will occur in Yosemite Valley. 
ALTERNATIVES

This page intentionally left blank

8-166 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
!F

!F

ÆQ

ÆQ

ÆQ

ÆQ

!i

!i

!i

!i

!i

Housekeeping Camp Footbridge

Curry 

Village

Lower Pines

Campground

North Pines

Campground

Upper Pines

Campground

Clark'sBridge

Tenaya Bridge

River Corridor Boundary

Boys

Town

Southside Drive

The Ahwahnee Backpackers

Campground

Stoneman

Bridge

Happy Isles Bridge

Merced River

Royal Arches Meadow

Ahwahnee

Meadow

Stoneman

Meadow

Tennis Court Concessioner

Stables

Upper and Lower

River Campground Area

Ahwahnee

Parking

Wilderness

Parking

Curry Village

Parking

0 0.25 Miles

¬«1

¬«2

¬«3

¬«4

¬«5

¬«6

 ̄

ALTERNATIVE 4CURRY VILLAGE AND CAMPGROUNDS

!i

Tenaya Creek

Huff

House

EAST 1. Up

• • 

a

• 

2. Riv

• A

c

• S

w

3. Cu

• • 

c

• C

a

• • C

v

4. No

• 

a

• • C

5. Low

• C

6. Up

• C• 

ALTERNATIVE 4: RESOURCED-BASED VISITOR EXPERIENCES AND TARGETED RIVERB
This page intentionally left blank

8-168 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
!5

!i

!i

!i

River Corridor Boundary

Merced River

Northside Drive

Ahwahnee Road

Southside Drive

Yosemite Creek

Bridge Cook's Meadow

Ahwahnee

Meadow

Lost Arrow

Sentinel Drive

Rangers'

Club

Le Conte

Memorial Lodge

Church Bowl

Picnic Area

Sentinel Bridge

Housekeeping

Bridge

Superintendent's

Bridge

Housekeeping Camp

Yosemite Village Day-Use 

Parking Area

Village Store Complex

0 0.25 Miles

ALTERNATIVE 4YOSEMITE VILLAGE AND HOUSEKEEPING CAMP

¬«2

¬«3

¬«4

¬«5

¬«6

 ̄

Yosemite Village

Government 

Utility Building

¬«1

EAST 1. Lo2. Yo

froto foo

3. Tra

Vilintcove

4. Co

ha

5. Ah

co

6. Ho

fouHoof 

ALTERNATIVE 4: RESOURCED-BASED VISITOR EXPERIENCES AND TARGETED RIVERB
This page intentionally left blank

8-170 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
!F

;"

!i

!i

!i

Southside

Drive

Camp 4 

Campground

Yosemite

Lodge

Northside

Drive

Yosemite Lodge

Parking Area

0 500 Feet

ALTERNATIVE 4YOSEMITE LODGE AND CAMP 4

¬«1

¬«4

 ̄

¬«2

Leidig Meadow

Sentinel Meadow

Cook's 

Meadow

Merced River

Residence 1

EAST 1 We

• 

t

 q

• 

2 Yo

• 

at

 a

• • S

cse

• T

t

• Y• Y

ca

3 Yos

• T

so

4 Re

• 

atc

ALTERNATIVE 4: RESOURCED-BASED VISITOR EXPERIENCES AND TARGETED RIVERB

¬«3
This page intentionally left blank

8-172 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
!F

!F

!F

!5

!5

!5

!5

ÆQ

El Capitan

Meadow

Sentinel

Beach

El Capitan 

Bridge

Cathedral

Beach

Swinging

Bridge

Camp 4 Campground

Southside Drive

Northsi d

e

Drive

Merced

River

Leidig 

Meadow

Slaughterhouse

Meadow

Sentinel

Rock

Lower Brother

Split Pinnacle

Cathedral Rocks

0 0.25 Miles

 ̄

ALTERNATIVE 4WEST YOSEMITE VALLEY

¬«1

¬«2 ¬«3

R

iver

C

orridor Boundary

Old El Portal

Abbieville Trailer

Village

Rancheria

Flat

NPS Warehouse &AdministrativeComplex

F orest a

Road

SIERRA NATIONAL FOREST

STANISLAUS NATIONAL FOREST

National Park Boundary

Greenemeyer

Sand Pit

H ig

hway 14 0

Hwy. 140 

Bridge

0 0.4 Miles

ALTERNATIVE 4EL PORTAL

2 3

River

Corridor B

o

u

n

d

ary

M

erced

River

1

WEST YOSEMITE VALLEY1. El Capitan Meadow Area 

• Restoration of Informal Trails: Rem

and frequently inundated areas, a

appropriate access points using b

2. Valley Loop Trail

• Re-Route: Move portions of the V

boardwalks through wet meadow 

3. Yellow Pine Campground

• Administrative Use Campground: 

EL PORTAL1. Rancheria Flat

• Employee Housing: To replace te

employees each, for a total of 96 e

2. Abbieville and Trailer Village Area

• El Portal Remote Visitor Parking: C

incorporate best management pr

• Abbieville and Trailer Village Hous

employees and volunteers at this 

3. El Portal Village Center

• Valley Oak Restoration: Restore th

practices. Create a valley oak recradjacent parking lots. Decompact construction within the oak recru

• Odger’s Fuel Storage Facility: Rem

soils, and plant appropriate native alternate source for emergency fu

ALTERNATIVE 4: RESOURCED-BASED VISITOR EXPERIENCES AND TARGETED RIVERB
This page intentionally left blank

8-174 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Merced River

Merced Lake

Ranger Station !@

Merced

Lake

Merced Lake

High Sierra Camp

Merced Lake

Backpackers

!9 Camping Area

Merced Lake

East Meadow

ALTERNATIVE 4 0 0.2 MilesMERCED LAKE HIGH SIERRA CAMP

¬«1

¬«2

 ̄

River Corridor Boundary ¬«3

River Corridor Boundary Wawona Maintenance

Area

Wawona Hotel

Wawona Golf

Course

Wawona

Campground

Wawona

Stables

South Fork Picnic Area

Wawona Store Picnic Area

0 0.1 0.2 Miles

ALTERNATIVE 4WAWONA

1

2

3

MERCED LAKE HIGH SIERRA CAMP1. Merced Lake Backpackers Camping Area: Expand this designated ca

flush toilets with composting toilets. 

2. Merced Lake High Sierra Camp: Remove lodging facility and all asso

conditions and convert the area to designated Wilderness. 

3. Merced Lake East Meadow: Remove the meadow from grazing permOTHER SEGMENT 1 CAMPING AREAS (NOT SHOWN ON MAP)

• Little Yosemite Valley: Decrease the designated camping area in th• Moraine Dome: Continue designated camping in this camping are

WAWONA1. Wawona Campground: Retain 69 sites, and one group site. Remove 2. Wawona Golf Course and Golf Shop: Retain nine-hole golf course an3. Wawona Stables: Eliminate stable operation and commercial day rid

ALTERNATIVE 4: RESOURCED-BASED VISITOR EXPERIENCES AND TARGETED RIVERB
This page intentionally left blank

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-176
Alternative 4: Resource-Based Visitor Experiences and Targeted Riverbank Restoration

Detailed Description of Alternative 4 by Segment

Segment 1: Wilderness above Nevada Fall (Wild Segment)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

In addition to the “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” (beginning on page 8-47), Alternative 4 would 

include the following actions to protect and enhance river values:

Biological Values

• Discontinue administrative pack stock grazing at Merced Lake East Meadow. Administrative stock 

will carry pellet feed. 

Recreational Values

• Enhance Wilderness character by removing the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp and converting 

this area to designated Wilderness.

• Retain designated camping areas at Little Yosemite Valley, Moraine Dome, and Merced Lake. 

• Reduce crowding at Little Yosemite Valley by reducing the Wilderness zone capacity and trailhead 

quotas for trails leading to this location; reduce the size of the Little Yosemite Valley designated 

camping area. 

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Alternative 4 would reduce the amount of infrastructure in the river corridor for Segment 1. In addition to 

the “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6”. Alternative 4 would include the following actions to manage 

user capacity, land use and facilities: 

Visitor Activities and Services

Designated camping areas retained in this alternative would include Little Yosemite Valley, Moraine Dome, 

and the Merced Lake Backpackers Camping Area. 

Under Alternative 4, private boating would be allowed in Segment 1. Generally, this use would consist of short 

floats using inflatable rafts or other paddle craft that could be carried into this remote area. The use level 

would be regulated with a permit system managed as a supplement to the existing backcountry permit. Permits 

would allow use levels of up to five boats per day. 

The Merced Lake High Sierra Camp and all associated infrastructure would be removed.

Under Alternative 4, the findings of the Determination of Extent Necessary (DEN) (Appendix L) would be 

implemented. Following is a summary of the commercial use permitted under the Determination of Extent 

Necessary (DEN): 

• Allowance of up to two overnight commercial groups per Wilderness zone.

• No camping or travel allowed more than one-quarter mile from a maintained trail or public access 

road.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-177
ALTERNATIVES

• All commercial stock trips are limited to a 1:1.5 stock to person ratio. Accordingly, for every 

multiple of three persons (including employees), only two pack animals are allowed (in addition to 

three riding stock). 

• Additional seasonal and weekend restrictions would apply in the Mount Lyell, Merced Lake, and 

Little Yosemite Valley zones as indicated in Appendix L.

Visitor Overnight Capacity

Overnight capacities for both Little Yosemite Valley and Merced Lake High Sierra Camp would be reduced 

(Table 8-29). Services would be managed as follows under Alternative 4:

• Remove the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp and all associated infrastructure. Convert the area to

designated Wilderness.

• Expand the Merced Lake backpackers camping area into the footprint currently occupied by the 

Merced Lake High Sierra Camp, allowing more space for the campers in this area; retain the 

current zone capacity for this area. 

• Decrease the zone capacity for the Little Yosemite Valley Wilderness Zone and retain the 

composting toilet. Manage to a capacity of 100 people per day in the Little Yosemite Valley Zone 

using a zone quota or zone pass-through system. 

• Retain designated camping at Moraine Dome.

TABLE 8-29: WILDERNESS ZONE CAPACITIES – ALTERNATIVE 4 

Wilderness Zones

Alt 4

Zonewide Capacity

Alt 4 Zone Capacity**

Specific to the River Corridor

Little Yosemite Valley Zone 100 people (-50 people*) 100 people (-50 people*)

Merced Lake Zone 50 50

Washburn Lake Zone 150 100

Mount Lyell Zone 50 10

Clark Range Zone 50 10

NOTES: 

* Number of people reduced from Alternative 1 (No Action) to Alternative 4 

** For some Wilderness zones, only a small portion of river corridor that overlaps the zone. Therefore, the NPS calculated capacities that itemize the 

number of people in both the Wilderness zone and the river corridor portion of the zone. These calculations assume that visitors have the ability to 

camp out of sight and sound of other parties and that minimum impact camping is available within the segment.

Visitor Day-use Parking Capacity

Day-use access to this segment is addressed under “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” (beginning on 

page 8-47).

Administrative Activities

• Continue current administrative activities, which consist primarily of regular ranger patrols, 

backcountry utility work, and occasional trail/restoration work. These activities are seasonal and 

minimal in comparison to visitor use and would not affect overall user capacity.

8-178 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 4: Resource-Based Visitor Experiences and Targeted Riverbank Restoration

Segment 2: Yosemite Valley (Recreational and Scenic Segments)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

In addition to the “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” (beginning on page 8-47), Alternative 4 would 

include the following actions to protect and enhance river values:

Geological/Hydrological Values

• Retain Stoneman Bridge; mitigate the hydrological effects of the bridge by placing large wood on 

the riverbanks to address scouring, adding brush layering, and increasing channel complexity 

between Clark’s Bridge and Sentinel Bridge (as described in Chapter 5 and Appendix E).

• Remove Sugar Pine and Ahwahnee bridges and associated berm/elevated trail connecting them; 

restore banks to natural conditions; reroute multi-use trail north along the river.

Water Quality

• Remove the Concessioner Stables in Yosemite Valley and the pack trail from the stable to Happy 

Isles; restore to natural conditions.

Biological Values

Alternative 4 would remove all campsites within 150 feet of the high-water mark:

• Remove all existing campsites and associated infrastructure within 150 feet of the ordinary highwater mark and restore natural floodplain and riparian habitat (12 acres).

- Backpackers Campground – Remove all 25 sites, 21 of which are within 150 feet of the 

ordinary high-water mark. (Replace 16 sites to the west of the current campground, in less 

sensitive area out of the 100-year floodplain.)

- North Pines Campground – Remove 34 sites from within 150 feet of the ordinary highwater mark; restore native riparian vegetation.

- Lower Pines Campground – Remove 15 sites from within 150 feet of the ordinary highwater mark; restore native riparian vegetation.

• Upper Pines Campground – Retain 238 campsites, remove two sites for archeological resource 

concerns. 

• Former Lower and Upper River Campgrounds – Remove abandoned facilities within 150 feet of 

the ordinary high-water mark and restore 19.7 acres of natural floodplain topography and 

riparian/wetland habitat; re-establish overflow channels where possible. Fence and close the 

riparian zone at the former Upper River Campground to protect the riverbank from trampling; 

direct visitors to access the river for boating and swimming by way of a path to the Housekeeping 

Camp eastern beach.

• Yosemite Lodge – Retain all lodging at Yosemite Lodge, including four structures within the 100-

year floodplain.

• Former Pine and Oak Units – Restore 10.9 acres of riparian ecosystem at the site of the VIP Office 

and the former Yosemite Lodge units and cabins (those that were removed after the 1997 flood) 

and while maintaining access to the well house.

• Yosemite Village – Move the Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area northward at least 150 feet

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-179
ALTERNATIVES

away from the ordinary high-water mark and outside a designated 50-foot setback from Indian 

Creek; remove fill material and restore the riparian habitat adjacent to the river.

• Housekeeping Camp – Remove lodging and other facilities at Housekeeping Camp that are 

seasonally inundated, 34 of which are within the ordinary high-water mark (remove 166 units); 

restore native riparian habitat (12.2 acres). Direct visitor use and river access to resilient beach 

locations on the western edge of Housekeeping Camp and across the footbridge. Fence off the 

current eastern river access point located on a steep eroded bank and actively restore the riverbank 

with brush layering. Where infrastructure is removed, de-compact soils and plant riparian species.

Alternative 4 would enhance meadow connectivity by removing some roads and trails and mitigating the 

effects of others:

• Bridalveil Meadow – Re-route the 780-foot segment of the Valley Loop Trail (that crosses 

Bridalveil Meadow) closer to the base of the fill slope of the Valley Loop Road.

• Slaughterhouse Meadow – Re-route the Valley Loop Trail to an upland area out of wetlands.

• El Capitan Meadow – Fence the northern perimeter of the meadow to protect the restoration area; 

designate appropriate access points using boardwalks and viewing platforms. 

• Ahwahnee Meadow – Retain Northside Drive and the bike path in their current configuration; add 

culverts to improve hydrologic connectivity through Ahwahnee Meadow. Install a boardwalk to 

traverse wet areas through Ahwahnee Meadow (350 feet in length). 

• Stoneman Meadow – Remove the segment of Southside Drive that bisects Stoneman Meadow 

(1,335 feet); realign Southside Drive through Boys Town. Extend the boardwalk through wet areas 

to Curry Village (up to 275 feet).

Scenic Values

• Eliminate the visual intrusion of Southside Drive through Stoneman Meadow. 

Cultural Values

• Remove two structures representing historic patterns of development in Yosemite Valley: Sugar 

Pine Bridge and Ahwahnee Bridge. 

• Relocate Superintendent’s House and Garage (Residence 1) to the NPS housing area and stabilize 

the building per the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties 

(NPS 1995). 

Recreational Values

• Allow boating of up to 100 people per day for private vessels and 75 boats at one time for 

commercial vessels. This reduction in boats would enhance dispersed recreation along the river 

corridor.

8-180 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 4: Resource-Based Visitor Experiences and Targeted Riverbank Restoration

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Visitor Activities and Services

Alternative 4 would protect river-related recreation through infrastructure improvements where necessary, 

while reducing recreational activities that are not resource-related. These reductions would be made to 

accommodate the ecological restoration and visitor experience objectives for this alternative. Alternative 4 

includes the following changes to visitor activities and services in addition to those common to Alternatives 

2-6. 

• Allow both private and commercial boating in this river segment. Put-ins and take-outs would be 

limited, located below Clark’s Bridge on river right, at Sentinel Beach, and at Cathedral Beach. 

- Restrict private boating to 100 trips per day through a permit system; monitor use to 

ensure protection of river values. Restrict private boats to the section of river between the 

Clark’s Bridge and Cathedral Beach.

- Allow commercial boating between Housekeeping Camp and Sentinel Beach, with staging 

at Housekeeping Camp. Limit commercial trips to 75 boats at one time (approximately 200 

trips per day).

• Improve the Cathedral, Sentinel, and Swinging Bridge picnic areas.

• Convert some of the Housekeeping Camp lodging area into a day-use area with access to the river 

and picnicking facilities. 

• Create opportunities for picnicking adjacent to some parking areas, such as Yosemite Village, 

Church Bowl, and Happy Isles.

• Reduce the Housekeeping Camp restrooms; retain shower houses and laundry; remove the grocery 

store. 

• Eliminate commercial horseback day rides in Yosemite Valley, and replace the Concessioner 

Stables with a 41-site campground. 

• Remove the Curry Village and Yosemite Lodge bike rental facilities.

• Remove the ice skating rink at Curry Village.

• Remove the swimming pools at the Ahwahnee Hotel and Yosemite Lodge.

Visitor Overnight Capacity: Camping

Camping would be increased in Yosemite Valley, while ensuring that this activity occurs in locations that are

appropriate and protective of river values:

• Backpackers Campground – Remove all 25 sites, 21 of which are within 150 feet of the ordinary 

high-water mark. Construct 16 new walk-in campsites west of Backpackers Campground, in a less 

sensitive area out of the 100-year floodplain. 

• Upper River Campground – Construct a new campground with 30 walk-in sites and two group 

sites, north of the river, a minimum of 150 feet away from the ordinary high-water mark.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-181
ALTERNATIVES

• Lower River Campground – Construct a new campground with 40 walk-in sites, 150 feet away 

from the ordinary high-water mark.

• North Pines Campground – Retain 52 campsites. Remove 34 sites from within 150 feet of the 

ordinary high-water mark; restore native riparian communities.

• Upper Pines Campground – Retain 238 campsites, removing two sites for archeological resource 

concerns. Construct a new recreational vehicle campground loop with 36 RV sites. Construct a new 

walk-in campground with 49 individual sites and two group sites.

• Lower Pines Campground – Retain 61 campsites. Remove 15 sites from within 150 feet of the 

ordinary high-water mark.

• New Campground near Yosemite Lodge – Construct a new campground with 20 RV sites near 

the parking area west of Yosemite Lodge. 

• Camp 4 – Retain 35 walk-in campsites and 35 parking spaces. Construct 35 additional campsites 

east of Camp 4; establish a new parking area (41 spaces) for the expansion in the disturbed 

footprint of the former service station near Camp 4. 

• New Campgrounds near Curry Village – Construct a new campground with 41 drive-in sites at 

the former site of the Concessioner Stables. Construct a new campground with 40 walk-in 

campsites at Boys Town; provide two parking spaces for each site (78 new spaces along the 

roadway and 12 new spaces along the eastern edge of the Curry Orchard Parking Area). 

• Yellow Pine – Four group campsites (up to 120 people) would be retained at the Yellow Pine

Campground.

Visitor Overnight Capacity: Lodging

Lodging would be reduced in order to meet the visitor experience and ecological restoration objectives for 

this alternative. Lodging would total 823 units accommodating up to 2,826 people per night. Common to 

Alternatives 2-6, the Ahwahnee Hotel would continue to provide 123 lodging rooms. The following 

additional lodging would be retained, removed, or constructed under Alternative 4: 

• Curry Village – Retain 355 lodging units: 290 canvas tent cabins, 18 units at Stoneman House, and 

47 hard-sided cabin-with-bath units. Remove all existing cabins and associated structures at Boys 

Town. Provide 300 designated overnight parking spaces at the Curry Orchard Parking Area; restore 

ecological conditions to part of the existing parking area (removing 50 spaces) to improve natural 

surface flows to Stoneman Meadow.

• Housekeeping Camp – Retain 100 lodging units, associated restrooms, shower houses, and 

laundry. Remove 166 lodging units (83 duplex lodging 

units, four restrooms, store, and office) that are 

seasonally inundated. 

• Yosemite Lodge – Retain the existing 245 lodging 

units. 

Preliminary site drawings for the 

Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area, 

Curry Village, and Yosemite Lodge, as 

proposed in Alternative 5, have been 

completed to assess the feasibility of 

these projects. See “Conceptual Site 

Drawings” at the end of the Alternative 

4 discussion for site details and design 

drawings.

8-182 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 4: Resource-Based Visitor Experiences and Targeted Riverbank Restoration 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-183 

Visitor Day-use Parking Capacity and Transit Options 

Alternative 4 would reduce peak daily visitation to Yosemite Valley. Collectively, day parking, regional transit, 

and tour bus capacities would accommodate up to 7,554 people at one time in Segment 2, as listed below: 

 Reduce available day-use parking spaces (- 492 spaces) to provide a total of 1,845 day-use parking 

spaces in Yosemite Valley. Additional parking for Yosemite Valley would be provided at a remote 

lot in El Portal (+200 spaces). 

 Implement an East Yosemite Valley Day-use Parking Permit System to reduce crowding at key 

attraction sites, along roadways, and in parking lots and other facilities. 

 Retain tour bus parking at 15 spaces. 

Traffic circulation would be improved to reduce automobile congestion and to improve the visitor 

experience. Major actions would include the following: 

 Redesign day-use parking at Yosemite Village to provide 750 designated parking spaces and a new 

comfort station. Realign the intersection at Northside Drive and Village Drive to improve 

intersection performance. Provide on-grade pedestrian crossings with proper sight lines to address 

traffic congestion associated with vehicle-pedestrian conflicts. 

 Construct a parking lot with 150 designated day-use parking spaces and a new 3,000-square-foot 

comfort station west of Yosemite Lodge; provide 15 bus loading/unloading spaces. 

 Determine the type and location of a new grade-separated pedestrian crossing near Yosemite Falls 

location through a tiered NEPA/NHPA compliance effort. 

 Day users would also be able to access Yosemite Valley by parking in the new El Portal remote 

parking area (200 parking spaces) and taking a shuttle to the Valley. 

Due to the reductions in the day-use parking supply in this alternative (as compared to current peak 

demand), an East Yosemite Valley day-use parking reservation system would be required. The majority of 

day-use parking spaces would be reserved, with a small number being made available for more spontaneous 

users (to be distributed on-site along with spaces available from cancellations and no-shows). A reservation 

system is needed for this alternative, as demand for day-use visitation is expected to be high relative to the 

available capacity and continual East Valley traffic diversions are likely to be inadequate to handle the 

disparity (displacing East Valley crowding to other parts of the park on a regular basis). Although details of 

the system will require additional planning, general characteristics may include: 

 Seasonality – The system would like apply through the entire high use season, which can begin as 

early as mid-April and continue through October. 

 Daily hours – The system would apply to day-use parking in East Valley from 10 A.M. to 5 P.M. 

(periods of potential day-use crowding and congestion). Day-use visitors who arrive at parking 

areas before 10 A.M. or after 5 P.M. would not need a pass. 

 Primary allocation mechanism – Reservations would be made through an online system. Inperson reservations could also be made at entrance stations and visitor centers. 

 Secondary allocation mechanism – Cancelled reservations and no-shows would be filled at 

entrance gates or visitor centers after a certain hour of the day. Late arrivals would not be 

guaranteed a space in the day-use lots. 
ALTERNATIVES

• Timing of availability – Approximately 80% of total spaces would be made available for 

reservations at intervals of six months (20%), three months (20%), one month (20%), and one week

(20%) before a given date. Twenty percent would remain in the secondary system for spontaneous 

use (along with cancellations and no shows). The online reservations system would continually 

track cancellations and make those available.

• Compliance – Parking passes would need to be shown when visitors arrive at entrance gates, and 

displayed when using the day-use lots or parking for more than one hour at trailheads or roadside 

viewing areas. Visitors without passes could obtain passes at entrance stations (if they are available) 

or would be welcome to travel to other parts of the park; they would not be allowed to use day- or 

overnight-use parking areas in East Valley. 

• Fees – An administrative fee may be collected with reservations. 

• Combining Parking Fees with Park Entrance Fees – The NPS would explore options to pay park 

entrance fees when making parking pass reservations. This concept would allow visitors to enter a 

faster lane at entrance gates (because they would only have to show previous payment). 

• Overnight visitor parking passes – Visitors with overnight reservations would receive a parking 

pass for their vehicles. These visitors could park in overnight visitor lots, campgrounds, or for 

longer than one hour at trailheads and roadside viewing areas. They would not be allowed to park 

in East Valley day-use lots. 

Regional transit service would expand and shuttle bus service would be improved, as shown in Table 8-30. 

TABLE 8-30: TRANSIT OPTIONS – ALTERNATIVE 4 

Regional Transit Options

HIGHWAY 140

Merced/Mariposa to Yosemite Valley

8 runs per day (4 from Merced; 4 from Mariposa)

(year-round)

HIGHWAY 41

Fresno/Oakhurst to Yosemite Valley 4 runs per day

HIGHWAY 120 West 

Groveland/Sonora to Yosemite Valley

2 runs per day

(summer only)

HIGHWAY 120 East

Inyo/Mono County (Mammoth Lakes) to Yosemite Valley

1 run per day

(summer only)

Yosemite Valley Shuttle Options

East Yosemite Valley 5 minute peak interval between buses

(year-round except Visitor Center direct)

Visitor Center Express Yosemite Valley Day-use Parking 

Area to Visitor Center

15 minute interval between buses 

(summer only)

El Capitan Crossover 30 minute interval between buses 

(summer only)

West Yosemite Valley

Expand Valley Shuttle service to Bridalveil (summer only)

60 minute interval between buses and stops at El Capitan picnic 

area, El Capitan Meadow, Bridalveil Fall straight, Cathedral Beach, 

Yellow Pine, and Four-mile/ Swinging Bridge.

NOTE: *All Regional Transit runs are round trip.

8-184 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 4: Resource-Based Visitor Experiences and Targeted Riverbank Restoration

Administrative Activities

Some administrative activities would be relocated:

• Move the Yosemite Lodge housekeeping and maintenance facilities to a location behind the 

Yosemite Lodge food service building. 

Employee Housing and Employee Parking

Compared to existing conditions, 228 fewer concessioner employees would be housed in Yosemite Valley. 

The remaining housing for 923 concessioner employees would be provided as follows:

• Retain housing for 42 employees at the Ahwahnee Hotel.

• Provide housing for 387 employees at Curry Village.

- Retain permanent housing in the Curry Village residential area (223 employees).

- Remove employee housing at Concessioner Stables in Yosemite Valley (49 beds).

- Construct 16 dormitory buildings housing 164 employees.

• Provide housing for 390 employees at Yosemite Village:

- Retain permanent housing at Indian Creek and Upper Tecoya (28 employees). 

- Retain Ahwahnee Row, Y Apartments, garage housing, and Hospital Row (43 employees).

- Retain Tecoya Dorms (232 employees). 

- Remove the temporary housing units (pre-fabricated units and trailers) that occupy the 

Lost Arrow parking lot (outside the river corridor). Construct two new dormitories in this 

location and retain the existing Lost Arrow dorm (150 employee beds in total).

• Provide housing for 104 employees at Yosemite Lodge:

- Remove modular structures currently serving as temporary housing in the Highland Court 

parking area (82 beds).

- Construct new housing for 104 employees at Yosemite Lodge (two structures with 26 

double-occupancy units each).

In this alternative, 955 parking spaces would be allocated for administrative uses (including parking spaces 

near residential areas). 

Segment 3: Merced Gorge (Scenic Segment)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

All actions to protect and enhance river values in Segment 3 for Alternative 4 are included in “Actions 

Common to Alternatives 2-6” (page 8-47). 

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

This alternative would provide the same kinds and amounts of use available today. The majority of actions 

for Alternative 4 in Segment 3 are discussed in “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6”. Alternative actions 

that are not included in that section are listed below. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-185
ALTERNATIVES

Visitor Activities and Services

Under Alternative 4, only private boats would be allowed in Segment 3. It is expected that the water craft used 

in this segment would be kayaks. Boaters would be allowed on the river below Pohono Bridge (in Segment 2) 

and to run the river into El Portal (Segment 4). Boaters would be allowed to put in and take out at any of the 

roadside pull-outs. This use would be managed by a permit system and restricted to 10 boats per day. 

Transit Options

Public transit options along this segment would be expanded as described in the Yosemite Valley segment 

(see “Segment 2- Transit Options”, above).

Segment 4: El Portal (Recreational Segment)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

All actions to protect and enhance river values in Segment 4 for Alternative 4 are addressed in “Actions 

Common to Alternatives 2-6” (see page 8-47).

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

User capacity in this segment would primarily be affected by the amount of employee housing provided at 

El Portal. While all new units would be built outside of the 100-year floodplain, most would be located 

within the river corridor. 

Visitor Activities and Services

Most visitor activities and services in Segment 4 are addressed in “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6”. 

Additional actions unique to this alternative are listed below. 

• Private boats would be allowed in Segment 4. Anticipated use would be rafts and kayaks. Boaters 

would be allowed to paddle the stretch of river from below Yosemite View Lodge to beyond the 

Foresta Bridge (at which point boaters would enter river reaches managed by the U.S. Forest 

Service). Boaters would be able to use put-ins and take-outs west of the hotel, at the store/gas 

station, and at the Red Bud launch site. This use would be regulated through a permitting system to 

allow up to 10 boats per day. 

Visitor Overnight Use

No visitor overnight accommodations are proposed on NPS lands in this alternative. 

Visitor Day-Use Capacity

Visitor day-use parking would be expanded in Segment 4 to provide a total of 414 spaces. A new remote 

visitor day-use parking area accommodating a maximum of 200 vehicles would be provided in El Portal at 

the Abbieville site. This parking area would primarily be used for visitor access to Yosemite Valley. The use 

associated with this parking area is factored into the Valley daily visitation levels reported above (see 

“Visitor Day-use Parking – Segment 2,” above).

8-186 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 4: Resource-Based Visitor Experiences and Targeted Riverbank Restoration 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-187 

The total available day-use parking capacity in this segment would be 414 spaces. Roughly half (214) of 

these spaces would be for visitors to El Portal (accommodating 740 people at one time) and 200 remote 

parking spaces would be for visitors to Yosemite Valley. 

Administrative Activities 

All administrative activities in Segment 4 are considered in “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” (see 

page 8-47). 

Employee Housing Capacity 

In Alternative 4, higher-density employee housing would be added to the El Portal Village Center (12 beds) 

at Rancheria Flat (96 beds). All new units would be located outside of the 100-year floodplain. These units 

would be added to replace concessions housing removed from Yosemite Valley. The total housing capacity 

for El Portal would be 300 people. 

Employee and Administrative Parking Capacity 

Most employee and administrative parking actions are discussed in “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” 

(see page 8-47). New employee overnight parking spaces would be included with the housing units to be 

built at El Portal Village Center and Rancheria Flat. 

Transit Options 

Regional transit options would maintain existing service along the Highway 140 (El Portal Road) corridor. 

For a complete summary of the transit activity that passes through this segment, see the “Segment 2- Transit 

Options” section, above. 

Segment 5: South Fork Merced above Wawona (Wild Segment) 

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values 

There are no actions in proposed in Alternative 4 that are specific to this segment. 

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management 

Alternative 4 would provide the same kinds and amounts of use available today in Segment 5. The majority 

of actions in Segment 5 are included in “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6”. Actions unique to this 

alternative are described below. 

Visitor Activities and Services 

Under Alternative 4, private boating would be allowed in Segment 5. Use in this segment would consist of 

short floats using inflatable rafts or other paddle craft that could easily be carried into this remote area. Only 

five boats per day would be allowed, and a permit would be required. The boating permits would be issued 

in conjunction with overnight backcountry permits. 

Transit Options 

Specific transportation options for reaching Segment 5 trailheads are listed below under Segment 7. 
ALTERNATIVES

Segments 6 and 7: Wawona Impoundment and Wawona (Recreational Segments)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

In addition to the “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” (see page 8-47), protection and enhancement of 

cultural values and water quality would be accomplished through the actions described below.

Cultural Values/Water Quality

• Stock campground: Two stock campsites would be relocated away from a culturally sensitive area 

to the site of the Wawona Commercial Stables. 

• Wawona Campground: Remove 27 sites that are either within 150 feet of the river or in culturally 

sensitive areas. 

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

This alternative would provide the same kinds and amounts of use available today. The majority of actions 

for Alternative 4 in Segment 7 are discussed in “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6”. Alternative actions 

that are not included in that section are listed below.

Visitor Activities and Services

Most visitor activities and services in Segment 7 are considered in “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” 

see page 8-47) Additional actions are listed below. 

• Golfing – Retain the Wawona Golf Course. 

• Tennis – Retain the Wawona Hotel Tennis Court. 

• Wawona Commercial Stables – Discontinue commercial horseback day rides and remove the 

Wawona stables; repurpose the stables area as a stock use campground. 

• Boating – Allow only private boating in Segment 7. Expected use would be kayaks and other small 

whitewater boats. Boating would be permitted from below Wawona’s Swinging Bridge to beyond 

the park boundary, with the exception of the Wawona impoundment where boating is prohibited. 

Boaters would be able to use put-ins and take-outs at Swinging Bridge, the Wawona Store area, 

South Fork Picnic Area, and below the campground. This use would be regulated through a permit 

and monitoring system that would restrict use to five boats per day.

Visitor Overnight Capacity

• The overnight capacity for Segment 7 would be 176 units accommodating up to 703 people per 

night. 

• The Wawona Campground would be reduced in size to 70 sites (444 people per night). This 

includes one group camping site (to accommodate up to 30 persons). 

• Two stock campsites would be relocated to the Wawona stables and would accommodate 6 people 

per night each (12 people per night total).

8-188 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 4: Resource-Based Visitor Experiences and Targeted Riverbank Restoration

Transit Options

• Tour bus parking would be provided in the parking area at the Wawona Store. In-park shuttle 

options between Wawona and Yosemite Valley would continue. New regional transit options 

would be provided along the Highway 41 (Wawona Road) corridor, with four runs between 

Fresno/Oakhurst and Yosemite Valley. 

Segment 8: South Fork Merced River below Wawona (Wild Segment)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

There are no actions in Alternative 4 proposed for this segment.

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Alternative 4 would provide kinds and amounts of use similar to those that exist today in Segment 8; 

significant changes are not proposed. The majority of actions for Alternative 4 in Segment 8 are discussed in 

“Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6”. Alternative actions that are not included in that section are listed 

below. 

Visitor Activities and Services

Private boating would be allowed in Segment 8. Use in this segment would consist of short floats on

inflatable rafts or other paddle craft, and pass-through trips by experienced kayakers. Up to five boats per 

day would be allowed, and a permit would be required. The boating permits would be issued in conjuction 

with overnight backcountry permits.

Transit Options

Transit services for access to this segment are described above under Segment 7.

Conceptual Site Drawings

Boys Town

In Alternative 4, Southside Drive would be removed from Stoneman Meadow and visitor traffic re-routed 

through Curry Village. The existing Boys Town cabins and facilities would be removed and replaced with 40 

walk-in campsites. 78 parking spaces would be added for walk-in campers along a new roadway connecting 

Curry Village and the campgrounds, and 12 parking spaces would be added to the eastern edge of the Curry 

Orchard Parking Area. A new pedestrian walkway and a comfort station with showers would be constructed 

within the existing use area. The Campground Reservation Center would be relocated to a more accessible 

location, closer to East Valley campgrounds. The Curry Orchard Parking Area would be partially restored to 

facilitate Stoneman Meadow restoration, while retaining approximately 300 parking spaces. The project 

area would encompass 8.4 acres and would include: approximately 4,000 square feet for new buildings; 

2,000 square feet of utility trenching; 153,860 square feet for the new camping area; 4,300 square feet for a 

plaza and pedestrian pathways around the comfort station; and 27,000 square feet of new parking, for a total 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-189
ALTERNATIVES

of 4.4 acres. Temporary construction staging would require approximately 1.4 acres and would likely take 

place within the existing Curry Orchard Parking Area.

Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area 

In Alternative 4, the 12-acre Yosemite Village Parking Area at Camp 6 would be moved northward 150 feet 

away from the river to facilitate riparian restoration goals and to prevent riparian resource damage. 

Restoration actions would remove non-native fill material, re-contour the topography, and plant native 

vegetation. The redesigned parking area would be formalized to provide a total of 750 parking spaces and a 

new comfort station. The intersection would be realigned at Northside Drive and Village Drive to address 

traffic flow on peak days. The Concessioner General Office and Garage and the Art Activity Center (former 

bank building) would be removed, and the Village Sport Shop repurposed to a visitor contact station. 

The project area for improvements at the Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area in Alternative 4 would 

cover approximately 27.5 acres, most of which is currently developed, and would include: 1.1 acres for 

existing building removal; 4,000 square feet for the new comfort station; 5.4 acres of pavement removal; 2.2 

acres of new roadway; 5.1 acres for new parking; 15,220 square feet of utility service trenching; and 43,350 

square feet for new pedestrian pathways. Temporary construction staging would cover approximately two

acres. 

Yosemite Lodge

In Alternative 4, the former annex area (west of Yosemite Lodge) would be redeveloped to provide: 150 

day-use parking spaces, designated campsites for 20 RVs, parking for 15 buses, a new 3,000 square foot 

comfort station, and a re-located shuttle stop. The existing tour bus drop-off area would be relocated to the 

Highland Court area. The abandoned concessioner employee wellness center and linen storage and laundry 

buildings would be removed. Linen storage and laundry would be replaced by an addition to the food 

service building. The project area for improvements at Yosemite Lodge in Alternative 4 would cover 

approximately 27.5 acres, most of which is currently developed, and would include: 55,850 square feet of 

existing building and pavement removal; 3,000 square feet for the new comfort station and shuttle stop; 

13,300 square feet of utility service trenching; 2.5 acres for parking; and 2,500 square feet for pedestrian 

pathways. Temporary construction staging would occur over a two-acre area within the existing footprint. 

Existing vegetation would be retained to separate and screen parking bays, while bioswales would serve to 

filter and treat storm water run-off.

Also in Alternative 4, the temporary modular housing at Highland Court and the Thousands Cabins would 

be removed and replaced with two new buildings housing 104 concessioner employees. 78 employee 

parking spaces would be provided, along with short-term parking for 3 shuttle buses and 53 day-use parking

spaces for the public. The two housing sites would cover a total of 7.4 acres, most of which is currently 

developed and would include: 45,500 square feet of preparation for the new buildings; 5,500 square feet of 

utility service trenching; and 1.8 acres for parking.

8-190 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
*These drawings are provided to demonstrate where facilities would be removed, relocated, or constructed according to actions more fully described by project alternatives. The drawings 

 do not represent a final proposal. More detailed design and construction documents would be developed consistent with the general concepts presented here.

NORTH

Alternative 4

Conceptual Site Drawing for

Curry Village

Yosemite National Park

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

Construct 4 two-story buildings for 32 occupants, 8 occupants per building.

Construct 11 two-story buildings for 132 occupants, 12 occupants per building.

Provide common recreational area, approximately 3,600 square feet.

Build plaza areas and walkways with site furnishings, accent paving, and 

enhanced landscaping.

Construct a shuttle bus stop.

Remove ice rink and bicycle rentals. Construct an employee parking facility with 

164 spaces.

Retain historic residence for housing purposes.

Improve parking facility with 300 spaces and landscape buffers with trees and 

bioswales that will treat storm water run-off. Provide pedestrian walkways.

Remove Stoneman Road and adjacent recreation trail. Extend boardwalk from 

existing terminus (at Stoneman Road) to Curry Village Pavilion area. Improve 

hydrology, remove invasive species, promote weed control and plant native species.

Replace existing guest accommodations with a walk-in 

campground consisting of 40 sites. 

Construct restroom with showers.

Construct a roadway to connect Curry Village and East 

Valley campgrounds. Provide additional roadside parking.

Relocate Campground Reservation Center and provide 8 

parking spaces.

Retain existing historic cabins and Stoneman Cottage (65 

lodging units).

Retain existing Curry Pavilion.

Retain 290 tents. Huff House Employee Housing

Replace temporary housing with permanent facilities,

164 beds and 164 parking spaces

Boys Town

Curry Orchard Parking Area

Stoneman Meadow Restoration

Existing Curry Village Visitor Services

2

1

3

4

5

6

7

10

11

12

13

8

9

2 1

3

4

5

6

7

10

11

12

13

8

9

14

15

16

14

15

16
ALTERNATIVES

This page intentionally left blank 

8-192 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
*These drawings are provided to demonstrate where facilities would be removed, relocated, or constructed according to actions more fully described by project alternatives. 

 The drawings do not represent a final proposal. More detailed design and construction documents would be developed consistent with the general concepts presented here.

Alternative 4

Conceptual Site Drawing for

Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area

Yosemite National Park

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

Eliminate Concessioner General Office and Garage between the Village Store 

and Ahwahnee Meadow, providing more space for visitor parking. 

Retain shuttle stops on Visitor Center Loop Drive.

Replace Village Sport Shop with visitor contact station.

Eliminate art activity center and improve pedestrian access.

Improve pedestrian connections and bike paths east and west of the day-use 

parking area. 

Provide a two-way access driveway from Sentinel Drive as the primary 

entrance to the day-use parking area.

Redesign the day-use parking area to provide a 150-foot buffer from the river. 

Restore wetlands and meadow.

Create pedestrian pathways to lead visitors into the Yosemite Village mall. 

Construct a comfort station in a central location connected to the main 

pedestrian concourse.

Remove offset intersection and re-align day-use parking area driveway as a 

conventional four-way intersection at Village Drive and Northside Drive. Shift 

pedestrian crosswalk on Northside Drive from the east to the west side of this 

intersection.

Provide 750 day-use parking spaces. Design planters to retain large numbers 

of trees, including bioswales that eliminate pollutants from parking area. 

Create pedestrian pathways with a wayfinding system leading visitors to the 

Yosemite Village mall.

Relocate shuttle bus pick-up and drop-off area. Replace comfort station.

NORTH

1

1

10

11 8

9

2

2

3

4

5

5

6

7

5

1

10

11

8

9

2

3

4

5

6

7
ALTERNATIVES

This page intentionally left blank 

8-194 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
NORTH

*These drawings are provided to demonstrate where facilities would be removed, relocated, or constructed according to actions more fully described by project alternatives. 

 The drawings do not represent a final proposal. More detailed design and construction documents would be developed consistent with the general concepts presented here.

Alternative 4

Conceptual Site Drawing for

Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4

Yosemite National Park

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

Re-align Yosemite Lodge intersection within the 

limits of existing developed areas.

Maintain all existing Yosemite Lodge buildings and 

parking areas.

Enhance pedestrian circulation system.

Construct tour bus loading and unloading area, with 

shelter.

Construct employee housing in 2 two-story 

buildings with 52 occupants per building and 39 

employee parking spaces per building.

Relocate linen storage and laundry buildings from 

unloading area. Demolish and remove existing NPS 

Reconstruct a section of the Yosemite Lodge 

entrance road as a promenade with a 5% slope 

to a pedestrian underpass. Install accent paving, 

voltage site lighting consistent with design features 

of the Yosemite Falls trail.

Construct 150 visitor parking spaces at Yosemite 

Lodge Day-use Parking Area. Maintain existing 

vegetation as buffers to separate and screen parking 

bays, provide pedestrian pathways and bioswales 

that will treat storm water run-off.

Construct 15 tour bus parking spaces.

Construct a shuttle bus stop with shelter and 

comfort station.

Construct 41 additional parking spaces at Camp 4.

Retain 35 existing walk-in campsites at Camp 4. 

Construct 35 additional walk-in sites opposite 

existing parking facility. Occupancy is limited to 6 

campers per site. Standard walk-in campsite is 3,850 

square feet (70-foot diameter), including 1,200 

square feet of clearance with a 15-foot perimeter 

buffer.

Protect and enhance a 150-foot riparian buffer.

Construct an RV loop with 20 campsites.
ALTERNATIVES

This page intentionally left blank

8-196 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 5 (Preferred Alternative): Enhanced Visitor 

Experience and Essential RiverBank Restoration 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-197 

ALTERNATIVE 5 (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE): ENHANCED VISITOR 

EXPERIENCE AND ESSENTIAL RIVERBANK RESTORATION 

Overview 

The guiding principles of Alternative 5 (Preferred) would include restoring natural conditions to riparian 

areas and meadows, modifying components of the transportation system to improve the visitor experience 

in Yosemite Valley, and reducing or eliminating unnecessary facilities and services in the river corridor. 

Management actions in Alternative 5 (Preferred) would: 

 Restore 189 acres of meadow and riparian habitat.

 Significantly increase the campsite inventory in all river segments (+36%) and in Yosemite Valley

(+37%).

 Slightly increase available lodging corridorwide (+3%) and in Yosemite Valley (+5%).

 Increase parking for Yosemite Valley day use (+8%).

 Reduce some commercial services and move others to locations outside of the river corridor.

 Make significant changes to the traffic circulation pattern in Yosemite Valley to accommodate

ecological restoration goals while reducing traffic congestion.

 Establish a user capacity of 18,710 people at one time for Yosemite Valley, with peak visitation

estimated at 20,100 visitors per day.

 Manage user capacity for East Yosemite Valley by rerouting traffic at the El Capitan Traffic

Diversion prior to reaching established limits.

 Continue to manage overnight-use capacity through Wilderness permits and reservation systems

for lodging and camping.

Under Alternative 5 (Preferred), visitors to Yosemite Valley would see marked improvements in circulation, 

parking availability, and traffic flow. Coupled with enhancements to meadows, improvements to river 

access, and extensive riverbank restoration, the visitor experience would be significantly improved. Visitors 

to Yosemite Village would experience an enhanced “sense of arrival” to the heart of Yosemite Valley, as the 

primary day-use parking area would be fully integrated with pathways to visitor services, restrooms, and 

food service. Recreational activities, such as rafting, bicycling, and ice skating would continue, with rental 

facilities and services provided at locations outside the river corridor. With watercraft allowed on eight 

miles of the Merced River in Yosemite Valley, boaters would be able to float new and challenging reaches of 

water framed by views of El Capitan and Half Dome. Valley stables would be active, servicing the High 

Sierra camp and supporting NPS administrative activities. Private horseback riding would continue in 

Yosemite Valley and further into the high country. 

Families would enjoy expanded camping opportunities in East Yosemite Valley, with new walk-in campsites 

provided east of Camp 4, at Upper Pines, and at the location of the former Upper and Lower River 

campgrounds. Drive-in campsites (including some RV sites) would be included in the new development at 

Upper Pines and Lower River (adjacent to the road), and would be provided at El Portal. Housekeeping 

Camp would continue to offer an alternative to camping, with improved access to the nearby beach and 

picnicking area. 
ALTERNATIVES

The visual distraction caused by substandard temporary housing at Curry Village would be eliminated. 

Similar improvements would be noticed at Yosemite Lodge, with the replacement of temporary modular 

housing with permanent, code-complaint housing. Redundant services, such as the Village Sports Shop, the 

Lodge Nature Shop, and the Yosemite Lodge post office would be eliminated and replaced with visitor 

information and interpretive functions. Overall, the visitor would discover a less cluttered and confused 

Yosemite Valley experience with ample opportunity to enjoy the river and its values without diminishing 

their quality. 

Under Alternative 5 (Preferred), West Yosemite Valley would retain its overall natural character with 

limited facilities and services provided. This peaceful setting would continue to serve as a destination for 

low-impact recreational activities such as hiking, rock climbing, photography, and wildlife viewing. 

Backcountry enthusiasts traveling through the Merced River corridor would find designated camping at 

Little Yosemite Valley, Moraine Dome, and Merced Lake. Visitors to Yosemite Wilderness would have the 

option of staying at a smaller Merced Lake High Sierra camp, continuing on to other High Sierra Camps, or 

exiting to the Valley. 

Visitors to Wawona would continue to enjoy the historic Wawona Hotel, swimming pool and tennis courts. 

Recreational activities would include camping, commercial horseback day rides from the Wawona stables, 

golfing, swimming, picnicking, and boating the South Fork Merced.

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values 

Alternative 5 (Preferred) would protect and enhance river values through essential ecological restoration of 

riverbanks and riparian and meadow habitat. Targeted infrastructure within the bed and banks of the river 

would be removed, along with campsites and associated infrastructure within 100 feet of the river; these 

areas would be ecologically restored. This alternative would also establish a Valley Oak habitat protection 

area in El Portal. Further study would be conducted to assess the alluvial processes of the river and 

determine the appropriate treatment for Sugar Pine Bridge. The connection between meadows and the 

riparian floodplain would be enhanced through engineering and design treatments, including the

installation of large box culverts and permeable subgrades to improve surface water flow. 

Cultural and scenic values would be protected and enhanced as described under “Actions Common to 

Alternatives 2-6.” Recreational values would also be protected and enhanced by dispersing recreational 

boating along the river through Yosemite Valley and by reducing traffic congestion. Table 8-31 provides a 

summary of the actions unique to Alternative 5 (Preferred) that would protect and enhance river values.

8-198 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 5 (Preferred Alternative): Enhanced Visitor 

Experience and Essential RiverBank Restoration

TABLE 8-31: ADDITIONAL ACTIONS TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE RIVER VALUES, ALTERNATIVE 5 (PREFERRED) 

Ecological Restoration Actions (Free Flow, Water Quality, Geological/Hydrological, and Biological Values)

Corridorwide

Ecological 

Restoration Acreage

189 acres: 176 acres (common to all) plus an additional 13 acres (refer to Appendix E for specific 

locations)

Riprap to be 

Removed

6,048 linear feet: 5,700 linear feet (common to all) plus an additional 348 feet to be bioengineered 

(refer to Appendix E for specific locations)

Segment 2: Yosemite Valley 

Free Flow 

/Geological/ 

Hydrological Values

 Retain all historic bridges, including Sugar Pine Bridge, for the near-term. Additional study will be 

conducted by a third party to determine the hydrologic impacts of the historic bridges. Develop 

criteria for bridge removal (prior to study) that establishes quantitative conditions related to altered 

flow velocity (speed and direction) attributed to the bridge, both upstream and downstream. 

Quantify and compare the cost associated with constructing, maintaining, and monitoring 

mitigation installations over a 20-year period with the cost of bridge removal. 

 Move Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area parking to the north, at least 150 feet away from the 

river. 

Biological Values

 Ecologically restore portions of Backpackers Campground, North Pines Campground, and Lower 

Pines Campground. 

 Ecologically restore 19.7 acres of habitat in Upper and Lower River Campgrounds area and locate 

all new campsites 150 feet away from the river.

Recreational Values  Reduce traffic congestion with improvements to the transportation system and the design and 

location of day-use parking.

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Alternative 5 (Preferred) would maintain a wide range of recreational opportunities, while removing a 

number of facilities from the river corridor. User capacities would accommodate the level of peak visitation 

seen in recent years, and improvements to the transportation system would improve the visitor experience 

(see Table 8-32). Proper infrastructure design and site delineation in high-use areas would ensure the longterm protection of river values. 

Visitor Activities and Services

Alternative 5 (Preferred) would reduce some commercial facilities and services and relocate others outside 

of the river corridor. Reduced facilities and services would include the removal of redundant and 

underutilized facilities and services in Yosemite Valley, including gift shops, snack stands, and commercial 

horseback day rides. Alternative 5 (Preferred) would retain the grocery store at Housekeeping Camp, as well 

as three swimming pools in Yosemite Valley. Services that would be retained but relocated outside of the 

river corridor include raft rentals and bike rentals. The ice skating rink would be relocated outside of the 

river corridor to a parking lot in Curry Village and operated as a temporary, seasonal facility.

TABLE 8-32: USER CAPACITIES BY USE TYPE AND LOCATION – ALTERNATIVE 5 (PREFERRED)

User Capacities by Use Type and Location Alt 1 (No Action) Alt 5

Unit Type Units PAOT Units PAOT

Wilderness Above Nevada Fall

Visitor Overnight Use Wilderness Zone Capacities & Beds 380 380 362 362

Visitor Day Use Day Hikers 350 350 350 350

Employee Housing Employee Beds 15 15 15 15

Administrative Day Use Day Patrols 5 5 5 5 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-199
ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 8-32: USER CAPACITIES BY USE TYPE AND LOCATION – ALTERNATIVE 5 (PREFERRED)

User Capacities by Use Type and Location Alt 1 (No Action) Alt 5

Unit Type Units PAOT Units PAOT

Yosemite Valley

Visitor Overnight Use Rooms & Campsites 1,500 6,564 1,722 7,831

Visitor Day Use Parking Spaces& Buses - 11,727 - 9,479

Employee Housing Employee Beds 1,315 1,315 1,029 1,029

Administrative Day Use Parking Spaces 166 332 187 374

Merced Gorge

Visitor Overnight Use Rooms & Campsites - - - - 

Visitor Day Use Parking Spaces 180 869 180 869

Employee Housing Employee Beds 9 9 9 9 

Administrative Day Use Parking Spaces 2 4 2 4 

El Portal

Visitor Overnight Use Rooms and Campsites - - 40 240

Visitor Day Use Parking Spaces 214 740 214 740

Employee Housing Employee Beds 220 427 332 547

Administrative Day Use Parking Spaces 610 1,220 610 1,220

South Fork Above Wawona

Visitor Overnight Use Permits 20 20 20 20

Visitor Day Use Day Hikers 6 6 6 6 

Employee Housing Employee Beds - - - - 

Administrative Day Use Day Patrols 1 1 1 1 

Wawona

Visitor Overnight Use Rooms & Campsites 203 865 190 787

Visitor Day Use Parking Spaces & Buses - 1,295 - 1,606

Employee Housing Employee Beds 121 121 121 121

Administrative Day Use Parking Spaces 30 60 30 60

South Fork Below Wawona

Visitor Overnight Use Overnight Hikers - - - - 

Visitor Day Use Day Hikers 6 6 6 6 

Employee Housing Employee Beds - - - - 

Administrative Day Use Day Patrols 1 1 1 1 

Visitor Overnight Capacity

Camping

The campsite inventory in the Merced Wild and Scenic River corridor and Yosemite Valley would be 

increased by approximately 36%. All campsites within 100 feet of the river would be removed. Campsite losses 

would be offset with the addition of new camping adjacent to Upper Pines Campground and east of the 

Camp 4 Campground, as well as new sites west of Backpackers Campground, in the location of the former 

Upper and Lower River campgrounds, and in the El Portal Trailer Village. Under Alternative 5 (Preferred), the 

total number of campsites in Yosemite Valley would increase to 640—a net gain of 174 sites—and the total 

number of campsites available in the corridor would be 766. Table 8-33 provides a summary of the proposed 

changes to camping.

8-200 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 5 (Preferred Alternative): Enhanced Visitor 

Experience and Essential RiverBank Restoration 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-201 

TABLE 8-33: CAMPING FACILITIES – ALTERNATIVE 5 (PREFERRED) 

Existing Locations 

Alt 1 

(No Action) Alt 5 Details 

Backpackers 25 sites 10 sites Retain 10 walk-in sites and remove 15 walk-in sites within 100 feet of 

river 

Camp 4 35 sites 35 sites No change to this National Historic Register Site 

Lower Pines 76 sites 71 sites 5 sites within 100 feet of the river removed 

North Pines 86 sites 72 sites 14 sites within 100 feet of the river removed 

Upper Pines 240 sites 238 sites 2 sites removed for archeological resource concerns 

Yellow Pine (Administrative) 4 sites 4 sites No changes to these administrative group sites 

Wawona Campground 99 sites 86 sites 13 sites within 100 feet of river or in culturally sensitive areas removed

Total Existing Locations 565 sites 516 sites 

New Locations Sites Alt 5 Details 

West of Backpackers 0 sites 16 sites 16 walk-in sites constructed outside 100-year floodplain to replace 

the sites removed from Backpackers Campground 

East of Camp 4 0 sites 35 sites 35 walk-in sites constructed in area east of Camp 4 

Upper Pines 0 sites 87 sites 36-site RV loop and a walk-in campground with 49 sites and 2 group 

sites 

Upper River 0 sites 32 sites 30 walk-in and 2 group sites constructed in the former Upper River 

Campground area, outside the 150-foot riparian buffer 

Lower River 0 sites 40 sites 30 walk-in and 10 drive-in sites constructed in the former Lower River 

Campground area, outside the 150-foot riparian buffer 

Abbieville/Trailer Village 

(Public and Administrative) 0 sites 40 sites 40 campsites (some with RV hook-ups) for public and administrative 

use 

Total New Camping 0 sites 250 sites 

Total Camping in Corridor 565 sites 766 sites 

Lodging 

Under Alternative 5 (Preferred), the number of lodging units would increase by a modest amount relative to 

existing conditions. Consistent with the 1980 GMP, lodging units would be removed from the area below the 

ordinary high-water mark at Housekeeping Camp. At Curry Village, some of the existing tent cabins at Boys 

Town would be removed and replaced with 52 hard-sided units, to increase the availability of year-round 

accommodations in the Valley. Fifty canvas tent cabins and 14 cabin-without-bath units would be retained at 

Boys Town to represent the historic camp configuration. The Merced Lake High Sierra Camp would be 

reduced in size (by approximately 30%). The net result of all changes proposed under Alternative 5 (Preferred) 

would be an increase of 37 units to the lodging inventory in the river corridor (Table 8-34). 

Parking Inventory and Access Improvements 

Under Alternative 5 (Preferred), parking for Yosemite Valley day use would increase by 8%, with the provision 

of a remote parking lot in El Portal. The total number of day-use parking spaces available for all river segments 

would be as shown in Table 8-35. 
ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 8-34: LODGING FACILITIES – ALTERNATIVE 5 (PREFERRED)

Wilderness Alt 1 

(No Action) Alt 5 Details

Merced Lake High Sierra 

Camp

22 units

(60 beds)

11 units

(42 beds)

18 beds removed from wilderness lodging facility; all 

historic tent cabin foundations retained in place

Yosemite Valley Alt 1 Alt 5 Details

Ahwahnee Hotel 123 rooms 123 rooms No change at this National Historic Landmark

Housekeeping Camp 266 units 232 units Remove 34 units from within the ordinary high-water 

mark 

Curry Village 400 units

482 units

(351 canvas tent 

cabins and 131 

hard-sided units) 

 Retain 351 canvas tent cabins

 Retain 18 units at Stoneman House

 Retain 47 cabin-with-bath units

 Retain 14 cabin-without-bath units in Boys Town

 Construct 52 hard-sided units in Boys Town

Yosemite Lodge 245 rooms 245 rooms No changes at lodging facility

Wawona Alt 1 Alt 5 Details

Wawona Hotel 104 rooms 104 rooms No change at this National Historic Landmark 

Total Lodging in Corridor 1,160 units 1,197 units 

The most significant changes to parking and circulation would take place in the vicinity of Yosemite Village, 

Yosemite Lodge, and El Portal. The Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area would be redesigned to provide 

750 parking spaces. The new design would include pathways to better guide visitors to visitor services and 

eliminate pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. A traffic roundabout would be added to facilitate traffic flow and 

ease traffic congestion. A total of 300 day-use parking spaces would be provided west of Yosemite Lodge, in 

an area currently used for bus parking and storage. Bus parking would be provided adjacent to this new 

visitor parking area. Overflow parking during times of peak visitation would be available in El Portal (300 

parking spaces). The total parking inventory in East Yosemite Valley (including day, overnight, and 

administrative uses) would be approximately 5,360 spaces. Including the remote parking lot provided in El 

Portal (300 day-use spaces), a total of 5,660 parking spaces would be provided for visitor and administrative 

access to Yosemite Valley.

Under Alternative 5 (Preferred), regional transit options and shuttle services would be expanded. 

TABLE 8-35: NUMBER OF DAY-USE PARKING SPACES IN SEGMENTS – ALTERNATIVE 5 (PREFERRED) 

Location Alt 1 (No Action) Alt 5

Segment 2:Yosemite Valley 2,337 spaces 2,220 spaces

Segment 3:The Gorge 180 spaces 180 spaces

Segment 4:El Portal 214 spaces 514 spaces*

Segment 7: Wawona 290 spaces 290 spaces

Total Parking 3,021 spaces 3,204 spaces

NOTE: 

* 300 new spaces in El Portal are located in the El Portal Remote Parking Area. While these spaces 

are located in El Portal and are therefore counted as part of the parking inventory of Segment 4,

most of the use associated with these spaces would occur in Yosemite Valley.

8-202 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
!F

!F

ÆQ

ÆQ

ÆQ

ÆQ

!i

!i

!i

!i

!i

Housekeeping Camp Footbridge

Curry 

Village

Lower Pines

Campground

North Pines

Campground

Upper Pines

Campground

Clark's

Bridge

Tenaya

Bridge

River Corridor Boundary

Boys

Town Southside Drive

The Ahwahnee Backpackers

Campground

Stoneman

Bridge

Happy Isles Bridge

Merced River

Royal

Arches

Meadow

Stoneman

Meadow

Ahwahnee

Meadow

Ahwahnee

Bridge

Tennis Court

Concessioner

Stable

Upper and Lower 

River Campground Area

Sugar Pine Bridge

Northside Drive

Ahwahnee

Parking

Wilderness

Parking

Curry Village Parking

0 0.25 Miles

¬«4

¬«5

¬«6

 ̄

ALTERNATIVE 5

CURRY VILLAGE AND CAMPGROUNDS

!i

Huff

House

Tenaya Creek

¬«3

¬«2

¬«1

EAST YOSEMITE VALLEY: CURRY VILLAGE AND CAMPGROUNDS

1 Upper and Lower River Campground

• Lower River Campground: Construct a new campground 150 feet away from the river with 30 walk-in sites and 

10 drive-in sites. Retain the Lower River Amphitheatre. Provide picnic tables and parking for day use and 

directed river access to the Housekeeping Camp eastern beach. Designate boating put-in at this location.

• Upper River Campground: Construct a new campground 150 feet away from the river with 30 walk-in sites and 

two group sites. Restore hydrologic processes in the southeast portion of the area.

• Restoration: Restore 19.7acres of floodplain. Protect the riverbank from trampling by fencing sensitive areas.

2 River Reach Between Bridges

• Ahwahnee and Sugar Pine Bridges: Retain Ahwahnee Bridge and the Sugar Pine Bridge. Additional study will be 

conducted to determine the hydrologic impacts of the historic Sugar Pine Bridge. The study will include criteria 

that establish quantitative conditions related to altered flow velocity attributed to the bridge, both upstream 

and downstream and/or the costs associated with constructing, maintaining, and monitoring mitigation 

installations over a 20-year period versus the cost of bridge removal.

• Stoneman Bridge: Mitigate effects of bridge to alluvial river processes through engineered solutions: place 

large wood to lessen scouring, and use brushlayering and a constructed log jam. Add culverts along Northside 

Drive. 

3 Curry Village Area

• Lodging: Total would be 482 guest units, including: 301 tents cabins in Curry Village retained; 50 tent cabins 

and 14 cabins without baths retained in the historic Boys Town configuration; 52 hard-sided units in Boys Town 

would be constructed (16 duplex and 5 four-plex cabins with baths); 18 units at Stoneman House would be 

retained; and 47 cabin-with-bath units in Curry Village would be retained.

• Curry Orchard Parking Area: Provide 415 parking spaces through a re-design of the parking area that incorporates best management practices to protect water quality. Also, apply engineering solutions to promote water 

flow and to increase drainage to Stoneman Meadow. Remove most of the apple trees to mitigate human-bear 

interactions and plant native vegetation. 

• Facilities and Services: Move ice rink to parking area outside of the river corridor and retain this seasonal 

activity. Move the bicycle and raft rental services outside of the Wild and Scenic River corridor.

• Huff House Housing: Remove most temporary housing development at Huff House. Retain 10 tent cabins (20 

beds) and the historic Peterson House.

• Curry Village Day-use Parking: Within the existing disturbance footprint at the Curry Village Ice Rink area, provide 

visitor day-use and employee commuter parking for 189 vehicles.

• Huff House Black Oak Restoration: Remove temporary housing and associated infrastructure, retaining

pedestrian walkways as appropriate. Actively restore oak habitat restoring natural topography, de-compacting 

soils, and planting or seeding if necessary. Protect area as it re-vegetates with fencing.

4 North Pines Campground Area

• Ecological Restoration at Campgrounds: Remove campsites within 100 feet of the river at North Pines,

Backpackers and Lower Pines campgrounds. Restore 6.5 acres of riparian habitat. Designate a formal river access 

point at North Pines campground.

• Backpackers Campground: Retain 10 walk-in sites. Remove 15 walk-in sites within the 100-foot riparian buffer to 

be replaced by 16 walk-in sites west of Backpackers Campground.

• North Pines Campground: Retain 72 campsites. Remove 14 sites from within 100 feet of river.

• Concessioner Stables in Yosemite Valley: Retain stables to support the operation of the Merced Lake High Sierra 

Camp. Provide overflow parking for campgrounds at the stables. Retain kennel service. Retain associated 

housing (49 beds).

5 Lower Pines Campground Area

• Campground Sites: Retain 71 campsites and remove five sites from within 100 feet of river.

6 Upper Pines Campground Area

• Campground Sites: Retain 238 campsites. Remove two sites for sensitive resource concerns. 

• New RV Loop: Construct a new campground loop with 36 RV sites.

• New Walk-in Sites: Construct a new walk-in campground with 49 sites and two group camping sites.

ALTERNATIVE 5: ENHANCED VISITOR EXPERIENCES AND ESSENTIAL RIVERBANK RESTORATION

8-203
This page intentionally left blank

8-204 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
River Corridor Boundary

Merced River

Northside Drive

Ahwahnee Road

Southside Drive

Yosemite Creek

Bridge

Cook's Meadow

Ahwahnee Meadow

Rangers' Club

Le Conte 

Memorial Lodge

Church Bowl

Picnic Area

Sentinel Bridge

Housekeeping

Bridge

Superintendent's

Bridge

Housekeeping Camp

Yosemite Village Day-Use

Parking Area

Village Store Complex

0 0.25 Miles

ALTERNATIVE 5

YOSEMITE VILLAGE AND HOUSEKEEPING CAMP

3

4

Yosemite Village

5

1

2

2

6

Government 

Utility

Building

Lost Arrow

Sentinel Drive

EAST YOSEMITE VALLEY: YOSEMITE VILLAGE AND HOUSEKEEPING CAMP

1 Lost Arrow: Replace temporary employee housing with permanent housing units for 87 beds.

2 Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area: Move the Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area northward 150 feet away 

from the river, out of the riparian buffer, to facilitate riparian restoration goals. Using best management practices to 

protect water quality, formalize the parking area to have a total of 750 parking places by redeveloping part of the 

current administrative footprint as parking.

3 Pedestrian/Vehicle Conflicts: Re-route Northside Drive to the south of the Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area 

and construct a roundabout at Northside Drive and Village Drive to address traffic congestion and pedestrian 

vehicle conflicts. Re-routing the road south of the parking area results in a traffic circulation pattern that will not 

require an underpass or pedestrian road crossings. Consolidate parking to the north of the road and provide 

walkways leading to Yosemite Village separating vehicle and pedestrian traffic. Add a three-way intersection at 

Sentinel Drive and the entrance to the parking area to improve traffic flow and alleviate congestion.

4 Concessioner Employee Housing: Create a 50-foot setback from Indian Creek. Ecologically restore the riparian 

habitat, and protect using restoration fencing. Retain Ahwahnee Row and Tecoya employee housing.

5 Ahwahnee Meadow Restoration: Retain Northside Drive and bike path and increase culverts to improve hydrologic 

connectivity. Replace 350 feet of trail with a boardwalk to protect wetlands.

6 Housekeeping Camp Lodging: Retain 232 lodging units and remove 34 lodging units (17 buildings) from within 

the ordinary high water mark. Retain Housekeeping Camp grocery store, shower houses, restrooms, and laundry. 

Restore one acre of the riparian ecosystem.

ALTERNATIVE 5: ENHANCED VISITOR EXPERIENCES AND ESSENTIAL RIVERBANK RESTORATION

8-205
This page intentionally left blank

8-206 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Southside

Drive

Camp 4 

Campground

Yosemite

Lodge

Leidig

Meadow

Merced River

Northside

Drive

Yosemite Lodge

Parking Area

Swinging

Bridge

Swinging Bridge

Picnic Area

Lower Yosemite Fall

Picnic Area

0 500 Feet

ALTERNATIVE 5

YOSEMITE LODGE AND CAMP 4

1

4

2

3

Leidig

Meadow

Sentinel Meadow

Cook's 

Meadow

Residence 1

EAST YOSEMITE VALLEY: YOSEMITE LODGE AND CAMP 4

1 West of Yosemite Lodge

• Parking: Redevelop area southwest of Yosemite Lodge to provide an additional 300 day-use parking spaces. This 

will include 22 spaces for tour bus parking. Parking redevelopment will incorporate best management practices 

to protect water quality.

2 Yosemite Lodge

• Ecological restoration: restore riparian and floodplain ecosystem at the site of the former Yosemite Lodge units 

and cabins (those that were damaged by the 1997 flood and subsequently removed). Delineate one service road 

to the well house and parking. Remove non-native fill, decompact soils, and plant riparian plant species (10.9 

acres).

• Lodging: Retain the current 245 units at Yosemite Lodge. 

• Services and Facilities: Retain Yosemite Lodge Food Court and Mountain Room bar and dining service. Retain 

swimming pool facility. Relocate bicycle rental facility outside the river corridor. Re-purpose convenience shop 

and nature shop. Relocate Yosemite Lodge maintenance. Remove post office, snack stand, employee housing 

(Thousands Cabins), Highland Court employee temporary housing, and the NPS Volunteer Office. 

• Tour Buses: Expand parking area for bus loading and unloading to provide 6 spaces.

• Concessioner Housing: Construct two new concessioner housing areas for 104 employees and provide 84 

employee parking spaces. 

3 Yosemite Falls Intersection

• Traffic Congestion: A tiered NEPA / NHPA compliance effort will evaluate a range of alternatives to address the 

pedestrian / vehicle conflicts and traffic congestion at this intersection. The grade-separated crossing that is 

selected will include design guidelines to ensure that archeological impacts are avoided or minimized, the 

safety of pedestrians is maximized, and visual impacts are mitigated.

4 Residence 1

• Residence 1: Remove the historic Residence 1 (Superintendent’s House) and Garage. Ecologically 

restore associated informal trails in Cook's Meadow.

ALTERNATIVE 5: ENHANCED VISITOR EXPERIENCES AND ESSENTIAL RIVERBANK RESTORATION

8-207
This page intentionally left blank

8-208 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
à

à

!5

!5 !5

!5

ÆQ

!F

!F

!F

El Capitan

Meadow

Sentinel

Beach

El Capitan 

Bridge

Cathedral

Beach

Swinging

Bridge

Camp 4 Campground

Southside Drive

Northsi de Drive

Merced River

Leidig

Meadow

Sentinel

Rock

Lower Brother

Split Pinnacle

Cathedral Rocks

0 0.25 Miles  ̄

ALTERNATIVE 5

WEST YOSEMITE VALLEY

¬«1

¬«3

River Corridor Boundary

¬«4

¬«2

Old El Portal

Abbieville Trailer

Village

Rancheria

Flat

NPS Warehouse &

Administrative

Complex

F orest a Road

SIERRA NATIONAL FOREST

STANISLAUS NATIONAL FOREST

National Park Boundary

à Greenemeyer Sand Pit

H ig hway 14 0

Hwy. 140 

Bridge

0 0.4 Miles

ALTERNATIVE 5

EL PORTAL

 ̄

River Corridor Boundary

Merced River

¬« ¬«3

1

¬«2

WEST YOSEMITE VALLEY

1 El Capitan Meadow Area 

• Restoration of Informal Trails: Remove all informal trails from the meadow that incise, promote habitat fragmentation, or are located in sensitive 

and frequently inundated areas, and restore to natural condition. Designate appropriate access points. Selectively remove mature conifers 

that block views of El Capitan from the roadside. 

2 El Capitan Crossover

• User-Capacity Management Program: The El Capitan Crossover Traffic Diversion will be implemented to manage use to the capacities established for 

this alternative.

3 Valley Loop Trail 

• Re-Route: Move portions of the Valley Loop Trail out of sensitive areas; this includes the 780 feet of the trail through Bridalveil Meadow. Construct 

 boardwalks through wet meadow habitat in Slaughterhouse Meadow. 

4 Yellow Pine Campground

• Administrative Use Campground: Retain Yellow Pine’s four group sites (serving up to 120 people) for administrative use.

EL PORTAL

1 Rancheria Flat

• Employee Housing: To replace temporary housing that will be removed from Yosemite Valley, construct a combination of single-family homes 

 and high-density dormitory units—away from sensitive resources—for a total of 130 additional employee beds. 

2 Abbieville and Trailer Village Area

• El Portal Remote Visitor Parking: Construct a new visitor parking area for 300 spaces serviced by shuttle to Yosemite Valley. Parking

redevelopment will incorporate best management practices to protect water quality.

• Abbieville and Trailer Village Housing: Remove or relocate 36 existing private residences. As homes within the 150-foot riparian buffer become 

vacant, ecologically restore these areas.

• Campground: 40 campsites, some with water and sanitary hook-ups, will be incorporated into the redesign of the area. These sites will be 

available for both visitor and administrative use.

• Visitor Facilities: Additional restroom facilities to serve the parking area and campground will be constructed. The existing laundry facility will 

 remain. River access points will be determined and incorporated into the design.

3 El Portal Village Center

• Valley Oak Restoration: Restore the rare floodplain community of Valley oaks in Old El Portal through implementation of best management 

practices. Create a Valley oak recruitment area in Old El Portal in the vicinity of the current Odger’s bulk fuel storage area, including the 

adjacent parking lots. Decompact soils, plant appropriate native understory plant species, and treat invasive plants. 

• Odger’s Fuel Storage Facility: Remove bulk fuel storage facility, all associated development, and non-native fill from the floodplain. Decompact 

soils, and plant appropriate native plant species, including valley oak. Relocate the fuel storage area outside the Merced River corridor or find an 

alternate source for emergency fuel supplies.

• Infill Housing: Construct housing to accommodate 18 beds (this housing is in addition to the 12 infill-housing units proposed in Alternatives 2-6). 

These units will not adversely impact ORVs and will retain the restoration and recruitment objectives for Valley oaks.

ALTERNATIVE 5: ENHANCED VISITOR EXPERIENCES AND ESSENTIAL RIVERBANK RESTORATION

8-209
This page intentionally left blank

8-210 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Merced River

Merced Lake

Ranger Station !@

Merced

Lake Merced Lake

High Sierra Camp

Merced Lake

Backpackers

Camping Area !9

Merced Lake

East Meadow

ALTERNATIVE 5 0 0.2 Miles

MERCED LAKE HIGH SIERRA CAMP

¬«1

 ̄

River Corridor Boundary

¬«2

¬«3

!F

!F !F

!5

!5

ÆQ

River Corridor Boundary

South Fork Picnic Area

Wawona Store Picnic Area

0 0.1 0.2 Miles

ALTERNATIVE 5

WAWONA

¬«1

¬«2

¬«3

 ̄

Wawona

Golf Course

Wawona

Maintenance

Area

Wawona Hotel

Wawona

Campground

Wawona

Stables

MERCED LAKE HIGH SIERRA CAMP

1 Merced Lake Backpackers Camping Area: Retain the designated camping area. Replace flush toilets with composting toilets. 

2 Merced Lake High Sierra Camp: Remove 11 of the 22 historic canvas tents (retaining 42 of the 60 existing beds) but retain all the tent pads in situ to preserve these historic 

resources. Replace flush toilet with composting toilets. To resupply the camp, a limit of 7.5 pack strings per week would be established. 

3 Merced Lake East Meadow: Establish a preliminary grazing capacity for the Merced Lake East Meadow of a maximum of 58 pack stock nights annually depending on meadow 

condition. Exclude packstock from seasonally inundated portions of the meadow. Meadow grazing opening dates may vary annually. Use levels may be adapted to ensure the 

meadow condition meets the Management Standard for Bare Soil Indicator.

OTHER SEGMENT 1 CAMPING AREAS (NOT SHOWN ON MAP)

• Little Yosemite Valley: Continue designated camping in this camping area. Retain infrastructure, such as composting toilets.

• Moraine Dome: Continue designated camping in this camping area. 

WAWONA

1 The Wawona Campground: Retain 83 sites and one group site. Remove 13 sites that are either within 100 feet of the river or in culturally sensitive areas. 

2 Wawona Golf Course and Golf Shop: Retain nine-hole golf course and retail and food service at golf shop. 

3 Wawona Stables Area and Maintenance Yard

• Stables Operation: Retain stables and commercial day rides. 

• Stock-Use: Campsites: Relocate two stock-use campground sites away from sensitive resource areas to an appropriate location within the Wawona Maintenance Yard area. 

ALTERNATIVE 5: ENHANCED VISITOR EXPERIENCES AND ESSENTIAL RIVERBANK RESTORATION

8-211
This page intentionally left blank

8-212 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 5 (Preferred Alternative): Enhanced Visitor 

Experience and Essential RiverBank Restoration

Detailed Description of Alternative 5 (Preferred) by Segment

Segment 1: Wilderness above Nevada Fall (Wild Segment)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

In addition to the “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” (beginning on page 8-47), Alternative 5 (Preferred) 

would include the following actions to protect and enhance river values:

Biological Values

• Establish a preliminary grazing capacity for the Merced Lake East Meadow of a maximum of 58 

pack-stock nights annually, depending on meadow condition. Exclude packstock from seasonally 

inundated portions of the meadow. Meadow grazing opening dates may vary annually. Use levels 

may be adapted to ensure the meadow condition meets the management standard for the bare soil 

indicator (Chapter 5). 

Recreational Values

• Establish a limit of 7.5 pack strings per week (for an average of 30 strings per month) for resupply of 

the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp. 

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Alternative 5 (Preferred) would generally accommodate the same kinds and amounts of use that exist today 

in Segment 1. In addition to the “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6”, Alternative 5 (Preferred) would 

include the actions described below to manage user capacity, land use and facilities. 

Visitor Activities and Services

Overnight use in this segment would include visitors staying at the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp and 

visitors backpacking and staying overnight at either designated camping areas or dispersed areas throughout 

the wilderness. Private boating would be allowed in Segment 1. This use would likely consist of short floats, 

using boats that could easily be carried into this remote area. Only 25 boats per day would be allowed, and a 

permit would be required as an addition to the wilderness permit required for camping. See Appendix R for 

additional information on equipment restrictions, open stretches, and put-in and take-out locations. 

Under Alternative 5 (Preferred), the findings of the Determination of Extent Necessary (DEN) (Appendix 

L) would be implemented. Following is a summary of the commercial use permitted:

• Allowance of up to two overnight commercial groups per Wilderness zone.

• No camping or travel allowed more than 1⁄4 mile from a maintained trail or public access road.

• All commercial stock trips are limited to a 1:1.5 stock to person ratio. Accordingly, for every 

multiple of three persons (including employees), two pack animals are allowed in addition to three 

riding stock. 

• Additional seasonal and weekend restrictions would apply in the Mount Lyell, Merced Lake, and 

Little Yosemite Valley zones, as indicated in Appendix L.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-213
ALTERNATIVES

Visitor Overnight Capacity

Under Alternative 5 (Preferred), wilderness zone capacities would remain as currently established (Table 

8-36). Facilities would be managed as follows:

• Retain the Merced Lake Backpacker Camping Area; replace flush toilets with composting toilets. 

• Retain the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp at a reduced capacity of 42 beds. Retain the historic tent 

cabin foundations. Replace flush toilets with composting toilets. 

• Retain designated camping areas at Little Yosemite Valley and Moraine Dome.

TABLE 8-36: WILDERNESS ZONE CAPACITIES FOR ALTERNATIVE 5 (PREFERRED) 

Wilderness Zones Alt 5 Overnight Zone Capacity

Alt 5 Zone Capacity*

Within River Corridor Only

Little Yosemite Valley Zone 150 people 150 people

Merced Lake Zone 50 people 50 people

Washburn Lake Zone 150 people 100 people

Mount Lyell Zone 50 people 10 people

Clark Range Zone 50 people 10 people

NOTE: 

* For some Wilderness zones, only a small portion of river corridor overlaps the zone. Therefore, the NPS calculated corridor-specific capacities that 

reflect the number of people in both the wilderness zone and the river corridor portion of the zone. These calculations assume visitors have the 

ability to camp out of sight and sound of other parties and that minimum impact camping is available within the segment. 

Visitor Day-use Parking Capacity

Day-use access to this segment is addressed under “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” (beginning on 

page 8-47).

Administrative Activities

• Continue current administrative activities, which consist primarily of regular ranger patrols, 

backcountry utility work, and occasional trail/restoration work. These activities are seasonal and 

minimal in comparison to visitor use and would not significantly affect overall user capacity. 

Segment 2: Yosemite Valley (Recreational and Scenic Segments)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

In addition to the “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” (beginning on page 8-47), Alternative 5 (Preferred) 

would include the following actions to protect and enhance river values:

Geological/Hydrological Values

• Stoneman Bridge – Retain Stoneman Bridge; mitigate the hydrological effects of the bridge by 

placing large wood on the riverbanks to address scouring, adding brush layering, and increasing 

channel complexity between Clark’s Bridge and Sentinel Bridge (as described in Chapter 5 and 

Appendix E).

• Sugar Pine Bridge – Retain Sugar Pine Bridge in place for the immediate future. To address the 

localized impacts that have been attributed to Sugar Pine Bridge, the NPS will initiate a study to 

assess the merits of various long-term bridge management strategies. The study will first assess the 

8-214 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 5 (Preferred Alternative): Enhanced Visitor 

Experience and Essential RiverBank Restoration

nature and extent of impacts associated with the bridge and then identify and test potential 

mitigation measures. If mitigation measures fail to meet defined criteria for success, consideration 

of bridge removal would involve a public review process and additional environmental compliance.

As a first step, an evaluation of baseline conditions over an adequate range of flow conditions 

(including peak flows equal to or exceeding the two year flood) would be conducted. During this 

time, specifications for the installation of mitigation measures would be developed. The primary 

outcomes of this step would be: 1) the evaluation of scientific questions related to the impacts of the 

bridge; 2) a list of measurable attributes that quantify impacts, as well as thresholds (criteria) for 

those attributes that define mitigation success; and 3) the subsequent identification of potential 

mitigation measures and their general specifications. The investigation would then center on 

installing and evaluating mitigation measures. This component would be adaptively managed so 

that progressively intensive mitigation measures would be employed during the evaluation process, 

as deemed necessary to achieve mitigation objectives. The final action will be informed by the 

conclusions of a monitoring program designed to evaluate the efficacy, durability, and long-term 

costs of mitigation management. 

• Ahwahnee Bridge – Retain the Ahwahnee Bridge; mitigate the hydrological effects of the bridge by 

placing large wood on the riverbanks to address scouring, adding brush layering, and increasing

channel complexity between Clark’s Bridge and Sentinel Bridge (as described in Chapter 5 and 

Appendix E). Construct a multi-use trail from the end of the Ahwahnee Bridge to the Lower Pines 

area.

Water Quality

• Re-route the pack stock trail (from the Concessioner Stables) to the north, adjacent to the Happy 

Isles Loop Road (the existing trail is removed and ecologically restored under Alternatives 2-6). 

Biological Values

Alternative 5 (Preferred) would remove existing campsites within 100 feet of the ordinary high-water mark.

• Remove all existing campsites and associated infrastructure within 100 feet of the ordinary highwater mark and restore natural floodplain and riparian habitat (12 acres) at:

- Backpackers Campground: Remove 15 sites within 100 feet of the ordinary high-water 

mark. Locate new sites to the west of the current campground, in less sensitive area outside 

the 100-year floodplain. 

- North Pines Campground: Remove 14 campsites from within 100 feet of the ordinary 

high-water mark; restore native riparian vegetation. 

- Lower Pines Campground: Remove 5 sites from within 100 feet of the ordinary highwater mark; restore native riparian vegetation.

- Upper Pines Campground: Retain 238 campsites, removing two sites for archeological 

resource concerns.

• Upper and Lower River Campgrounds – Restore topography of 19.7 acres of floodplain. Remove 

remaining asphalt, decompact soils under former roads and campsites and re-establish channels 

that have been filled. Place large box culverts or other design components, such as rolling dips and 

permeable subgrade, to improve surface water flow. Fence and close the riparian zone at former 

Upper River to protect the riverbank from trampling. Direct visitors to access the river for boating 

and swimming by way of a path to the Housekeeping Camp eastern beach.

• Former Pine and Oak Units – Restore 10.9 acres of riparian ecosystem at the site of the former 

Yosemite Lodge units and cabins (those that were removed after the 1997 flood) and Volunteers in 

Parks Office while maintaining access to the well house.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-215
ALTERNATIVES

• Yosemite Village – Move the Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area northward so that it is 150 

feet away from the ordinary high-water mark of the Merced River and outside a designated 50-foot 

setback from Indian Creek; remove fill material and restore the riparian habitat adjacent to the 

river.

• Housekeeping Camp – Remove lodging and other facilities at Housekeeping Camp out of the 

ordinary high-water mark (remove 34 units); restore native riparian habitat (one acre). Direct

visitor use and river access to the two resilient beach locations on the western edge of 

Housekeeping Camp and across the footbridge; fence off the current eastern river access point 

(located on a steep eroded bank) and actively restore the riverbank with brush layering. 

Alternative 5 (Preferred) would remove or mitigate the effects of trails and roads through meadows:

• Bridalveil Meadow – Re-route the 780-foot segment of the Valley Loop Trail that crosses 

Bridalveil Meadow so that it is adjacent to Southside Drive. 

• Slaughterhouse Meadow – Construct boardwalks or employ other techniques to address social 

trailing through sensitive wet meadow habitat at Slaughterhouse Meadow. 

• El Capitan Meadow – Fence the northern perimeter of the meadow to protect the restoration area, 

construct boardwalks and/or viewing platforms or employ other techniques to address social 

trailing in the meadow. Selectively remove mature conifers that block views of El Capitan from the 

roadside to discourage foot traffic into the meadow. 

• Ahwahnee Meadow – Retain Northside Drive and bike path in current configuration; add culverts 

to improve hydrologic connectivity through Ahwahnee Meadow. Install a boardwalk, puncheon, or 

other measure to cross low-lying wet areas in Ahwahnee Meadow (350 feet long). 

• Stoneman Meadow – Retain Southside Drive through Stoneman Meadow; conduct transportation 

and engineering studies to examine the potential impact to ingress and egress from removing this 

road segment and to assess construction methods to increase surface water flow. Expand the 

fenced area on the north end of the meadow near Lower Pines Campground to protect wetlands.

Remove roadside parking along Stoneman Meadow and restore the area. 

Cultural Values

• Huff House Black Oak Restoration – Remove temporary housing and associated infrastructure, 

retaining pedestrian walkways as appropriate. Actively restore oak habitat, restoring natural 

topography, de-compacting soils, and planting or seeding if necessary. Protect area with fencing as 

it revegetates. 

Recreational Values

• Boating Opportunities – Allow up to 295 boats per day through a mix of both private and 

commercial use in East Yosemite Valley. Allow boating for 45 private boaters in West Yosemite 

Valley. Boating would be limited to specific stretches of river in Yosemite Valley. Expanded boating 

opportunties would enhance dispersed recreation along the river corridor.

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Visitor Activities and Services

Alternative 5 (Preferred) would generally provide for the same kinds and amounts of use that exist in 

Yosemite Valley today. The following changes to visitor activities and services would occur, in addition to 

those common to Alternatives 2-6:

8-216 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 5 (Preferred Alternative): Enhanced Visitor 

Experience and Essential RiverBank Restoration

• Allow both private boating and commercial rafting in this river segment, and expand private 

boating access to include addition reaches of the Merced River. 

- Private boating (estimated at 150 boats per day) would be allowed between Lower River 

Campground and Sentinel Beach/Yellow Pine. The put-ins and take-outs for this river 

segment (2A) would be located at the Lower River Day-use Area and Sentinel Beach. An 

additional 45 private boaters would be allowed to float between Clark’s Bridge and 

Sentinel Beach. A capacity of 195 private boats per day has been set for this river segment

(2A). Additionally, 45 people per day would be allowed to boat in the West Valley segment 

(2B) (between Sentinel Beach and just below Pohono Bridge).

- Commercial raft rentals would be available for use in the river reach between Stoneman 

Bridge and Sentinel Beach. This use would be limited to 50 boats-at-one-time 

(approximately 100 boats per day).

- See Appendix R for additional information on equipment restrictions, open stretches, and 

put-in and take-out locations. 

• Expand picnicking and day-use opportunities at Yosemite Village, Church Bowl, and Happy Isles. 

• Provide low-impact picnicking opportunities (no more than eight tables and 20 parking spaces) and 

designated river access for rafting in the Lower River area. 

• Move the raft rentals and bicycle rentals at Curry Village to a location outside of the river corridor.

• Move the bicycle rentals at Yosemite Lodge to a location outside of the river corridor.

• Move the ice skating rink at Curry Village to the Curry Village Parking Area (outside of the river 

corridor); the rink would be operated as a temporary, seasonal facility.

• Retain the swimming pools at the Ahwahnee Hotel, Yosemite Lodge, and Curry Village.

• Retain the Housekeeping Camp shower houses, restrooms, laundry, and grocery store. 

• Retain the Concessioner Stables in Yosemite Valley to support Merced Lake High Sierra Camp and 

to provide overflow parking for campgrounds. Eliminate commercial horseback day rides 

originating from Yosemite Valley. Retain existing boarding service for pets and large animals. 

Visitor Overnight Capacity: Camping

Under Alternative 6, camping would be increased to 640 sites, accommodating up to 4,032 people per night.

• Backpackers Campground – Retain 10 walk-in sites. Remove 15 sites within 100 feet of the 

ordinary high-water mark. Construct 16 new walk-in campsites to the west of the current 

Backpackers Campground in less sensitive area outside the 100-year floodplain. 

• Upper River Campground – Construct a new campground with 30 walk-in sites and two group 

sites, north of the river outside of the 150-foot riparian buffer. Restore hydrologic processes in the 

southeast portion of the former campground.

• Lower River Campground – Construct a new campground with 30 walk-in and 10 drive-in 

campsites outside of the 150-foot riparian buffer. Accessible drive-in campsites would be 

incorporated into the design. The campground area would incorporate a boating access point and 

commercial raft launch site congruent with ecological restoration objectives. Restore hydrologic 

processes in the southeast portion of the former campground.

• North Pines Campground – Retain 72 campsites. Remove 14 sites from within 100 feet of the 

ordinary high-water mark.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-217
ALTERNATIVES

8-218 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 

 Upper Pines Campground –Remove two sites for archeological resource concerns; retaining 238 

campsites. Construct a new recreational vehicle campground loop with 36 RV sites (with hookups). Construct a new walk-in campground with 49 individual sites and two group sites. 

 Lower Pines Campground – Retain 71 campsites. Remove five sites from within 100 feet of the 

ordinary high-water mark. 

 Camp 4 – Retain 35 walk-in campsites and 35 parking spaces. Construct 35 additional campsites 

east of Camp 4; establish a new parking area (41 spaces) in the footprint of the former service 

station. 

 Yellow Pine – Retain four group campsites (up to 120 people) at the Yellow Pine Administrative 

Campground. 

 Abbieville/Trailer Village – Incorporate campsites (some with hook-ups) into the redesign of the 

Abbieville/Trailer Village area, adjacent to the El Portal Remote Parking Area. These campsites 

would be used for both visitors and administrative use (seasonal employee housing). A clear 

distinction between the types of uses would be factored into the design. All redevelopment would 

be located outside of the 150-foot riparian buffer. 

Visitor Overnight Capacity: Lodging 

Under Alternative 5 (Preferred), lodging units would be increased slightly for a total of 1,082 units, 

accommodating 3,799 people per night. As in all other alternatives, the Ahwahnee Hotel would continue to 

provide 123 rooms. The following additional lodging would be retained, removed, or constructed under 

Alternative 5 (Preferred): 

 Curry Village – A total of 482 lodging units would be provided. Retain 430 existing lodging units in 

Curry Village: 301 canvas tent cabins; 18 units at Stoneman House; 47 hard-sided cabin-with-bath 

units. In Boys Town, retain 50 historic canvas tent cabins and 14 cabin-without-bath units in their 

historic configuration. Remove the canvas tent cabins that were installed in Boys Town after the 

2008 rock-fall incident and replace with 52 hard-sided lodging units in duplex and 4-plex cabins. 

Provide 415 designated overnight parking spaces at the Curry Orchard Parking Area. 

 Housekeeping Camp – Retain 232 units and associated facilities. Remove 34 units (17 buildings) 

located within the ordinary high-water mark. 

 Yosemite Lodge – Retain the existing 245 lodging units. 

Visitor Day-use Parking Capacity, Transit Options, and Circulation 

Alternative 5 (Preferred) would accommodate the peak level of visitation observed in recent years. Day-use 

parking, regional transit, and tour bus capacities would accommodate up to 9,478 people at one time in 

Segment 2. 

 Reduce the number of day-use parking spaces (-117 spaces) and provide a total of 2,220 parking 

spaces in Yosemite Valley. Provide additional day-use parking in El Portal (+300 spaces). Including 

the El Portal lot, the net gain in parking for day use in Yosemite Valley would be 183 spaces. 

Under Alternative 5 (Preferred), several changes to the design of the transportation system would be made 

to reduce traffic congestion and improve the visitor experience. Major transportation-related actions would 

include the following: 

 Redesign the Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area to provide 750 spaces, a new comfort station, 

and strategically placed shuttle stops. Include pathways to separate pedestrian traffic from vehicle 

traffic, and a traffic roundabout to facilitate traffic flow. 
Alternative 5 (Preferred Alternative): Enhanced Visitor 

Experience and Essential RiverBank Restoration 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-219 

 Provide 300 day-use parking spaces and 22 parking spaces 

for tour buses west of Yosemite Lodge. 

 Provide 189 day-use and employee parking spaces at the 

Curry Village Day-use Parking Area, west of the Curry 

Orchard Parking Area. 

 Determine the design and location for a grade-separated 

pedestrian crossing for Northside Drive at Yosemite Falls 

to alleviate traffic congestion. Completion of this project 

would require additional NEPA/NHPA compliance, 

including the appropriate level of public involvement. 

Day use in Yosemite Valley would be managed using the El Capitan Traffic Diversion. The El Capitan 

crossover has been used by park staff for many years to mitigate traffic congestion during times of peak 

visitation. The crossover is ideally located for this purpose because roads from all park entries join Southside 

Drive prior to reaching this location. Therefore, all in-bound vehicles must pass through this location and can 

be redirected to outbound traffic lanes prior to reaching East Valley. Data regarding traffic accumulation 

would be collected by automated traffic counters and reported in real-time to park managers. Before East 

Valley capacity was reached, park staff would begin re-routing traffic from Valley destinations until conditions 

improved. The availability of real-time data would allow for a proactive response to a dynamic, but fairly 

predictable, event. Day-use visitors would also be able to access the Valley by parking in the new El Portal 

remote parking lot (300 parking spaces) and taking a shuttle. 

A summary of regional transit and shuttle options for this alterative is located in Table 8-37. Regional transit 

services into Yosemite Valley during the peak summer season would be expanded as follows: 

TABLE 8-37: TRANSIT OPTIONS – ALTERNATIVE 5 (PREFERRED) 

Regional Transit Options 

HIGHWAY 140 

Merced/Mariposa to Yosemite Valley 

12 runs per day 

(maximum service level - year round service)

HIGHWAY 41 

Fresno/Oakhurst to Yosemite Valley 

12 runs per day 

(maximum service level - year round service) 

Dedicated shuttle to Badger Pass as collection point for shuttle to Glacier Point

HIGHWAY 120 West 

Groveland/Sonora to Yosemite Valley

4 runs per day 

(summer only)

HIGHWAY 120 East 

Inyo/Mono County (Mammoth Lakes) to 

Yosemite Valley

2 runs per day 

(summer only)

Yosemite Valley Shuttle Options 

East Yosemite Valley 5 minute peak interval between buses 

Year-round except Visitor Center direct 

Visitor Center Express Yosemite Valley Dayuse Parking Area to Visitor Center7 minute interval between buses 

(summer only)

El Capitan Crossover 30 minute interval between buses 

(summer only)

West Yosemite Valley

Expand Valley Shuttle service to Bridalveil (summer only) 

60-minute interval between buses 

Stops at El Capitan picnic area, El Capitan Meadow, Bridalveil Fall straight, 

Cathedral Beach, Yellow Pine, and Four-mile/Swinging Bridge

NOTE: *All Regional Transit runs are round trip. 

Preliminary drawings for the Yosemite 

Village Day-use Parking Area and the 

new parking lot west of Yosemite 

Lodge, as proposed in Alternative 5, 

have been completed to assess the 

feasibility of these projects. See 

“Conceptual Site Drawings” at the 

end of the Alternative 5 discussion for 

site details and design drawings. 
ALTERNATIVES

• Highway 140 (Merced to Yosemite Valley) – Maintain service at 12 runs per day. 

• Highway 41 between Fresno/Oakhurst and Yosemite Valley – Provide additional regional

transit service of 12 runs per day.

• Highway 120 West (Sonora to Yosemite Valley) – Increase service to four runs per day (summer 

only).

• Highway 120 East (Mammoth Lakes to Yosemite Valley) – Increase service to two runs per day 

(summer only). 

Under Alternatives 2-6, East Valley shuttle service would be improved by reducing the time between buses 

to five-minute intervals. The Visitor Center Express shuttle service (summer only) would be improved by 

increasing the frequency to seven-minute intervals. Shuttle service would be expanded as follows:

• Expand Valley Shuttle service to Bridalveil (summer only), with 60-minute intervals between buses 

and stops at El Capitan picnic area, El Capitan Meadow, Bridalveil Fall straight, Cathedral Beach, 

Yellow Pine, and Four-Mile/Swinging Bridge.

• Add shuttle service between the El Portal Remote Parking Area and Yosemite Valley.

Administrative Activities

The following administrative facilities and functions would be relocated:

• Move the Yosemite Lodge housekeeping and maintenance facilities to a location behind the 

Yosemite Lodge cafeteria.

• Demolish the Concessioner Garage and General Office. Move these functions to locations outside 

of the river corridor.

Employee Housing and Employee Parking

Under Alternative 5 (Preferred), 286 fewer concessioner employees would be housed in Yosemite Valley. 

The remaining housing for 865 concessioner employees would be provided as follows:

• Retain housing for 42 employees in the dorm at the Ahwahnee Hotel.

• Provide housing for 292 employees at Curry Village.

- Retain permanent housing in the Curry Village residential area (219 employees).

- Retain employee housing at Concessioner Stables in Yosemite Valley (49 employees).

- Retain the historic Peterson Residence (4 beds) and an additional 10 canvas tent cabins (20 

beds) for a total of 24 employee beds in the Huff House (Curry Village) area. 

• Provide housing for 427 employees at Yosemite Village. 

- Retain permanent housing at Indian Creek and Upper Tecoya (28 employees). 

- Retain Ahwahnee Row, Y Apartments, garage housing, and Hospital Row (43 employees).

- Retain Tecoya Dorms (232 employees).

- Construct new dormitory housing in the Lost Arrow parking lot (outside the corridor) for 

87 employees.

• Provide housing for 104 employees at Yosemite Lodge. 

- Construct new housing for 104 employees at Yosemite Lodge (two structures with 26 

double-occupancy units each).

8-220 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 5 (Preferred Alternative): Enhanced Visitor 

Experience and Essential RiverBank Restoration

Under Alternative 5 (Preferred), 1,100 parking spaces would be allocated for administrative uses (including 

parking spaces for residential areas).

An additional 160 concessioner employees working in Yosemite Valley would be housed in El Portal. 

Segment 3: Merced Gorge (Scenic Segment)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

All actions to protect and enhance river values in Segment 3 for Alternative 5 (Preferred) are included in 

“Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” (page 8-47). 

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

This alternative would provide for the same kinds and amounts of use that exist today. The majority of 

actions for Alternative 5 (Preferred) in Segment 3 are discussed in “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6”. 

Additional actions included in this alternative are described below. 

Visitor Activities and Services

Under Alternative 5 (Preferred), private boating (likely kayaks) would be allowed in Segment 3. Boaters 

would be allowed on the river reach starting below Pohono Bridge (in Segment 2) through El Portal 

(Segment 4). Boaters would be allowed to put in and take out at any of the roadside pull-outs. This use 

would be restricted to 10 people per day. See Appendix R for additional information on equipment 

restrictions, open reaches, and put-in and take-out locations.

Transit Options

Public transit options along Segment 3 would be the same as those described for Segment 2. 

Segment 4: El Portal (Recreational Segment)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

In addition to the “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” (see page 8-47), Alternative 5 (Preferred) would 

protect and enhance biological values as follows: 

Biological Values

• Abbieville and Trailer Village - The riverbanks at Abbieville and Trailer Village would be 

protected with a 150-foot riparian buffer measured from the ordinary high-water mark of the 

Merced River. Riparian habitat within the buffer would be restored by removing unnecessary roads 

and parking, de-compacting soils, and planting native riparian and oak woodland species. 

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

The majority of actions for Segment 3 are discussed in the “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6”. However, 

as discussed below, Alternative 5 would introduce additional visitor use to this segment and increase the 

amount of employee housing. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-221
ALTERNATIVES

Visitor Activities and Services

Fifty private boaters per day would be allowed on the river in Segment 4. Boaters would be allowed to 

paddle the stretch of river from below Yosemite View Lodge to beyond the Foresta Bridge (at which point 

boaters would exit the segment). Boaters would be able to use put-ins and take-outs west of the hotel, at the 

store/gas station, and at the Red Bud launch site. See Appendix R for additional information on equipment 

restrictions, open reaches, and put-in and take-out locations.

Visitor Overnight Use

Forty campsites (some with RV hook-ups) would be incorporated into the redesign of the Abbieville/Trailer 

Village Area, adjacent to the new El Portal remote parking area. Campsites would be used for both visitor 

and administrative use (seasonal employee housing). A clear separation between the types of uses would be 

factored into the design. All redevelopment would be located outside of the 150-foot riparian buffer.

No lodging would be provided in Segment 4. 

Visitor Day-use Parking Capacity

A new remote visitor day-use parking area, accommodating 300 vehicles, would be provided at the 

Abbieville site. The parking area would support day-use access to Yosemite Valley and be serviced by a 

Valley shuttle. Visitors using the El Portal remote parking area would be included as part of Segment 2 user 

capacity. 

The total available day-use parking capacity in this segment would be 514 spaces: 214 spaces for visitors to 

El Portal and 300 remote parking spaces for visitors to Yosemite Valley.

Transit Options

As noted in the descriptions of Segment 2, public transit along the Highway 140 travel corridor would be 

expanded. Shuttle bus service from the El Portal remote parking area to Yosemite Valley would be provided 

during peak season. For a complete summary of the transit options along this corridor, see the Segment 2 

summary above.

Administrative Activities

All administrative activities in Segment 4 are included in “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” (see page 8-

47).

Employee Housing Capacity

Under Alternative 5 (Preferred), employee housing would be added to the El Portal Village Center (12 beds) 

in Rancheria Flat (130 beds), and in the disturbed footprint of Odger’s bulk fuel storage facility after it is 

removed from the floodplain (18 beds). All new units would be located outside of the 100-year floodplain. 

These units would be added to replace housing removed from Yosemite Valley. 

Employee and Administrative Parking Capacity

Most employee and administrative parking actions are discussed in “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” 

(page 8-47). Overnight parking for employees living in this segment would be provided at their residences. 

8-222 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 5 (Preferred Alternative): Enhanced Visitor 

Experience and Essential RiverBank Restoration

Segment 5: South Fork Merced above Wawona (Wild Segment)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

All actions for Segment 5 are described in “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” (page 8-47).

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

The majority of actions for Segment 5 are included in the “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6”. Additional 

actions included in Alternative 5 (Preferred) are described below. 

Visitor Activities and Services

Private boating would be allowed in Segment 5. This use would generally consist of short floats, using boats

that could easily be carried into this remote area. A maximum of 25 people per day would be allowed, and 

boating permits could be obtained in conjunction with the required wilderness permit. See Appendix R for 

additional information about equipment restrictions, open reaches, and put-in and take-out locations.

Visitor Day-use Capacity

Day-use parking for the trailheads that lead to this segment is provided in the Wawona area (see Segment 7, 

below). Other users may gain access to this segment from trailheads that originate in the Sierra National 

Forest. Use levels are typically very low. 

Transit Options

Transportation options for reaching the trailheads that access Segment 5 are discussed under Segment 7. 

Segments 6 and 7: Wawona Impoundment and Wawona (Recreational Segments)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

All actions for Segment 6 are included in the “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” (see page 8-47) and this 

segment will not be discussed further. For Segment 7, the following additional actions have been included in 

Alternative 5 (Preferred) to enhance cultural values and water quality in Segment 7: 

Cultural Values/Water Quality

• Stock Camp – Two stock-use campsites would be moved away from an area with sensitive cultural 

resources to an upland location in the vicinity of the Wawona stables. 

• Wawona Campground – Remove 13 sites that are located within 100 feet of the river or proximate 

to sensitive cultural resources. 

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Alternative 5 (Preferred) would provide for the same kinds and amounts of use that occur today in Wawona. 

The majority of actions to be taken in Segment 7 are discussed in the “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6”. 

Additional actions included in Alternative 5 (Preferred) are described below. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-223
ALTERNATIVES

Visitor Activities and Services

A range of visitor recreation activities would continue to be available in Segment 7. River-related activities 

would include swimming, fishing and boating and other activities common to Alternatives 2-6. In addition, 

Alternative 5 (Preferred) includes the following actions: 

• Boating – Boating would be limited to private use only with a maximum of 50 people per day. The 

open reach of the river would be from below the Swinging Bridge area to the Wawona 

Campground, excluding the Wawona impoundment.

• Golfing – Retain the Wawona Golf Course.

• Tennis – Retain the Wawona Hotel Tennis Court.

• Wawona Commercial Stables – Retain the stables and increase commercial horseback day rides, 

as appropriate. 

Visitor Overnight Capacity

Under Alternative 5 (Preferred) the total overnight capacity for Segment 7 would be 190 units, 

accommodating up to 787 people per night. 

The Wawona Campground capacity would be reduced slightly to 84 sites (including one group site), 

accommodating 528 people per night. 

The two campsites at the Wawona stock camp would be relocated and would accommodate 6 people per 

night each (12 people per night total). 

Transit Options

Under Alternative 5 (Preferred), transit options for Segment 7 would be expanded. Regional bus service, 

similar to that provided on the Highway 140 corridor, would be introduced. An estimated 12 runs per day 

would travel the Highway 41 corridor to Yosemite Valley during peak periods of the day. The Wawona area 

shuttle would continue to serve the South Entrance and the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias. 

Concessioner-operated runs between Wawona and Yosemite Valley would be discontinued and replaced 

by the new transit service on the Highway 41 corridor.

Segment 8: South Fork Merced below Wawona (Wild Segment)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

All actions to protect and enhance river values in Segment 8 are described in “Actions Common to 

Alternatives 2-6” (page 8-47). 

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Alternative 5 (Preferred) would provide for the same kinds and amounts of use that exist today in Segment 

8. The majority of actions proposed for Segment 8 are discussed in “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6”. 

Additional actions included in Alternative 5 (Preferred) are described below. 

8-224 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 5 (Preferred Alternative): Enhanced Visitor 

Experience and Essential RiverBank Restoration

Visitor Activities and Services

Private boating would be allowed in this segment. Generally, this activity would consist of short floats, with 

craft that can easily be carried into this remote area. Boating activity would be limited to 25 people per day 

and a permit would be issued for this use in conjunction with the wilderness permit required for camping.

Please see Appendix R for additional information on equipment restrictions, open reaches, and put-in and 

take-out locations. 

Transit Options

Transit services for access to this segment are described above, under Segment 7.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-225
ALTERNATIVES

8-226 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 

Summary of Changes between Draft and Final Plans 

The following table provides a summary of the major revisions to the preferred alternative that resulted 

from public and agency comment on the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). More information is 

included in the detailed description of the alternative. 

TABLE 8-38: CHANGES TO ALTERNATIVE 5 (PREFERRED) BETWEEN DEIS AND FEIS 

Segment Action Draft Preferred Alternative Final Preferred Alternative 

All Total Restoration Acres Ecologically restore 203 acres Ecologically restore 189 acres 

1 Merced Lake Meadow Grazing No grazing capacity set Establish grazing capacity of up to 58 stocknights per season 

1 Merced Lake High Sierra Camp 

Pack-stock Support No limits identified 

Establish a limit of 7.5 pack-strings per 

week for an average of 30 pack-strings per 

month for camp operations 

1 Merced Lake High Sierra Camp 

Lodging Remove 11 historic tents Remove 11 tents and retain historic foundations 

2A & 2B User Capacity Management 

Program – Yosemite Valley 

Limit user capacity to 18,150 people 

at one time, with an estimated daily 

visitation of 19,900 people 

Implement the El Capitan Traffic Diversion to 

limit user capacity to18,710 people at one 

time, with an estimated daily visitation of 

20,100 people 

2A & 2B Eagle Creek Campground 

(West Valley) 

Construct 42 new campsites at Eagle 

Creek in West Valley 

No new campgrounds proposed for West 

Valley 

2A & 2B Upper and Lower River 

Campgrounds 

Provide 30 campsites at the site of the 

former Lower River Campground in 

East Valley 

Provide 72 campsites at the site of the 

former Upper and Lower River Campgrounds 

in East Valley 

2A & 2B Private Boating Allowed between Lower River and 

Sentinel Beach Additional reaches open to private boating 

2A Commercial Rafting No commercial rafting allowed Commercial rafting allowed (50 boats at 

one time) 

2A Commercial Bike Rentals (Curry 

Village/Yosemite Lodge) Remove commercial bike rentals Move Curry Village and Yosemite Lodge bike rentals to locations outside the river corridor 

2A Commercial Raft Rentals in 

Yosemite Valley Eliminate commercial raft rentals 

Move raft rentals to a location outside the 

river corridor and limit operation to 100 

boats per day 

2A Curry Ice Rink (CTA) Remove Curry Ice Rink 

Convert Curry Village Ice Rink to a 

temporary facility and locate it outside the 

river corridor in the Curry Village parking lot

2A Historic Sugar Pine Bridge Remove Sugar Pine Bridge 

Retain Sugar Pine Bridge; conduct further 

hydrologic impact study to assess the merits 

of various long-term bridge management 

strategies 

2A Superintendent’s House 

(Residence 1) & Garage 

Move Superintendent’s House and 

Garage to a location outside the river 

corridor 

Remove Superintendent’s House and 

Garage 

2A Swimming Pools Remove swimming pools at the 

Ahwahnee and Yosemite Lodge Retain all swimming pools 

2A Yosemite Lodge Pedestrian 

Underpass

Construct a pedestrian underpass 

west of the intersection of Northside 

Drive and Yosemite Lodge Road 

Explore options for a grade-separated 

pedestrian crossing at Yosemite Lodge, 

with the final design be determined with 

tiered NEPA/NHPA compliance 

2A Yosemite Lodge Bus Loading & 

Unloading/Parking 

Provide bus loading and parking area 

in area currently occupied by Highland 

Court; include 15 bus parking spaces 

in West of Lodge Parking Area 

Provide bus loading and unloading parking 

area south of Lodge Registration Building 

and 22 bus parking spaces in West of 

Lodge Parking Area 
Alternative 5 (Preferred Alternative): Enhanced Visitor 

Experience and Essential RiverBank Restoration

TABLE 8-38: CHANGES TO ALTERNATIVE 5 (PREFERRED) BETWEEN DEIS AND FEIS

Segment Action Draft Preferred Alternative Final Preferred Alternative

2A Boys Town Guest 

Accommodations

Remove all historic canvas tents and 

non-historic without-bath-cabins; 

construct 98 new hard-sided cabinwith-bath units

Retain 50 historic canvas tents and 14 nonhistoric hard-sided without-bath-cabins; 

construct 52 new hard-sided cabin-withbath units

2A Curry Village Lodging Totals Retain 453 lodging units Retain 482 lodging units

2A Huff House (West Curry Village 

Day-use Parking Area) Provide 103 parking spaces Provide189 parking spaces 

2A Yosemite Village Day-use 

Parking Area

Provide 850 parking spaces in an 

eight-acre area

Provide 750 parking spaces in a seven-acre 

area

2A Concessioner General Office 

Relocation

Provide a total of 10,000 square feet 

of office space in the Concessioner 

Warehouse

Provide a total of 15,000 square feet of 

office space by expanding the Concessioner 

Warehouse

2A Housekeeping Camp Store Remove store Retain store

2A Huff House (Curry Village) 

Employee Housing

Remove temporary employee housing 

and construct permanent housing for 

164 employees 

Retain the historic Huff House and 10 tent 

cabins (20 beds)

2A

Lost Arrow Temporary 

Employee Housing (outside 

river corridor)

Remove temporary housing and 

construct permanent housing for 50 

employees 

Remove temporary housing and construct 

permanent housing for 87 employees 

2B West Valley Overflow Parking 

Area

Provide parking for 100 cars in new 

overflow parking area in West Valley No new parking proposed for West Valley

3 Transit and Shuttles

El Portal Remote Parking Area 

assumed to be served by existing 

Highway 140 transit operations

El Portal Remote Parking Area serviced by 

shuttle to Yosemite Valley (seasonally 

available)

3 El Portal Employee Housing

Construct housing in Rancheria and 

Old El Portal to replace 96 beds

removed from Yosemite Valley

Construct housing in Rancheria and Old El 

Portal to replace 160 beds removed from 

Yosemite Valley 

3 Abbieville/Trailer Village Establish 200-car parking lot in El 

Portal for Yosemite Valley day users 

Establish 300-car parking lot in El Portal for 

Yosemite Valley day users and provide 40 

campsites for public/administrative use in 

Trailer Village

Conceptual Site Drawings

Boys Town

Under Alternative 5 (Preferred), 48 of the existing 98 tent cabins at Boys Town would be removed and 

replaced with 52 permanent lodging units suitable for year-round accommodation. The historic Boys Town 

area, including 50 tent cabins and 14 cabins without-bath, would remain intact. The new units would consist 

of 16 duplex buildings and five 4-plex buildings, all with private baths. Also, 1,350 feet of pedestrian 

pathways would be added. The Curry Orchard Parking Area would be redeveloped using best management 

practices to provide a total of 415 parking spaces. The project area would encompass 8.4 acres and would 

include: approximately 22,000 square feet for new buildings; 25,800 square feet of utility trenching; 6,750

square feet for pedestrian pathways; and 23,400 square feet of new parking, for a total of 3.75 acres. 

Temporary construction staging would require approximately 1.4 acres and would likely take place within 

the existing Curry Orchard Parking Area.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-227
ALTERNATIVES

Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area 

Under Alternative 5 (Preferred), the existing six-acre Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area and all 

associated roadway improvements would be moved 150 feet north of the river’s ordinary high-water mark 

to facilitate riparian restoration goals and to prevent further resource damage. Restoration actions would 

remove non-native fill material, re-contour the topography, and plant native vegetation. The redesigned 

parking area would be redeveloped to provide a total of 750 parking spaces and a new comfort station. 

Northside Drive would be realigned to the south edge of the parking area where it would connect with 

Sentinel Drive and continue west. A new three-way intersection would be constructed connecting Sentinel 

Drive with the re-routed Northside Drive and the shuttle bus road into the Village. This intersection would 

include turning lanes to minimize traffic delays and maintain proper traffic flow. Consolidating the parking 

to the north of Northside Drive, with new and improved walkways to Yosemite Village, would eliminate 

vehicle and pedestrian conflicts. A roundabout that would improve traffic flow would be constructed at the 

Village Drive/Northside Drive intersection. The Concessioner General Office, Valley Garage, and Art 

Activity Center (originally constructed as a bank building) would be removed, and the Village Sport Shop 

would be repurposed to serve as a visitor contact station.

The project area for improvements at the Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area in Alternative 5 

(Preferred) would cover approximately 26 acres, most of which is currently developed, and would include: 

1.2 acres for existing building removal; 4,000 square feet for the new comfort station; 5.4 acres of pavement 

removal; 2.3 acres of new roadway; 6.8 acres for new parking; 18,280 square feet of utility service trenching; 

and 50,070 square feet for new pedestrian pathways. Temporary construction staging would take place over 

a two-acre area within the existing footprint. 

Yosemite Lodge Parking Area

In Alternative 5 (Preferred), an area west of Yosemite Lodge that is currently used as parking for tour buses, 

transit buses, and overnight guests would be redeveloped to provide 300 day-use parking spaces and 

parking for 22 buses. The Volunteers in Parks office would be removed, while linen storage and laundry 

buildings would be relocated to an addition to the food service building. The project area for improvements 

at Yosemite Lodge would cover approximately 15.9 acres, most of which is currently developed, and would 

include: 55,850 square feet of existing building and pavement removal; 17,300 square feet of utility service 

trenching; 3.6 acres for parking; and 5,000 square feet for pedestrian pathways. Temporary construction 

staging would take place over a two-acre area within the existing footprint. Existing vegetation would be 

retained to separate and screen parking bays, and bioswales would serve to filter and treat storm water runoff.

Yosemite Lodge Housing 

Under Alternative 5 (Preferred), the temporary modular housing at Highland Court and the Thousands 

Cabins would be removed and replaced with two new buildings to house 104 concessioner employees. In 

addition, a new parking area would provide 78 employee parking spaces, parking for 3 shuttle buses, and 53 

day-use parking spaces for the public. The project area for the two housing sites would cover a total of 7.4 

acres, most of which is currently developed, and would include: 45,500 square feet of preparation for the 

new buildings; 5,500 square feet of utility service trenching; and 1.8 acres for parking.

8-228 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 5

Conceptual Site Drawing for 

Curry Village

Yosemite National Park

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

NORTH

These drawings are intended to illustrate where facilities would be removed, relocated, or constructed according to actions more fully described by the project alternative. The drawings do not represent a final proposal. 

The precise locations of structures and other facilities are subject to change pending archaeological investigation prior to design or construction. More detailed design and construction documents would be developed

consistent with the general concepts presented here.

2

1

1

3

4

5

6

7

7

10

10

11

11

12

12

14

13

13

14

8

8

9

9

15

15

16

16

17

17

Retain the historic Peterson residence for employee housing.

Remove tents, cabins without-bath, and supporting modular structures from 

the area that currently houses 258 concessioner employees.

Retain 10 tents to house 20 employees with a common kitchen and sanitary 

building for seasonal use.

Restore black oak woodland habitat and natural topography, de-compact soils, 

and plant or seed landscape. Protect area with temporary fencing as natural 

resources recover.

Relocate commercial services (ice rink, bicycle and raft rental stands and storage 

facilities) to areas outside the river corridor. Adapt the existing paved area for 

parking, adding 134 spaces to the 55 existing at this location.

Huff House Employee Housing Area

Remove most of the temporary housing, cabins and tents, restore oak 

woodland habitat, and remove commercial service facilities from river 

corridor and use existing paved area for parking (105 spaces).

Stoneman Meadow Restoration Area

Improve hydrology, remove invasive species, 

promote weed control, and plant native species.

Improve parking area with 415 spaces and 

landscape buffers with trees and bioswales that 

will treat storm water run-off. Retain a 

representative sample of historic orchard trees, 

where possible.

Reserve 85-by-200-foot site for a seasonal ice rink 

installation, with refrigeration unit equipment 

shed (outside river corridor). Relocate historic 

ticket booth to this location.

Curry Orchard Parking Area

2

3

4

5

6

Boys Town Guest Lodging

Existing Curry Village

Remove 73 tent cabins currently in use for guest 

accommodations and concessions employee housing. 

Construct 16 duplex buildings containing 32 units, 

similar to the historic west Curry Village cabins.

Construct 5 four-plex cabins with-bath, containing 

20 units.

Construct accessible pathways connecting all guest 

units and parking facilities.

Relocate campground reservation office from the 

northeast corner of the orchard parking area to a 

more prominent and accessible location.

Retain 50 tent cabins and 14 cabins without-bath in 

historic Boys Town configuration.

Retain 65 existing lodging units located in 19 duplex 

cabins (38 units); 2 four-plex cabins (8 units); 

Stoneman Cottage (18 units); and Cabin 819, with 

other historic structures outside the rock-fall hazard 

area.

Retain existing Curry Pavilion.

Retain 301 tents in historic terraces.

Re-establish the Valley Loop Trail near the historic 

alignment along the base of talus slope. 
ALTERNATIVES

This page intentionally left blank

8-230 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 5

Conceptual Site Drawing for 

Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area

Yosemite National Park

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

NORTH

These drawings are intended to illustrate where facilities would be removed, relocated, or constructed according to actions more fully described by the project alternative. The drawings do not represent a final proposal. 

The precise locations of structures and other facilities are subject to change pending archaeological investigation prior to design or construction. More detailed design and construction documents would be developed

consistent with the general concepts presented here.

Eliminate the Concessioner General Office and Garage located between the Village 

Store and employee housing areas to re-construct area as visitor parking.

Re-route Northside Drive to conform to the 150-foot riparian buffer. Consolidate all 

parking north of the roadway, minimizing pedestrian and vehicular conflicts. 

Reconstruct Northside Drive and Visitor Center Loop Drive as a “T” intersection.

Re-align Sentinel Drive into a “T” intersection with a re-routed Northside Drive. 

Provide left-hand turn lanes off Sentinel Drive and Northside Drive.

Construct a roundabout to alleviate traffic congestion at the intersection of Northside 

Drive and Village Drive.

Provide 750 day-use spaces in a parking area that creates a sense of arrival with 

pedestrian pathways, wayfinding aids and landscape treatment. Provide landscaped 

areas to retain large numbers of trees, screen parking bays and bioswales that will 

treat storm water run-off.

Construct a park shuttle bus stop, covered shelter and comfort station.

Replace the Village Sport Shop with visitor contact station.

Retain existing shuttle bus stops on Visitor Center Loop Drive.

Eliminate existing Art Activity Center (bank building) and improve pedestrian access.

Protect and restore remaining wetlands and meadows, enhance wetlands and 

meadows in an integrated design and construction process.

Eliminate all parking from a 150-foot riparian buffer between Northside Drive and the 

Merced River reducing encroachment of existing day-use parking area on river corridor.

Dotted line represents existing day-use parking area limits.

Improve pedestrian connections and bike paths east and west of the day-use parking 

area. 

Enhance Village Drive connection to Ahwahnee Drive by establishing a tree-lined 

roadway as a connection to day-use parking facilities and lodging.

2

1

1

1

3

9

9

4

3

5

4

6

5

7

6

6

8

7

10

10

11

11

12

12

13

13

14

14

14

15

15

9

8

2

2
ALTERNATIVES

This page intentionally left blank

8-232 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
These drawings are intended to illustrate where facilities would be removed, relocated, or constructed according to actions more fully described by the project alternative. The drawings do not represent a final proposal. 

The precise locations of structures and other facilities are subject to change pending archaeological investigation prior to design or construction. More detailed design and construction documents would be developed 

consistent with the general concepts presented here.

Alternative 5

Conceptual Site Drawing for 

Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4

Yosemite National Park

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

NORTH

Through a subsequent planning process, evaluate 

alternatives that would reconstruct or relocate the 

pedestrian crossing at Northside Drive to eliminate or 

minimize pedestrian and vehicle conflict. 

Maintain existing Yosemite Lodge guest lodging 

buildings, consisting of 245 rooms, swimming pool 

and parking areas (except where otherwise noted on 

this drawing).

Remove snack stand, bike rental stand and bike 

storage area from the river corridor.

Extend and improve existing tour bus loading and 

unloading area to accommodate 6 tour buses. 

Add 25 overnight parking spaces for lodge 

guests.

Enhance pedestrian circulation system.

Remove temporary employee housing structures 

from Highland Court, 82 beds. Return use of the 

existing paved area to prior parking purposes 

with 117 parking spaces.

Construct permanent employee housing in 2 

two-story buildings with 52 occupants per 

building, provide 42 employee parking spaces per 

building.

Demolish and remove existing NPS volunteer 

office. 

Relocate linen storage and laundry buildings from 

the 100-year floodplain to the food service 

building, as an addition or outbuilding. 

Reconfigure truck loading and unloading area. 

Construct 300 visitor parking spaces and a 

comfort station in previously-disturbed lodge 

“annex” area. Maintain existing vegetation as 

buffers to separate and screen parking bays 

where possible. Provide pedestrian pathways 

and bioswales that will treat storm water run-off.

Construct 22 tour bus day-use parking spaces in 

previously disturbed area.

Construct 41 new parking spaces at Camp 4.

Retain 35 existing walk-in campsites at Camp 4. 

Construct 35 additional walk-in sites opposite 

existing parking facility.

Protect and enhance a 150-foot riparian buffer 

outside area of prior disturbance.

2

2

1

1

1

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

7

7

7

8

8

10

10

11

11

12

12

13

13

13

14

14

9

9
ALTERNATIVES

This page intentionally left blank

8-234 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 6: Diversified Visitor Experiences and Selective Riverbank Restoration

ALTERNATIVE 6: DIVERSIFIED VISITOR EXPERIENCES AND SELECTIVE

RIVERBANK RESTORATION 

Overview

The guiding principles of Alternative 6 include limited restoration within 100 feet of the river and in 

meadow and riparian areas, infrastructure improvements to improve the visitor experience in Yosemite 

Valley, and expansion of facilities and services to accommodate growth in peak daily visitation. 

Management actions in Alternative 6 would:

• Restore 176 acres of meadow and riparian habitat. 

• Significantly increase the campsite inventory corridorwide (+46%) and in Yosemite Valley (+59%).

• Increase the lodging inventory in the recreational river segment in Yosemite Valley (+21%)

• Increase parking for Yosemite Valley day-use (+11%). 

• Expand facilities and services to accommodate growth in visitation.

• Reduce traffic congestion and improve traffic circulation through infrastructure improvements 

such as roundabouts and grade-separated pedestrian crossings. 

• Establish a user capacity of 19,920 people at one time for Yosemite Valley, with peak visitation 

estimated at 21,800 visitors per day. 

• Continue to manage overnight-use capacity through wilderness quotas and reservation systems for 

lodging and camping.

• Manage day-use capacity for East Yosemite Valley by rerouting traffic at the El Capitan crossover 

prior to reaching established limits. 

Visitors to Yosemite Valley would experience changes in circulation, parking, and transit that would reduce 

traffic congestion while providing for limited meadow and floodplain restoration. Visitors would 

experience a clear “sense of arrival” at a pedestrian-friendly parking area in Yosemite Village. These changes 

would be accomplished by moving parking away from the river and by redesigning the road and 

intersections at Yosemite Village to include two roundabouts. New parking areas would be provided in 

West Yosemite Valley and in El Portal, both linked to expanded shuttle service. 

At Curry Village, all of the tent cabins at Boys Town would be removed and replaced with new duplex and 

4-plex lodging units. The raft rental, ice rink, and bicycle rentals would be removed from their current 

locations and the services would be located outside of the river corridor. The food service, groceries, pool, 

and mountaineering shop would remain. Private boaters and those renting commercial rafts would still be 

able to raft or kayak in Yosemite Valley with additional reaches of the Merced River opened to boating. 

Cyclists would be able to ride bicycles in the Valley, with personal or rental equipment. Commercial 

horseback day rides would be discontinued; overnight stock trips to the backcountry would continue to 

operate out of the Concessioner Stables. Private stock use would continue to be allowed for rides in the 

front country and beyond. At Housekeeping Camp, some lodging units would be removed from the bed and 

banks of the river, the grocery store would be retained, and access to the beach and picnicking area would 

be improved. 

Camping opportunities would be increased by adding a new walk-in campground east of Camp 4, a new 

campground near Eagle Creek in West Valley, and at the location of the former Lower and Upper River 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-235
ALTERNATIVES

campgrounds. Camping would continue to be provided at Lower Pines, Upper Pines, and North Pines. 

Additional lodging units would be provided at a redesigned Yosemite Lodge hotel complex. The bike rental, 

post office, and snack stand would be removed at Yosemite Lodge, while all food and retail services would 

remain. A new day-use parking area would be provided west of the lodge in an area currently used for bus 

parking and storage. A grade-separated crossing would be constructed to alleviate pedestrian and vehicle 

conflict at the intersection of Yosemite Lodge Road and Northside Drive. 

Visitors to Wilderness in the Merced River corridor would continue to camp in designated backpackers 

campgrounds and all facilities would remain at the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp.

In Wawona, transit would be expanded with a new daily run from Fresno to Yosemite Valley along 

Highway 41. Lodging would remain available at the Wawona Hotel, with the golf course and tennis courts 

retained. The Wawona campground would be slightly reduced in size and commercial horseback day rides 

would no longer be available at the Wawona stables. Private boating would be allowed on the South Fork 

Merced. 

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

Alternative 6 would protect and enhance river values through selective ecological restoration of riverbanks 

and riparian and meadow habitat corridorwide. This alternative would ecologically restore the area of 

Housekeeping Camp that is within the ordinary high-water mark of the river and would remove 

campground development within 100 feet of the river. Hydrologic connectivity of meadows to the riparian

floodplain would be enhanced through engineering and design treatments, such as installation of large box 

culverts and permeable subgrades to improve surface water flow. Alternative 6 would also include a valley 

oak habitat protection area in El Portal.

All historic bridges would be retained. Hydrologic processes would be enhanced by increasing channel 

complexity through the installation of constructed log jams, strategic placement of large wood, removal of 

riprap, and bioengineering of the riverbank. If riparian condition and hydrologic function did not improve 

over time, more aggressive management actions would be considered, potentially resulting in bridge 

removal. 

Cultural and scenic values would be protected and enhanced as described under “Actions Common to 

Alternatives 2-6” (beginning on page 8-47). Recreational values would be protected and enhanced by 

dispersing boating along the river through Yosemite Valley and by reducing traffic congestion. User 

Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Alternative 6 would focus on providing diverse visitor experiences and allow for a slight increase in peak 

visitor use levels. It would provide the highest level of camping opportunities in Yosemite Valley and

expand lodging facilities (see Table 8-40). Proper infrastructure design and site delineation in high-use areas 

would be incorporated to ensure the long-term protection of river values. 

Table 8-39 provides a summary of the action unique to Alternative 6 that would protect and enhance river 

values.

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Alternative 6 would focus on providing diverse visitor experiences and allow for a slight increase in peak 

visitor use levels. It would provide the highest level of camping opportunities in Yosemite Valley and

8-236 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 6: Diversified Visitor Experiences and Selective Riverbank Restoration 

expand lodging facilities (see Table 8-40). Proper infrastructure design and site delineation in high-use areas 

would be incorporated to ensure the long-term protection of river values. 

TABLE 8-39: ADDITIONAL ACTIONS TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE RIVER VALUES, ALTERNATIVE 6 

Ecological Restoration Actions (Free Flow, Water Quality, Geological/Hydrological, and Biological Values)

Corridorwide

Ecological 

Restoration Acreage 176 acres (common to all, refer to Appendix E for specific locations)

Riprap to be 

Removed

6,048 linear feet: 5,700 linear feet (common to all) plus an additional 348 feet to be bioengineered 

(refer to Appendix E specific locations)

Segment 2: Yosemite Valley 

Free Flow / 

Geological 

/Hydrological

Values

 Retain all historic bridges. Improve riverbank condition by increasing channel complexity through 

installation of constructed log jams, strategic placement of large wood, removal of riprap, and 

bioengineering of the riverbank. If riparian condition and hydrologic function did not improve over 

time, more aggressive management actions would be considered, potentially resulting in bridge 

removal. 

Riparian Buffer / 

Floodplain

 Ecologically restore part of Housekeeping Camp within the ordinary high-water mark of the river. 

 Ecologically restore portions of Backpackers Campground, North Pines Campground, and Lower Pines 

Campground. 

 Ecologically restore 19.7 acres of habitat in the Upper and Lower River Campgrounds area and 

construct new campsites 150 feet away from the river.

 Move Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area parking north at least 150 feet away from the river. 

Recreational Values  Reduce traffic congestion with improvements to the transportation system and the design and 

location of day-use parking.

Visitor Activities and Services

Under Alternative 6, although some commercial services would be eliminated, lodging and camping 

opportunities would be expanded and diversified. Changes to services include removing redundant retail 

outlets and snack stands and eliminating commercial horseback day rides in Yosemite Valley. The three 

swimming pools in Yosemite Valley would be retained. Raft and bike rental operations would be moved to 

locations outside of the river corridor. The ice skating rink would be moved to a location outside of the river 

corridor and operated as a temporary seasonal facility. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-237
ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 8-40: USER CAPACITIES BY USE TYPE AND LOCATION – ALTERNATIVE 6

User Capacities by Use Type and Location Alt 1 (No Action) Alt 6

Unit Type Units People Units People

Wilderness Above Nevada Fall

Visitor Overnight Use Zone Capacities & Beds 380 380 380 380

Visitor Day Use Day Hikers 350 350 350 350

Employee Housing (in camps) Employee Beds 15 15 15 15

Administrative Day Use Day Patrols 5 5 5 5 

Yosemite Valley

Visitor Overnight Use Rooms & Campsites 1,500 6,564 1,987 9,006

Visitor Day Use Parking Spaces - 11,727 - 9,449

Employee Housing Employee Beds 1,315 1,315 1,136 1,136

Administrative Day Use Parking Spaces 166 332 166 332

Merced Gorge

Visitor Overnight Use Rooms & Campsites - - - - 

Visitor Day Use Parking Spaces 180 869 180 869

Employee Housing Employee Beds 9 9 9 9 

Administrative Day Use Parking Spaces 2 4 2 4 

El Portal

Visitor Overnight Use Rooms & Campsites - - - - 

Visitor Day Use Parking Spaces 214 740 414 740

Employee Housing Employee Beds 220 427 488 689

Administrative Day Use Parking Spaces 610 1,220 610 1,220

South Fork Above Wawona

Visitor Overnight Use Permits 20 20 20 20

Visitor Day Use Day Hikers 6 6 6 6 

Employee Housing Employee Beds - - - - 

Administrative Day Use Day Patrols 1 1 1 1 

Wawona

Visitor Overnight Use Rooms & Campsites 203 865 190 787

Visitor Day Use Parking Spaces - 1,295 - 1,606

Employee Housing Employee Beds 121 121 121 121

Administrative Day Use Parking Spaces 30 60 30 60

South Fork Below Wawona

Visitor Overnight Use Overnight Hikers - - - - 

Visitor Day Use Day Hikers 6 6 6 6 

Employee Housing Employee Beds - - - - 

Administrative Day Use Day Patrols 1 1 1 1

Visitor Overnight Capacity

Camping

Under Alternative 6, the campsite inventory in the Merced Wild and Scenic River corridor, including 

Yosemite Valley, would be increased by approximately 59%. All campsites within 100 feet of the river would 

be removed. Under Alternative 6, the total number of campsites in Yosemite Valley would increase to 739—

a net gain of 273 sites. The total number of campsites available in the corridor would be 825. Table 8-41

provides a summary of the proposed changes to camping. 

8-238 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 6: Diversified Visitor Experiences and Selective Riverbank Restoration

TABLE 8-41: CAMPING FACILITIES – ALTERNATIVE 6

Existing Locations

Alt 1

(No Action) Alt 6 Details

Backpackers 25 sites 10 sites 15 walk-in sites within 100 feet of river relocated to a less 

sensitive area outside 100-year floodplain

Camp 4 35 sites 35 sites No change to this National Historic Register Site

Lower Pines 76 sites 71 sites 5 sites removed from within 100 feet of the river

North Pines 86 sites 72 sites 14 sites removed from within 100 feet of the river 

Upper Pines 240 sites 238 sites 2 sites removed for archeological resource concerns 

Yellow Pine 

Administrative 4 sites 4 sites No changes to these group administrative sites 

Wawona Campground 99 sites 86 sites 13 sites removed within 100 feet of river or in culturally 

sensitive areas 

Total Existing Locations 565 sites 516 sites

New Locations Alt 1 Alt 6 Details

West of Backpackers 0 sites 16 sites 16 walk-in sites relocated from Backpackers Campground

outside 100-year floodplain

East of Camp 4 0 sites 35 sites 35 walk-in sites constructed in area east of Camp 4

Upper Pines 0 sites 87 sites 36-site RV loop and a walk-in campground with 49 sites and 2 

group sites constructed

Upper River 0 sites 32 sites

30 walk-in and 2 group sites created 150 feet from river in the 

former footprint of the Upper River Campground impacted by 

the 1997 flood

Lower River 0 sites 40 sites 40 walk-in sites created 150 feet from the river in the former 

footprint of Lower River Campground

Yosemite Lodge 0 sites 20 sites 20 RV sites west of lodge and adjacent to parking area

Eagle Creek 0 sites 79 sites 79 car & RV sites added east of El Capitan Picnic Area

Total New Camping 0 sites 309 sites

Total Camping in Corridor 565 sites 825 sites

Lodging

Under Alternative 6, the availability of in-park lodging availability would increase 18% relative to current 

conditions. Management actions related to lodging would focus on the removal of lodging from within the 

ordinary high-water mark at Housekeeping Camp and either the maintenance or increase in lodging 

capacities at other locations. Canvas tent cabins would be replaced with permanent lodging in Curry Village 

to increase the availability of year-round accommodations. Yosemite Lodge would be redeveloped outside 

of the 100-year floodplain with new three-story lodging structures to provide a total of 440 units. As a result 

of these actions, the in-park lodging inventory would be increased from 1,160 units to 1,374 units. Table 

8-42 provides a summary of the proposed changes to lodging. 

Parking Inventory and Access Improvements

Under Alternative 6, parking for Yosemite Valley day use would increase by 11%, with the provision of 

remote parking lots in West Valley and El Portal. The total number of day-use parking spaces available for 

all river segments would be as shown in Table 8-43 . 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-239
ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 8-42: LODGING FACILITIES – ALTERNATIVE 6 

Wilderness

Alt 1 

(No Action) Alt 6 Details

Merced Lake High Sierra 

Camp

22 units

(60 beds)

22 units

(60 beds) No change to this Wilderness lodging facility 

Yosemite Valley Alt 1 Alt 6 Details

Ahwahnee Hotel 123 rooms 123 rooms No change at this National Historic Landmark

Housekeeping Camp 266 units 232 units Remove 34 units out of the ordinary high-water mark (bed 

and banks of the river)

Curry Village 400 units

453 units

(290 canvas 

tent cabins and 

163 hard-sided 

units)

Retain 290 canvas tent cabins

Retain 18 units at Stoneman House

Retain 47 cabin-with-bath units.

Construct 98 hard-sided units in Boys Town 

Yosemite Lodge 245 rooms 440 rooms Construct a new three-story lodging structures with 440 

units located outside the 100-year floodplain

Wawona Alt 1 Alt 6 Details

Wawona Hotel 104 rooms 104 rooms No change at this National Historic Landmark 

Total Lodging in Corridor 1,160 units 1,374 units 

TABLE 8-43: NUMBER OF DAY-USE PARKING SPACES IN SEGMENTS – ALTERNATIVE 6 

Location Alt 1 (No Action) Alt 6

Segment 2: Yosemite Valley 2,337 spaces 2,398 spaces

Segment 3: The Gorge 180 spaces 180 spaces

Segment 4: El Portal 214 spaces 414 spaces*

Segment 7: Wawona 290 spaces 290 spaces

Total Parking 3,021 spaces 3,282 spaces

NOTE: 

* 200 new El Portal spaces are located in the Abbieville Remote Parking area. While these spaces are located in El 

Portal and are therefore counted as part of the parking inventory of Segment 4, most of the use associated with 

these spaces will occur in the Yosemite Valley.

The most significant changes to parking and circulation would take place in the vicinity of Yosemite Village 

Day-use Parking Area, Yosemite Lodge, West Valley, and El Portal. The Yosemite Village Day-use Parking 

Area would be redesigned to provide 750 parking spaces. A new day-use parking area with a total of 300 

parking spaces would be constructed west of Yosemite Lodge. Overflow parking during times of peak 

visitation would be provided in West Valley (250 parking spaces) and in El Portal at Abbieville (200 parking 

spaces). The total parking inventory in East Yosemite Valley (including day, overnight, and administrative 

use) would be approximately 5,350 spaces. Including the remote parking lots provided in West Valley and El 

Portal, a total of 5,800 parking spaces would be provided for visitor and administrative access to Yosemite 

Valley. 

Under Alternative 6, regional transit options and shuttle services would be expanded and optimized. The 

NPS shuttle system would also be expanded to serve locations in West Yosemite Valley, including Bridalveil 

Fall and the West Valley Overflow Parking Area.

8-240 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
!F

!F

ÆQ

ÆQ

ÆQ

ÆQ

!i

!i

!i

!i

!i

Housekeeping Camp Footbridge

Curry 

Village

Lower Pines

Campground

North Pines

Campground

Upper Pines

Campground

Clark's

Bridge

Tenaya

Bridge

River Corridor Boundary

Boys

Town Southside Drive

The Ahwahnee Backpackers

Campground

Stoneman

Bridge

Happy Isles Bridge

Merced River

Royal

Arches

Meadow

Stoneman

Meadow

Ahwahnee

Meadow

Ahwahnee

Bridge

Sugar Pine

Bridge

Concessioner

Stables

Tennis Court

Upper and lower

River Campground Area

Ahwahnee

Parking

Wilderness

Parking

Curry Village Parking

0 0.25 Miles

¬«1

¬«2

¬«4

¬«5

¬«6

 ̄

ALTERNATIVE 6

CURRY VILLAGE AND CAMPGROUNDS

!i

Huff

House

Tenaya Creek

¬«3

EAST YOSEMITE VALLEY: CURRY VILLAGE AND CAMPGROUNDS

1 Upper and Lower River Campground

• New Lower River Campground: Construct a new campground 150 feet away from the river with 40 walk-in sites.

Provide picnic tables and parking for day use and directed river access to the Housekeeping Camp eastern 

beach. Restore hydrologic processes in the southeast portion of the area.

• New Upper River Campground: Construct a new campground 150 feet away from the river with 30 walk-in sites 

and 2 group sites. Restore hydrologic processes in the southeast portion of the area.

• Restoration: Restore 19.7 acres of floodplain. Protect the riverbank from trampling by fencing sensitive areas.

2 River Reach Between Bridges

• Ahwahnee and Sugar Pine Bridges: Retain both Ahwahnee and Sugar Pine bridges. Mitigate effects of bridge to 

ensure free-flowing condition through engineered solutions: Improve channel complexity by installing 

constructed log jams. Deposit large wood below Sugar Pine Bridge. Fill in the existing cut off channel before the 

Sugar Pine Bridge.

• Stoneman Bridge: Mitigate effects of bridge to ensure free-flowing condition through engineered solutions: 

place large wood to lessen scouring, and use brushlayering and a constructed log jam. Add culverts along 

Northside Drive. 

3 Curry Village Area

• Lodging: Total would be 453 guest units, including: 290 tents in Curry Village retained; 98 hard-sided units 

constructed in Boys Town; 18 units at Stoneman House retained; and 47 cabin-with-bath units in Curry Village 

retained.

• Curry Orchard Parking Area: Provide 430 parking spaces through a re-design of the parking lot that 

uses best management practices to protect water quality. Also, apply engineering solutions to promote water 

flow and to increase drainage to Stoneman Meadow. Remove apple trees to mitigate human-bear interactions 

and plant native vegetation.

• Facilities and Services: Relocate ice rink to parking area outside of the river corridor and retain this seasonal 

activity. Relocate the bicycle and raft rental services outside of the wild and scenic river corridor.

• Huff House Housing: Remove temporary housing at Huff House. Construct 16 buildings, housing 164 employees, 

using the same dormitory prototype.

• Curry Village Day-use Parking: Within the existing disturbance footprint at the Curry Village Ice Rink area, provide 

visitor day-use and employee commuter parking for 105 vehicles.

4 Lower Pines Campground Area

• Campground Sites: Retain 71 campsites and remove five sites from within 100 feet of river. Restore native plant 

communities in riparian area.

5 North Pines Campground Area

• North Pines Campground: Retain 72 campsites. Remove 14 sites from within 100 feet of river. Designate a 

formal river access point and restore native plant communities. 

• Backpackers Campground: Retain 10 walk-in sites. Remove 15 walk-in sites within the 100-foot riparian buffer to 

be replaced by 16 walk-in sites west of Backpackers Campground.

• Concessioner Stables in Yosemite Valley: Retain the stables only to support the operation of the Merced 

Lake High Sierra Camp. Retain the kennel service. Retain associated housing (49 beds).

6 Upper Pines Campground Area

• Campground Sites: Retain 238 campsites. Remove two sites from sensitive resource area.

• New RV Loop: Construct a new campground loop with 36 RV sites.

• New Walk-in Campground: Construct a new walk-in campground with 49 sites and two group camping sites.

ALTERNATIVE 6: DIVERSIFIED VISITOR EXERIENCES AND SELECTIVE RIVERBANK RESTORATION

8-241
This page intentionally left blank

8-242 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
!5

!i

!i

!i

River Corridor Boundary

Merced River

Northside Drive

Ahwahnee Road

Southside Drive

Yosemite Creek

Bridge

Cook's Meadow

Ahwahnee Meadow

Government 

Utility Building

Lost Arrow

Rangers'

Club

Le Conte

Memorial Lodge

Church Bowl

Picnic Area

Sentinel Bridge

Housekeeping

Bridge

Superintendent's

Bridge

Housekeeping Camp

Yosemite Village Day-Use 

Parking Area

Village Store Complex

0 0.25 Miles

ALTERNATIVE 6YOSEMITE VILLAGE AND HOUSEKEEPING CAMP

¬«1

¬«3

¬«4

¬«5

 ̄

Yosemite Village

¬«2

¬«2

Sentinel Drive

EAST 1. Lo2. Ro

• S

3

• Y

ve

3. Yo

• Y

f

4. Ind

• C• A

5. Ho

• 

ts

ALTERNATIVE 6: DIVERSIFIED VISITOR EXERIENCES AND SELECTIVE RIVERBANK REST
This page intentionally left blank

8-244 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Southside

Drive

River Corridor Boundary

Camp 4 

Campground

Yosemite

Lodge

Cook's

Meadow

Sentinel

Meadow

Northside

Drive

Yosemite Lodge

Parking Area

Swinging

Bridge

Sentinel Bridge

Swinging Bridge

Picnic Area

Lower Yosemite Fall

Picnic Area

0 500 Feet

ALTERNATIVE 6

YOSEMITE LODGE AND CAMP 4

1

4

2

3

Merced River

Leidig

Meadow

Sentinel Meadow

Cook's 

Meadow

Residence 1

EAST YOSEMITE VALLEY: YOSEMITE LODGE AND CAMP 4

1 West of Yosemite Lodge

• Parking: Redevelop disturbed area southwest of Yosemite Lodge to provide an additional 300 day-use parking 

spaces. This includes 15 spaces for tour bus parking. Parking redevelopment will incorporate best management 

practices to protect water quality.

• RV Camping: Construct 20 RVs sites adjacent to proposed parking.

2 Yosemite Lodge

• Lodging: Construct 4 new 3-story lodging structures with a total of 440 units to achieve pre-1997 flood number 

of guest rooms. Redesign the entire lodging facility to avoid the 100-year floodplain.

• Tour Buses: Remove temporary housing complex at Highland Court and establish a tour bus drop-off area with

three bus loading spaces. 

• Services and Facilities: Retain Yosemite Lodge Food Court and Mountain Room bar and dining service. Retain 

swimming pool facility. Relocate bike rental facility outside the river corridor. Re-purpose convenience shop and 

nature shop. Relocate Yosemite Lodge maintenance. Remove Yosemite Lodge post office, snack stand, employee 

housing (called Thousands Cabins), Highland Court employee temporary housing, and the NPS Volunteer Office. 

• Site Restoration: Remove four existing hotel buildings from the 100-year floodplain, decompact underlying soils, 

re-contour topography (using 1919 maps as a guide) and plant native vegetation (3.3 acres restored). 

• Yosemite Lodge Parking: Create gravel parking area for the redesigned Yosemite Lodge with space for 395 cars. 

• Yosemite Lodge Concessioner Housing: Remove housing at the “Thousands Cabins” and temporary housing at 

Highland Court. Replace with two new concessioner housing areas to accommodate 104 employees. Construct 

78 employee parking spaces to serve new housing.

3 Yosemite Falls Intersection

• A tiered NEPA / NHPA compliance effort will evaluate a range of alternatives to address the pedestrian / vehicle 

conflicts and traffic congestion at this intersection. The grade-separated crossing that is selected will include 

design guidelines to ensure that archeological impacts are avoided or minimized, the safety of pedestrians is 

maximized, and visual impacts are minimized.

4 Residence 1

• Residence 1: Rehabilitate the historic structure, also know as the Superintendent's House, in its existing location 

to preserve the historic fabric while preparing the structure to withstand periodic flooding. The rehabilitation 

will follow the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and the Historic 

Structures Report. Ecologically restore associated informal trails in Cook's Meadow and address continuing use 

patterns to enhance black oak woodland and meadow habitat.

ALTERNATIVE 6: DIVERSIFIED VISITOR EXERIENCES AND SELECTIVE RIVERBANK RESTORATION

8-245
This page intentionally left blank

8-246 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
!F

!F

!F

!5

!5

!5

!5

ÆQ

El Capitan

Meadow

Sentinel

Beach

El Capitan 

Bridge

Cathedral

Beach

Swinging

Bridge

Camp 4 Campground

Southside Drive

Northsi d

e

Drive

Merce

d River

West Valley

Day Use Parking Sentinel

Rock

Lower Brother

Split Pinnacle

Cathedral Rocks

0 0.25 Miles

 ̄

ALTERNATIVE 6WEST YOSEMITE VALLEY

¬«1

¬«2

¬«3 ¬«4

River C

orridor Boundary

¬«5

Old El Portal

Abbieville Trailer

Village

Rancheria

Flat

NPS Warehouse &AdministrativeComplex

F orest a

Road

SIERRA NATIONAL FOREST

STANISLAUS NATIONAL FOREST

National Park Boundary

Greenemeyer

Sand Pit

H ig

hway 14 0

Hwy. 140 

Bridge

0 0.4 Miles

ALTERNATIVE 6EL PORTAL

2 3

River Corridor B

o

u

n

d

ary

M

erced

River

1

WEST YOSEMITE VALLEY1. El Capitan Meadow Area

• Restoration of Informal Trails: Res

meadow, including the southern mature conifers that block views 

2. West Valley Day-use Parking

• Day-Use Parking: Develop a West 

with 250 parking spaces. Parking shuttle service to West Valley loca

3. Valley Loop Trail

• Re-Route: Move portions of the V

boardwalks through wet meadow 

4. Eagle Creek Campground

• New Campground: Construct cam

5. Yellow Pine Campground

• Administrative Use Campground: 

EL PORTAL1. Rancheria Flat

• Employee Housing: To replace tem

each, and eight dwelling units for 

2. Abbieville and Trailer Court

• Abbieville and Trailer Village Hou

existing private residences.

• El Portal Remote Visitor Parking: C

transit. Parking redevelopment w

3. El Portal Village Center

• Valley Oak Restoration: Restore th

practices. Create a valley oak recradjacent parking lots. Decompact construction within the oak recru

• Odger’s Fuel Storage Facility: Rem

soils, and plant appropriate native alternate source for emergency fu

ALTERNATIVE 6: DIVERSIFIED VISITOR EXERIENCES AND SELECTIVE RIVERBANK REST
This page intentionally left blank

8-248 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Merced River

Merced Lake

Ranger Station !@

Merced

Lake Merced Lake

High Sierra Camp

Merced Lake

Backpackers

Camping Area !9

Merced Lake

East Meadow

ALTERNATIVE 6 0 0.2 Miles

MERCED LAKE HIGH SIERRA CAMP

¬«1

 ̄

River Corridor Boundary

¬«2

¬«3

River Corridor Boundary

South Fork Picnic Area

Wawona Store Picnic Area

0 0.1 0.2 Miles

ALTERNATIVE 6

WAWONA

1

2

3

Wawona

Golf Course

Wawona

Maintenance

Area

Wawona Hotel

Wawona

Campground

Wawona

Stables

MERCED LAKE HIGH SIERRA CAMP

1 Merced Lake Backpackers Camping Area: Retain the designated camping area. Replace flush toilets with composting toilets. 

2 Merced Lake High Sierra Camp: Retain all 22 units (60 beds) at the existing lodging facility. Replace flush toilets with composting toilet. 

3 Merced Lake East Meadow: Develop preliminary grazing capacities for the meadow. When the meadow recovers, allow administrative grazing at established capacities. Monitor 

annually for five years, adapting use levels as needed to protect the meadow. 

OTHER SEGMENT 1 CAMPING AREAS

• Little Yosemite Valley: Continue designated camping in this camping area. Retain infrastructure, such as composting toilets.

• Moraine Dome: Continue designated camping in this camping area.

WAWONA

1 Wawona Campground: Retain 83 campsites, and one group site. Remove 13 sites that are located within 100 feet of the river or in culturally sensitive areas.

2 Wawona Golf Course and Golf Shop: Retain the existing nine-hole golf course and golf shop retail and food service. 

3 Wawona Stables: Eliminate stable operation and commercial day rides. Relocate two stock-use campground sites from sensitive resource area to existing stables area. 

ALTERNATIVE 6: DIVERSIFIED VISITOR EXERIENCES AND SELECTIVE RIVERBANK RESTORATION

8-249
This page intentionally left blank

8-250 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 6: Diversified Visitor Experiences and Selective Riverbank Restoration

Detailed Description of Alternative 6 by Segment

Segment 1: Wilderness above Nevada Fall (Wild Segment)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

In addition to the “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” (beginning on page 8-47), Alternative 6 would 

include the following actions to protect and enhance river values:

Biological Values

• Establish a preliminary grazing capacity of a maximum of 58 pack stock nights annually (depending 

on meadow condition) for the Merced Lake East Meadow. Exclude pack stock from seasonally 

inundated portions of the meadow. Meadow grazing opening dates may vary annually. Use levels 

may be adapted to ensure the meadow condition meets the management standard for the bare soil 

indicator. 

Recreational Values

• Retain the existing capacity of the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp. Reduce the visual contrast of 

the camp when canvas tents need replacement.

• Establish a limit of 7.5 pack-strings per week (for an average of 30 strings per month) for resupply 

of the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp. 

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Alternative 6 would accommodate the same kinds and amounts of use that exist today in Segment 1. In 

addition to the “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6”, Alternative 6 would include the following actions to 

manage user capacity, land use and facilities: 

Visitor Activities and Services

Overnight use in this segment would include visitors staying at the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp and 

visitors backpacking and staying overnight at either designated camping areas or dispersed areas throughout 

the Wilderness. 

Under Alternative 6, private boating would be allowed in Segment 1. Generally, use in this segment would 

consist of short floats using boats that can easily be carried into this remote area. Only 10 boats per day would 

be allowed, and a permit would be required. The boating permits would be linked to overnight backcountry 

permits. See Appendix R for additional information on equipment restrictions, open stretches, and put-in 

and take-out locations. 

Under Alternative 6, the findings of the Determination of Extent Necessary (DEN) (Appendix L) would be 

implemented. Following is a summary of the commercial use permitted: 

• Allowance of up to two overnight commercial groups per Wilderness zone. 

• No camping or travel allowed more than one-quarter mile from a maintained trail or public access 

road.

• No more than two commercial group day hikes per day per trail.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-251
ALTERNATIVES

• All commercial stock trips are limited to a 1:1.5 stock to person ratio. Accordingly, for every 

multiple of three persons (including employees), only two pack animals are allowed (in addition to 

three riding stock). 

• Additional seasonal and weekend restrictions would apply in the Mount Lyell, Merced Lake, and 

Little Yosemite Valley zones as indicated in Appendix L.

Visitor Overnight Capacity

The existing Wilderness zone capacities would be retained (Table 8-44). The Little Yosemite Valley Zone 

would be managed to a capacity of 150 people using a zone quota or zone pass-through system. Services 

would be managed as follows:

• Retain the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp at its current capacity (60 people per night); convert the

flush toilets at the camp to composting toilets.

• Retain designated backpacker camping areas at Little Yosemite Valley, Moraine Dome, and 

Merced Lake; remove the flush toilets from the Merced Lake Backpackers Camping Area and

replace with composting toilets.

TABLE 8-44: WILDERNESS ZONE CAPACITIES FOR ALTERNATIVE 6 

Wilderness Zones Alt 6 Zonewide Capacity

Alt 6 Zone Capacity*

Specific to the River Corridor

Little Yosemite Valley Zone 150 people 150 people

Merced Lake Zone 50 people 50 people

Washburn Lake Zone 150 people 100 people

Mount Lyell Zone 50 people 10 people

Clark Range Zone 50 people 10 people

NOTES: 

* For some Wilderness zones, only a small portion of river corridor that overlaps the zone. Therefore, park planners calculated capacities that 

itemize the number of people in both the Wilderness zone and the river corridor portion of the zone. These calculations assume that visitors have 

the ability to camp out of sight and sound of other parties and that minimum impact camping is available within the segment.

Visitor Day-use Parking Capacity

Day-use access to this segment is addressed under “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6.”

Administrative Activities

• Continue current administrative activities, which consist primarily of regular ranger patrols, utility 

work, trail and restoration work, and research. These activities are seasonal and less frequent 

compared to visitor use, and do not significantly affect overall user capacity.

Segment 2: Yosemite Valley (Recreational and Scenic Segments)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

In addition to “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” (beginning on page 8-47), Alternative 6 would include 

the following actions to protect and enhance river values:

8-252 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 6: Diversified Visitor Experiences and Selective Riverbank Restoration

Geological/Hydrological Values

• Stoneman Bridge – Retain Stoneman Bridge; mitigate the hydrological effects of the bridge by 

placing large wood on the riverbanks to address scouring, adding brush layering, and increasing 

channel complexity between Clark’s Bridge and Sentinel Bridge (as described in Chapter 5 and 

Appendix E).

• Ahwahnee and Sugar Pine Bridges – Retain the Ahwahnee and Sugar Pine bridges; mitigate the 

hydrological effects of the bridges by placing large wood on the riverbanks to address scouring, 

adding brush layering, and increasing channel complexity between Clark’s Bridge and Sentinel 

Bridge (as described in chapter 5 and Appendix E). 

• Sugar Pine Bridge – Reduce the width of the cut-off channel upstream of Sugar Pine Bridge 

through a combination of fill, constructed log jams, and bioengineered bank stabilization. 

Water Quality

• Reroute the pack stock trail (from the Concessioner Stables) to the north, adjacent to the Happy 

Isles Loop Road (the existing trail is removed and ecologically restored under Alternatives 2-6). 

Biological Values

Alternative 6 would remove existing campsites within 100 feet of the ordinary high-water mark. 

• Remove all campsites and associated infrastructure within 100 feet of the ordinary high-water mark 

and restore natural floodplain and riparian habitat (12 acres).

- Backpackers Campground: Remove 15 sites within 100 feet of the ordinary high-water 

mark. 

- North Pines Campground: Remove 14 campsites from within 100 feet of the ordinary 

high-water mark; restore native riparian vegetation. 

- Lower Pines Campground: Remove 5 sites from within 100 feet of the ordinary highwater mark; restore native riparian vegetation.

- Upper Pines Campground: Remove two campsites for archeological resource concerns.

• Former Lower and Upper River Campgrounds – Remove abandoned facilities within 150 feet of 

the ordinary high-water mark and restore 19.7 acres of natural floodplain topography and 

riparian/wetland habitat; re-establish overflow channels where possible. Fence and close the 

riparian zone at the location of the former Upper River Campground to protect the riverbank from 

trampling; direct visitors to access the river for boating and swimming by way of a path to the 

Housekeeping Camp eastern beach.

• Yosemite Lodge – Remove all existing buildings at Yosemite Lodge and restore natural floodplain 

conditions (replace lodging and associated facilities with a completely redesigned facility located 

outside the floodplain). Construct enough parking to accommodate the lodging units and restore 

the remaining area. 

• Former Pine and Oak Units – Redevelop the disturbed footprint of the former Yosemite Lodge 

units and cabins (those that were damaged by the 1997 flood and subsequently removed). Retain 

one service road to the well house.

• Yosemite Village – Move the Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area northward so that it is 150

feet from the ordinary high-water mark of the Merced River and outside a designated 50-foot 

setback from Indian Creek; remove fill material and restore the riparian habitat adjacent to the 

river.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-253
ALTERNATIVES

• Housekeeping Camp – Remove lodging and other facilities at Housekeeping Camp that are within 

the ordinary high-water mark (remove 34 units); restore native riparian habitat (1 acre). Adjust the 

existing fencing along the riverbank to protect the restored riparian habitat. Direct visitor use and 

river access to the two resilient beach locations on the western edge of Housekeeping Camp and 

across the footbridge. Fence off the current eastern river access point (located on a steep, eroded 

bank) and actively restore the riverbank with brush layering. 

Alternative 6 would remove or mitigate the effects of trails and roads through meadows:

• Bridalveil Meadow – Reroute the 780-foot segment of the Valley Loop Trail that crosses Bridalveil 

Meadow so that it is adjacent to Southside Drive.

• Slaughterhouse Meadow – Construct boardwalks through sensitive wet meadow habitat at 

Slaughterhouse Meadow.

• El Capital Meadow – Fence the northern and southern perimeters of the meadow to discourage 

foot traffic into the meadow, and designate all meadow access using boardwalks and viewing 

platforms. Selectively remove conifers that block views of El Capitan from the roadside to 

discourage foot traffic into the meadow.

• Ahwahnee Meadow – Retain Northside Drive and bike path in current configuration; add culverts 

to improve hydrologic connectivity through Ahwahnee Meadow. Install a boardwalk to traverse 

wet areas through Ahwahnee Meadow (350 feet long). 

• Stoneman Meadow – Retain Southside Drive through Stoneman Meadow as a necessary part of 

the traffic pattern under this alternative. Mitigate effects of the road through the meadow with 

culverts or other engineered solutions that allow passage of surface water. Remove roadside 

parking along Stoneman Meadow and restore the area to meadow conditions.

Cultural Values

• Rehabilitate Superintendent’s House and Garage (Residence 1) in its existing location to preserve 

the building’s historic integrity and prepare the structure to withstand periodic flooding. Follow 

the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (NPS 1995). 

Recreational Values

• Allow boating of up to 150 people per day for private use and 100 boats at one time for commerical 

use. This reduction would promote the dispersal of recreation opportunties along the river 

corridor.

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Visitor Activities and Services

Alternative 6 would enhance opportunities for visitors to connect to the river through both infrastructure 

improvements and the expansion of recreational opportunities. The following changes to visitor activities 

and services would occur, in addition to those common to Alternatives 2-6:

• Allow both private and commercial boating in Segment 2. 

- Private boating would be allowed in the river reach between Clark’s Bridge and Pohono 

Bridge, with put-ins and take-outs below Clark’s Bridge on river right, below Stoneman 

Bridge on river left, at Sentinel Beach, and along the roadside below Pohono Bridge. This 

use would be limited by permit to 150 trips per day and monitored to ensure protection of 

river values.

8-254 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 6: Diversified Visitor Experiences and Selective Riverbank Restoration

- Commercial boating would be allowed between Stoneman Bridge and Sentinel Beach. This 

use would be limited to 100 boats at one time (approximately 250 trips per day). 

• Improve the Cathedral, Sentinel, and Swinging bridge picnic areas.

• Provide a new picnic area (eight tables and 20 parking spaces) and designated river access for 

rafting in the Lower River area.

• Retain the Housekeeping Camp shower houses, restrooms, laundry, and grocery store. 

• Retain Concessioner Stables in Yosemite Valley to support Merced Lake High Sierra Camp and 

overflow parking for campgrounds. Eliminate commercial horseback day rides originating from 

Yosemite Valley. Retain kennel service. 

• Move the raft rentals and bicycle rentals at Curry Village to locations outside of the river corridor.

• Move the bicycle rentals at Yosemite Lodge to a location outside of the river corridor.

• Move the ice skating rink at Curry Village to a parking lot outside of the river corridor. Operate as a 

temporary seasonal facility.

• Retain the swimming pools at the Ahwahnee Hotel, Yosemite Lodge, and Curry Village.

Visitor Overnight Capacity: Camping

Under Alternative 6, camping would be increased to 739 sites, accommodating up to 4,626 people per night:

• Backpackers Campground – Retain 10 walk-in sites. Remove 15 sites within 100 feet of the 

ordinary high-water mark. Construct 16 new walk-in campsites west of Backpackers Campground, 

in less sensitive area outside the 100-year floodplain. 

• Upper and Lower River Campground – Construct a new campground with 30 walk-in sites and 2 

group sites north of the river, a minimum of 150 feet away from the ordinary high-water mark.

Construct a new campground with 40 walk-in sites at Lower River, 150 feet away from the ordinary 

high-water mark.

• North Pines Campground – Retain 72 campsites. Remove 14 sites from within 100 feet of the 

ordinary high-water mark.

• Upper Pines Campground – Retain 238 campsites, removing 2 sites for archeological resource 

concerns. Construct a new RV campground loop with 36 RV sites. Construct a new walk-in 

campground with 49 individual sites and 2 group sites.

• Lower Pines Campground – Retain 71 campsites. Remove 5 sites from within 100 feet of the 

ordinary high-water mark.

• Yosemite Lodge – Construct a new campground with 20 RV sites near the parking area west of 

Yosemite Lodge.

• Camp 4 – Retain 35 walk-in campsites and 35 parking spaces. Construct 35 additional campsites 

east of Camp 4; establish a new parking area (41 spaces) for the expansion within the disturbed 

footprint of the former service station. 

• Yellow Pine – Four group campsites (up to 120 people) would be retained at the Yellow Pine 

Campground. 

• Eagle Creek – Construct a new campground with 79 drive-in sites, including RV sites. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-255
ALTERNATIVES

Visitor Overnight Capacity: Lodging

Lodging would be increased to 1,248 units accommodating 4,380 people per night. Common to 

Alternatives 2-6, the Ahwahnee would continue to provide 123 lodging rooms. The following additional 

lodging would be retained, removed, or constructed under Alternative 6:

• Curry Village – Retain 355 lodging units at Curry Village: 

290 canvas tent cabins, 18 units at Stoneman House, and 

47 hard-sided cabin-with-bath units. Remove all existing 

cabins and associated structures at Boys Town. Construct 

98 new lodging units suitable for year-round use (25 

duplex buildings, two 4-plex buildings, and five two-story 

8-plex buildings, all with private baths); construct a new 

guest check-in building and pedestrian pathway; provide 

78 new parking spaces along the existing roadway and 20 

new parking spaces along the eastern edge of the Curry 

Orchard Parking Area, all within the existing developed 

footprint. Provide 430 designated overnight parking 

spaces at the Curry Orchard Parking Area. 

• Housekeeping Camp – Retain 232 units and associated facilities. Remove 34 units (17 buildings)

that are within the ordinary high-water mark. Restore approximately one acre of riparian habitat. 

Adjust the existing fencing along the riverbank to protect the restored riparian habitat.

• Yosemite Lodge – Remove all existing buildings, including four buildings in the 100-year 

floodplain). Replace with a new three-story lodging structures located outside of the 100-year 

floodplain and designed to provide a total of 440 units. 

Visitor Day-use Parking Capacity and Transit

Alternative 6 would allow for an increase in peak daily visitation to Yosemite Valley. Collectively, day-use

parking, regional transit, and tour bus capacities would accommodate up to 9,449 people at one time in 

Segment 2. 

• Increase available day-use parking spaces (+61 spaces) for a total of 2,398 parking spaces in 

Yosemite Valley. Provide additional day-use parking in West Valley (+250 spaces) and El Portal 

(+200 spaces). Including the remote lots, the net gain in parking for day use in Yosemite Valley 

would be 511 spaces.

Visitor circulation would be improved to reduce traffic congestion and to provide a better arrival 

experience for visitors. Major actions would include the following:

• Redesign day-use parking at Yosemite Village to provide 

850 parking spaces and a new comfort station. Construct a 

pedestrian underpass and two roundabouts—one at 

Northside Drive/Village Drive and one at Sentinel 

Drive/Northside Drive—to address traffic congestion and 

pedestrian-vehicle conflicts.

• Construct a parking lot with 300 designated day-use

parking spaces and a new 3,000 square foot comfort 

station west of Yosemite Lodge; provide 15 bus 

loading/unloading spaces.

• Determine the alignment of a grade-separated pedestrian 

crossing near Yosemite Falls to alleviate traffic congestion at this location. 

Preliminary drawings for lodging 

improvements at Boys Town, as 

proposed in Alternative 6, have been 

completed to assess the feasibility of 

this project. See “Conceptual 

Designs for Potential Project 

Implementation” (at the end of the 

Alternative 6 discussion) for site 

details and design drawings.

Preliminary drawings for the 

Yosemite Village Day-use Parking 

Area and the Yosemite Lodge, as 

proposed in Alternative 6, have been 

completed to assess the feasibility of 

these projects. See “Conceptual 

Designs for Potential Project 

Implementation” at the end of the 

Alternative 6 discussion for site 

details and design drawings.

8-256 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 6: Diversified Visitor Experiences and Selective Riverbank Restoration

• Construct a West Valley Parking Area to provide 250 overflow parking spaces south of Southside 

Drive; expand the Yosemite Valley shuttle service to this and other locations in West Valley. 

• Construct a new day-use parking lot in El Portal (200 parking spaces) and provide shuttle service to 

the Valley from this location. 

Day use in East Yosemite Valley would be managed using the El Capitan Traffic Diversion. The El Capitan 

crossover has been used by park staff for many years to mitigate traffic congestion during times of peak 

visitation. The crossover is ideally located for this purpose because roads from all park entries join 

Southside Drive prior to reaching this location. Therefore, all inbound vehicles must pass through this 

location and can be redirected to outbound traffic lanes prior to reaching East Valley. Data regarding traffic 

accumulations would be collected by automated traffic counters and reported in real-time to park 

managers. Before East Valley capacity was reached, park staff would begin re-routing traffic from Valley 

destinations until conditions improved. The availability of real-time data would make this approach a 

proactive response to a dynamic but fairly predictable event. Day users would also be able to access the 

Valley by parking in the new El Portal remote parking area (200 parking spaces) or the West Valley 

Overflow Parking Area (250 spaces) and taking a shuttle.

TABLE 8-45: TRANSIT OPTIONS – ALTERNATIVE 6 

Regional Transit Options

HIGHWAY 140

Merced/Mariposa to Yosemite Valley

12 runs per day 

Additional stop at the El Portal remote parking area

(year round)

HIGHWAY 41

Fresno/Oakhurst to Yosemite Valley

12 runs per day

Dedicated shuttle to Badger Pass as collection point for shuttle to Glacier Point

HIGHWAY 120 West 

Groveland/Sonora to Yosemite Valley

8 runs per day

(summer only)

HIGHWAY 120 East

Inyo/Mono County (Mammoth Lakes) to 

Yosemite Valley

2 runs per day

(summer only)

Yosemite Valley Shuttle Options

East Yosemite Valley 5 minute peak interval between buses

Year-round except Visitor Center direct

Visitor Center Express Yosemite Valley Dayuse Parking Area to Visitor Center7 minute interval between buses

(summer only)

El Capitan Crossover 15 minute interval between buses 

(summer only)

West Yosemite Valley

Expand Valley Shuttle service to Bridalveil (summer only)

30 minute interval between buses 

Stops at El Capitan picnic area, El Capitan Meadow, Bridalveil Fall straight, 

Cathedral Beach, Yellow Pine, and Four-mile/Swinging Bridge

NOTE: * All Regional Transit runs are round trip.

Regional transit service into Yosemite Valley during the peak summer season would be expanded as follows: 

• Highway 140 (Merced to Yosemite Valley): Maintain service at 12 runs per day. Add a stop at the 

El Portal remote parking area.

• Highway 41 between Fresno/Oakhurst and Yosemite Valley: implement new public transit service 

at 12 runs/day.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-257
ALTERNATIVES

• Highway 120 West (Sonora/Groveland to Yosemite Valley: Increase service to 8 runs per day 

(summer only).

• Highway 120 East (Mammoth Lakes to Yosemite Valley): Increase service to two runs per day 

(summer only). 

Under Alternatives 2-6, shuttle bus service would be expanded by increasing the frequency of the yearround East Valley service to five-minute intervals during peak season. The Visitor Center Express shuttle 

service (summer only) would be improved by increasing the frequency to seven-minute intervals between 

buses. Shuttle service would be expanded as follows:

• Expand Valley Shuttle service to Bridalveil (summer only), with 30-minute intervals between buses 

and stops at West Valley Parking, El Capitan picnic area, El Capitan Meadow, Bridalveil Fall 

straight, Cathedral Beach, Yellow Pine, and Four-mile/Swinging Bridge.

• Add shuttle service between the El Portal remote parking area and Yosemite Valley.

Administrative Activities

Some administrative activities would be relocated:

• Relocate the Yosemite Lodge housekeeping and maintenance facilities to a location behind the 

food service building at Yosemite Lodge.

Employee Housing and Employee Parking

Compared to existing conditions, 179 fewer concessioner employees would be housed in Yosemite Valley. 

The remaining housing for 972 concessioner employees would be provided as follows:

• Retain housing for 42 employees in the dormitory at the Ahwahnee Hotel.

• Provide housing for 436 employees at Curry Village: 

- Retain permanent housing in the Curry Village residential area (223 employees). 

- Retain employee housing at Concessioner Stables in Yosemite Valley (49 employees).

- Construct 16 dormitory buildings housing 164 employees.

• Provide housing for 390 employees at Yosemite Village:

- Retain permanent housing at Indian Creek and Upper Tecoya (28 employees). 

- Retain Ahwahnee Row, Y Apartments, garage housing, and Hospital Row (43 employees). 

- Retain Tecoya Dorms (232 employees). 

- Construct new dormitory housing in the Lost Arrow parking lot (50 employees). 

• Provide housing for 104 employees at Yosemite Lodge:

- Construct new housing for 104 employees at Yosemite Lodge (two structures with 26 

double-occupancy units each). 

In this alternative, 946 parking spaces would be allocated for administrative uses (including parking spaces 

near residential areas).

An additional 314 Valley employees would be housed in El Portal.

8-258 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 6: Diversified Visitor Experiences and Selective Riverbank Restoration

Segment 3: Merced Gorge (Scenic Segment)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

All actions to protect and enhance river values in Segment 3 under Alternative 6 are included in “Actions 

Common to Alternatives 2-6” (page 8-47). 

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

This alternative would provide for the same kinds and amounts of use that exist today. The majority of 

actions in Segment 3 under Alternative 6 are discussed in “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6”. 

Alternative actions that are not included in that section are listed below. 

Visitor Activities and Services

Under Alternative 6, only private boating would be allowed in Segment 3. It is expected that the water craft 

used in this segment would be kayaks. Boaters would be allowed on the river below Pohono Bridge (in 

Segment 2) through El Portal (Segment 4). Boaters would be allowed to put in and take out at any of the 

roadside pull-outs. This use would be restricted to 10 people per day. See Appendix R for additional 

information on equipment restrictions, open stretches, and put-in and take-out locations.

Transit Options

Public transit options along this segment would be expanded as described in the Yosemite Valley segment 

(see Segment 2 above). This river segment is considered a “pass through” segment and therefore does not 

contain any stops for transit passengers to enter or depart. 

Segment 4: El Portal (Recreational Segment)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

All actions to protect and enhance river values in Segment 4 under this alternative are addressed in “Actions 

Common to Alternatives 2-6” (see page 8-47).

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Alternative 6 would introduce additional visitor use to this segment in addition to expanding employee 

housing capacity.

Visitor Activities and Services

Most visitor activities and services in Segment 4 are considered in “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6”. 

Additional actions would include: 

• Allow unrestricted private boater use in Segment 4. Expected use would be mostly rafts and kayaks. 

Boaters would be allowed to paddle the stretch of river from below Yosemite View Lodge to 

beyond the Foresta Bridge, at which point boaters would exit the segment. Boaters would be able to 

use put-ins and take-outs west of the hotel, at the store/gas station and at the Red Bud launch site.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-259
ALTERNATIVES

Visitor Overnight Use

No visitor overnight accommodations on NPS lands are proposed in Alternative 6. 

Visitor Day-use Capacity

Visitor day-use parking would be expanded in El Portal under Alternative 6. A new remote visitor day-use 

parking area (200 spaces) would be provided at the Abbieville site in El Portal. This parking area would 

provide day-use access to Yosemite Valley, with a dedicated shuttle service to and from that location. The 

use associated with this parking area is accounted for in the Valley daily visitation levels reported above.

The total inventory of day-use parking in this segment would be 414 spaces, including 214 spaces for visitors 

to El Portal and 200 remote parking spaces for visitors to Yosemite Valley.

Administrative Activities

Administrative activities in Segment 4 are considered in “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” (page 8-47).

Employee Housing Capacity

Under Alternative 6, employee housing would be increased in El Portal. Dormitories would be added to 

Abbieville (258 beds in total). New duplex or triplex units (8 beds) and new dormitories (36 beds) would be 

constructed at Rancheria Flat. A dormitory or co-housing unit would be constructed at the El Portal Village 

Center to provide 12 beds. All new buildings would be constructed outside of the 100-year floodplain. 

These units would be added to replace temporary or substandard housing units that would be removed 

from Yosemite Valley. 

Employee and Administrative Parking Capacity

Most employee and administrative parking actions are discussed in “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” 

(page 8-47). Additionally, under Alternative 6, 44 parking spaces would be added with the Rancheria Flat 

housing expansion, 12 parking spaces would be added with the El Portal housing expansion, and 258 

parking spaces would be added for residents of the new Abbieville site. 

Transit Options

Under Alternative 6, public transit options would be expanded on the travel corridor passing through this 

segment. Along with shuttle service, the new day-use parking lot at Abbieville would be linked into the 

transit schedule. Bus service would be provided on a 30-minute interval during peak use season and would 

run directly to Yosemite Valley. For a complete summary of the transit options along this corridor see the 

Segment 2 summary above.

Segment 5: South Fork Merced above Wawona (Wild Segment)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

There are no actions in Segment 5 beyond what is proposed under “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” 

(page 8-47).

8-260 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 6: Diversified Visitor Experiences and Selective Riverbank Restoration

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Alternative 6 would provide for the same kinds and amounts of use that exist today in Segment 5. The 

majority of actions in Segment 5 under Alternative 6 are discussed in “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6”. 

Additional actions included in this alternative are described below. 

Visitor Activities and Services

Private boating would be allowed in this segment. Generally, use in Segment 5 would consist of short floats 

using inflatable raft or other paddle craft that can be carried into this remote area. A maximum of 10 boats 

per day would be allowed and boating permits could be obtained in conjunction with the required 

Wilderness permit. 

Visitor Day-use Capacity

Day-use parking for the trailheads that lead to this segment is included in the Wawona area (see Segment 7, 

below). Other users may gain access to this segment from trailheads that originate in the Sierra National 

Forest south of this segment, but use is typically minimal. 

Transit Options

Transportation options for reaching the trailheads that access Segment 5 are discussed under Segment 7. 

Segments 6 and 7: Wawona Impoundment and Wawona (Recreational Segments)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

All actions for Segment 6 are included in “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” (see page 8-47); this 

segment will not be discussed further. For Segment 7, the following additional actions have been included in 

Alternative 6 to enhance cultural values and water quality: 

Cultural Values/Water Quality

• Stock Campground – Relocate stock campground (two sites) from a culturally sensitive area to the 

Wawona stables area. 

• Wawona Campground – Remove 13 sites that are located either within 100 feet of the river or in 

sensitive resource areas. 

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Overall, this alternative would provide for the same kinds and amounts of use that exist today in the 

Wawona area. The majority of actions to be taken in Segment 7 are discussed in “Actions Common to 

Alternatives 2-6”. Additional actions included in Alternative 6 are described below.

Visitor Activities and Services

• Boating – Boating would be limited to private use by permit, with a maximum of 10 boats per day. 

The allowable reach of the river would be from below the Swinging Bridge area to the Wawona 

Campground, excluding the Wawona impoundment.

• Golfing – Retain the Wawona Golf Course.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-261
ALTERNATIVES

• Tennis – Retain the Wawona Hotel Tennis Court.

• Wawona Commercial Stables – Discontinue commercial horseback day rides and remove the 

Wawona stables; repurpose the stables area as a stock use campground.

Visitor Overnight Capacity

• Under Alternative 6, the total overnight capacity for Segment 7 would be 190 units, accommodating 

up to 787 people per night. 

• The Wawona Campground capacity would be reduced slightly to 84 sites (including one group 

site), accommodating 528 people per night. 

Transit Options

Under Alternative 6, transit options would be expanded. Regional bus service, similar to that provided on the 

Highway 140 corridor, would be introduced on Highway 41. A maximum of 12 runs per day would be made 

between Fresno/Oakhurst and Yosemite Valley. Additionally, the Wawona area shuttle would continue, 

serving key destinations within this segment and the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias. Finally, up to two

concession-operated runs per day would be made between Wawona and Yosemite Valley.

Segment 8: South Fork Merced below Wawona (Wild Segment)

Actions to Protect and Enhance River Values

No actions are proposed in Segment 8 beyond those described by “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6” (page 

8-47).

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management

Alternative 6 would provide for the same kinds and amounts of use that exist today in Segment 8. The 

majority of actions for Segment 8 under Alternative 6 are discussed in “Actions Common to Alternatives 2-

6”. Additional actions included in Alternative 6 are described below.

Visitor Activities and Services

Private boating would be allowed in this segment. Such use would generally consist of short floats using 

inflatable raft or other paddle craft (that can be carried out of this remote area), or pass-through trips by 

experienced kayakers. A maximum number of 10 boats per day would be permitted. The boating permits 

would be linked to overnight backcountry permits. 

Transit Options

Transit services for access to this segment are described above under Segment 7.

8-262 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternative 6: Diversified Visitor Experiences and Selective Riverbank Restoration

Conceptual Site Drawings

Boys Town

In Alternative 6, the existing Boys Town cabins and facilities would be removed and replaced with 98 new 

lodging units suitable for year-round accommodations. This would consist of 25 duplex buildings, two 4-

plex buildings, and five 2-story 8-plex buildings. 78 overnight guest parking spaces would be constructed 

along a new roadway that would connect the Curry Village parking area with East Valley campgrounds. The 

Campground Reservation Center would be relocated to a more accessible location, closer to East Valley 

campgrounds. A new 2,840-foot pedestrian pathway and 20 new parking spaces (along the eastern edge of 

the Curry Orchard Parking Area) would be constructed within the existing developed footprint. The Curry 

Orchard Parking Area would be improved for permanent use using best management practices (with a total 

of 430 parking spaces). The project area would encompass 8.4 acres and would include: approximately 

33,000 square feet for new buildings; 56,800 square feet of utility trenching; 14,200 square feet for pedestrian 

pathways; and 29,400 square feet of new parking, for a total of three acres. Temporary construction staging 

would require approximately 1.4 acres and would likely take place within the existing Curry Orchard 

Parking Area.

Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area 

In Alternative 6, the 12-acre Yosemite Village (Camp 6) day-use parking area would be moved 150 feet 

north from the high-water mark of the river to facilitate riparian restoration goals and prevent riparian 

resource damage. Restoration actions would remove non-native fill material, re-contour the topography, 

and plant native vegetation. The redesigned parking area would be formalized to provide a total of 850 

parking spaces and a new comfort station. A pedestrian underpass and two roundabouts (one at the Village 

Drive/Northside Drive intersection and one at the Sentinel Drive/Northside Drive intersection) would be 

constructed in conjunction with improved pedestrian pathways and would address overall circulation at the 

site. The Concessioner General Office, Valley Garage, and Art Activity Center (former bank building) would 

be removed and the Village Sport Shop would be repurposed as a visitor contact station. 

The project area for improvements at the Yosemite Village Day-Use Parking Area in Alternative 6 would cover 

approximately 27.5 acres, most of which is currently developed, and would include: 1.2 acres for existing 

building removal; 4,000 square feet for the new comfort station; 5.4 acres of pavement removal; 2.6 acres of 

new roadway; 8.3 acres for new parking; 15,220 square feet of utility service trenching; 43,350 square feet for 

new pedestrian pathways; and 55,000 square feet for the pedestrian underpass. Temporary construction 

staging would cover an area of approximately 2 acres.

Yosemite Lodge

In Alternative 6, the former annex area west of Yosemite Lodge would be redeveloped to provide 300 dayuse parking spaces, campsites for 20 RVs, parking for 15 buses, a new 3,000 square foot comfort station, and 

a relocated shuttle stop. The short-term bus drop-off area would be relocated to the Highland Court area. 

The abandoned concessioner wellness center and linen storage and laundry buildings would be removed. 

The linen storage and laundry buildings would be replaced as an addition to the food service building. The 

project area for improvements at Yosemite Lodge in Alternative 6 would cover approximately 13.5 acres, 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-263
ALTERNATIVES

most of which is currently developed, and would include: 55,850 square feet of existing building and 

pavement removal; 3,000 square feet for the new comfort station and shuttle stop; 17,300 square feet of 

utility service trenching; 3.6 acres for parking; and 5,000 square feet for pedestrian pathways. Temporary 

construction staging would take place over a 2-acre area within the existing footprint. Existing vegetation 

would be retained to separate and screen parking bays; bioswales would serve to filter and treat storm water 

runoff.

Also in Alternative 6, the temporary modular housing at Highland Court and the Thousands Cabins would 

be removed and replaced with two new buildings housing 104 concessioner employees. In addition, a new 

parking area would provide 78 employee parking spaces, parking for 3 shuttle buses, and 53 day-use parking 

spaces for the public. The two housing sites would cover a total of 7.4 acres, most of which is currently 

developed, and would include: 45,500 square feet of preparation for the new buildings; 5,500 square feet of 

utility service trenching; and 1.8 acres for parking.

8-264 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
*These drawings are provided to demonstrate where facilities would be removed, relocated, or constructed according to actions more fully described by project alternatives. The drawings

do not represent a final proposal. More detailed design and construction documents would be developed consistent with the general concepts presented here.

NORTH

Alternative 6 

Conceptual Site Drawing for

Curry Village

Yosemite National Park

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

Huff House Employee Housing

Replace temporary housing with permanent facilities,

164 beds and 164 parking spaces

Boys Town Guest Lodging

Replace tent cabins with 98 permanent guest cabins and 78 parking spaces

Construct 4 two-story buildings for 32 occupants, 8 occupants per building.

Construct 11 two-story buildings for 132 occupants, 12 occupants per building.

Provide common recreational area, approximately 3,600 square feet.

Build plaza areas and walkways with site furnishings, accent paving, and 

enhanced landscaping.

Construct a shuttle bus stop.

Remove ice rink and bicycle rentals. Construct an employee parking facility with 

164 spaces.

Retain historic residence for housing purposes.

Construct 25 duplex buildings replicating historic cabins, or 50 units subtotal.

Construct 2 four-plex buildings, or 8 units subtotal

Construct 5 eight-plex buildings, or 40 units subtotal

Relocate Campground Reservation Center, provide 8 parking spaces.

Construct a roadway connecting Curry Village and East Valley Campgrounds with 78 

parking spaces guests and 8 short-term parking spaces for Campground Reservation 

Center. 20 parking spaces will be reserved for guest use in Curry Orchard Parking Area.

Improve parking area with 430 spaces and landscape 

buffers with trees and bioswales that will treat storm 

water run-off.

Improve hydrology, remove invasive species, promote 

weed control and plant native species.

Retain existing historic cabins and Stoneman Cottage 

(65 lodging units).

Retain existing Curry Pavilion.

Retain 290 tents.

Curry Orchard Parking Area

Meadow Restoration Area

Existing Curry Village Visitor Services

2

1

3

4

5

6

7

10

11

12

12

13

8

9

2 1

3

4

5

6

7

10

8

9

13

14

14

14

15

17

16

15

16

17

11
ALTERNATIVES

This page intentionally left blank

8-266 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
*These drawings are provided to demonstrate where facilities would be removed, relocated, or constructed according to actions more fully described by project alternatives. 

 The drawings do not represent a final proposal. More detailed design and construction documents would be developed consistent with the general concepts presented here.

Alternative 6

Conceptual Site Drawing for

Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area

Yosemite National Park

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

NORTH

Eliminate Concession General Office and Garage located between the Village 

Store and Ahwahnee Meadow, providing more space for visitor parking.

Retain shuttle stops on Visitor Center Loop Drive.

Replace Village Sport Shop with visitor contact station.

Eliminate existing art activity center and improve pedestrian access.

Improve pedestrian connections and bike paths east and west of the day-use 

parking area. 

Provide a two-way access driveway from Sentinel Drive as the primary 

entrance to the day-use parking area.

Redesign the day-use parking area to provide a 150-foot buffer from the river. 

Restore wetlands and meadow.

Create pedestrian pathways to lead visitors to the Yosemite Village mall. 

Construct a comfort station in a central location, connected to pedestrian 

walkways.

Provide 850 day-use parking spaces. Provide landscaped areas to retain large 

numbers of trees and screen parking bays and bioswales that will treat storm 

water run-off. Provide pedestrian pathways.

 Relocate shuttle bus pick-up and drop-off area.

Construct a roundabout to alleviate traffic congestion at the intersection of 

Northside Drive and Sentinel Drive.

Construct a pedestrian underpass to eliminate conflict between automobiles 

and pedestrians on Northside Drive.

Construct a roundabout at the day-use parking area intersection with Village 

Drive and Northside Drive.

1

10

11

12

13

8

9

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

1

10

11

12

13 8

9

2

2

3

4

5

6

7

5
ALTERNATIVES

This page intentionally left blank 

8-268 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
NORTH

*These drawings are provided to demonstrate where facilities would be removed, relocated, or constructed according to actions more fully described by project alternatives. 

 The drawings do not represent a final proposal. More detailed design and construction documents would be developed consistent with the general concepts presented here.

Alternative 6

Conceptual Site Drawing for

Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4

Yosemite National Park

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

Re-align Yosemite Lodge intersection within the limits 

of existing developed areas.

Maintain parking for overnight guests.

Enhance pedestrian circulation system.

Construct tour bus loading and unloading area, with 

shelter.

Construct employee housing in 2 two-story buildings 

with 52 occupants per building and 39 employee 

parking spaces per building.

Relocate linen storage and laundry buildings from the 

Reconstruct a section of the Yosemite Lodge entrance 

road as a pedestrian and bicycle promenade with 

a 5% slope to an underpass. Install accent paving, 

voltage site lighting consistent with design vocabulary 

for the Yosemite Falls trail.

Construct 300 visitor parking spaces at Yosemite Lodge 

Day-use Parking Area. Maintain existing vegetation 

as buffers to separate and screen parking bays and 

bioswales that will treat storm water run-off. Provide 

pedestrian pathways.

Construct 15 tour bus parking spaces.

Construct a shuttle bus stop with shelter and comfort 

station.

Construct 41 additional parking spaces at Camp 4.

Retain 35 existing walk-in campsites at Camp 4. 

Construct 35 additional walk-in sites opposite existing 

parking facility. Occupancy is limited to 6 campers per 

site. Standard walk-in campsite is 3,850 square feet 

(70-foot diameter), including 1,200 square feet of 

clearance with a 15-foot perimeter buffer.

 Protect and enhance a 150-foot riparian buffer.

 Construct an RV loop with 20 campsites.

Remove guest lodging buildings and construct a 

three-story lodging complex with a total number of 

440 lodging units and an equivalent number of guest 

parking spaces. Organize high-density development 

area to maintain existing vegetation where possible 

with courtyards and outdoor gathering areas for each 

maintain a forested environment and a visual buffer. 

Construct parking area for 395 cars to augment 

existing parking areas and satisfy added lodging 

requirement. Maintain existing vegetation as buffers 

to separate and screen parking bays, and bioswales 

that will treat storm water run-off. Provide pedestrian 

pathways.

16

16

15

15
ALTERNATIVES

This page intentionally left blank

8-270 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
The Environmentally Preferable Alternative

THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE

Legal Mandates

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (Code of Federal Regulations 

40:1505.2) and the NPS NEPA guidelines require that “the alternative or alternatives which were considered to 

be environmentally preferable” be identified. Environmentally preferable is defined as “the alternative that 

would promote the national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA section 101. Ordinarily, this means 

the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment; it also means the 

alternative that best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources” (CEQ 1981).

Section 101 of NEPA states that:

It is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to ...

1) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations;

2) assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing 

surroundings;

3) attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or 

safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences;

4) preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain, 

wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity, and variety of individual choice;

5) achieve a balance between population and resource use which would permit high standards of living 

and a wide sharing of life’s amenities; and

6) enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of 

depletable resources.

Conformance

Alternative 5 (Preferred) has been determined to be the alternative that has the greatest benefits to the 

biological and physical environment, while protecting, preserving, and enhancing historic, cultural, and 

natural resources. Alternative 5 (Preferred) would achieve a balance between user capacity and resource use 

by maintaining current peak visitation levels without having to implement a day-use permit system. 

Additionally, Alternative 5 (Preferred) would restore essential riverbank areas within 100 feet of the river, 

adjacent to Yosemite Valley campgrounds (including some of Upper and Lower River Campgrounds), and 

around Housekeeping Camp. Alternative 5 (Preferred) would be more protective of historic and cultural 

resources than Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 because Stoneman Bridge and Ahwahnee Bridge would be retained, 

and Sugar Pine Bridge would be retained, pending ongoing monitoring and further study. This alternative 

would attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment by providing a diversity of recreational 

opportunities, including boating access to all segments. 

The No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) would provide for diversity and variety of individual choice; 

however, it would not best fulfill any of the other requirements. This would be particularly true in Yosemite 

Valley, where increasing amounts of visitor use and foot traffic would continue to affect ecologically sensitive 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-271
ALTERNATIVES

meadow and riparian areas, archeological resources, scenic values, visitor experience, visitor safety, and park 

operations. 

All of the action alternatives (Alternatives 2-6) would fulfill NEPA requirements through: continuation of 

existing Wilderness and resource management policies; ecological restoration of fragile meadow and 

riparian areas; protection of water quality and archeological and historical resources; and conformance with 

existing requirements under Executive Order 13514 to improve the sustainability of NPS operations and 

facilities. The alternatives vary primarily in the extent of riparian restoration in Yosemite Valley proposed,

the user capacities established, the diversity of recreational opportunities affected, and the kind and amount 

of overnight accommodations, parking facilities, and boating opportunities proposed. 

Alternative 2 would have the most benefit to the biological and physical environment of the river, due to the 

removal of three bridges and 6,664 linear feet of riprap. This alternative would ecologically restore the greatest 

number of acres through removal of roads, lodging and parking facilities, and infrastructure from meadows 

and other sensitive areas. Alternative 2 would also include extensive restoration of the 100-year floodplain 

adjacent to Valley campgrounds, including Upper and Lower River. It would include the removal of North 

Pines campground, Housekeeping Camp, Yosemite Lodge, and Tecoya housing. However, this alternative is 

the least protective of historic and cultural resources because of the removal of three historic bridges, the 

Wawona golf course, and historic lodging at the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp, Housekeeping Camp, Curry 

Village, and Yosemite Lodge. This alternative would limit visitor choice by reducing the inventory and mixture 

of overnight accommodations, implementing a permit system for day-use parking, and restricting boating. 

Alternative 3 would have significant benefits to the biological and physical environment, due to removal of 

three bridges and 6,135 linear feet of riprap. This alternative would include extensive restoration within 

150 feet of the river. It also calls for the removal of Yosemite Lodge units in the 100-year floodplain, removal 

of roads through meadows, and major restoration of the Curry Orchard Parking Area. Similar to Alternative 

2, this alternative would remove three historic bridges and the Wawona golf course. It would also reduce 

historic lodging at Merced Lake High Sierra Camp, Housekeeping Camp, Curry Village, and Yosemite 

Lodge, though not to the extent proposed in Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would make reductions to

overnight accommodations, implement a day-use permit system, and place minor restrictions on boating. 

Alternative 4 would have moderate benefits to the biological and physical environment, due to the removal 

of two bridges and 6,135 linear feet of riprap. This alternative would restore fewer acres than Alternatives 2 

and 3, include partial restoration of Yosemite Valley meadows, and conduct ecological restoration within 

150 feet of the river. Alternative 4 would be slightly more protective of historic and cultural resources than 

Alternatives 2 and 3 because Stoneman Bridge would be retained. Alternative 4 would attain a wider range 

of visitor opportunities through the replacement of the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp with a temporary 

pack camp, a significant increase in camping opportunities, and fewer agency restrictions regarding boating. 

Alternative 6 would provide outstanding, diverse recreational opportunities in the river corridor and would 

retain significant historic resources in all river segments. However, it would have the least benefit to the 

biological and physical environment due to having the fewest number of acres restored and the fewest linear 

feet of riprap removed.

In comparison, Alternative 5 (Preferred) strikes a balance between maintaining the historic setting of the 

river corridor, maintaining a diversity of recreational opportunities, and allowing for restoration of natural 

ecosystem function to the extent possible.

8-272 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Further Analysis

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED FROM FURTHER 

ANALYSIS

Federal agencies are required to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate a reasonable range of 

alternatives and briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternative that is dismissed from further 

analysis (40 CFR 1502.14). As described in “Purpose and Need for the Final Merced River Plan/EIS”

(Chapter 2), the scoping process for the plan sought to understand and consider input from the public, NPS 

staff, subject-matter experts, traditionally associated American Indian tribes and groups, and other federal, 

state, and local agencies as part of an extensive planning process for the Final Merced River Plan/EIS. 

Chapter 2 summarizes the types of comments received during the scoping process that were considered but 

dismissed. These included both individual actions and major themes for an alternative that 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.

• Inconsistent with the facilities and services analysis criteria (see Chapter 7). 

The following major themes for an alternative were considered but dismissed from further analysis, and 

therefore not considered in the range of alternatives in the Final Merced River Plan/EIS: 

The NPS should include an alternative that removes nearly all visitor services and facilities, 

employee housing, and administrative functions and conducts extensive restoration projects.

Rationale for Dismissal: This concept for an alternative is inconsistent with both the National Park 

Service Organic Act and Management Policies 2006. Yosemite National Park receives over 4 million 

visitors annually, and designation of the Merced River as Wild and Scenic was intended to ensure 

access and enjoyment of the river resource for current and future generations. 

The National Park Service Organic Act, which begins with the overarching mandate to preserve 

park resources in an unimpaired condition, also includes a mandate to provide for the enjoyment of 

park resources by this and future generations.1 Visitor enjoyment of park resources, in part, is 

related to the types of activities and supporting facilities that are made available to park visitors. 

The range of activities that are appropriate in parks is broad and often includes common 

recreational activities such as boating, camping, biking, fishing, hiking, horseback riding, crosscountry skiing, and rock climbing.

2 The Management Policies 2006 for the National Park Service 

recognizes that many facilities, including overnight visitor use facilities and food services, may need 

to be provided inside parks when travel distances to similar facilities outside the park are too great 

to permit reasonable use, or when having to leave the park would substantially detract from the 

quality of the visitor experience.

3 Visitor support and administrative facilities that are located inside 

1 Management Policies Section 1.4.3. 2 Management Policies Section 8.2.2. 3 Management Policies Section 9.3.2.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-273

 
ALTERNATIVES

park boundaries should be sited and designed to minimize impacts on resources, avoid natural 

hazards, and be accessible to persons with disabilities. 

The NPS should include an alternative that fully implements all the actions called for in the 1980 

Yosemite General Management Plan, including the level of proposed camping and the elimination 

of private vehicles and tour buses.

Rationale for Dismissal: General Management Plans serve as foundation-level planning 

documents for national park units. They provide guidance on the necessary conditions for visitors 

to understand, enjoy, and appreciate a park’s significant resources, and they identify the kinds of

visitor uses and development that are appropriate to maintaining a park’s desired resource 

conditions.

4 The 1980 Yosemite National Park General Management Plan (1980 GMP) was intended 

to resolve such questions and serves as the basic foundation for decision-making within the park. It 

announced five broad goals for the park: reclaim priceless beauty, allow natural process to prevail, 

promote visitor understanding and enjoyment, markedly reduce traffic congestion, and reduce 

crowding. To effectuate these goals, the 1980 GMP specified a number of actions to reduce 

crowding and protect natural beauty and resources. Visitor facilities and commercial services that 

had become “intrusive” were to be reduced or relocated. 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) directs river-managing agencies to prepare comprehensive 

management plans for each Wild and Scenic River. Because the Merced River is administered by 

the National Park Service, WSRA allows for the fulfillment of this requirement through 

“appropriate revisions” to the park’s General Management Plan. Such revisions “shall assure that 

no development or use of park lands shall be undertaken that is inconsistent with the designation of 

such river segments” under WSRA. 

The 1980 GMP predates the 1987 designation of the Merced River as Wild and Scenic. The NPS 

has revisited these proposed actions as part of the Merced River planning process to confirm 

whether specific decisions remained valid given the designation of the river corridor. Additionally, 

since 1980, new information regarding resource conditions and safety hazards has been learned; 

this was factored into the range of alternatives for the Final Merced River Plan/EIS. For example, the 

1997 flood required a reconsideration of existing development within the floodplain, and rock fall 

events in 2008 forced the closure of developed areas that the 1980 GMP allowed to remain, such as 

overnight lodging and employee housing at Camp Curry. 

The 1980 GMP proposed camping in locations, such as at Upper and Lower River Campgrounds, 

that are ecologically sensitive and now understood to be part of the biological river value in 

Yosemite Valley. The range of alternatives evaluates the maximum number of campsites that would 

still provide for the protection of river values. The NPS has determined that protection of biological 

river values requires the removal of existing campsites within 100 feet of the ordinary high-water 

mark. In addition, due to the geological/hydrological processes river value, new or redeveloped 

camping areas must be sited 150 feet from the ordinary high-water mark.

While the 1980 GMP stated that the NPS intended to curtail the use of private vehicles in the 

Valley, the immediate plan was to greatly reduce traffic by restricting automobile use to established 

capacities and encouraging visitors to leave their automobiles at remote parking areas with bus 

service to Yosemite Valley. Visitors would be able to drive their automobiles to overnight 

accommodations or one of the 1,271 parking spaces in day-use parking areas in Yosemite Valley, 

but once reaching their destination would use the shuttle system to access other parts of Yosemite 

Valley. Employees would be encouraged to carpool or use transit.

The transportation network required to support substantial reductions to automobile traffic from 

Yosemite Valley is infeasible, primarily due to cost, but also because of the impacts to visitors’ 

4 Management Policies Section 2.2.

8-274 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS

 
Cost Comparisons for the Merced Wild and Scenic River

Comprehensive Management Plan

experience and ability to access the park. Additional visitor use studies since the time of the 1980 

GMP indicate that a high percentage of travelers to Yosemite National Park are on a longer trip 

within the Yosemite Region and often enter and exit the park through different entrance stations. 

Remote parking areas would be highly inconvenient for these types of day users. Ensuring access to 

Yosemite Valley and other parts of the park by way of private vehicle provides for a diversity of visitor 

experiences that are integral to developing direct connections with the river.

The NPS should provide a visitation level higher than what Alternative 6 offers.

Rationale for Dismissal: During the early stages of the planning process, very high use scenarios 

were examined, some projected to result in over 25,000 visitors per day to Yosemite Valley 

(Segments 2A and 2B). These scenarios produced unacceptable visitor densities at iconic attraction 

sites such as Yosemite Falls and Bridalveil Fall. Moreover, transportation modeling for Yosemite 

Valley showed that higher use scenarios could only be accommodated by widening (or adding) 

roads, which would adversely impact the Biological ORV. This exercise determined the “ultimate” 

capacity for Yosemite Valley and helped to define the range of reasonable alternatives developed 

for the Final Merced River Plan/EIS. 

COST COMPARISONS FOR THE MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER

COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN

The costs of implementing the MRP are defined by the management actions that are included within each 

alternative. Table 8-46 summarizes costs that do not vary across the action alternatives and thus are 

considered common to all. 

TABLE 8-47 summarizes those costs that vary by alternative. These costs include natural resource protection 

and site improvements that would occur within the river corridor. Total project costs are summarized in 

Table 8-48. 

TABLE 8-46: PROJECT COSTS COMMON TO ALTERNATIVES 2-6 

Project Component Common to All

Yosemite Valley

Yosemite Valley Maintenance Area $9,833,708

Bridalveil Fall $755,152

El Portal

El Portal Village infill housing $5,973,381

Wawona

Swinging Bridge Picnic Area $668,359

Wawona Maintenance Area $8,665,371

Wawona Town Center $1,811,354

Miscellaneous Site-Specific Actions*

Other Costs Common to Alternatives 2-6 $6,606,193

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-275
ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 8-47: ALTERNATIVE PROJECT COSTS

Project Component Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6

Yosemite Valley

Upper Pines Campground $0 $590,359 $3,555,559 $7,529,202 $7,529,202 $7,529,202

Concessioner Stables $0 $292,916 $87,875 $3,837,283 $0 $0

North Pines Campground $0 $1,137,238 $470,402 $470,402 $204,555 $204,555

Lower Pines Campground $0 $306,329 $363,372 $363,372 $480,466 $480,466

Curry Village Lodging and Employee 

Housing $0 $45,005,402 $30,520,312 $32,526,590 $14,711,142 $48,327,763

Bridge Removals $0 $3,950,898 $3,950,898 $2,637,067 $0 $0

Housekeeping Camp $0 $1,767,149 $1,767,149 $622,807 $245,445 $245,445

Upper and Lower River Campgrounds $0 $0 $0 $5,995,990 $5,995,990 $5,995,990

Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area $0 $8,486,802 $7,763,719 $7,918,376 $10,019,466 $11,844,989

Lost Arrow Employee Housing $0 $811,650 $811,650 $7,711,355 $16,946,898 $7,711,355

Concessioner General Office Relocation $0 $5,043,300 $5,043,300 $5,043,300 $4,925,000 4,540,000

Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4 $0 $17,460,290 $24,156,475 $28,617,726 $26,198,892 $100,779,542

West Valley Overflow Parking Area $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,040,209

El Capitan Meadow $0 $0 $0 $926,478 $926,478 $926,478

Eagle Creek Campground (New) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,668,792

El Portal

Rancheria Flat and Village Center 

housing areas $0 $7,258,054 $9,396,417 $15,264,905 $24,260,748 $14,763,465

Abbieville-Trailer Village $0 $52,794,663 $4,749,936 $4,749,936 $5,305,845 $55,531,245

Wawona

Wawona Campground $0 $1,963,465 $1,881,298 $1,881,298 $1,651,233 $1,651,233

Miscellaneous Site-Specific Actions*

Unique to each alternative $0 $8,165,000 $7,830,000 $2,580,000 $2,150,000 $1,575,000

Costs Common to all the Alternatives

From Table 8-47 $0 $6,606,193 $6,606,193 $6,606,193 $6,606,193 $6,606,193

Net Costs per Alternative $0 $189,347,032 $136,661,880 $163,029,605 $155,864,877 $305,129,248

NOTE: 

* These costs include removal of riprap (or riverbank lining), removal of informal trails, installation of engineered log jams, brush layering and willow 

plantings to address riverbank erosion, and other like actions.

TABLE 8-48: TOTAL PROJECT COSTS

ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3 ALT 4 ALT 5 ALT 6

Total** $0 $255,618,494 $184,493,537 $220,089,967 $210,417,585 $411,924,485

NOTE: 

**Total includes net construction costs +35% to account for costs associated with follow on compliance, site monitoring and contracting. 

These values incorporate the common-to-all actions listed in Table 8-46 

In total, the range of alternatives is priced from $184 million to $412 million when measured in current-year 

values. The mean (or average) cost of the range of alternatives is $256 million, while the median (or middle) 

value is $298 million. The preferred alternative would cost $210 million, approximately 82% of the mean 

cost for the entire range of alternatives. The preferred alternative is 70% of the median value.

8-276 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Cost Comparisons for the Merced Wild and Scenic River

Comprehensive Management Plan

Anticipated Total Project Costs

Natural resource protection cost estimates were developed by NPS vegetation and ecological restoration 

biologists who have knowledge and expertise in undertaking work of this nature. These estimates presume 

use of existing park staff, base-funded positions, seasonal workers, consultants, and volunteers to complete 

restoration work. Labor and material costs associated with actions common to all include management 

actions that would: remove riprap (or riverbank lining); remove abandoned infrastructure, such as bridge 

footings, plumbing or drainage structures; remove informal trails; loosen compacted soils; re-align trails to 

less sensitive areas and harden trails in other locations; install engineered log jams, brush layering and 

willow plantings to address riverbank erosion; remove a limited number of problem campsites; remove 

asphalt and concrete; provide access to the river in certain locations; restore wetlands and portions of the 

floodplain; and remove obsolete buildings. 

Specific resource restoration projects are unique to one or more of the alternatives. Examples of these 

projects include: proposed actions to remove certain roadways and bridges in Alternatives 2 and 3; 

construct boardwalks in meadows; restore the flood plain to different levels, such as the 10-year versus 100-

year elevation; remove varying amounts of infrastructure from the floodplain; and install varying numbers 

of engineered log jams.

Site redevelopment, improvement of existing facilities, or a limited amount of new development is proposed 

for the purpose of protecting river values and supporting ongoing visitor use and enjoyment. Specific sites 

and projects are presented in Table 8-46 and Table 8-47 and are described in more detail by project

alternatives. Alternatives generally propose such actions as: adding walk-in campsites in several locations 

(Upper Pines, Upper and Lower River, and Camp 4 campgrounds); replacing canvas tent cabins with 

permanent lodging units at Curry Village; replacing temporary employee housing with permanent structures 

in Curry Village, Yosemite Lodge, and El Portal; removing units from Housekeeping Camp; and improving 

parking areas at Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area, Yosemite Lodge, and in Wawona and El Portal.

Project alternative cost comparisons for Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 were generated by a senior cost 

estimating technical specialist and civil engineer from the Denver Service Center, one of only two agency 

employees who work full time in this capacity service-wide. Estimates are based upon management actions 

described in project alternatives and accompanying conceptual site plans. The cost estimating technician 

identified individual components of each project described by each of the alternatives, such as building 

descriptions and proposed uses, square footage, demolition or adaptive re-use of structures, site 

preparations and site improvements (transit connections, required roadways, parking areas, pedestrian 

walkways, and landscaping), and landscape enhancements for parking areas. 

Cost estimates consider market prices for raw materials (sand, gravel, and stone); building materials 

(lumber, construction paper, roofing material); windows and doors; heat, ventilation, and air conditioning 

systems; plumbing and electrical fixtures; asphalt and other forms of concrete; etc. Specific costs were 

tabulated according to the characteristics of the development proposed.

After calculating direct construction and development costs (or direct costs), estimates were adjusted 

according to a number of factors that are unique to the cost of working in Yosemite National Park. These 

factors include: design fees and preparation of construction documents, cost of living for the region, 

remoteness, prevailing wage rates, state and local taxes paid by the contractor, commuting and lodging 

costs, special compliance requirements, contractor overhead, expectations for profit, bonds and permits, 

contracting method adjustments, and rates of inflation. These factors are expressed as simple percentages 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-277
ALTERNATIVES

known as mark-ups or add-ons resulting in net costs per unit. Costs were further adjusted to include project 

management costs that will otherwise accrue to the NPS, such as contracting and oversight functions, 

additional compliance, long-term monitoring, etc. 

The full cost estimates amount to approximately 680 pages of analysis provided through detailed 

spreadsheets. Because of the volume and detail contained in the cost estimator’s report, it is not feasible to 

reproduce the information within the river plan, but this information remains available for reference as part 

of the administrative record.

Class C cost estimates represent a broad overview of anticipated project costs. These estimates are intended 

to provide a realistic understanding of the full costs of project implementation. They are also intended to 

help decision-makers choose a preferred alternative and establish long-term budget goals. Following the 

anticipated approval of the Merced River Plan, Class B and Class A estimates will be completed in greater 

detail as project descriptions are refined and design and construction documents prepared.

Operational (or non-Facility) Costs

In order to protect and enhance river values and manage visitor use from year to year, implementation of 

the alternatives will require time and effort by staff resources, volunteers, or contractors. These costs may 

increase or decrease depending on which alternative is selected. Management actions would require varying 

amounts of operational maintenance, traffic and parking management, law enforcement, and other ongoing 

support from NPS and concessioner personnel. Park staff will be responsible for monitoring indicators and 

standards that are linked to river values and associated natural and cultural resources.

Approximate costs associated with operations are summarized in Table 8-49. Although specific operational 

costs are identified, each activity relates to monitoring programs or regular park management activities that 

are already conducted by existing park staff. The size of the park staff fluctuates seasonally, but the overall 

number of full-time employees varies from 800 in winter to approximately 1,000 in late spring and summer. 

Given flexibility in staffing and the size of the park’s annual operating budget, operational costs are less 

significant than site-specific costs. They are, however, noteworthy for the purpose of comparing 

alternatives.

TABLE 8-49: ADDITIONAL OPERATIONAL (NON-FACILITY) COSTS

Project Component Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6

Cultural resources monitoring * $0 $115,000 $115,000 $465,000 $465,000 $465,000

Facilities management and maintenance † $0 $269,110 $315,701 $828,313 $800,079 $1,138,465

River value monitoring program † $0 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000

Traffic and parking management † $0 -$69,300 -$77,700 -$39,900 -$10,500 $8,400

Wildlife management † $0 $0 $0 $110,000 $65,000 $150,000

* One-time cost $0 $115,000 $115,000 $465,000 $465,000 $465,000

† Annual recurring costs $0 $499,810 $538,001 $1,198,413 $1,154,579 $1,596,865

Cost figures presented here or elsewhere in the plan are intended to provide a general estimate of the 

relative costs of implementing the project alternatives. NPS and industry cost estimating guidelines were 

used to develop costs in 2012 dollars to a reliable and accurate extent; estimates should not be used for 

budgeting purposes. Specific costs will be determined in subsequent, more detailed planning and design 

exercises, and will consider the design of facilities, the identification of detailed resource protection needs, 

8-278 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Comparison of User Capacities and Alternatives Actions

changing visitor use expectations, and constraints on user capacity. Actual costs to the NPS will vary 

depending on timing of implementation and contributions from partners and volunteers.

The implementation of this plan, regardless of which alternative is selected, will depend on future NPS 

funding levels and service-wide priorities, and on partnership funds, time, and effort. The approval of this 

plan does not guarantee that project funding or staffing are forthcoming. Full implementation of this plan is 

anticipated over a period of 15 to 20 years.

COMPARISON OF USER CAPACITIES AND ALTERNATIVES ACTIONS

The following pages present summaries of alternatives as follows:

Table 8-50: Merced Wild and Scenic River Plan Alternative Summary Comparison Table

TABLE 8-50: MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER PLAN ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY COMPARISON TABLE

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-279
ALTERNATIVES

This page intentionally left blank

8-280 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
TABLE 8-50: MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER PLAN ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY COMPARISON TABLE

Alternative Summary Comparison Table

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Mangement Plan / EIS 8-281

Action Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6

Riprap removal 15,589 linear feet (existing) 6,664 linear feet removed 6,135 linear feet removed 6,135 linear feet removed 6,048 linear feet removed 6,048 linear feet removed

Localized Hydrologic Impacts (Bridges) 0 bridges removed Remove 3 bridges: Ahwahnee, Sugar Pine, 

and Stoneman 

Remove 3 bridges: Ahwahnee, Sugar Pine, 

and Stoneman

Remove 2 bridges: Ahwahnee, and Sugar 

Pine

0 bridges removed. Study further to 

determine if removal needed.

0 bridges removed. Use design and 

engineering solutions.

Meadow Connectivity (Roads) No re-routing of roads

Remove Southside Drive through Stoneman 

Meadow; Remove Northside Drive through 

Ahwahnee Meadow 

Remove Southside Drive through Stoneman 

Meadow; Remove Northside Drive through 

Ahwahnee Meadow 

Remove Southside Drive through Stoneman 

Meadow

Roads remain. Design and engineering 

solutions applied.

Roads remain. Design and engineering 

solutions applied. 

Total restoration acreage 0 acres 342 acres 308 acres 225 acres 189 acres 176 acres

Backpackers 25 walk-in sites 0 walk-in sites 

(-25 sites but partially relocated)

0 walk-in sites 

(-25 sites but partially relocated)

0 walk-in sites 

(-25 sites but partially relocated) 10 walk-in sites (-15 sites that are relocated) 10 walk-in sites (-15 sites that are relocated)

Camp 4 35 walk-in sites 35 walk-in sites 35 walk-in sites 35 walk-in sites 35 walk-in sites 35 walk-in sites

Lower Pines 76 sites 44 sites (-32 sites) 61 sites (-15 sites) 61 sites (-15 sites) 71 sites (-5 sites) 71 sites (-5 sites) 

North Pines 86 sites 0 sites (ecologically restored) 52 sites (-34 sites) 52 sites (-34 sites) 72 sites (-14 sites) 72 sites (-14 sites) 

Upper Pines 240 sites 216 sites (-22 sites) 238 sites (-2 sites) 238 sites (-2 sites) 238 sites (-2 sites) 238 sites (-2 sites)

Yellow Pine Administrative 4 group administrative sites 0 sites (-4 group sites) 4 group administrative sites 4 group administrative sites 4 group administrative sites 4 group administrative sites

Wawona Campground

and Wawona Stock Camp

99 sites (includes 1 group site 

and 2 stock sites)

67 sites (-32 sites) (2 stock sites relocated to 

Wawona Stables)

72 sites (-27 sites) (2 stock sites relocated to 

Wawona Stables) 

72 sites (-27 sites) (2 stock sites relocated to 

Wawona Stables) 

86 sites (-13 sites) (2 stock sites relocated to 

Maintenance Yard) 

86 sites (-13 sites) (2 stock sites relocated to 

Wawona Stables) 

Total Existing Camping Sites 565 sites 362 sites 462 sites 462 sites 516 sites 516 sites

West of Backpackers Walk-in 0 sites 16 walk-in sites 16 walk-in sites 16 walk-in sites 16 walk-in sites 16 walk-in sites

East of Camp 4 Walk-in 0 sites 35 walk-in sites 35 walk-in sites 35 walk-in sites 35 walk-in sites 35 walk-in sites

Upper Pines RV-Loop 0 sites 0 sites 36 RV sites 36 RV sites 36 RV sites 36 RV sites

Upper Pines Walk-In 0 sites 0 sites 0 sites 51 sites (49 walk-in sites, 2 group sites) 51 sites (49 walk-in sites and 2 group sites) 51 sites (49 walk-in sites and 2 group sites)

Former Upper River Walk-In 0 sites 0 sites (ecologially restored) 0 (ecologically restored) 32 sites (30 walk-in sites, 2 group sites) 32 sites (30 walk-in sites, 2 group sites) 32 sites (30 walk-in sites and 2 group sites)

Former Lower River Drive-In and Walk-In 0 sites 0 sites (ecologically restored) 0 (ecologically restored) 40 walk-in sites 40 sites (30 walk-in and 10 drive-in ) 40 walk-in sites

Concessioner Stables in Yosemite Valley

(re-purposed as Drive-in camping) 0 sites 0 sites 0 sites 41 drive-in car sites 0 sites 0 sites

Boys Town Walk-In 0 sites 0 sites 0 sites 40 walk-in sites 0 sites 0 sites

Eagle Creek Drive-in Car and RV 0 sites 0 sites 0 sites 0 sites 0 sites 79 drive-in car and RV sites

Yosemite Lodge Walk-In

(re-purposed as camping) 0 sites 104 sites (100 walk-in and 4 group sites) 0 sites 0 sites 0 sites 0 sites

West of Lodge RV Sites 0 sites 0 sites 0 sites 20 RV sites 0 sites 20 RV sites

Abbieville / Trailer Village Drive-in or RV Sites for 

Public and Administrative

0 sites 4 drive-in group administrative sites 0 sites 0 sites 40 sites (public and administrative) 0 sites

Total New Camping Sites Total 0 sites 159 sites 87 sites 311 sites 250 sites 309 sites

Total Camping Sites Corridorwide 565 sites 521 sites 549 sites 773 sites 766 sites 825 sites

Merced Lake Backpackers Camping Area; Little 

Yosemite Valley Camping Area; and Moraine 

Dome Camping Area

All three designated camping 

areas remain.

All three designated camping areas are 

discontinued. Area converted to dispersed 

camping.

All three designated camping areas are 

discontinued. Area converted to dispersed 

camping.

Continue designated camping areas at all 

three sites. (Note: Little Yosemite Valley 

Camping Area reduced. Merced Lake 

Backpackers Camping Area expanded.)

Continue designated camping areas at all 

three sites.

Continue designated camping areas at all 

three sites. 

Lodging

Curry Village Lodging Units

400 units (per Settlement 

Agreement, 103 lodging units 

not included in No Action)

433 lodging units at Curry Village; 143 hardsided units and 290 tent cabins.

355 lodging units at Curry Village, 65 hardsided units and 290 tent cabins. Boys Town 

would be ecologically restored.

355 units at Curry Village: 65 hard-sided units 

and 290 tent cabins. Convert Boys Town to a 

40-site campground.

482 lodging units at Curry Village; 131 hardsided units and 351 tent cabins. 453 lodging units at Curry Village; 163 hardsided units and 290 tent cabins. 

Yosemite Lodge 245 rooms 0 rooms (-245 rooms with area re-purposed 

as day lodge and camping)

143 rooms (-102 rooms comprised in 4 

buildings removed from 100-year floodplain) 245 rooms 245 rooms 440 rooms (construct multiple 3-story lodging structures outside the 100-year floodplain).

Ecological Restoration

Camping (Existing)

Camping (New)

Wilderness Camping
ALTERNATIVES

 8-282 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Managment Plan / EIS

Action Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6

Housekeeping Camp 266 units

0 units (-266 units: Convert to river access 

and picnicking, and ecologically restore 100-

year floodplain)

0 units (-266 units: Convert to river access 

and picnicking, and ecologically restore 100-

year floodplain)

100 units (-166 units: Removed from 

seasonally inundated areas and within the 

ordinary high-water mark) 

232 units (-34 units: Removed from bed and 

banks)

232 units (-34 units: Removed from bed and 

banks)

Ahwahnee Hotel 123 rooms 123 rooms 123 rooms 123 rooms 123 rooms 123 rooms

Wawona Hotel 104 rooms 104 rooms 104 rooms 104 rooms 104 rooms 104 rooms

Merced Lake High Sierra Camp 22 units (60 beds) 0 units (lodging facility closed and repurposed as camping)

15 people (lodging converted to temporary 

pack camp)

0 units (lodging facility removed and 

ecologically restored) 11 units (-18 beds) 22 units (60 beds)

Lodging Totals (units) 1,160 units 660 units 725 units 927 units 1,197 units 1,374 units

Curry Orchard Parking Area 424 spaces 420 spaces 300 spaces 300 spaces 415 spaces 430 spaces

Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area 754 spaces 550 spaces (parking moved north) 550 spaces (parking moved north) 750 spaces (parking moved north) 750 spaces (parking moved north) 850 spaces (parking moved north)

Yosemite Lodge: Converted to Day Lodge 0 spaces 250 spaces 0 spaces 0 spaces 0 spaces 0 spaces

Yosemite Lodge Parking Area 0 spaces 150 spaces 150 spaces 150 spaces 300 spaces 300 spaces 

West Valley Overflow Parking Area No No No No No 250 spaces

Total Parking for Yosemite Valley Day Use 2,337 spaces (0% change) 1,800 spaces (-23% change) 1,597 spaces (-31% change) 2,045 spaces (-13% change) 2,520 spaces (+8% change) 2,698 spaces (+11% change)

El Portal Remote Visitor Parking No No No 200 spaces 300 spaces 200 spaces 

Roundabouts / Traffic Circles (at Yosemite Village 

Day-use Parking Area) No No No No Traffic Circle: Northside Drive and Village Drive 

Roundabout: Northside Drive and Village 

Drive; Roundabout: Northside Drive and 

Sentinel Drive (at Bank 3-Way)

Grade-separated Pedestrian Crossings No No No Yosemite Falls Crossing Yosemite Falls Crossing Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area 

Crossing; Yosemite Falls Crossing

Temporary Housing Units Removed

(all occurring within Yosemite Valley) - 0 beds - 519 beds - 489 beds - 469 beds - 477 beds - 439 beds

Permanent Replacement Housing 

(in Yosemite Valley) + 0 beds + 164 beds + 268 beds + 318 beds + 191 beds + 318 beds 

Concession Employee Beds

(in Yosemite Valley) 1,151 employees 494 employees 922 employees 923 employees 865 employees 972 employees

Permanent Replacement Housing 

(in El Portal) + 0 beds + 426 beds + 31 beds + 108 beds + 160 beds + 314 beds

 Daily Visitation to East Yosemite Valley

 (Day and Overnight) 20,900 visitors 13,900 visitors 13,200 visitors 17,000 visitors 20,100 visitors 21,800 visitors

Total Parking (administrative, day, and overnight) 

for Access to Yosemite Valley 5,200 spaces 4,000 spaces 4,300 spaces 4,800 spaces 5,660 spaces 5,800 spaces

Total Project Costs $0 (if no actions taken) $255,618,494 $184,493,537 $220,089,967 $210,417,585 $411,924,485 

Employee Housing

Parking

Cost Estimates

Transportation
Comprehensive River Value Analysis 

COMPREHENSIVE RIVER VALUE ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION

Consistent with Section 10(a) of WSRA, Alternatives 2-6 give primary emphasis to protecting the river’s 

“esthetic, scenic, historic, archeological and scientific [biological, geologic, and hydrologic] features” by 

including actions to address conditions highlighted in “River Values and Their Management” (Chapter 5). 

While many of the actions proposed in this plan are designed to improve the condition of individual river 

values, this section examines the collective impact of all actions to ensure that the consequences of actions 

to protect one resource do not have unintended impacts to others. The combination of actions included in 

each alternative to protect river values (described in Chapter 5), coupled with the user capacity management 

program and actions related to land use and facilities, are evaluated here for their overall net effect on each 

river value. These effects are compared with the measures of adverse impact and degradation provided in 

Chapter 5 to verify the conclusion that all alternatives will protect and enhance all river values and meet the 

intent of WSRA. 

This analysis is organized by river value, beginning with free-flowing condition and water quality, and then 

discusses each of the twenty Merced River ORVs in numerical order. For some river values, such as 

archeological resources, the application of standard mitigation measures and best management practices 

will adequately address concerns about protecting the ORV. In these cases, the collective effect of the 

actions within each alternative can be summarized in a short statement. Other river values, such as 

meadows and riparian habitat, can be impacted to varying degrees depending on both the location and 

intensity of action. In these situations, more detail is provided on the proposed actions in order to fully 

examine all potential impacts. Alternative 1 (No Action) is not included in this analysis and all reference to 

“alternatives” pertains only to the action alternatives (Alternatives 2-6).

To prevent future adverse impacts, the NPS would regularly monitor river value conditions and take 

management action when specific thresholds are reached. A comprehensive monitoring program 

(described in Chapter 5) is a component of all action alternatives.

RIVER VALUE – FREE-FLOWING CONDITION (ALL SEGMENTS) 

As described in Chapter 5, the free-flowing condition of the Merced River in all segments has been

protected and improved since designation. However, some localized effects on river flow remain due to 

riprap revetment, abutments, and abandoned infrastructure within the bed and banks of the river. At a 

minimum, all alternatives include a suite of actions to enhance the free-flowing condition of the river. These 

actions include removing at least 5,700 linear feet of riprap and removing abandoned and unnecessary 

infrastructure from the river channel and its floodplain. Infrastructure that would be removed under all 

alternatives includes former sewage treatment facilities, sewer and water lines, and former bridge 

abutments. Other actions included in the alternatives to protect and enhance river values would not impact 

the free-flowing condition of the river. All such actions that are located within the bed and banks of the river 

or within the 100-year floodplain have been proposed solely to improve the function of the river. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-283
ALTERNATIVES

There are no new facilities proposed within the river channel under any alternative. Each alternative 

features additional actions related to existing facilities that would enhance the connectivity of the river and 

its floodplain (see the discussion of Hydrological/Geological ORVs later in this section). 

Conclusion: The free-flowing condition of the Merced River would be protected and enhanced on a 

segmentwide scale, under all action alternatives. Moreover, the NPS would subject all future projects within 

the bed or banks of the Merced River or its tributaries to an analysis conducted in accordance with Section 

7 of WSRA to ensure that such projects would not lead to “direct or adverse impacts” on free flow, and that 

projects on tributaries to the river did not “invade or unreasonably diminish” the river’s free flowing 

condition. 

RIVER VALUE – WATER QUALITY (ALL SEGMENTS)

The water quality of the Merced River is extremely high, and the current water quality of the river is protected 

and enhanced on a segmentwide scale in all river segments. Intermittent localized instances of contamination 

may occur in connection with surface water runoff from parking areas, recreational vehicle dump stations in 

proximity to the river, and accelerated erosion with potential sediment loading in the river during high water 

flows. 

All alternatives would apply mitigation measures to ensure that surface water runoff associated with parking 

areas is adequately managed to protect the water quality of the Merced River and meet regulations. In 

particular, the Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area would be moved at least 150 feet from the ordinary 

high-water mark. Additionally, potential sources of contamination, including the recreational vehicle dump 

stations at Upper Pines and Wawona, would be moved away from the river; the Odger’s bulk fuel storage 

facility in El Portal would be moved out of the 500-year floodplain; and all campsites within 100 feet of the 

ordinary high-water mark will be removed. The stock trail from the Concessioner Stables to Happy Isles 

would also be re-routed away from the river under all alternatives. These actions would reduce erosion along 

the riverbank, reduce use in sensitive areas, direct use to resilient areas, and mitigate potential sources of 

pollutants. Other actions unique to each alternative increase the width of these setbacks and further increase 

the protection and enhancement of water quality. 

Comprehensive ecological restoration actions designed to protect and enhance the Biological ORV 2 and 

the Geological/Hydrological ORV 6 would take place along the riverbank and floodplain of the Merced 

River under all alternatives. These actions would enhance water quality, particularly the actions that reestablish riverbank vegetation and reduce erosion potential. Ecological restoration actions are described in 

more detail in the discussion of these ORVs below and in Appendix E.

There are no facilities proposed under any alternative that would negatively affect water quality in the 

Merced River. Several actions related to existing and new facilities will reduce the potential for localized 

water contamination (see Chapter 7 and the discussion of Biological ORV 2 and Hydrological/Geological 

ORV 6 later in this section). 

As outlined in Chapter 5, to prevent future adverse impacts, the NPS would regularly monitor water quality 

and take management action when specific thresholds are reached. This monitoring program is part of all 

action alternatives.

8-284 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Comprehensive River Value Analysis 

Conclusion: As discussed in Chapter 9 (Impact topic: Hydrology, Floodplains and Water Quality), any 

impacts to water quality from all actions proposed in the Final Merced River Plan/EIS are local and 

negligible. Thus, this river value will remain protected on a segmentwide scale under all action alternatives. 

ORV 1 (BIOLOGICAL) – HIGH-ELEVATION MEADOWS AND RIPARIAN 

HABITAT 

The Merced River sustains numerous small meadows and riparian habitat with high biological integrity in 

the wilderness segments (Segments 1 and 5) of the river corridor. As documented in Chapter 5, ORV 1 is not 

adversely impacted or degraded and current conditions meet or exceed the management standard. A 

management concern exists in Segment 1, with regard to the amount of bare soil evident in the Merced Lake 

East Meadow. All alternatives address this concern by either prohibiting grazing or limiting the number of 

stock nights allowed to use the meadow for this purpose. 

In Segment 1, all alternatives remove informal trails that incise meadow habitat, trails in wet and/or sensitive 

vegetation, and trails that fragment meadow habitat. Removal of social trails that bisect the meadows would 

enhance Biological ORV 1 by reducing soil compaction and habitat fragmentation. Localized concerns 

related to the High Sierra Camp (see Chapter 7) would be addressed by the actions described above. No 

other effects on Biological ORV 1 have been identified due to the presence of the High Sierra Camp 

infrastructure or the limited facilities provided at the camping areas. While the alternatives vary in their 

treatment of these areas, no expansion in the development footprint is proposed. Actions that reduce the 

size and use of these facilities may provide some localized benefit to Biological ORV 1 by dispersing visitor 

use. 

Under all alternatives, the wild segment of the Merced River above Nevada Fall would show little evidence of 

human activity and remain largely free of infrastructure. Facilities that would remain in this segment of the 

river include the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp (under Alternatives 5 and 6), the Merced Lake Ranger 

Station, and the Little Yosemite Valley trail crew and ranger camp. The existence of this infrastructure is not 

causing an adverse impact to Biological ORV 1 (see Chapters 5 and 7).

In Segment 5, restoration actions to protect cultural resources proposed under this alternative (removal of 

informal trails and charcoal rings) would not affect high-elevation meadows. Moreover, no major facility or 

visitor use actions are proposed for Segment 5 under any alternative. Thus, Biological ORV 1 in this 

segment would remain protected under all alternatives.

As outlined in Chapter 5, to prevent future adverse impacts, the NPS would regularly monitor the condition 

of Biological ORV 1 and take management action when specific thresholds are reached. This monitoring 

program is part of all action alternatives.

Conclusion: Under all action alternatives, Biological ORV 1 would remain free of adverse impacts and 

degradation on a segmentwide scale. All alternatives propose actions to further enhance the condition of 

meadow and riparian habitat and none propose actions that will impact such habitat at a localized or 

segmentwide scale. Any future impacts from continued visitor use in Segment 1 will be identified and 

corrected under the monitoring program described in Chapter 5. The primary actions and their effects on 

Biological ORV 1 are summarized in Table 8-51. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-285
ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 8-51: SEGMENT 1 ACTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR BIOLOGICAL ORV 1 BY ALTERNATIVE

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 2 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 1

Merced Lake High Sierra 

Camp Remove all facilities at the High Sierra Camp 

and ecologically restore the area.

Change removes concentrated visitor use

near riverbank which could enhance ORV 1 

by reducing trampling and erosion. 

Private boating would be 

allowed in this segment

Boating would consist of short floats using 

pack raft or other craft that can easily be 

carried. Put-ins and take-outs would be 

dispersed. Boating would be limited by 

wilderness zone capacities.

Low use levels and stewardship education 

associated with permit process would 

protect riparian habitat from trampling and 

bank erosion. ORV 1 would remain 

protected on a segmentwide scale.

Wilderness zone capacity Zone capacities for Merced Lake, Washburn 

Lake, Mount Lyell, and Clark Range zones 

would remain the same across all the 

alternatives. Manage to a reduced capacity of 

25 in the Little Yosemite Valley (LYV) 

Wilderness Zone.

Current zone capacities are designed to 

protect wilderness character including 

natural conditions such as riverbanks and

meadows. Lower capacity in LYV could 

enhance riparian habitat by reducing 

trampling and erosion.

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 3 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 1 

Merced Lake High Sierra 

Camp

Convert to a temporary pack camp with a 

maximum of 15 people per night and remove 

permanent infrastructure in the area.

Change removes concentrated visitor use

near riverbank which could enhance ORV 1 

by reducing erosion and trampling. 

Private boating would be 

allowed in this segment

Boating would consist of short floats using 

pack raft or other craft that can easily be 

carried. Put-ins and take-outs would be 

dispersed. Boating would be limited by 

wilderness zone capacities.

Low use levels and stewardship education 

associated with permit process would 

protect riparian habitat from trampling and 

bank erosion. ORV 1 would remain 

protected on a segmentwide scale.

Wilderness zone capacity Zone capacities for Merced Lake, Washburn 

Lake, Mount Lyell, and Clark Range zones 

would remain the same across all the 

alternatives. Manage to a reduced capacity of 

75 in the Little Yosemite Valley (LYV) 

Wilderness Zone. 

Current zone capacities are designed to 

protect wilderness character including 

natural conditions such as riverbanks and 

meadows. Lower capacity in LYV could 

enhance riparian habitat by reducing 

trampling and erosion.

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 4 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 1

Merced Lake High Sierra 

Camp

Remove all facilities at the High Sierra Camp 

and ecologically restore the area.

Change removes concentrated visitor use

near riverbank which could enhance ORV 1 

by reducing erosion and trampling.

Private boating would be 

allowed in this segment

Boating would consist of short floats using 

pack raft or other craft that can easily be 

carried. Put-ins and take-outs would be 

dispersed. Only five boats per day allowed - 

permit would be required.

Low use levels and stewardship education 

associated with permit process would 

protect riparian habitat from trampling and 

bank erosion. ORV 1 would remain 

protected on a segmentwide scale.

Wilderness zone capacity Zone capacities for Merced Lake, Washburn 

Lake, Mount Lyell, and Clark Range zones 

would remain the same across all the 

alternatives. Manage to a reduced capacity of 

100 in the Little Yosemite Valley Wilderness 

Zone. 

Zone capacities are designed to protect 

wilderness character including natural 

conditions such as riverbanks and meadows. 

Lower capacity in LYV could enhance

riparian habitat by reducing trampling and 

erosion.

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 5 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 1 

Merced Lake High Sierra 

Camp

Reduce the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp to 

11 units (42 beds). Replace the flush toilets 

with composting toilet.

Facility is not directly adjacent to meadows. 

Changes would not affect high-elevation 

meadow and riparian habitat. ORV 1 would 

remain protected on a segmentwide scale. 

8-286 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Comprehensive River Value Analysis 

TABLE 8-51: SEGMENT 1 ACTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR BIOLOGICAL ORV 1 BY ALTERNATIVE

Private boating would be 

allowed in this segment

Boating would consist of short floats using 

craft that can easily be carried. Put-ins and 

take-outs would be dispersed. Private use 

limited to 20 people per day with backcountry 

permits. 

Low use levels and stewardship education 

associated with permit process would 

protect riparian habitat from trampling and 

bank erosion.

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 5 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 1 

Wilderness zone capacity All zone capacities within the Merced WSR 

corridor remain the same as currently 

managed.

Current zone capacities are designed to 

protect wilderness character including 

natural conditions such as riverbanks and 

meadows. Action would not affect highelevation meadow and riparian habitat. ORV 

1 would remain protected on a 

segmentwide scale.

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 6 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 1 

Merced Lake High Sierra 

Camp

Replace the flush toilets with composting 

toilet.

Facility is not directly adjacent to meadows. 

Changes would not affect high-elevation 

meadow and riparian habitat. ORV 1 would 

remain protected on a segmentwide scale.

Private boating would be 

allowed in this segment

Boating would consist of short floats using 

craft that can easily be carried. Put-ins and 

take-outs would be dispersed. Private use 

limited to 20 people per day with backcountry 

permits. 

Low use levels and stewardship education 

associated with permit process would 

protect riparian habitat from trampling and 

bank erosion. ORV 1 would remain 

protected on a segmentwide scale.

Wilderness zone capacity All zone capacities included in the Merced 

River Corridor remain the same as currently 

managed.

Current zone capacities are designed to 

protect wilderness character including natural 

conditions such as riverbanks and meadows. 

Action would not affect high-elevation 

meadow and riparian habitat. ORV 1 would 

remain protected on a segmentwide scale. 

ORV 2 (BIOLOGICAL) – MID-ELEVATION MEADOWS AND RIPARIAN 

HABITAT 

This ORV includes the meadows and riparian communities of Yosemite Valley (Segments 2A and 2B)—one 

of the largest mid-elevation meadow-riparian complexes in the Sierra Nevada. As documented in Chapter 

5, Biological ORV 2 is not adversely impacted or degraded, and current conditions meet or exceed the 

management standard. However, management concerns are present due to the presence of riverbank 

trampling, riverbank erosion, and fragmentation index scores at Cook’s A, El Capitan, Leidig, and Sentinel A

Meadows and. All alternatives would address these concerns with the following actions:

For management concerns related to meadow fragmentation (with priority given to the meadows identified 

above): 

• Remove informal trails where they fragment meadow habitat or cross through sensitive, wet 

vegetation communities. Overall, restore six miles of informal trails throughout Yosemite Valley.

• Use boardwalks, hardened surfaces, or other techniques to provide access to sensitive areas.

• Delineate trails through upland areas and along meadow perimeters.

• Place restoration closure signs and/or fencing along meadow perimeters.

• Fill deep headcuts caused by informal trails with native soil and re-contour to natural meadow 

topography.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-287
ALTERNATIVES

• De-compact trampled soils, and use salvaged plants and local seed to re-vegetate area and 

consolidate parallel trails.

• Institute closures in individual impacted meadows and increase visitor education associated with 

the closures.

For management concerns related to riparian habitat:

• Re-vegetate riverbanks between Clark’s Bridge and Sentinel Bridge with native riparian shrubs and 

trees, and strategically place wood to promote bar formation and natural channel narrowing.

• Re-direct visitor use to more stable and resilient river access points such as sandbars, and designate 

formal river access sites. Establish fencing and signage to protect sensitive areas; install boardwalks 

where appropriate, and actively re-vegetate where needed.

• At a minimum, remove all campsites within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark. Restore these 

areas to natural riparian conditions.

• Establish a riparian buffer and prohibit new development along both sides of the Merced River 

within 150 feet of the ordinary high water mark. 

• Move the Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area at least 150 feet north of the ordinary high water 

mark.

• Construct hardened structures at designated river access points to facilitate and concentrate safe 

visitor access (where needed). Fence and sign sensitive areas and re-establish riparian vegetation.

Under all alternatives, existing facilities with localized effects to Biological ORV 2 (as described in Chapter 

7) would be modified or removed to mitigate these effects. As a result, the facilities that remain would have 

no effect on ORV 2. 

To prevent future adverse impacts, the NPS would regularly monitor the condition of Biological ORV 2 and 

take management action when specific thresholds are reached (outlined in Chapter 5). This monitoring 

program is part of all action alternatives.

Conclusion: Under all action alternatives, Biological ORV 2 would remain free of adverse impacts and 

degradation on a segmentwide scale. A robust program of ecological restoration is common to all 

alternatives and was developed to address localized concerns about meadow and riparian health within 

Segments 2A and 2B. All alternatives propose additional actions to further enhance the condition of 

meadow and riparian habitat; none propose actions that will impact such habitat at a segmentwide scale. 

Any future impacts from continued visitor use in this segment will be identified and corrected under the 

monitoring program described in Chapter 5. The primary actions and their implications for Biological ORV 

2 are described below. 

8-288 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Comprehensive River Value Analysis 

Alternative 2

Under Alternative 2 (Table 8-52), Biological ORV 2 would remain free of adverse impacts and degradation 

on a segmentwide scale. Most actions would further enhance the condition of riverbanks and meadows. 

Removal or relocation of select campsites and infrastructure would improve meadow conditions, thereby 

enhancing ORV 2. 

TABLE 8-52: SEGMENTS 2A AND 2B ACTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR BIOLOGICAL ORV 2 (ALTERNATIVE 2)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 2 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 2

Curry Village and Campgrounds

North, Lower, and Upper Pines 

Campgrounds and 

Backpackers Campground

Remove all campsites within the 100-year 

floodplain; establish designated raft put-ins.

Changes would reduce erosion along the 

riverbank by designating access points in

resilient areas and discouraging use of

sensitive areas. ORV 2 would be enhanced.

Stoneman Meadow and Curry 

Orchard parking lot

Remove 1,335 feet of Southside Drive and realign road through Boys Town area. Redesign 

the Orchard Parking Lot. Remove apple trees 

and replace with native vegetation. Extend the 

meadow boardwalk through wet areas to Curry 

Village (up to 275').

Changes would promote water flow and 

improve meadow health, thereby 

enhancing ORV 2.

New campsites at Yosemite

Lodge, Backpackers, and 

Camp 4

Construct new campsites at Backpackers, 

Camp 4, and Yosemite Lodge (outside of the 

100- year floodplain). 

Changes would protect riparian areas from 

direct impacts related to the increase in 

visitor activity in these areas. Fencing and 

designated river access points would also 

direct use to resilient areas. ORV 2 would 

remain protected at a segmentwide scale.

Ahwahnee, Sugar Pine, and 

Stoneman Bridges

Remove the Ahwahnee, Sugar Pine, and 

Stoneman Bridges and the associated berms, 

and restore to natural conditions. Reroute the 

multiple use trail to the north bank of the 

river. Re-route utilities under Ahwahnee 

Bridge. 

Change would reduce channel widening, 

erosion, and scouring, thereby enhancing

ORV 2. 

Yosemite Village and Housekeeping Camp

Yosemite Village Day-use 

Parking Area/Village Center 

Parking Area

Move the Yosemite Village Day-use Parking 

Area out of the 10-year floodplain to facilitate 

restoration goals. Formalize parking area with a 

total of 550 parking spaces. 

Changes would reduce effects to the 

riparian area and enhance ORV 2, as use 

would be moved away from areas critical 

to river or meadow function. ORV 2 would 

be enhanced.

Housekeeping Camp Lodging Remove all 266 lodging units. Convert 

Housekeeping Camp to a day-use area, river 

access point, and picnic area. River access 

would be directed to resilient sandy beaches.

Changes would reduce erosion and 

trampling impacts in riparian area, thereby 

enhancing ORV 2. 

Ahwahnee Row and Tecoya 

Dorms Concessioner Employee 

Housing

Remove housing and development, re-contour 

topography, de-compact soils, and restore 

stream hydrologic function.

Changes would remove infrastructure 

within the 100-year floodplain, thereby 

enhancing floodplain and hydrologic 

processes. ORV 2 would remain protected 

on a segmentwide scale. 

Northside Drive (Stoneman 

Bridge to Yosemite Village 

Day-use Parking Area)

Remove 900' of road and relocate the bike 

path to the south.

Changes would improve meadow/river 

connectivity, thereby enhancing ORV 2.

Sentinel Drive Roadside 

Parking

Remove roadside parking along Sentinel Drive 

and restore to natural conditions. 

Changes would remove uses from the 

meadow edge and reduce erosion and 

trampling, thereby enhancing ORV 2.

Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4

Superintendent’s House 

(Residence 1)

Remove and relocate to the NPS housing area. Change would reduce informal trailing in 

the adjacent meadow, thereby enhancing

ORV 2.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-289
ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 3

Under Alternative 3 (Table 8-53), Biological ORV 2 would remain free of adverse impacts and degradation 

on a segmentwide scale. Most actions would further enhance the condition of riverbanks and meadows. 

Removal or relocation of select campsites and infrastructure would improve meadow conditions, thereby 

enhancing ORV 2. 

TABLE 8-53: SEGMENTS 2A AND 2B ACTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR BIOLOGICAL ORV 2 (ALTERNATIVE 3)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 3 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 2 

Curry Village and Campgrounds

North, Lower, and Upper Pines 

Campgrounds and Backpackers

Campground

Remove all campsites within the 100-year 

floodplain. Establish designated raft put-ins. 

Changes would reduce erosion along the 

riverbank by designating access points in

resilient areas and discouraging use of

sensitive areas. ORV 2 would be enhanced. 

New campsites at Upper Pines, 

Backpackers, and Camp 4

Construct new campsites at Upper Pines, 

Backpackers, and Camp 4 outside of the 150-

foot riparian buffer. 

Changes would protect riparian areas from 

direct impacts related to the increase in 

visitor activity in these areas. Fencing and 

designated river access points would also 

direct use to resilient areas. ORV 2 would 

remain protected at a segementwide scale.

Stoneman Meadow and Curry 

Orchard parking lot

Remove 1,335 feet of Southside Drive and realign road through Boys Town area. Re-design 

the Orchard Parking Lot. Remove apple trees and 

landscape with native vegetation. Extend the 

meadow boardwalk through wet areas to Curry 

Village (up to 275’).

Changes would promote water flow and 

improve meadow health, thereby 

enhancing ORV 2.

Ahwahnee, Sugar Pine, and 

Stoneman bridges

Remove the Ahwahnee, Sugar Pine, and 

Stoneman bridges, and the associated berms and 

restore to natural conditions. Reroute the 

multiple use trail to the north bank of the river. 

Re-route utilities under Ahwahnee Bridge. 

Changes would promote water flow and 

improve meadow health, thereby 

enhancing ORV 2.

Yosemite Village and Housekeeping Camp

Yosemite Village Day-use 

Parking Area/Village Center 

Parking Area

Move the Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area 

out of the 10-year floodplain to facilitate 

restoration goals. Formalize parking area with a 

total of 550 parking spaces. 

Changes would reduce effects to the 

riparian area and enhance ORV 2, as use 

would be moved away from areas critical to 

river or meadow function. ORV 2 would be 

enhanced.

Housekeeping Camp Lodging Remove all 266 lodging units. Convert 

Housekeeping Camp to a day-use area, river 

access point, and picnic area. River access 

would be directed to resilient sandy beaches.

Changes would reduce erosion and 

trampling impacts in riparian area, thereby 

enhancing ORV 2. 

Ahwahnee Row and Tecoya 

Dorms Concessioner Housing

Establish a 50-foot setback from Indian Creek; 

ecologically restore the riparian habitat and 

protect by restoration fencing.

Changes would reduce erosion and 

trampling impacts in riparian area, thereby 

enhancing ORV 2. 

Northside Drive (Stoneman 

Bridge to Yosemite Village Dayuse Parking Area)

Remove 900 feet of road and relocate the bike 

path to the south.

Changes would improve meadow/river 

connectivity, thereby enhancing ORV 2.

Sentinel Drive Roadside Parking Remove roadside parking along Sentinel Drive 

and restore to natural conditions. 

Changes would remove uses from the 

meadow edge and reduce erosion and 

trampling, thereby enhancing ORV 2.

Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4

Superintendent’s House 

(Residence 1)

Remove and relocate to the NPS housing area. Change would reduce informal trailing in 

the adjacent meadow, thereby enhancing

ORV 2.

8-290 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Comprehensive River Value Analysis 

Alternative 4

Under Alternative 4 (Table 8-54), Biological ORV 2 would remain free of adverse impacts and degradation 

on a segmentwide scale. All actions would further enhance the condition of riverbanks and meadows. 

Removal or relocation of select campsites and infrastructure would improve meadow conditions, thereby 

enhancing ORV 2. Effects on the alluvial nature of the river caused by the bridges retained in this alternative 

would be mitigated through constructed log jams.

TABLE 8-54 :SEGMENTS 2A AND 2B ACTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR BIOLOGICAL ORV 2 (ALTERNATIVE 4)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 4 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 2 

Curry Village and Campgrounds 

North, Lower, and Upper Pines 

Campgrounds and Backpackers 

Campground

Remove all campsites within 150 feet of the 

river. Establish designated raft put-ins. 

Changes would reduce erosion along the 

riverbank by designating access points in

resilient areas and discouraging use of 

sensitive areas. ORV 2 would be enhanced.

Stoneman Meadow and Curry 

Orchard parking lot

Remove 1,335 feet of Southside Drive and realign road through Boys Town area. Redesign 

the Orchard Parking Lot. Remove apple trees 

and replace with native vegetation. Extend the 

meadow boardwalk through wet areas to Curry 

Village (up to 275').

Changes would promote water flow and 

improve meadow health, thereby enhancing 

ORV 2.

New campsites at Upper Pines, 

Backpackers, Concessioner 

Stables, Camp 4, West of 

Lodge, Boys Town, and Upper 

and Lower River Campgrounds 

Construct new campsites outside of the 150-

foot riparian buffer at Upper Pines, Upper River, 

Lower River, Backpackers, Camp 4, West of 

Lodge, Boys Town, and Concessioner Stables. 

Designate river access at Lower River at 

Housekeeping Camp eastern beach.

Changes would protect riparian areas from 

direct impacts related to the increase in 

visitor activity in these areas. Fencing and 

designated river access points would also 

direct use to resilient areas. ORV 2 would 

remain protected at a segementwide scale.

Ahwahnee and Sugar Pine 

Bridges

Remove the Ahwahnee and Sugar Pine Bridges 

and the associated berm, and restore to natural 

conditions. Reroute the multiple-use trail to the 

north bank of the river. Re-route utilities under 

Ahwahnee Bridge. 

Changes would promote water flow and 

improve meadow health, thereby enhancing 

ORV 2.

Yosemite Village and Housekeeping Camp

Housekeeping Camp Lodging Remove 166 lodging units (seasonally 

inundated), 4 restrooms, and the store and 

office. River access would be directed to 

resilient sandy beaches.

Changes would reduce erosion and 

trampling impacts in riparian area, thereby 

enhancing ORV 2.

Sentinel Drive Roadside Parking Remove roadside parking along Sentinel Drive 

and restore to natural conditions. 

Changes would remove uses from the 

meadow edge and reduce erosion and 

trampling, thereby enhancing ORV 2.

Ahwahnee Row and Tecoya 

Dorms Concessioner Housing

Establish a 50-foot setback from Indian Creek; 

ecologically restore the riparian habitat and 

protect with fencing.

Changes would reduce erosion and 

trampling impacts in riparian area, thereby 

enhancing ORV 2.

Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4

Superintendent’s House 

(Residence 1)

Remove and relocate to the NPS housing area. Change would reduce informal trailing in the 

adjacent meadow, thereby enhancing ORV 2.

Yosemite Lodge: Intersection 

Congestion

A tiered NEPA / NHPA compliance effort will 

evaluate a range of alternatives to develop a 

grade-separated crossing.

Implementation of mitigation measures 

would protect the riparian corridor from 

erosion, pollutants, and general habitat 

disturbance during construction. ORV 2 

would remain protected at a segmentwide 

scale.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-291
ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 5

Under Alternative 5 (Table 8-55), Biological ORV 2 would remain free of adverse impacts and degradation 

on a segmentwide scale. Actions would further enhance riverbanks and meadows. Removal or relocation of 

select campsites and infrastructure would improve meadow conditions in these segments, thereby

enhancing ORV 2. Constructed log jams would mitigate the effects on the alluvial nature of the river caused 

by the bridges retained under this alternative.

TABLE 8-55: SEGMENTS 2A AND 2B ACTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR BIOLOGICAL ORV 2 (ALTERNATIVE 5)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 5 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 2 

Curry Village and Campgrounds

North, Lower, and Upper Pines 

Campgrounds and Backpackers

Campground 

Remove all campsites within 100 feet of the 

river. Establish designated raft put-ins. 

Changes would reduce erosion along the 

riverbank by designating access points in

resilient areas and discouraging use of 

sensitive areas. ORV 2 would be enhanced.

New campsites at Upper Pines, 

Backpackers, Camp 4, and 

Lower and Upper River 

Campgrounds 

Construct new campsites outside of the 150-

foot riparian buffer at Upper Pines, Lower River, 

Upper River, Backpackers, and Camp 4. 

Designate river access at Lower River

Housekeeping Camp eastern beach. Design 

plans would incorporate a boating access point 

and commercial raft launch site.

Changes would protect riparian areas from 

direct impacts related to the increase in 

visitor activity in these areas. Fencing and 

designated river access points would also 

direct use to resilient areas. ORV 2 would 

remain protected. 

Curry Orchard Day-use Parking 

Area 

Provide 415 parking spaces through a re-design 

of the parking lot. Apply engineering solutions 

to promote water flow to Stoneman Meadow.

Changes will increase drainage to 

Stoneman Meadow, protecting and 

improving meadow health and enhancing 

ORV 2.

Ahwahnee, Stoneman, and 

Sugar Pine Bridges

Strategically place large wood on riverbanks, and 

use brush layering and constructed log jams to 

address scouring. A scientific study would be 

completed to develop a strategic approach to 

achieving successful protection of hydrologic 

processes and free-flowing conditions in the 

vicinity of Sugar Pine Bridge. 

Changes will mitigate existing riparian 

impacts, thereby enhancing ORV 2.

Yosemite Village and Housekeeping Camp

Housekeeping Camp Lodging Remove 34 units from within the ordinary highwater mark. River access would be directed to 

resilient sandy beaches.

Changes would reduce erosion and 

trampling impacts in riparian area, thereby 

enhancing ORV 2. 

Ahwahnee Row and Tecoya 

Dorms Concessioner Housing

Establish a 50-foot setback from Indian Creek; 

ecologically restore the riparian habitat and 

protect with fencing.

Changes would reduce erosion and 

trampling impacts in riparian area, thereby 

enhancing ORV 2.

Sentinel Drive Roadside Parking Remove roadside parking along Sentinel Drive 

and restore to natural conditions. 

Changes would remove uses from the 

meadow edge and reduce erosion and 

trampling, thereby enhancing ORV 2.

Yosemite Village Day-use 

Parking Area/Roundabout

Move the Yosemite Village Day-use Parking 

Area northward 150 feet away from the river to 

facilitate restoration goals. Formalize parking 

area with a total of 750 parking spaces. Build a 

roundabout at the intersection of Northside 

Drive and Village Drive to address traffic 

congestion at this intersection.

The extent of construction would minimally

encroach into Cook’s Meadow; however 

riparian and wetland habitat would be 

enhanced by moving development away 

from the river and wetland areas. Mitigation

measures would protect sensitive areas 

from staging impacts such as compaction 

and erosion. While Cook’s Meadow may be 

affected at a localized scale, ORV 2 would 

remain protected at a segmentwide scale. 

8-292 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Comprehensive River Value Analysis 

TABLE 8-55: SEGMENTS 2A AND 2B ACTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR BIOLOGICAL ORV 2 (ALTERNATIVE 5)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 5 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 2 

Yosemite Lodge And Camp 4

Superintendent’s House 

(Residence 1)

Remove the historic Superintendent’s House 

and Garage.

Change would reduce informal trailing in the 

adjacent meadow, thereby enhancing ORV 2.

Yosemite Lodge: Intersection 

Congestion

A tiered NEPA / NHPA compliance effort will 

evaluate a range of alternatives to develop a 

grade-separated crossing.

Implementation of mitigation measures

would protect the riparian corridor from 

erosion, pollutants, and general habitat 

disturbance during construction. ORV 2 

would remain protected at a segmentwide 

scale. 

Alternative 6

Under Alternative 6 (Table 8-56), Biological ORV 2 would continue to be absent of adverse impacts and 

degradation on a segmentwide scale. Actions would further enhance riverbanks and meadows. Removal or 

relocation of select campsites and infrastructure would improve meadow conditions in these segments, 

thereby enhancing ORV 2. Constructed log jams would mitigate the effects on the alluvial nature of the 

river caused by the bridges retained under this alternative.

TABLE 8-56: SEGMENTS 2A AND 2B ACTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR BIOLOGICAL ORV 2 (ALTERNATIVE 6)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 6 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 2 

Curry Village and Campgrounds

North, Lower, and Upper 

Pines Campgrounds and 

Backpackers Campgrounds

Remove all campsites within 100 feet of the 

river. Establish designated raft put-ins. 

Changes would reduce erosion along the 

riverbank by designating access points in resilient 

areas and discouraging use of sensitive areas.

ORV 2 would be enhanced.

Stoneman Meadow and 

Curry Orchard Parking Lot

Provide 430 parking spaces through a redesign of the parking lot. Apply engineering 

solutions to promote water flow to Stoneman 

Meadow.

Changes will increase drainage to Stoneman 

Meadow, protecting and improving meadow 

health and enhancing ORV 2.

New campsites at Upper 

Pines, Backpackers, Camp 4, 

Eagle Creek, and Upper and 

Lower River Campgrounds 

Construct new campsites outside the 150-

foot riparian buffer at Upper Pines, Upper 

River, Lower River, Backpackers, Eagle Creek 

and Camp 4.

Changes would protect riparian areas from direct 

impacts related to the increase in visitor activity 

in these areas. Fencing and designated river 

access points would also direct use to resilient 

areas. ORV 2 would remain protected. 

Ahwahnee, Stoneman, and 

Sugar Pine Bridges

Existing riparian impacts mitigated with 

strategic placement of large wood on 

riverbanks, and the use of brush layering and 

constructed log jams to address scouring.

Changes would increase channel complexity and 

reduce channel widening, erosion, and scouring, 

thereby enhancing ORV 2. 

Yosemite Village and Housekeeping Camp

Yosemite Village Day-use 

Parking Area/Village Center 

Parking Area

Move the Yosemite Village Day-use Parking 

Area northward 150 feet away from the river 

to facilitate restoration goals. Formalize 

parking area with a total of 850 parking 

spaces. Two traffic roundabouts, one at the 

Village Drive and Northside Drive intersection 

and one at the intersection of Sentinel Drive 

and Northside Drive, would be needed. A 

pedestrian underpass would be constructed 

to address traffic congestion and 

pedestrian/vehicle conflicts.

The extent of construction would minimally

encroach into Cook’s Meadow; however 

wetlands would be restored by moving 

development away from the river. Mitigation 

would compensate wetland loss and protect 

sensitive areas from staging impacts such as 

compaction and erosion. ORV 2 would remain

protected at a segmentwide scale. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-293
ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 8-56: SEGMENTS 2A AND 2B ACTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR BIOLOGICAL ORV 2 (ALTERNATIVE 6)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 6 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 2 

Housekeeping Camp 

Lodging

Remove 34 units from within the ordinary 

high-water mark. River access would be 

directed to resilient sandy beaches.

Changes would reduce erosion and trampling 

impacts in riparian area, thereby enhancing ORV 2.

Ahwahnee Row and Tecoya 

Dorms Concessioner Housing

Establish a 50-foot setback from Indian Creek; 

ecologically restore the riparian habitat and 

protect with fencing.

Changes would reduce erosion and trampling 

impacts in riparian area, thereby enhancing ORV 2.

Sentinel Drive Roadside 

Parking

Remove roadside parking along Sentinel Drive 

and restore to natural conditions. 

Changes would remove uses from the meadow 

edge and reduce erosion and trampling, thereby 

enhancing ORV 2.

Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4

Yosemite Lodge Road and 

Northside Drive

Construct a pedestrian underpass to address 

congestion at intersection and alleviate 

pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. Roadside parking 

would be removed and more culverts would 

be added. 

Implementation of mitigation measures would 

protect the riparian corridor from erosion, 

pollutants, and general habitat disturbance 

during construction. ORV 2 would remain

protected at a segmentwide scale. 

Yosemite Lodge Visitor 

Facilities

Reconstruct Yosemite Lodge with the preflood number of 440 units and locate outside

of the 100-year floodplain. 

New and existing lodging would be located 

outside the 100-year floodplain and would not 

affect meadow or riparian habitat; ORV 2 would

remain protected at a segmentwide scale.

ORV 3 (BIOLOGICAL) –SIERRA SWEET BAY 

As documented in Chapter 5, the Sierra sweet bay population (Segments 7 and 8) is not adversely impacted 

or degraded and current conditions meet or exceed the management standard. Therefore, management 

actions to protect this ORV are not required at this time. As discussed in Chapter 9 (Impact topic: Special 

Status Species), all of the action alternatives would result in local, long-term, minor beneficial impacts on 

special-status plants in Segments 5-8. Thus, the collective impact to ORV 3 from all actions proposed in the 

Final Merced River Plan/EIS is positive; the ORV would be protected on a segmentwide scale under all 

alternatives. 

ORV 4 (GEOLOGICAL/HYDROLOGICAL) – GLACIALLY-CARVED CANYON 

IN THE UPPER MERCED RIVER CANYON 

As documented in Chapter 5, the glacially-carved canyon of the Upper Merced River (Segment 1) is not 

adversely impacted or degraded. No actions are proposed in any alternative that are substantial enough to

affect this ORV. Because it is essentially impervious to human activities, the NPS has not set a management 

standard for ORV 4 and further management action is not required to protect this ORV. Natural processes 

will continue to shape this geologic feature and the ORV would be protected on a segmentwide scale under 

all alternatives.

ORV 5 (GEOLOGICAL/HYDROLOGICAL) – THE “GIANT STAIRCASE” 

As documented in Chapter 5, the “Giant Staircase” which includes Vernal and Nevada Falls (Segment 2A), is 

not adversely impacted or degraded. No actions are proposed in any alternative that are substantial enough 

to affect this ORV. Because it is essentially impervious to human activities, the NPS has not set a 

management standard for ORV 5 and further management action is not required to protect this ORV. 

8-294 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Comprehensive River Value Analysis 

Natural processes will continue to shape this geologic feature and the ORV would be protected on a 

segmentwide scale under all alternatives.

ORV 6 (GEOLOGICAL/HYDROLOGICAL) – RARE, MID-ELEVATION 

ALLUVIAL RIVER

Alluvial rivers are self-formed, meaning that their channels are shaped by the magnitude and frequency of 

the floods they experience and the ability of those floods to erode, deposit, and transport sediment. This 

ORV includes the river reach from Happy Isles to the west end of Yosemite Valley, where the river has a 

gentle gradient, a robust flood regime, and complex riparian vegetation. There are few examples in the 

Sierra Nevada of similar river morphology of this scale at this elevation. 

As documented in Chapter 5, the alluvial nature of the Merced River in Yosemite Valley (Segments 2A and 

2B) is not adversely impacted or degraded; current conditions meet or exceed the management standard.

However, management concerns are present due to the status of riparian habitat. This management concern 

is the same as that reported for ORV 2 (see discussion on ORV 2 for details). 

All alternatives include the following actions to address localized concerns for ORV 6 caused by 

infrastructure located within the bed and banks of the river: 

• Remove footings and river gauge base at the former location of the Happy Isles footbridges. Revegetate informal trails. 

• Move the Pohono Bridge gauging station north of the river outside of the ordinary high water 

mark. Re-vegetate informal trails. 

• Remove 34 units at Housekeeping Camp that are located within the ordinary high water mark.

• Replace a section of paved trail in Leidig Meadow that is within the ordinary high water mark, 

using boardwalk or a series of box culverts.

• Remove riprap where riverbanks do not need stabilization to allow for channel migration(amount 

removed varies across alternatives). Replace riprap with bioengineered riverbanks that integrate 

native riparian vegetation where riverbank stabilization is necessary for protection of critical 

infrastructure.

Under all alternatives, existing facilities with localized effects to Geological/Hydrological ORV 6 (see 

Chapter 7) would be modified or removed to mitigate these effects. As a result, the remaining facilities 

would have no effect on ORV 6. Many actions designed to improve riparian conditions and address facilityrelated localized concerns pertaining to ORV 2 respond to the same concerns for ORV 6 (see Chapter 7). 

Actions with the potential to impact riparian areas are discussed under ORV 2 and not repeated here. The 

analysis provided for ORV 6 (below) pertains only to those actions related to infrastructure within the 

floodplain. 

To prevent future adverse impacts, the NPS would regularly monitor the condition of

Geological/Hydrological ORV 6 and take management action when specific thresholds are reached

(outlined in Chapter 5). This monitoring program is part of all action alternatives.

Conclusion: Under all action alternatives, Geological/Hydrological ORV 6 would remain free of adverse 

impacts and degradation on a segmentwide scale. A robust program of ecological restoration is common to 

all alternatives and designed to address localized concerns regarding river channelization throughout 

Segments 2A and 2B. All alternatives propose an array of actions to further enhance ORV 6, ranging from 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-295
ALTERNATIVES

removing additional revetment to removing historic bridges and facilities located within the 100-year 

floodplain. Any future impacts from continued visitor use in these segments will be identified and corrected 

under the monitoring program described in Chapter 5. The primary actions that vary across the alternatives 

and their implications for Geological/Hydrological ORV 6 are described in the sections that follow. 

Alternative 2

Under Alternative 2 (Table 8-57), all existing campsites and associated infrastructure, including 

Housekeeping Camp and structures at Yosemite Lodge, would be removed from within the 100-year 

floodplain. All buildings and structures at Housekeeping Camp and Yosemite Lodge would be removed 

from the 100-year floodplain. Ahwahnee, Stoneman, and Sugar Pine Bridges would be removed. Actions to 

protect meadows and riparian complexes (ORV 2) would result in additional enhancement to ORV 6. The 

Geological/Hydrological ORV 6 would remain free of adverse impacts and degradation on a segmentwide 

scale.

TABLE 8-57: SEGMENTS 2A AND 2B ACTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR GEOLOGICAL/HYDROLOGICAL ORV 6 (ALT 2)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 2 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 6 

Yosemite Village and Housekeeping Camp

Yosemite Village Day-use 

Parking Area/Village Center 

Parking Area

Move the Yosemite Village Day-use Parking 

Area outside of the 10-year floodplain to 

facilitate restoration goals. Formalize parking 

area with a total of 550 parking spaces. 

These changes would reduce effects to 

riparian areas and enhance ORV 6, as use 

would be moved away from areas critical to 

hydrologic function. 

Ahwahnee Row and Tecoya 

Dorms Concessioner Employee 

Housing

Remove housing and development out of 

the 100-year floodplain, re-contour 

topography, de-compact soils, and restore 

stream hydrologic function.

Employee housing within the 100-year 

floodplain is not currently causing adverse 

impacts to river values. However, complete 

restoration of the floodplain in this area will 

enhance ORV 6.

Housekeeping Camp Lodging Remove all 266 lodging units. Convert 

Housekeeping Camp to a day-use area, 

river access point, and picnic area. River

access would be directed to resilient sandy 

beaches.

Lodging within the 100-year floodplain is 

not currently causing adverse impacts to 

river values. However, complete restoration 

of the floodplain in this area will enhance 

ORV 6.

Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4

Yosemite Lodge Visitor Facilities Remove all of the lodging units (245 units). 

Repurpose the area outside of the 100-year 

floodplain for Day Lodge and Parking. 

Restore the 100-year floodplain.

Buildings within the 100-year floodplain

(including lodging units, service buildings, 

and some employee housing) are not 

currently causing adverse impacts to river 

values. However, complete restoration of the 

floodplain in this area will enhance ORV 6.

Yosemite Lodge Concessioner 

Employee Housing

Remove temporary housing at Highland 

Court and the historic Thousands Cabins. 

Construct two new concessioner housing 

areas housing 104 employees. Construct 78 

employee parking spaces.

The Thousands Cabins (within the 100-year 

floodplain) are not currently causing adverse 

impacts to river values. However, complete 

restoration of the floodplain in this area will 

enhance ORV 6.

Superintendent’s House 

(Residence 1)

Remove and relocate to the NPS housing 

area.

The historic Superintendent’s house, located 

within the 100-year floodplain, is not currently 

causing adverse impacts to ORV 6. However, 

complete restoration of the floodplain in this 

area will enhance ORV 6.

8-296 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Comprehensive River Value Analysis 

Alternative 3

Under Alternative 3 (Table 8-58), all structures and buildings at both Housekeeping Camp and Yosemite 

Lodge would be removed from within the 100-year floodplain. Ahwahnee, Stoneman, and Sugar Pine 

bridges and footings would be removed. Actions to protect meadows and riparian complexes (ORV 2) 

would result in additional enhancement to ORV 6. The Geological/Hydrological ORV 6 would remain free 

of adverse impacts and degradation on a segmentwide scale.

TABLE 8-58: SEGMENTS 2A AND 2B ACTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR GEOLOGICAL/HYDROLOGICAL ORV 6 (ALT 3)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 3 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV-6 

Yosemite Village and Housekeeping Camp

Yosemite Village Day-use Parking 

Area/Village Center Parking Area

Move the Yosemite Village Day-use Parking 

Area outside of the 10-year floodplain to 

facilitate restoration goals. Formalize parking 

area with a total of 550 parking spaces. 

These changes would reduce effects to 

riparian areas and enhance ORV 6, as use 

would be moved away from areas critical to

hydrologic function. 

Ahwahnee Row and Tecoya 

Dorms Concessioner Employee 

Housing

Retain housing and development within the 

100 year floodplain. Establish a 50-foot 

setback from Indian Creek. Restore the 

riparian habitat and protect with fencing. 

Although housing remains in the 100-year 

floodplain, it is not causing adverse impacts

to river values. However, the setback would 

enhance ORV 6.

Housekeeping Camp Lodging Remove all 266 lodging units. Convert 

Housekeeping Camp to a day use river access 

point and picnic area.

Lodging within the 100-year floodplain is 

not currently causing adverse impacts to 

river values. However, complete restoration 

of the floodplain in this area will enhance 

ORV 6.

Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4

Yosemite Lodge Parking Area Redevelop area west of Yosemite Lodge to 

provide additional 150 day-use parking 

spaces.

Mitigation measures would protect the 

floodplain from erosion during construction

and run-off from the parking lot. 

Yosemite Lodge Visitor Facilities Remove 102 lodging units. Restore the 100-

year floodplain.

Buildings within the 100-year floodplain are 

not currently causing adverse impacts to 

river values. However, substantial 

restoration of the floodplain in this area will 

enhance ORV 6.

Yosemite Lodge Concessioner 

Employee Housing

Remove temporary housing at Highland Court 

and the historic Thousands Cabins. Construct 

two new concessioner housing areas housing 

104 employees. Construct 78 employee 

parking spaces.

The Thousands Cabins (within the 100-year 

floodplain) are not currently causing 

adverse impacts to river values. However, 

complete restoration of the floodplain in 

this area will enhance ORV 6.

Superintendent’s House 

(Residence 1)

Remove and relocate to the NPS housing 

area.

The historic Superintendent’s house, 

located within the 100-year floodplain, is 

not currently causing adverse impacts to 

ORV 6. However, restoration of the 

floodplain in this area will enhance ORV 6.

Alternative 4

Under Alternative 4 (Table 8-59), a total of 166 lodging units at Housekeeping Camp would be removed 

from within the 100-year floodplain. Ahwahnee and Sugar Pine bridges and footings would be removed. 

Impacts to hydrological processes at other bridge locations would be mitigated through the placement of 

large wood and brush layering. Actions to protect meadows and riparian complexes (ORV 2) would result in 

additional enhancement to ORV 6. The Geological/Hydrological ORV 6 would remain free of adverse 

impacts and degradation on a segmentwide scale.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-297
ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 8-59: SEGMENTS 2A AND 2B ACTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR GEOLOGICAL/HYDROLOGICAL ORV 6 (ALT 4)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 4 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 6 

Yosemite Village and Housekeeping Camp

Yosemite Village Day-use Parking 

Area/Village Center Parking Area

Move the Yosemite Village Day-use Parking 

Area northward 150 feet away from the river 

to facilitate restoration goals. Formalize 

parking area with a total of 550 parking 

spaces. 

These changes would reduce effects to 

riparian areas and enhance ORV 6, as use 

would be moved away from areas critical to 

hydrologic function.

Ahwahnee Row and Tecoya 

Dorms Concessioner Employee 

Housing

Retain housing and development within the 

100 year floodplain. Establish a 50-foot 

setback from Indian Creek. Restore the 

riparian habitat and protect with fencing. 

Although housing remains in the 100-year 

floodplain, it is not causing adverse impacts 

to river values. However, the setback would 

enhance ORV 6.

Housekeeping Camp Lodging Remove 166 lodging units (seasonally 

inundated), 4 restrooms, and the store and 

office. River access would be directed to 

resilient sandy beaches.

These changes would reduce effects to the 

riparian area and enhance ORV 6. 

Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4

Yosemite Lodge Parking Area Redevelop area west of Yosemite Lodge to 

provide additional 150 day-use parking 

spaces.

Mitigation measures would protect the 

floodplain from erosion during construction

and run-off from the parking lot. 

Yosemite Lodge Visitor Facilities Retain all 245 lodging units. Buildings within the 100-year floodplain are 

not currently causing adverse impacts to river 

values. ORV 6 will remain protected at a 

segmentwide scale.

Yosemite Lodge Concessioner 

Employee Housing

Remove temporary housing at Highland Court 

and the historic Thousands Cabins. Construct 

two new concessioner housing areas housing 

104 employees. Construct 78 employee 

parking spaces.

The Thousands Cabins within the 100-year 

floodplain are not currently causing adverse 

impacts to river values. However, restoration 

of the floodplain in this area will enhance 

ORV 6.

Superintendent’s House 

(Residence 1)

Remove and relocate to the NPS housing 

area.

The historic Superintendent’s house, located 

within the 100-year floodplain, is not 

currently causing adverse impacts to ORV 6. 

However, restoration of the floodplain in this 

area will enhance ORV 6.

Alternative 5

Under Alternative 5 (Table 8-60), a total of 34 lodging units (17 buildings) at Housekeeping Camp would be 

removed from within the ordinary high water mark and 100-year floodplain. All bridges would remain for 

the near-term, and riparian impacts would be mitigated with strategic placement of large wood on 

riverbanks, and the addition of brush layering and constructed log jams to address scouring. Actions to 

protect meadows and riparian complexes (ORV 2) would result in additional enhancement to ORV 6. The 

Geological/Hydrological ORV 6 would remain free of adverse impacts and degradation on a segmentwide 

scale.

8-298 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Comprehensive River Value Analysis 

TABLE 8-60: SEGMENTS 2A AND 2B ACTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR GEOLOGICAL/HYDROLOGICAL ORV 6 (ALT 5)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 5 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 6 

Yosemite Village and Housekeeping Camp

Yosemite Village Day-use 

Parking Area/Village Center 

Move the Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area 

northward 150 feet away from the river to facilitate 

restoration goals. Formalize parking area with a 

total of 750 parking spaces. Build a roundabout at 

the intersection of Northside Drive and Village 

Drive to address traffic congestion at intersection. 

Additionally, re-route Northside Drive south of the 

parking area to alleviate pedestrian/vehicle 

conflicts.

These changes would reduce effects to 

riparian areas and enhance ORV 6, as use 

would be moved away from areas critical to 

hydrologic function.

Ahwahnee Row and Tecoya 

Dorms Concessioner 

Employee Housing

Retain housing and development within the 100 

year floodplain. Establish a 50-foot setback from 

Indian Creek. Restore the riparian habitat and 

protect with fencing. 

Although housing remains in the 100-year 

floodplain, it is not causing adverse impacts 

to river values. However, the setback would 

enhance ORV 6.

Housekeeping Camp 

Lodging

Remove 34 units from within the ordinary highwater mark. River access would be directed to 

resilient sandy beaches.

These changes would reduce effects to the 

riparian area and enhance ORV 6. 

Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4

Yosemite Lodge Parking 

Area

Redevelop area west of Yosemite Lodge to 

provide additional 300 day-use parking spaces.

Mitigation measures would protect the 

floodplain from erosion during construction

and run-off from the parking lot. 

Yosemite Lodge 

Concessioner Employee 

Housing

Remove temporary housing at Highland Court and 

the historic Thousands Cabins. Construct two new 

concessioner housing areas housing 104 

employees. Construct 78 employee parking 

spaces.

The Thousands Cabins (within the 100-year 

floodplain) are not currently causing adverse 

impacts to river values. However, restoration 

of the floodplain in this area will enhance 

ORV 6.

Superintendent’s House 

(Residence 1)

Remove from Yosemite Valley. The historic Superintendent’s house, located 

within the 100-year floodplain, is not 

currently causing adverse impacts to ORV 6. 

However, restoration of the floodplain in this 

area will enhance ORV 6.

Alternative 6

Under Alternative 6 (Table 8-61), a total of 34 lodging units (17 buildings) at Housekeeping Camp would be 

removed from within the ordinary high water mark and 100-year floodplain. All bridges would remain and 

riparian impacts would be mitigated with strategic placement of large wood on riverbanks, and the addition 

of brush layering and constructed log jams to address scouring. Actions to protect meadows and riparian 

complexes (ORV 2) would result in additional enhancement to ORV 6. The Geological/Hydrological ORV 6 

would remain free of adverse impacts and degradation on a segmentwide scale.

TABLE 8-61: SEGMENTS 2A AND 2B ACTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR GEOLOGICAL/HYDROLOGICAL ORV 6 (ALT 6)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 6 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 6 

Yosemite Village and Housekeeping Camp

Yosemite Village Day-use 

Parking Area/Village Center 

Parking Area

Move the Yosemite Village Day-use Parking 

Area northward 150 feet away from the river 

to facilitate restoration goals. Formalize 

parking area with a total of 850 parking 

spaces. Build two roundabouts and a 

pedestrian underpass to address traffic 

congestion at key intersections. 

These changes would reduce effects to 

riparian areas and enhance ORV 6, as use 

would be moved away from areas critical to 

hydrologic function.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-299
ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 8-61: SEGMENTS 2A AND 2B ACTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR GEOLOGICAL/HYDROLOGICAL ORV 6 (ALT 6)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 6 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 6 

Ahwahnee Row and Tecoya 

Dorms Concessioner 

Employee Housing

Retain housing and development within the 

100 year floodplain. Establish a 50-foot 

setback from Indian Creek. Restore the 

riparian habitat and protect with fencing. 

Although housing remains in the 100-year 

floodplain, it is not causing adverse impacts 

to river values. However, the setback would 

enhance ORV 6.

Housekeeping Camp 

Lodging

Remove 34 units from within the ordinary high 

water mark. River access would be directed to 

resilient sandy beaches.

These changes would reduce effects to the 

riparian area and enhance ORV 6. 

Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4

Yosemite Lodge Parking 

Area

Redevelop area west of Yosemite Lodge to 

provide additional 300 day-use parking spaces.

Mitigation measures would protect the 

floodplain from erosion during construction

and run-off from the parking lot. 

Yosemite Lodge 

Concessioner Employee 

Housing

Remove temporary housing at Highland Court 

and the Thousands Cabins. Construct two 

new concessioner housing areas housing 104 

employees. Construct 78 employee parking 

spaces.

The Thousands Cabins (within the 100-year 

floodplain) are not currently causing adverse 

impacts to river values. However, restoration 

of the floodplain in this area will enhance 

ORV 6.

Superintendent’s House 

(Residence 1)

Retain and rehabilitate in existing location to 

preserve the building’s integrity. Prepare the 

structure to withstand periodic flooding.

The historic Superintendent’s house, located 

within the 100-year floodplain, is not 

currently causing adverse impacts to ORV 6. 

ORV 7 (GEOLOGICAL/HYDROLOGICAL) – BOULDER BAR IN EL PORTAL 

As documented in Chapter 5, the boulder bar (extraordinarily large boulders) within Segment 4 of the 

Merced River is not adversely impacted or degraded. No actions are proposed in the vicinity of the boulder 

bar under any alternative. Because it is essentially impervious to human activities, the NPS has not set a 

management standard for ORV 7 and further management action is not required to protect this ORV. 

Natural processes will continue to shape this geologic feature and ORV 7 would remain protected under all 

alternatives.

ORV 8 (CULTURAL) – YOSEMITE VALLEY AMERICAN INDIAN 

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES 

This ORV includes Yosemite Valley American Indian ethnographic resources—relatively contiguous and 

interrelated places that are inextricably and traditionally linked to the history, cultural identity, beliefs, and 

behaviors of contemporary and traditionally associated American Indian tribes and groups. As documented

in Chapter 5, ethnographic resources in Yosemite Valley (Segments 2A and 2B) are not adversely impacted 

or degraded and current conditions meet or exceed the management standard. However, management 

concerns are present due to meadow fragmentation and the status of riparian habitat, both of which have 

been addressed above under ORV 2. Another management concern exists pertaining to the sapling to nonsapling ratio for California black oaks. All alternatives address this concern by introducing new seedlings 

into the affected stands and actively managing them to ensure high survival rates. 

8-300 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Comprehensive River Value Analysis 

Ethnographic resources can be affected by park operations, crowding, and visitor use. Actions included in 

the Final Merced River Plan/EIS to enhance this river value include:

• Ensure continuing coordination between traditionally associated American Indian tribes, groups, 

and traditional practitioners (through the Park American Indian Liaison) with law enforcement, 

fire management, interpretation, invasive species, ecological restoration, and facilities management 

programs. 

• Develop operational guidelines for material staging areas, parking, etc. to protect ethnographic 

resources. 

• Provide access for traditionally associated American Indians for participation in annually scheduled 

traditional cultural events. In addition, tribal access for the personal conduct of ongoing traditional 

cultural practices would be provided through the Yosemite tribal fee waiver pass program.

• Continue to document the cultural and religious significance of historic properties (i.e., sites, 

objects, structures, districts, etc.) for Yosemite Valley. 

• The ecological restoration actions associated with this planning effort, together with the invasive 

plant management program, would address impacts to some traditionally used plant populations in 

some locations.

• Restoration actions to protect riparian areas, meadows, and hydrological (ORV 2 and ORV 6) 

resources would further contribute to the protection and enhancement of the traditional-use plant 

communities included in ORV 8. 

The Final Merced River Plan/EIS proposes a variety of actions to further enhance Cultural ORV 8, including 

continued coordination among traditionally associated American Indian tribes, groups, and traditional 

practitioners and the NPS; continued access for traditionally associated American Indians for participation 

in annually scheduled traditional cultural events; and ecological restoration actions to protect and enhance 

traditionally used plant populations.

Many actions designed to improve meadow and riparian conditions and address facility-related localized 

concerns pertaining to ORV 2 respond to the same concerns for ORV 8 (see Chapter 7). Therefore, actions 

with the potential to affect meadow and riparian areas (both positively and negatively) are discussed under 

ORV 2 and not repeated here. The summary analysis provided in Table 8-62 pertains only to those actions 

and/or effects that are unique to other aspects of Cultural ORV 8. 

To prevent adverse impacts in the future, the NPS would regularly monitor the condition of Cultural ORV 8 

and take management action when specific thresholds are reached (outlined in Chapter 5). This monitoring 

program is part of all action alternatives.

Conclusion: Under all action alternatives, Cultural ORV 8 would remain free of adverse impacts and 

degradation on a segmentwide scale. All proposed new facilities would be located away from sensitive 

archeological and other traditional-use sites. Actions designed to manage visitor use would direct use away 

from sensitive cultural resources. Design details for new construction related to visitor use management 

would be developed in consultation with traditional practitioners to ensure that sensitive resources 

continue to be protected. Actions to protect and enhance floodplains, meadows, and riparian complexes in 

Segments 2A and 2B would result in additional enhancement of the traditionally used plant resources of 

Cultural ORV 8. Actions that would remove infrastructure and restore black oak woodlands would also 

enhance a critical component of ORV 8.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-301
ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 8-62: SEGMENTS 2A AND 2B ACTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CULTURAL ORV 8 (ALTERNATIVES 2-6)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ACTIONS INCLUDED IN ALL ALTERNATIVES EFFECTS ON ORV 8 

Peak Visitation Levels Peak daily visitation ranges from 13,900 to 

21,800 people, depending on the alternative.

Lower levels of visitation would provide for more 

privacy in conducting traditional cultural practices, 

thereby enhancing ORV 8. Under all alternatives, 

access would still be provided to annually

scheduled traditional cultural events and for the 

personal conduct of traditional cultural practices. 

ORV 8 would remain protected on a 

segmentwide scale.

Yosemite Village and Housekeeping Camp

Ahwahnee Tennis Courts Tennis courts are located in a sensitive 

cultural area. They are removed under all 

alternatives.

Removal of the tennis courts would allow for 

recruitment of desirable black oaks in this area, 

thereby enhancing ORV 8.

Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4

Yosemite Lodge Parking Area Re-develop area west of Yosemite Lodge 

to provide up to 300 day-use parking 

spaces, depending on the alternative.

Mitigation measures would protect vegetation 

and traditionally used plants. Increased use in 

this area would be monitored to ensure 

protection of ethnographic resources. 

Additional parking near Wahoga would 

increase access to traditional uses at this 

location. ORV 8 would remain protected at a 

segmentwide scale.

Former Bridalveil Sewer Plant The buried structure is removed under all 

alternatives.

Removal of abandoned infrastructure and revegetation with native plants will allow for 

recruitment of desirable black oaks in this area, 

thereby enhancing ORV 8.

Superintendent’s House 

(Residence 1) and Garage

Alternatives 2-5 propose to remove these 

historic structures from the river corridor. 

Alternative 6 retains the buildings in 

place and rehabilitates them.

Moving this facility outside of the river corridor 

will allow for recruitment of desirable black 

oaks in this area, thereby enhancing ORV 8.

ORV 9 (CULTURAL) – YOSEMITE VALLEY ARCHEOLOGICAL DISTRICT

This ORV includes the Yosemite Valley Archeological District—a linked landscape that contains dense 

concentrations of resources that represent thousands of years of human settlement along this segment of 

the Merced River. As documented in Chapter 5, archeological resources in Yosemite Valley (Segments 2A 

and 2B) are not adversely impacted or degraded and current conditions meet or exceed the management 

standard. No management concerns are present. 

A number of localized concerns pertain to heavily used formal and informal trails, as well as illegal 

campfires, graffiti, trampling, stock trail use, parking, and rock climbing. Further enhancement of ORV 9 

would be achieved through actions common to all alternatives, including diverting foot traffic around sites, 

removing informal trails, and formalizing river and meadow access points, using noninvasive restoration

techniques wherever possible. In addition, many of the actions related to ecological restoration in Segments 

2A and 2B, such as delineating roadside parking, would also help protect archeological resources by 

diverting foot traffic away from known sites and toward less sensitive areas. 

Site management guidelines would be developed for larger, more complex sites (such as Yosemite Village)

to avoid resource loss through administrative actions (such as development, repair, and maintenance of 

facilities and underground utilities to support visitor use). 

8-302 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Comprehensive River Value Analysis 

To prevent future adverse impacts, the NPS would regularly monitor the condition of Cultural ORV 9 and 

take management action when specific thresholds are reached (outlined in Chapter 5). This monitoring 

program is part of all action alternatives.

Conclusion: Under all action alternatives, Cultural ORV 9 would remain free of adverse impacts and 

degradation on a segmentwide scale. The Yosemite Valley Archeological District would be enhanced 

through actions to address localized concerns. As noted in Chapter 7, after addressing all localized 

concerns, the presence of all existing and proposed facilities in this river segment would have no effect on 

ORV 9. All ground disturbance associated with ecological restoration actions; removal of buildings and 

infrastructure; re-routing of roads; and parking lot, campground, and employee housing construction 

would be subject to park standard operating procedures, subject matter expert review, and monitoring (as 

needed) to ensure that archeological resources are protected. 

ORV 10 (CULTURAL) – YOSEMITE VALLEY HISTORIC RESOURCES 

This ORV includes the Yosemite Valley Historic District—a linked landscape of river-related or riverdependent, rare, unique or exemplary buildings and structures that bear witness to the historical 

significance of the river system. Also included are the National Historic Landmarks (NHLs): the Ahwahnee 

Hotel, Ranger’s Club, and LeConte Memorial Lodge. The Yosemite Valley Historic Resources ORV is a 

continually evolving natural and cultural system that has changed in response to successive American 

Indian, private, state and federal government management strategies; incremental loss of historic features; 

evolving land uses; and natural processes like floods, fires, and rock fall. 

As documented in Chapter 5, the Yosemite Valley Historic Resource ORV (Segments 2A and 2B) is not 

adversely impacted or degraded; current conditions meet or exceed the management standard. 

Management concerns are present regarding the “serious” condition of the Ahwahnee Gatehouse (a 

contributing resource to the Ahwahnee Hotel National Historic Landmark) and the percentage of historic 

assets that are in “good” or “fair” condition. Further preservation and/or rehabilitation actions will 

sufficiently eliminate the management concerns, with the contributing resources of the three NHLs being 

highest priority. 

An active program of maintenance of historic buildings and structures would continue under all 

alternatives, thereby enhancing ORV 10. The physical condition of historic buildings, structures, and sites 

would determine priorities for corrective maintenance and the schedule for routine maintenance. New 

development or re-development in Yosemite Valley would be designed to be compatible with the historic 

districts and the preservation of rustic architecture, using “A Sense of Place: Design Guidelines for Yosemite 

Valley.” Actions directed toward ecological restoration and improving natural scenery in Segments 2A and 

2B would enhance the historic setting of the properties included in ORV 10. 

Conclusion: Under all action alternatives, Cultural ORV 10 would remain free of adverse impacts and 

degradation on a segmentwide scale. Cultural ORV 10 would be enhanced by regularly updating facility 

condition assessments, developing a list of priority actions (focusing in particular on assets in “poor” or 

“serious” condition), actively maintaining historic buildings and structures, and periodically updating 

professional documentation of historic resources. As with any natural and cultural system, change is inherent 

in the Yosemite Valley landscape. Not only is change tolerated, but it is must be embraced for the system to 

remain vibrant. In keeping with this premise, all action alternatives propose the removal of some individual 

historic structures and improvements to others. Despite these changes, the significance of the Yosemite 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-303
ALTERNATIVES

Valley Historic District would remain intact because the themes of outdoor recreation, tourism, conservation, 

and the preservation of scenic places through development as public parks would still be conveyed. 

ORV 11 (CULTURAL) – THE EL PORTAL ARCHEOLOGICAL DISTRICT 

This ORV includes the El Portal Archeological District—dense concentrations of resources that represent 

thousands of years of occupation and evidence of continuous, far-reaching traffic and trade. Segment 4 

includes some of the oldest deposits in the region and the archeological remains of the Johnny Wilson 

Ranch, a regionally rare historic-era American Indian Homestead. 

As documented in Chapter 5, the Archeological District in El Portal (Segment 4) is not adversely impacted 

or degraded and current conditions meet or exceed the management standard. No management concerns 

are present. 

Localized concerns pertain to the abandoned infrastructure remaining in the vicinity of a site with

extremely sensitive cultural materials that are highly valued by traditionally associated American Indians. 

Further enhancement of ORV 11 would be achieved through the following actions that are common to all 

alternatives:

• In recognition of the high cultural significance of CA-MRP-181, this site will be protected from any 

further development. A plan of action for addressing the abandoned infrastructure on the site will 

be developed in consultation with traditionally associated American Indian tribes and groups. Any 

solution(s) developed will also include a recommended approach for deterring visitor use within 

the site. 

• Remove informal trails, non-essential roads, and abandoned infrastructure to address the 

archeological site disturbances at CA-MRP-0250/H and CA-MRP-0251/H. 

Conclusion: Under all action alternatives, Cultural ORV 11 would remain free of adverse impacts and 

degradation on a segmentwide scale. Under all alternatives, existing facilities with localized effects to 

Cultural ORV 11 (described in Chapter 7) would be modified or removed to mitigate these effects. As a 

result, the remaining facilities would have no effect on the archeological resources in Segment 4. All ground 

disturbances associated with ecological restoration actions, removal of buildings and infrastructure, and 

parking lot and employee housing construction would be subject to park standard operating procedures, 

subject matter expert review, and monitoring (as needed) to ensure that archeological resources are 

protected. Restoration actions to establish a recruitment area for valley oaks in Segment 4 would further 

protect adjacent archeological resources.

ORV 12 (CULTURAL) – REGIONALLY RARE ARCHEOLOGICAL FEATURES 

As documented in Chapter 5, this ORV, represented by the archeological sites with rock ring features in 

Segment 5, is not adversely impacted or degraded and current conditions meet or exceed the management 

standard. A management concern exists regarding human impacts to one site. All alternatives address this 

concern with additional monitoring and, potentially, area closures if the situation persists. The only other 

action proposed in Segment 5 is to allow limited private boating at a level consistent with existing wilderness 

zone capacities. Thus, the collective impact to ORV 12 from all actions proposed in the Final Merced River

Plan/EIS is positive and the ORV would be protected at a segmentwide scale under all alternatives. 

8-304 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Comprehensive River Value Analysis 

ORV 13 (CULTURAL) – WAWONA ARCHEOLOGICAL DISTRICT

This ORV includes the Wawona Archeological District—numerous clusters of resources spanning 

thousands of years of occupation, including evidence of continuous, far-reaching traffic and trade. The 

district spans Segments 5, 6, 7, and 8. Accordingly, the condition of ORV 13 is assessed at the property level, 

rather than the segmentwide scale. Segment 7 includes the remains of the U.S. Army Cavalry Camp A. E. 

Wood, documenting the unique Yosemite legacy of the African-American buffalo soldiers and the strategic 

placement of their camp near the Merced River. The Wawona Archeological District is subject to sitespecific impacts from park operations, visitor use, artifact collection, vandalism, and ecological processes. 

As documented in Chapter 5, the Wawona Archeological District is not currently adversely impacted or 

degraded. A management concern exists with regard to the number of sites with high data potential that 

have experienced serious human impacts. This concern will be addressed by increasing monitoring and 

protection of the affected sites.

The following actions would address other localized concerns and further enhance ORV 13: 

• At the district-wide level, revise the existing National Register nomination to reflect changes since 

its original writing, for example, incorporating newly discovered resources and documenting 

impacts.

• Remove seven campsites from the Wawona Campground that cause potential impacts to 

archeological site CA-MRP-168/329/H (Camp A.E. Wood). 

• Remove informal trails and fire rings adjacent to shoulder and off-road parking in proximity to site 

CA-MRP-0171/172/254/516/H to prevent continuing disturbance.

• Develop site management guidelines as needed for sites with complex uses. Remove shoulder and 

off-road parking. Limit facility and concessionaire off-road vehicle travel/parking on hotel 

grounds.

• Consider need for archeological site treatment measures to address impacts to shallow deposits of 

artifacts and features.

Finally, the NPS would locate trails, roads, and other infrastructure to avoid sensitive cultural and 

ethnographic resource areas and conduct public outreach and education to reduce disturbance to sensitive 

features. To prevent future adverse impacts, the NPS would regularly monitor the condition of Cultural 

ORV 13 and take management action when specific thresholds are reached (outlined in Chapter 5). This 

monitoring program is part of all action alternatives.

Conclusion: Under all action alternatives, Cultural ORV 13 would remain free of adverse impacts and 

degradation on a segmentwide scale. Impacts to archeological resources from visitor use would be 

addressed through the enhancement actions described above. All ground disturbance associated with 

ecological restoration actions, removal of buildings and infrastructure, re-routing of roads, and parking lot 

and campground construction would be subject to park standard operating procedures, subject matter 

expert review, and monitoring (as needed) to ensure that archeological resources are protected. After 

addressing all localized concerns, the presence of all existing and proposed facilities in this river segment 

would have no effect on ORV 13 (noted in Chapter 7). All of the actions proposed in the Final Merced River 

Plan/EIS that could affect Cultural ORV 13 are common to all alternatives and described in more detail in 

Table 8-63. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-305
ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 8-63: SEGMENT 7 ACTIONS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR CULTURAL ORV 13 (ALTERNATIVES 2-6)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES EFFECTS ON ORV 13

Wawona

Wawona Campground Septic 

System

Remove septic system, and connect to the sewer system. 

Build a lift station above the campground to connect to 

the existing water treatment plant.

Facility design, follow-on compliance, 

resource inventory, and mitigation 

measures would avoid and/or 

mitigate adverse impacts to sensitive 

archeological resources. The Wawona 

Archeological District would continue 

to be protected at a segmentwide 

scale. 

Wawona RV Dump site Move the dump site to an appropriate location away 

from the river.

Wawona Store Replace the existing public restroom facilities with larger 

restrooms to accommodate visitor use levels. Improve 

picnic area; redesign bus stop.

Wawona Swinging Bridge Provide access to Swinging Bridge from the south side 

of the river; delineate trail, restrooms, waste disposal 

and parking.

Wawona Maintenance Yard: 

Operations

Construct a building and grounds facility, a wildland fire 

facility, and a roads facility. Remove CCC-era structures 

to facilitate ecological restoration objectives. 

ORV 14 (CULTURAL) – WAWONA HISTORIC RESOURCES

The Wawona Historic Resources ORV (Segment 7) includes one of the few covered bridges in the region and 

the National Historic Landmark Wawona Hotel complex. The Wawona Hotel complex is the largest existing 

Victorian hotel complex within the boundaries of a national park and one of the few remaining in the United 

States with a high level integrity. The Wawona Covered Bridge is in good condition, and there are no current 

management concerns requiring protective actions associated with it. 

The Wawona Hotel complex continues to serve its original purpose as a guest lodging facility. The Facilities 

Management Software System (FMSS) database (used to determine thresholds for management concern, 

adverse impact, and degradation) has not been updated for these concession-managed resources. However,

recent condition assessment of the Wawona Hotel Complex, concluded that it continues to retain a high 

degree of historical integrity. Individual buildings within the complex were assessed to be in good 

condition, with minor deterioration of historic fabric. It appears that no management concern is present; 

this finding will be reviewed after FMSS is updated for ORV 14.

To prevent future adverse impacts, the NPS would regularly monitor the condition of Cultural ORV 14 and 

take management action when specific thresholds are reached (outlined in Chapter 5). This monitoring 

program is part of all action alternatives. The NPS will continue general maintenance for the Wawona Hotel 

complex involving regular and routine preservation maintenance, periodic rehabilitation, and ongoing 

operations that serve its continuing function as a historic lodging facility. 

Conclusion: Under all action alternatives, Cultural ORV 14 would remain free of adverse impacts and 

degradation on a segmentwide scale. Although Alternatives 2 and 3 propose removing the golf course, golf 

shop, and tennis court in the proximity of Wawona Hotel, these are not contributing resources to this National 

Historic Landmark. All other alternatives retain these facilities. 

8-306 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Comprehensive River Value Analysis 

ORV 15 (SCENIC) – WILDERNESS VIEWS 

As documented in Chapter 5, the scenic wilderness views in Segment 1 are not currently adversely impacted 

or degraded. A management standard has not been defined for this ORV because further development is 

strictly limited under the Wilderness Act, the associated Minimum Requirements Analysis (MRA) process, 

and restrictions on development at the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp. Therefore, management actions to 

protect this ORV are not required at this time. As discussed in Chapter 9 (Impact Topic: Scenic Resources), 

all of the action alternatives would result in local, long-term, minor (to moderate) beneficial impacts on 

scenic resources in Segment 1. Thus, the collective impact to ORV 15 from all actions proposed in the Final 

Merced River Plan/EIS is positive, and the ORV will be protected at a segmentwide scale under all 

alternatives. 

ORV 16 (SCENIC) – ICONIC VIEWS IN YOSEMITE VALLEY

This ORV includes iconic views of Half Dome, Yosemite Falls, El Capitan, Bridalveil Fall, Three Brothers, 

Cathedral Rocks and Spires, Sentinel Rock, Glacier Point, North Dome, Washington Column, and Royal 

Arches. Meandering through a sequence of compound oxbows, wetlands, and meadows, the river and its 

related features provide broadened panoramas. Scenery was a key reason for setting Yosemite Valley aside 

as a national park, and the numerous roads, buildings and other manmade features in the Valley were 

developed with scenic resources in mind. As a result, views from the river corridor, including from roadside 

locations, trails, and vista points, continue to retain high aesthetic value.

As documented in Chapter 5, iconic views in Yosemite Valley (Segments 2A and 2B) are not adversely 

impacted or degraded and current conditions meet or exceed the management standard. A management 

concern exists for Segment 2B, which has a higher average contrast rating than is desired for segments with 

a scenic classification. This is primarily due to parking lots and highway markings on the road paralleling 

the river. To address this concern, the NPS will review the contrast analysis performed for this segment and 

identify actions that would remove visual contrasts to the extent possible, while still adhering to highway 

safety requirements. 

Localized concerns include vegetation growth that has intruded on the scenic viewpoints historically 

available to park visitors, and riverbank erosion and informal trails in the foreground of other scenic views 

in the corridor. To address these concerns, the NPS will take the following actions under all alternatives:

• The NPS will adopt the maintenance program for the scenic vista points outlined in Appendix H. 

Because vegetation growth can obscure these iconic views, the NPS will regularly (every five years) 

clear vegetation that is crowding or obscuring the scenic vistas. Appendix H provides specifics on 

how the vegetation is to be cleared at each of the 46 viewpoints. 

• Upon full analysis of the 2013 inventory and contrast analysis of existing structures, the NPS will 

mitigate, to the extent feasible, high contrasts found at existing sites in the recreational segment and 

both moderate and high contrasts found at existing sites in the scenic segment. 

• All alternatives propose a 150-foot riparian buffer, which would generally insulate the river from 

development and protect views from its bed and banks. Restoration efforts common to 

Alternatives 2-6 and the riparian buffer would provide for the protection and enhancement of 

scenic quality in the immediate foreground.

To prevent future adverse impacts, the NPS would perform a contrast analysis when new structures are 

planned for construction or exterior modifications are proposed for existing structures (outlined in Chapter 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-307
ALTERNATIVES

8-308 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 

5). Work of this nature will then be designed to preserve or improve existing segmentwide contrast ratings. 

Additionally, new development or re-development in Yosemite Valley would be designed using A Sense of 

Place: Design Guidelines for Yosemite Valley. These guidelines are intended to promote harmony between the 

built and natural environments. 

Conclusion: All alternatives would enhance scenic quality with site-specific restoration actions and would 

proactively address the visual impact of future development. As a result, Scenic ORV 16 would remain free 

of adverse impacts and degradation at a segmentwide scale under all action alternatives. 

ORV 17 (SCENIC) – VIEWS ALONG THE MERCED RIVER GORGE 

As described in Chapter 5, the scenic views along the Merced River Gorge (Segment 3) are not currently 

adversely impacted or degraded. A management concern exists regarding the visual contrast created by the 

linear road feature and pavement markings. To address this concern, the NPS will review the contrast 

analysis performed for this segment and identify actions that would remove visual contrasts to the extent 

possible, while still adhering to highway safety requirements. No new development or landscape changes 

are proposed for this segment under any alternative, aside from minor improvements to existing roadside 

pullouts. Moreover, all alternatives propose to enhance ORV 17 by selectively thinning conifers to enhance 

views of Cascade Falls. As discussed in Chapter 9 (Impact Topic: Scenic Resources), no impacts to the 

scenic resource in Segment 3 have been identified from the actions proposed in any alternative. Thus, 

collectively, the actions proposed in the Final Merced River Plan/EIS will have a slight positive effect on 

ORV 17 (from vegetation clearing at the scenic viewpoint), and the ORV will be protected at a segmentwide 

scale under all alternatives. 

ORV 18 (SCENIC) – WILDERNESS VIEWS ALONG THE SOUTH FORK 

MERCED RIVER 

As documented in Chapter 5, the scenic wilderness views in Segment 5 are not currently adversely impacted 

or degraded. A management standard has not been defined for this ORV because further development is 

strictly limited under the Wilderness Act and the associated Minimum Requirements Analysis (MRA) 

process. Therefore, management actions to protect this ORV are not required at this time. Additionally, the 

only actions proposed under any alternative for this segment pertain to allowing limited private boating and 

monitoring impacts to archeological sites; neither of which will impact scenic views. Thus, collectively, the 

actions proposed in the Final Merced River Plan/EIS will have no effect on ORV 18, and the ORV will be 

protected on a segmentwide scale under all alternatives. 

ORV 19 (RECREATIONAL) – WILDERNESS RECREATION ABOVE NEVADA 

FALL 

As documented in Chapter 5, wilderness recreation above Nevada Fall (Segment 1) is not adversely 

impacted or degraded, and current conditions meet or exceed the management standard. A management 

concern exists for the trail section from Echo Valley to Lewis Creek where the trail section standard for 

encounter rates has been exceeded. Therefore, the NPS will conduct direct observations on this trail 

segment to collect additional data to verify the accuracy of indirect counts from 2012 and 2013. The 
Comprehensive River Value Analysis 

following sections provide more detail on the alternatives and the collective effect of all proposed actions on 

Recreational ORV 19.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 (Table 8-64) would remove the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp and remove permanent 

infrastructure, converting the area to designated Wilderness. The capacity of the Little Yosemite Valley 

Wilderness Zone would be reduced to 25 people and the footprint of the camping area would be reduced 

accordingly. Designated camping areas at Moraine Dome and the Merced Lake Backpackers Camping Area 

would be converted to dispersed camping. This would give backpackers an opportunity to camp outside of 

the sound and sight of others. Actions in Alternative 2 would apply additional seasonal and weekend 

restrictions for commercial groups in the Mount Lyell, Merced Lake, and Little Yosemite Valley wilderness 

zones. These changes would reduce use levels and increase opportunities for solitude in this wild segment. 

Facilities that would remain in this segment of the river include the Merced Lake Ranger Station and the 

Little Yosemite Valley trail crew and ranger camp. As documented in Chapters 5 and 7, no adverse impacts 

to ORV 19 are being caused by the existence of this infrastructure. 

The NPS would monitor visitor encounter rates to ensure that they are not exceeding the management 

standard. Should specific thresholds be reached, management action would be taken to reduce encounter 

rates on the affected trail segments to an acceptable level. These thresholds were selected to inform 

managers of the need for action well in advance of adverse impact or degradation to ORV 19.

Conclusion: Under Alternative 2, Recreational ORV 19 would remain free of adverse impacts and 

degradation on a segmentwide scale. Some actions would reduce the opportunity for visitors to stay 

overnight in lodging in a wilderness setting. However, conversion of backpacking camping areas to 

dispersed camping, reductions in the wilderness zone capacity for Little Yosemite Valley, and removal of 

the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp would enhance this river value by increasing opportunities for solitude. 

TABLE 8-64: SEGMENT 1 ACTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR RECREATIONAL ORV 19 (ALTERNATIVE 2)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 2 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 19

Merced Lake High Sierra Camp Remove the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp; 

remove permanent infrastructure; convert the 

area to designated Wilderness.

The undeveloped and primitive elements 

of wilderness character would be 

enhanced in the immediate vicinity of 

the camp.

Little Yosemite Valley, Moraine 

Dome, and Merced Lake 

Backpackers Camping Areas

Convert designated camping areas to 

dispersed camping.

The solitude and primitive elements of 

wilderness character would be 

enhanced due to the opportunity to 

camp out of sight and sound of others.

Segmentwide River Access Swimming and water play allowed (except in 

places closed to swimming as per the 

superintendent’s compendium). No permits 

required for private boating. No commercial 

boating.

Permitted use and commercial limits 

would not substantively change current 

recreational use or recreational values in 

the segment. Recreational ORV 19 would 

remain protected on a segmentwide 

scale.

Visitor Use Management Action

Private boating Boating would consist of short floats using 

pack raft or other craft that can easily be 

carried. Private use would be subject to 

wilderness permit regulations. 

Permitted use would not substantively 

change current recreational use or 

recreational values in the segment. 

Recreational ORV 19 would remain

protected on a segmentwide scale.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-309
ALTERNATIVES

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 2 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 19

Wilderness zone capacity Zone capacities for Merced Lake, Washburn 

Lake, Mount Lyell, and Clark Range 

wilderness zones would remain the same 

across all the alternatives. Little Yosemite 

Valley (LYV) zone capacity would be reduced 

to 25 people.

Wilderness zone capacities are designed 

to protect recreational setting attributes

and recreational experience quality.

Reduced capacity in LYV would enhance 

the solitude and primitive elements of 

wilderness character within the zone.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 (Table 8-65) would convert the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp to a temporary pack camp 

with a maximum of 15 people per night and remove permanent infrastructure, converting the area to 

designated Wilderness. The capacity of the Little Yosemite Valley Wilderness Zone would be reduced to 75

people and the footprint of the camping area would be reduced accordingly. Designated camping areas at

Moraine Dome and the Merced Lake Backpackers Camping Area would be converted to dispersed

camping. This would give backpackers an opportunity to camp away from the sight and sound of others at 

this location. Actions in Alternative 3 would apply additional seasonal and weekend restrictions for 

commercial groups in the Mount Lyell, Merced Lake, and Little Yosemite Valley wilderness zones. These 

changes would reduce use levels, and increase opportunities for solitude in this wild segment. 

Facilities that would remain in this segment of the river include the Merced Lake Ranger Station and the 

Little Yosemite Valley trail crew and ranger camp. As documented in Chapters 5 and 7, no adverse impacts 

to ORV 19 are being caused by the existence of this infrastructure. 

The NPS would monitor visitor encounter rates to ensure that they are not exceeding the management 

standard. Should specific thresholds be reached, management action would be taken to reduce encounter 

rates to an acceptable level on the affected trail sections. These thresholds were selected to inform managers

of the need for action well in advance of adverse impact or degradation to ORV 19. 

Conclusion: Under Alternative 3, Recreational ORV 19 would remain free of adverse impacts and 

degradation on a segmentwide scale. Some actions would reduce the opportunity for visitors to stay 

overnight in lodging in a wilderness setting. However, conversion of backpackers camping areas to 

dispersed camping, reductions in the wilderness zone capacity for Little Yosemite Valley, and conversion of 

the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp to a smaller, temporary pack camp would enhance this river value by 

increasing opportunities for solitude. 

TABLE 8-65: SEGMENT 1 ACTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR RECREATIONAL ORV 19 (ALTERNATIVE 3)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 3 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 19

Merced Lake High Sierra Camp Convert to temporary pack camp, maximum of 15 

people per night. Remove permanent infrastructure, 

converting the area to designated Wilderness.

The undeveloped and primitive elements 

of wilderness character would be

enhanced by camp reduction.

Little Yosemite Valley, Moraine 

Dome, and Merced Lake 

Backpackers Camping Areas

Convert designated camping areas to dispersed 

camping.

The solitude and primitive elements of 

wilderness character would be enhanced 

due to the opportunity to camp out of 

sight and sound of other campers.

Segmentwide River Access Swimming and water play allowed (except in 

places closed to swimming as per the 

superintendent’s compendium). No permits 

required for private boating. No commercial 

boating. 

Permitted use and commercial limits 

would not substantively change current 

recreational use or recreational values in 

the segment. Recreational ORV 19 would 

remain protected on a segmentwide scale.

8-310 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Comprehensive River Value Analysis 

TABLE 8-65: SEGMENT 1 ACTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR RECREATIONAL ORV 19 (ALTERNATIVE 3)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 3 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 19

Visitor Use Management Action

Private boating 

Boating would consist of short floats using craft 

that can easily be carried. All boaters would be 

subject to wilderness permit regulations. 

Permitted use would not substantively 

change current recreational use or 

recreational values in the segment. 

Recreational ORV 19 would remain

protected on a segmentwide scale.

Wilderness zone capacity Zone capacities for Merced Lake, Washburn Lake, 

Mount Lyell, and Clark Range zones would remain 

the same across all the alternatives. Manage to a 

reduced capacity of 75 people in the Little 

Yosemite Valley (LYV) Wilderness Zone. 

Wilderness zone capacities are designed 

to protect recreational setting attributes

and recreational experience quality.

Reduced capacity in LYV would enhance 

the solitude and primitive elements of 

wilderness character within the zone.

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 (Table 8-66) would remove all facilities at the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp and ecologically 

restore the area. The capacity of the Little Yosemite Valley Wilderness Zone would be reduced to 100 

people, and the footprint of the camping area would be reduced accordingly. Actions in Alternative 4 would 

apply additional seasonal and weekend restrictions for commercial groups in the Mount Lyell, Merced 

Lake, and Little Yosemite Valley zones. These changes would reduce use levels and increase opportunities 

for solitude in this wild segment. 

Facilities that would remain in this segment of the river include the Merced Lake Ranger Station and the 

Little Yosemite Valley trail crew and ranger camp. As documented in Chapters 5 and 7, no adverse impacts 

to ORV 19 are caused by the existence of this infrastructure. 

The NPS would monitor visitor encounter rates to ensure that they are not exceeding the management 

standard. Should specific thresholds be reached, management action would be taken to reduce encounter 

rates to an acceptable level on the affected trail sections. These thresholds were selected to inform managers

of the need for action well in advance of adverse impact or degradation to ORV 19. 

Conclusion: Under Alternative 4, Recreational ORV 19 would remain free of adverse impacts and 

degradation on a segmentwide scale. Some actions would reduce the opportunity for visitors to stay 

overnight in lodging in a wilderness setting. However, conversion of backpacking camping areas to 

dispersed camping, reductions in the wilderness zone capacity for Little Yosemite Valley, and removal of 

the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp would enhance this river value by increasing opportunities for solitude. 

TABLE 8-66: SEGMENT 1 ACTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR RECREATIONAL ORV 19 (ALTERNATIVE 4)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 4 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 19

Merced Lake High Sierra 

Camp

Remove all facilities at the High Sierra Camp 

and ecologically restore the area.

The undeveloped and primitive elements of 

wilderness character would be enhanced in 

immediate vicinity of the camp.

Segmentwide River Access Swimming and water play allowed (except in 

places closed to swimming as per the 

superintendent’s compendium). Permits 

required for private boating. 

Permitted use and commercial limits would 

not substantively change current 

recreational use or recreational values in the 

segment. Recreational ORV 19 would 

remain protected on a segmentwide scale.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-311
ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 8-66: SEGMENT 1 ACTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR RECREATIONAL ORV 19 (ALTERNATIVE 4)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 4 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 19

Visitor Use Management Action

Private boating Boating would consist of short floats using craft 

that can easily be carried. Put-ins and take-outs 

would be undesignated and dispersed. Private 

use limited to 10 boats per day with 

backcountry permit on Segment 1. Permit 

would be required.

Permitted use would not substantively 

change current recreational use or 

recreational values in the segment. 

Recreational ORV 19 would remain protected 

on a segmentwide scale.

Wilderness zone capacity Zone capacities for Merced Lake, Washburn 

Lake, Mount Lyell, and Clark Range zones 

would remain the same across all the 

alternatives. Manage to a reduced capacity of 

100 people in the Little Yosemite Valley (LYV) 

Wilderness Zone.

Zone capacities are designed to protect 

recreational setting attributes and 

recreational experience quality. Reduced 

capacity in LYV would enhance the solitude 

and primitive elements of wilderness 

character within the zone. 

Alternative 5

Alternative 5 (Table 8-67) would reduce the size of the High Sierra Camp by 18 beds and apply additional 

seasonal and weekend restrictions for commercial groups in the Mount Lyell, Merced Lake, and Little 

Yosemite Valley zones. At the High Sierra Camp, a limit of 7.5 packstock strings per week would be imposed 

for camp operations (for an average of 30 strings per month). These changes would reduce encounter rates 

near the High Sierra Camp and increase opportunities for solitude in this wild segment, thereby enhancing 

Recreational ORV 19. The capacity of the Little Yosemite Valley Wilderness Zone would remain at 150 

people. 

Facilities that would remain in this segment of the river include the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp;

designated camping areas in Little Yosemite Valley, Moraine Dome, and Merced Lake; the Merced Lake 

Ranger Station; and the Little Yosemite Valley trail crew and ranger camp. As documented in Chapters 5 

and 7, no adverse impacts to ORV 19 are caused by the existence of this infrastructure.

The NPS would monitor visitor encounter rates to ensure that they are not exceeding the management 

standard. Should specific thresholds be reached, management action would be taken to reduce encounter 

rates to an acceptable level on the affected trail sections. These thresholds were selected to inform managers

of the need for action well in advance of adverse impact or degradation to ORV 19. 

Conclusion: Under Alternative 5, Recreational ORV 19 would remain free of adverse impacts and 

degradation on a segmentwide scale. The proposed actions would not substantively change existing 

wilderness character or wilderness experience in this segment. 

TABLE 8-67: SEGMENT 1 ACTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR RECREATIONAL ORV 19 (ALTERNATIVE 5)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 5 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 19

Merced Lake High Sierra Camp Reduce capacity of Merced Lake High 

Sierra Camp to 11 units (42 beds). Replace 

the flush toilets with composting toilet.

Establish a limit of 7.5 packstock stringsper-week (for an average of 30 strings-permonth) for resupply each season.

The actions would not substantively change 

wilderness character or wilderness 

experience in this segment. Recreational 

ORV 19 would remain protected on a 

segmentwide scale. 

8-312 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Comprehensive River Value Analysis 

TABLE 8-67: SEGMENT 1 ACTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR RECREATIONAL ORV 19 (ALTERNATIVE 5)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 5 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 19

Private boating Swimming and water play allowed (except 

in places closed to swimming as per the 

superintendent’s compendium). Boating 

would consist of short floats using craft 

that can easily be carried. Put-ins and takeouts would be dispersed. Permits required 

for private boating. No commercial 

boating. Private use limited to 20 people

per day with backcountry permit on 

Segment 1. 

Permitted use would not substantively 

change wilderness character or wilderness 

experience in this segment. Recreational 

ORV 19 would remain protected on a 

segmentwide scale.

Wilderness zone capacity All zone capacities within Segment 1

remain the same as current conditions. 

The actions would not substantively change 

wilderness character or wilderness 

experience in this segment. Recreational

ORV 19 would remain protected on a 

segmentwide scale. 

Alternative 6

Alternative 6 (Table 8-68) would retain the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp at current levels. The capacity of 

the Little Yosemite Valley Wilderness Zone would remain at 150 people. Additional seasonal and weekend 

restrictions for commercial groups in the Mount Lyell, Merced Lake, and Little Yosemite Valley wilderness 

zones would be applied. These changes would not have a substantial impact on current use levels in 

Segment 1. 

Facilities that would remain in this segment of the river include the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp;

designated camping areas in Little Yosemite Valley, Moraine Dome, and Merced Lake; the Merced Lake 

Ranger Station; and the Little Yosemite Valley trail crew and ranger camp. As documented in Chapters 5 

and 7, no adverse impacts to ORV 19 are caused by the existence of this infrastructure. 

The NPS would monitor visitor encounter rates to ensure that they are not exceeding the management 

standard. Should specific thresholds be reached, management action would be taken to reduce encounter 

rates to an acceptable level on the affected trail sections. These thresholds were selected to inform managers

of the need for action well in advance of adverse impact or degradation to ORV 19. 

Conclusion: Under Alternative 6, the Recreational ORV in Segment 1 of the Merced River corridor would

remain free of adverse impacts and degradation on a segmentwide scale. The actions proposed would not 

substantively change existing wilderness character or wilderness experience in Segment 1.

TABLE 8-68: SEGMENT 1 ACTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR RECREATIONAL ORV 19 (ALTERNATIVE 6)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 6 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 19

Location

Merced Lake High Sierra 

Camp

Replace the flush toilets with composting toilet. The actions would not substantively change 

wilderness character or wilderness experience in this 

segment. Recreational ORV 19 would remain

protected on a segmentwide scale. 

Segmentwide River 

Access

Swimming and water play allowed (except in 

places closed to swimming as per the 

superintendent’s compendium). Permits 

required for private boating. No commercial 

boating. 

Permitted use would not substantively change 

wilderness character or wilderness experience in this 

segment. Recreational ORV 19 would remain

protected on a segmentwide scale. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-313
ALTERNATIVES

Visitor Use Management Action

Private boating Boating would consist of short floats using craft 

that can easily be carried. Put-ins and take-outs 

would be dispersed. Private use limited to 10 

boats per day with backcountry permit on 

Segment 1. Permit would be required.

Permitted use would not substantively change 

wilderness character or wilderness experience in this 

segment. Recreational ORV 19 would remain

protected on a segmentwide scale. 

Wilderness zone capacity All zone capacities within Segment 1 remain the 

same as current conditions. 

The actions would not substantively change 

wilderness character or wilderness experience in this 

segment. Recreational ORV 19 would remain

protected on a segmentwide scale. 

ORV 20 (RECREATIONAL) – RIVER-RELATED RECREATION IN YOSEMITE 

VALLEY

This ORV includes a wide variety of river-related recreational activities in the Valley’s extraordinary setting 

along the Merced River. As the river meanders through Yosemite Valley, visitors are able to immerse 

themselves in their surroundings, taking in the sights, sounds, and feel of the water’s flow and its dramatic 

backdrop. These experiences, in turn, relieve stress and promote connection to the natural world. 

As documented in Chapter 5, river-related recreation in Yosemite Valley (Segments 2A and 2B) is not 

adversely impacted or degraded and current conditions meet or exceed the management standard. A 

management concern exists for the Bridalveil Fall viewing platform, as the number of people on the platform 

exceeds the displacement level for this site during peak periods of use. In response, the Final Merced River

Plan/EIS includes a commitment to redesign access and parking at this location in order to better disperse 

visitor use and provide less crowded conditions. This work will be completed with additional project-level 

design and compliance. 

To prevent future adverse impacts to Recreational ORV 20, the NPS would regularly monitor visitor 

densities at a variety of recreation sites and take management action when specific thresholds are reached

(outlined in Chapter 5). This monitoring program is part of all action alternatives. The following sections 

provide more detail on the alternatives and the collective effect of all proposed actions on Recreational 

ORV 20.

Alternative 2

Under Alternative 2 (Table 8-69), the level of peak visitation accommodated in Yosemite Valley would be 

reduced significantly. A large reduction in lodging is also proposed and, as a result, camping would 

represent 45% of the total overnight accommodations within the Valley. Visitors receiving a day-use permit 

to access the Valley would see fewer roads, trails, buildings, and bridges and a change in the physical 

appearance of Yosemite Valley— a result of actions to restore these areas to a more natural appearance. The 

visitor experience would be shaped to feature self-reliance and a focus on nature-based activities, such as 

hiking, wildlife viewing, private boating, and swimming at designated beaches. Commercial and retail 

services would be oriented toward serving basic needs, with the assumption that most clothing, gifts, and 

outdoor equipment would be purchased outside of the park. 

8-314 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Comprehensive River Value Analysis 

TABLE 8-69: SEGMENTS 2A AND 2B ACTIONS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR RECREATIONAL ORV 20 (ALTERNATIVE 2)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 2 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 20

Peak Visitation Levels 13,900 visitors per day Lower levels of visitation would reduce 

crowding and congestion for individuals gaining 

access to Yosemite Valley, thereby enhancing 

Recreational ORV 20. 

User Capacity 12,570 people at one time Significantly lower capacity would reduce 

crowding and congestion, thereby enhancing 

Recreational ORV 20.

Curry Village and Campgrounds

Concessioner Stables Remove the Concessioner Stables; 

eliminate commercial day rides.

Changes would reduce opportunities for one 

type of recreational activity, but would not 

substantially alter essential components of 

river-related recreation. 

North, Lower and Upper Pines 

Campgrounds and 

Backpackers Campground

Remove all campsites within the 100-year 

floodplain; establish designated raft putins. Add campsites west of Backpacker’s 

to partially offset removals.

Changes would be offset by new campsites in 

vicinity of Yosemite Lodge. Recreational ORV

20 would remain protected on a segmentwide 

scale. 

Curry Village Lodging Lodging would include 433 units 

(143 hard-sided units and 290 tents).

Changes to lodging would slightly increase

supply of overnight accommodations at Curry 

Village. Although Curry Village itself is not part 

of the Recreational ORV, lodging does facilitate 

access to all river values for certain visitors. 

Recreational ORV 20 would remain protected 

on a segmentwide scale. 

Lower Rivers Nature Walk Create an interpretive (nature) walk 

through Lower Rivers that emphasizes 

river-related natural processes, the park’s 

ecological restoration work and what 

visitors can do to protect the river.

Change would improve interpretation of the 

river and its values, and would enhance 

Recreational ORV 20.

Yosemite Village and Housekeeping Camp

The Ahwahnee Pool and 

Tennis Courts

Remove the pool and tennis courts. Removal of facilities would reduce 

opportunities for these types of recreational

activities, but would not substantially alter 

essential components of river-related 

recreation. 

River Access No commercial boating. Limit private use 

to 25 trips per day in Segment 2 between 

the Pines Campgrounds and Sentinel 

Beach. 

Private rafting would continue on a slightly 

longer reach of the Merced River. The lack of 

commercial rentals would require visitors to

rely on their own equipment for this activity. 

Reducing the number of boats allowed on the 

river would disperse use and enhance 

Recreational ORV 20. 

Housekeeping Camp Lodging Remove all 266 lodging units. Convert 

Housekeeping Camp to a day use area 

with river access and picnicking. 

Changes to lodging would decrease the supply 

of overnight accommodations. Although 

Housekeeping Camp itself is not part of the 

Recreational ORV, lodging does facilitate access 

to all river values for certain visitors. Recreational 

ORV 20 would remain protected on a 

segmentwide scale. 

Bridalveil Fall Trail Redesign parking, trails, boardwalks, and 

viewing at the base of the falls to improve 

wayfinding and pedestrian circulation. 

Restore informal trails. Improve ADA 

compliance of pedestrian walkways and 

restrooms. 

Change would improve circulation and 

wayfinding, thereby enhancing Recreational 

ORV 20. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-315
ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 8-69: SEGMENTS 2A AND 2B ACTIONS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR RECREATIONAL ORV 20 (ALTERNATIVE 2)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 2 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 20

Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4

Yosemite Lodge Visitor 

Facilities

Remove all of the lodging units (245 units). 

Repurpose the area outside the 100-year 

floodplain for Day Lodge and Parking. 

Restore the 100-year floodplain.

Changes to lodging would reduce the supply of 

overnight accommodations. Although Yosemite 

Lodge itself is not part of the Recreational ORV, 

lodging does facilitate access to all river values 

for certain visitors. Recreational ORV 20 would 

remain protected on a segmentwide scale. 

Yellow Pine, Camp 4, 

Yosemite Lodge, and West 

Valley Campgrounds

Remove camping at Yellow Pine and 

restore area to natural conditions. Expand 

Camp 4 eastward to provide 35 additional 

walk-in sites. Restore Yellow Pines site and 

restore group administrative use sites to 

natural conditions.

Changes would largely offset loss of campsites 

in other campgrounds. Recreational ORV 20

would remain protected on a segmentwide 

scale. 

Recreational Experience 

Quality

Reduce amount of day-use parking, and 

implement an East Yosemite Valley Dayuse Parking Permit system. 

Parking for personal vehicles would remain

provided and these changes would not 

substantially alter essential components of 

river-related recreation. Managing to the 

available parking supply would reduce traffic 

congestion, thereby enhancing Recreational 

ORV 20. 

Conclusion: Under Alternative 2, Recreational ORV 20 would remain free of adverse impacts and 

degradation on a segmentwide scale. Fewer visitors during the peak summer season would reduce crowding 

and enhance Recreational ORV 20 for those individuals who are able to gain access to Yosemite Valley. A 

comprehensive set of restoration actions would enhance opportunities for people to connect with the river 

and its values. Some reduction in commercial services, such as rafting and bicycle rentals, would require 

more visitors to use personal equipment. However, lack of these facilities would not affect Recreational 

ORV 20 on a segmentwide scale.

Alternative 3

Under Alternative 3 (Table 8-70), the level of peak visitation accommodated in Yosemite Valley would be 

reduced significantly. A large reduction in lodging is also proposed and, as a result, camping would 

represent 45% of the total number of overnight accommodations in the Valley. Visitors receiving a day-use 

permit to access the Valley would see fewer roads, trails, buildings and bridges and a change in the physical 

appearance of Yosemite Valley— a result of actions to restore these areas to a more natural appearance. The 

visitor experience would be shaped to feature self-reliance and a focus on nature-based activities, such as 

hiking, wildlife viewing, private boating, and swimming at designated beaches. Commercial and retail 

services would be oriented toward primarily serving basic needs, with the assumption that most clothing, 

gifts, and outdoor equipment would be purchased outside of the park. 

TABLE 8-70: SEGMENTS 2A AND 2B ACTIONS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR RECREATIONAL ORV 20 (ALTERNATIVE 3)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 3 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 20

Peak Visitation Levels 13,200 visitors per day Lower levels of visitation would reduce 

crowding and congestion for individuals 

gaining access to Yosemite Valley, thereby 

enhancing Recreational ORV 20. 

User Capacity 12,800 people at one time Lower capacity would reduce crowding 

and congestion thereby enhancing 

Recreational ORV 20.

8-316 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Comprehensive River Value Analysis 

TABLE 8-70: SEGMENTS 2A AND 2B ACTIONS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR RECREATIONAL ORV 20 (ALTERNATIVE 3)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 3 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 20

Curry Village and Campgrounds

Concessioner Stables Reduce the Concessioner Stables; eliminate 

commercial day rides.

Changes would reduce opportunities for 

one type of recreational activity, but 

would not substantially alter components 

of river-related recreation. 

North, Lower, and Upper 

Pines Campgrounds and 

Backpackers Campground

Remove all campsites within 150 feet of the 

river; establish designated raft put-ins. Add 

campsites west of Backpacker’s to partially offset 

removals.

Changes would be offset by new 

campsites at Camp 4 and Upper Pines. 

Recreational ORV 20 would remain

protected on a segmentwide scale. 

Curry Village Lodging Lodging would include 355 units 

(65 hard-sided units and 290 tents).

Changes to lodging would reduce access 

to overnight accommodations at Curry 

Village. Curry Village itself is not part of 

this ORV but does facilitate access to all 

river values for certain visitors. Recreational 

ORV 20 would remain protected on a 

segmentwide scale. 

Lower Rivers Nature Walk Create an interpretive (nature) walk through 

Lower Rivers that emphasizes river-related natural 

processes, the park’s ecological restoration work 

and what visitors can do to protect the river.

Change would improve interpretation of 

the river and its values, and would 

enhance Recreational ORV 20.

Yosemite Village and Housekeeping Camp

The Ahwahnee Pool and 

Tennis Courts

Remove the pool and tennis courts. Removal of facilities would reduce 

opportunities for these types of 

recreational activities, but would not 

substantially alter essential components 

of river-related recreation. 

River Access No commercial boating allowed. Private use 

limited to 50 trips per day in Segment 2 between 

Housekeeping Camp and Cathedral Beach.

Private rafting would continue on a 

slightly longer reach of the Merced River. 

The lack of commercial rentals would 

require visitors to rely on their own 

equipment for this activity. Reducing the 

number of boats allowed on the river 

would disperse use and enhance 

Recreational ORV 20.

Housekeeping Camp Lodging Remove all 266 lodging units. Convert 

Housekeeping Camp to a day use river access 

point and picnic area.

Changes to lodging would decrease the 

supply of overnight accommodations. 

Although Housekeeping Camp itself is not 

part of the Recreational ORV, lodging does 

facilitate access to all river values for 

certain visitors. Recreational ORV 20 would 

remain protected on a segmentwide scale. 

Bridalveil Fall Trail Redesign trails, boardwalks, and viewing at the 

base of the falls to improve wayfinding and 

pedestrian circulation. Restore informal trails. 

Improve ADA compliance of pedestrian walkways 

and restrooms. 

Change would improve circulation and 

wayfinding, thereby enhancing

Recreational ORV 20. 

Yosemite Lodge And Camp 4

Yosemite Lodge Visitor 

Facilities

Remove 102 lodging units (143 units remain). 

Repurpose the area outside the 100-year 

floodplain for Day Lodge and Parking. Restore 

the 100-year floodplain.

Changes to lodging would reduce the

supply of overnight accommodations. 

Although Yosemite Lodge itself is not part 

of the Recreational ORV, lodging does 

facilitate access to all river values for 

certain visitors. Recreational ORV 20 would 

remain protected on a segmentwide scale. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-317
ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 8-70: SEGMENTS 2A AND 2B ACTIONS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR RECREATIONAL ORV 20 (ALTERNATIVE 3)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 3 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 20

Yellow Pine, Camp 4, 

Yosemite Lodge, and West 

Valley Campgrounds

Retain Yellowpine Campground. Expand Camp 4 

eastward to provide 35 additional walk-in sites. 

Changes would largely offset loss of 

campsites in other campgrounds. 

Recreational ORV 20 would remain

protected on a segmentwide scale. 

Recreational Experience 

Quality

Reduce available day-use parking, and implement 

an East Yosemite Valley Day-use Parking Permit 

system. 

Parking for personal vehicles would 

remain provided and these changes 

would not substantially alter essential

components of river-related recreation. 

Managing to the available parking supply 

would reduce traffic congestion, thereby 

enhancing Recreational ORV 20.

Conclusion: Under Alternative 3, Recreational ORV 20 would remain free of adverse impacts and 

degradation on a segmentwide scale. Fewer visitors during the peak summer season would reduce crowding 

and enhance Recreational ORV 20 for those individuals who are able to gain access to Yosemite Valley. A 

comprehensive set of restoration actions would enhance opportunities for people to connect with the river 

and its values. Some reduction in commercial services, such as rafting and bicycle rentals, would require 

more visitors to use personal equipment. However, lack of these facilities would not affect Recreational 

ORV 20 on a segmentwide scale.

Alternative 4

Under Alternative 4 (Table 8-71), the level of peak visitation accommodated in Yosemite Valley would be 

reduced. Lodging would also be reduced by removing more than half of Housekeeping Camp and replacing 

all lodging at Boys Town with a new campground. The Concessioner Stables would be replaced by a new 

campground and additional campsites would be added at a number of locations in Yosemite Valley. As a 

result of the significant increase in campsite inventory, camping would represent 46% of the total number of 

overnight accommodations in the Valley. Visitors receiving a day-use permit to access the Valley would see 

fewer roads, trails, buildings and bridges and a change in the physical appearance of Yosemite Valley— a 

result of extensive restoration of these areas to a natural appearance. The visitor experience would be 

shaped to feature nature-based activities, such as hiking, wildlife viewing, private boating, and swimming at 

designated beaches. 

TABLE 8-71: SEGMENTS 2A AND 2B ACTIONS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR RECREATIONAL ORV 20 (ALTERNATIVE 4)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 4 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 20

Peak Visitation Levels 17,000 visitors per day Lower levels of visitation would reduce 

crowding and congestion for individuals 

gaining access to Yosemite Valley, thereby 

enhancing Recreational ORV 20. 

User Capacity 16,200 people at one time Lower capacity would reduce crowding 

and congestion thereby enhancing 

Recreational ORV 20.

Curry Village and Campgrounds

Concessioner Stables Redevelop as a campground with 41 sites.

Eliminate commercial day rides. 

Changes would reduce opportunities for 

one type of recreational activity, but would 

not substantially alter essential 

components of river-related recreation.

8-318 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Comprehensive River Value Analysis 

TABLE 8-71: SEGMENTS 2A AND 2B ACTIONS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR RECREATIONAL ORV 20 (ALTERNATIVE 4)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 4 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 20

North, Lower, and Upper 

Pines Campgrounds and 

Backpackers Campground

Remove all campsites within 150 feet of the 

river; establish designated raft put-ins. Add 

campsites west of Backpackers to partially 

offset removals.

Changes would be offset by new campsites 

at Camp 4 and Upper Pines. Recreational 

ORV 20 would remain protected on a 

segmentwide scale. 

Curry Village Lodging Lodging would include 355 units (65 hard-sided 

units and 290 tents).

Changes to lodging would reduce access to

overnight accommodations at Curry Village. 

Although Curry Village itself is not part of 

the Recreational ORV, lodging does 

facilitate access to all river values for certain 

visitors. Recreational ORV 20 would remain

protected on a segmentwide scale. 

Lower Rivers Nature Walk Create an interpretive (nature) walk through 

Lower Rivers that emphasizes river-related 

natural processes, the park’s ecological 

restoration work and what visitors can do to 

protect the river.

Change would improve interpretation of 

the river and its values, and would 

enhance Recreational ORV 20.

Yosemite Village and Housekeeping Camp

The Ahwahnee Pool and 

Tennis Courts

Remove the pool and tennis courts. Removal of facilities would reduce 

opportunities for these types of 

recreational activities, but would not 

substantially alter essential components of 

river-related recreation. 

River Access Boating allowed. Private use limited to 100 trips 

per day between Clark’s Bridge and Cathedral 

Beach. Commercial rafting limited to 75 boats at 

one time between Housekeeping Camp and 

Sentinel Beach. 

Change would limit the number of 

commercial boats at one time on the river. 

Private rafting would continue on a slightly 

longer reach of the Merced River.

Reducing the number of boats allowed on 

the river would disperse use and enhance 

Recreational ORV 20.

Upper and Lower River 

Campground

Construct 32 campsites at Upper River and 40 

sites at Lower River, all 150-feet from the river

Changes would increase the number of 

campsites available. Recreational ORV 20 

would remain protected on a segmentwide 

scale.

Housekeeping Camp Lodging Remove 166 units out of the ordinary high 

water mark and in areas of frequent inundation 

and restore to natural conditions.

Changes to lodging would decrease the 

supply of overnight accommodations. 

Although Housekeeping Camp itself is not 

part of the Recreational ORV, lodging does 

facilitate access to all river values for certain 

visitors. Recreational ORV 20 would remain

protected on a segmentwide scale. 

Bridalveil Fall Trail Redesign trails, boardwalks, and viewing at the 

base of the falls to improve wayfinding and 

pedestrian circulation. Restore informal trails. 

Improve ADA compliance of pedestrian 

walkways and restrooms. 

Change would cause improve circulation 

and wayfinding thus enhancing ORV 20.

Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4

Yosemite Lodge Visitor 

Facilities

Retain all 245 units at Yosemite Lodge. Although Yosemite Lodge itself is not part 

of the Recreational ORV, lodging does 

facilitate access to all river values for certain 

visitors. Recreational ORV 20 would remain

protected on a segmentwide scale. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-319
ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 8-71: SEGMENTS 2A AND 2B ACTIONS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR RECREATIONAL ORV 20 (ALTERNATIVE 4)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 4 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 20

Yellow Pine, Camp 4, 

Yosemite Lodge, and West 

Valley Campgrounds

Retain Yellow Pine Campground. Expand Camp 

4 eastward to provide 35 additional walk-in 

sites.

Changes would increase the number of 

campsites available. Recreational ORV 20 

would remain protected on a segmentwide 

scale.

Recreational Experience 

Quality

Reduce available day-use parking, and 

implement an East Yosemite Valley Day-use 

Parking Permit system. 

Parking for personal vehicles would remain

provided and these changes would not 

substantially alter essential components of 

river-related recreation. Managing to the 

available parking supply would reduce 

traffic congestion, thereby enhancing 

Recreational ORV 20.

Conclusion: Under Alternative 4, Recreational ORV 20 would remain free of adverse impacts and 

degradation on a segmentwide scale. Fewer visitors during the peak summer season would reduce crowding 

and enhance Recreational ORV 20 for those individuals who are able to gain access to Yosemite Valley. A 

comprehensive set of restoration actions would enhance opportunities for people to connect with the river 

and its values. Some reduction in commercial services, such as bicycle rentals, swimming pools, and gift 

shops, would require more visitors to use personal equipment and would likely increase use at the facilities

remaining. However, the reduced availability of these services would not affect Recreational ORV 20 on a 

segmentwide scale.

Alternative 5

Under Alternative 5 (Table 8-72), peak visitation to Yosemite Valley would be the same as observed in 

recent years. The availability of year-round lodging would be increased by replacing some tent cabins at 

Boys Town with new hard-sided cabins. New walk-in campsites would be provided at several locations in 

Yosemite Valley, including the site of the former Upper and Lower River Campgrounds. As a result of the 

increase to campsite inventory, camping would represent 37% of the total overnight accommodations 

within the Valley. Visitors would see fewer industrial and administrative facilities in Yosemite Village and a 

change in the physical appearance of Yosemite Valley, with extensive restoration of meadows and 

riverbanks. The visitor experience would be designed to feature a wide array of recreational activities 

including rafting, bicycling, ice skating, hiking, wildlife viewing, and swimming. 

TABLE 8-72: SEGMENTS 2A AND 2B ACTIONS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR RECREATIONAL ORV 20 (ALT 5)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 5 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 20

Segmentwide visitation 20,100 visitors per day This managed change in visitation would 

reduce crowding and congestion thereby 

enhancing the Recreational ORV on a 

segmentwide scale. 

User Capacity 18,710 people at one time This minor reduction in at one time capacity 

would reduce crowding and congestion 

thereby enhancing Recreational ORV 20 on 

a segment wide level. 

Curry Village and Campgrounds

Concessioner Stables Eliminate commercial equestrian day rides. Changes would reduce opportunities for 

one type of recreational activity, but would 

not substantially alter essential components 

of river-related recreation. 

8-320 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Comprehensive River Value Analysis 

TABLE 8-72: SEGMENTS 2A AND 2B ACTIONS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR RECREATIONAL ORV 20 (ALT 5)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 5 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 20

North, Lower and Upper 

Pines Campgrounds and 

Backpackers

Campground

Remove all campsites within 100 feet of the 

river; establish designated raft put-ins. Add 

campsites west of Backpacker’s to partially 

offset removals.

Changes would be offset by new campsites 

in other locations. Recreational ORV 20

would remain protected on a segmentwide 

scale. 

Curry Village Lodging Increase lodging to 482 units. 

301 canvas tent cabins; 18 units at Stoneman 

House; 47 hard-sided cabin-with-bath units. In 

Boys Town, retain 50 historic canvas tent 

cabins and 14 cabin-without-bath units in 

their historic configuration

Changes to lodging would slightly increase

supply of overnight accommodations. 

Although Curry Village itself is not part of the 

Recreational ORV, lodging does facilitate 

access to all river values for certain visitors. 

Recreational ORV 20 would remain protected 

on a segmentwide scale. 

Lower Rivers Nature Walk Create an interpretive (nature) walk through 

Lower River that emphasizes river-related 

natural processes, the park’s ecological 

restoration work and what visitors can do to 

protect the river.

Change would improve interpretation of 

the river and its values, and would enhance 

Recreational ORV 20.

Yosemite Village and Housekeeping Camp

The Ahwahnee Tennis 

Courts

Restore the impacted portion of Ahwahnee 

Meadow to natural meadow conditions, while 

allowing special functions, such as weddings 

to continue on the lawn. Remove the tennis 

courts from the black oak woodland. Restore 

topography by removing abandoned irrigation 

lines and fill, filling in ditches, and 

revegetating with native meadow vegetation.

Removal of facility would reduce 

opportunities for one type of recreation 

activity, but would not alter components of 

the river recreation experience. Recreational

ORV 20 would remain protected 

segmentwide.

River Access West Yosemite Valley allows private boating for 

45 people per day. East Yosemite Valley allows 

private boating for 45 people per day between 

Clark’s Bridge and Sentinel Beach, plus an 

additional 150 private boats per day Between 

Stoneman Bridge and Sentinel Beach, and 100 

commercial boats per day between Lower 

Rivers Day-use Area and Sentinel Beach. 

Change would limit commercial boating and 

would limit the number of private boats. 

However, this change does not affect 

essential components of the Recreational 

ORV. This reduction in boats enhances 

dispersed recreation along the river corridor 

thereby enhancing Recreational ORV 20. 

Upper and Lower River 

Campground

Construct 32 campsites at Upper River and 

40 sites at Lower River, all 150-feet from the 

river

Changes would increase the number of 

campsites available. Recreational ORV 20 

would remain protected on a segmentwide 

scale.

Housekeeping Camp 

Lodging

Remove 34 units out of ordinary high water 

mark. Restore one acre of the riparian

ecosystem.

Changes to lodging would decrease the 

supply of overnight accommodations in this 

location. Although Housekeeping Camp itself 

is not part of the Recreational ORV, lodging 

does facilitate access to all river values for 

certain visitors. Recreational ORV 20 would 

remain protected on a segmentwide scale. 

Bridalveil Fall Trail Redesign trails, boardwalks, and viewing at 

the base of the falls to improve wayfinding 

and pedestrian circulation. Restore informal 

trails. Improve ADA compliance of pedestrian 

walkways and restrooms. 

Change would improve circulation and 

wayfinding, thereby enhancing Recreational 

ORV 20. 

Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4

Yosemite Lodge Visitor 

Facilities

Retain all 245 units at Yosemite Lodge. Although Yosemite Lodge itself is not part 

of the Recreational ORV, lodging does 

facilitate access to all river values for certain 

visitors. Recreational ORV 20 would remain

protected on a segmentwide scale. 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-321
ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 8-72: SEGMENTS 2A AND 2B ACTIONS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR RECREATIONAL ORV 20 (ALT 5)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 5 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 20

Yellow Pines and Camp 4 

Campgrounds

Expand Camp 4 eastward to provide 35 

additional walk-in sites. Retain Yellow Pine 

Campground

Increased access to camping as recreational 

experience would not substantially alter 

components of the river recreation 

experience. The ORV would remain protected 

segmentwide. 

Recreational Experience 

Quality

Increase available day-use parking, and 

provide a remote lot for day-use parking in El 

Portal. Manage segment 2 capacity as 

outlined in Chapter 6.

Parking for personal vehicles would remain

provided and these changes would not 

substantially alter essential components of 

river-related recreation. Managing to the 

available parking supply would reduce 

traffic congestion, thereby enhancing 

Recreational ORV 20.

Conclusion: Under Alternative 5, Recreational ORV 20 would remain free of adverse impacts and 

degradation on a segmentwide scale. A comprehensive set of restoration actions would enhance 

opportunities for people to connect with the river and its values. Raft and bicycle rentals would provide 

equipment on-site, likely expanding the number of visitors who would participate in these recreational 

activities. The NPS would manage to an established user capacity, which would ensure that a quality 

recreational experience is provided throughout the year. Transportation system improvements would be 

designed to accommodate this capacity, thereby reducing vehicle congestion and enhancing the 

Recreational ORV.

Alternative 6

Alternative 6 (Table 8-73) increases the level of peak visitation accommodated in Yosemite Valley. The 

availability of year-round lodging would increase significantly by nearly doubling the size of Yosemite 

Lodge and replacing all of the tent cabins at Boys Town with new hard-sided cabins. The campsite 

inventory would also increase substantially. Additional walk-in campsites would be provided at several 

locations throughout Yosemite Valley, including the site of the former Upper and Lower River 

Campgrounds, and at Eagle Creek in West Valley. As a result of these increases in campsite inventory, 

camping would represent 37% of the total overnight accommodations within the Valley. Visitors would see 

fewer industrial and administrative facilities in Yosemite Village and a change in the physical appearance of 

Yosemite Valley from extensive restoration of meadows and riverbanks. The visitor experience would be 

designed to feature a wide array of recreational activities including rafting, bicycling, ice skating, hiking, 

wildlife viewing, and swimming. 

TABLE 8-73: SEGMENTS 2A AND 2B ACTIONS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR RECREATIONAL ORV 20 (ALTERNATIVE 6)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 6 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 20

Segmentwide visitation 21,800 visitors per day This managed change in visitation would 

reduce crowding and congestion thereby 

enhancing the Recreational ORV on a 

segmentwide scale.

User capacity 19,920 people per day This increase in at one time capacity would 

be managed with improvements to the 

transportation system. Recreational ORV 20 

would remain protected on a segmentwide 

scale. 

8-322 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
Comprehensive River Value Analysis 

TABLE 8-73: SEGMENTS 2A AND 2B ACTIONS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR RECREATIONAL ORV 20 (ALTERNATIVE 6)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 6 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 20

Curry Village and Campgrounds

Concessioner Stables Eliminate commercial equestrian day rides. Changes would reduce opportunities for 

one type of recreational activity, but would 

not substantially alter essential components 

of river-related recreation.

North, Lower and Upper 

Pines Campgrounds and 

Backpackers 

Campground

Remove all campsites within 100 feet of the 

river; establish designated raft put-ins. Add 

campsites west of Backpacker’s to partially 

offset removals.

Changes would be offset by new 

campsites in other locations. Recreational 

ORV 20 would remain protected on a 

segmentwide scale.

Curry Village Lodging Lodging would include 453 units.

(290 canvas tent cabins and 163 hard-sided 

units). 

Changes to lodging would slightly increase 

supply of overnight accommodations. 

Although Curry Village itself is not part of 

the Recreational ORV, lodging does 

facilitate access to all river values for certain 

visitors. Recreational ORV 20 would remain

protected on a segmentwide scale.

Lower Rivers Nature Walk Create an interpretive (nature) walk through 

Lower Rivers that emphasizes river-related 

natural processes, the park’s ecological 

restoration work and what visitors can do to 

protect the river.

Change would improve interpretation of 

the river and its values, and would enhance 

Recreational ORV 20.

Yosemite Village and Housekeeping Camp

The Ahwahnee Tennis 

Courts

Restore the impacted portion of Ahwahnee 

Meadow to natural meadow conditions, while 

allowing special functions, such as weddings 

to continue on the lawn. Remove the tennis 

courts from the black oak woodland. Restore 

topography by removing abandoned irrigation 

lines and fill, filling in ditches, and vegetating 

with native meadow vegetation.

Removal of facility would reduce 

opportunities for one type of recreation 

activity, but would not alter components of 

the river recreation experience. Recreational

ORV 20 would remain protected on a 

segmentwide scale. 

River Access Private boating limited to the area between 

Clark’s Bridge and below Pohono Bridge for 

150 people per day. Commercial use limited 

to 100 boats at one time between 

Housekeeping West Beach and Sentinel 

Beach. 

Change would limit commercial boating 

and would limit the number of private 

boats. However, this change does not 

affect essential components of the

Recreational ORV. This management of

boats enhances dispersed recreation along 

the river corridor thereby enhancing the 

ORV segmentwide.

Upper and Lower River 

Campground

Construct 32 campsites at Upper River and 

40 sites at Lower River, all 150-feet from the 

river

Changes would increase the number of 

campsites available. Recreational ORV 20 

would remain protected on a 

segmentwide scale.

Housekeeping Camp 

Lodging

Remove 34 units out of ordinary high water 

mark. Restore one acre of the riparian 

ecosystem.

Changes to lodging would decrease the 

supply of overnight accommodations in this 

location. Although Housekeeping Camp 

itself is not part of the Recreational ORV, 

lodging does facilitate access to all river 

values for certain visitors. Recreational ORV 

20 would remain protected on a 

segmentwide scale.

Bridalveil Fall Trail Redesign trails, boardwalks, and viewing at 

the base of the falls to improve wayfinding 

and pedestrian circulation. Restore informal 

trails. Improve ADA compliance of pedestrian 

walkways and restrooms. 

Change would improve circulation and 

wayfinding, thereby enhancing Recreational 

ORV 20.

Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS 8-323
ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 8-73: SEGMENTS 2A AND 2B ACTIONS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR RECREATIONAL ORV 20 (ALTERNATIVE 6)

LOCATION AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 6 ACTIONS EFFECTS ON ORV 20

Yosemite Lodge And Camp 4

Yosemite Lodge Visitor 

Facilities

Construct new 3 story-lodging structure(s) 

with the pre-flood number of 440 units 

(redesign Yosemite Lodge out of the 100-year 

floodplain).

Changes to lodging would increase the 

supply of overnight accommodations. 

Although Yosemite Lodge itself is not part 

of the Recreational ORV, lodging does 

facilitate access to all river values for certain 

visitors. Recreational ORV 20 would remain

protected on a segmentwide scale.

Yellow Pine, Camp 4, 

Yosemite Lodge, and West 

Valley Campgrounds

Expand Camp 4 eastward to provide 35 

additional walk-in sites. Retain Yellow Pine 

Campground

Changes would increase the number of 

campsites available. Recreational ORV 20 

would remain protected on a segmentwide 

scale.

Recreational Experience 

Quality

Increase available day-use parking, and 

provide a remote lot for day-use parking in El 

Portal. Manage segment 2 capacity as 

outlined in Chapter 6.

Parking for personal vehicles would remain

provided and these changes would not 

substantially alter essential components of 

river-related recreation. Managing to the 

available parking supply would reduce 

traffic congestion, thereby enhancing 

Recreational ORV 20.

Conclusion: Under Alternative 6, Recreational ORV 20 would remain free of adverse impacts and 

degradation on a segmentwide scale. A comprehensive set of restoration actions would enhance 

opportunities for people to connect with the river and its values. Raft and bicycle rentals would provide 

equipment on-site, likely expanding the number of visitors who would participate in these recreational 

activities. The NPS would manage to an established user capacity, which would ensure that a quality 

recreational experience is provided throughout the year. Significant changes to the transportation system 

(including an overflow parking lot in West Valley) would be made to accommodate this capacity, thereby 

reducing vehicle congestion and enhancing the Recreational ORV.

8-324 Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS
National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Merced Wild and Scenic River 

Final Comprehensive Management Plan 

and Environmental Impact Statement 

Yosemite National Park 

P.O. Box 577 

Yosemite, CA 95389 

www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/mrp.htm 

As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has 

responsibility for most of our nationally owned lands and natural resources. This includes 

fostering sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and 

biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national 

parks and historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor 

recreation. The department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to 

ensure that their development is in the best interests of all people by encouraging 

stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The department also has a major 

responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in 

island territories under U.S. administration. 

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICATM