The Environmentally Preferrable Alternative 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 8-317 

THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRABLE 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 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 would achieve a balance between population and resource use by maintaining current peak 

visitation levels without yet having to implement a day-use permit system. Additionally, Alternative 5 would 

restore essential riverbank areas within 100-foot buffer adjacent to Yosemite Valley campgrounds, 

including some of Upper and Lower River Campgrounds; and some acreage around Housekeeping Camp. 

This alternative would attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment by providing a diversity 

of recreational opportunities through an increase in the inventory of overnight accommodations, inventory 

of parking facilities, and paddling access to all segments (despite the elimination of commercial paddling). 

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, particularly in Yosemite Valley, where 

increasing amounts of visitor use and foot traffic would continue to adversely affect ecologically sensitive 

meadow and riparian areas, archeological resources, scenic values, visitor experience, visitor safety, and 

park operations. 
ALTERNATIVES

8-318 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 

All of the action alternatives (Alternatives 2-6) would fulfill all of the above requirements through 

continuation of existing wilderness and resource management policies, ecological restoration of fragile 

meadow and riparian areas, protection of water quality, protection of archeological and historical resources, 

and conformance with existing requirements under Executive Order 13514 to improve energy efficiency, 

reduce consumption and waste, and conserve water use to improve sustainability of NPS operations and 

facilities. The alternatives would vary primarily in the extent of riparian restoration in Yosemite Valley; 

diversity of recreational opportunities affected by a range of user capacity and visitor use management, 

inventory and mixture of overnight accommodations, inventory and locations of parking facilities, and 

paddling restrictions. 

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 rip-rap. 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 resources. Alternative 2 also would include extensive restoration of the 100-year 

floodplain adjacent to Valley campgrounds, including Upper and Lower River; complete removal of North 

Pines campground and stables and Housekeeping Camp; removal of Yosemite Lodge; removal of Tecoya 

housing areas. However, this alternative is the least protective of historic and cultural resources due to the 

removal of the three historic bridges and removal of historic lodging at Merced Lake High Sierra Camp, 

Housekeeping Camp, Curry Village, and Yosemite Lodge, and removal of the Wawona golf course. Finally, 

this alternative would result in the greatest reduction of the diversity of individual choice because it would 

reduce the inventory and mixture of overnight accommodations; implement the most restrictions on visitor 

use through a permit system required at the entrance stations; and result in the most restrictions to paddling. 

Alternative 3 would have significant benefit to the biological and physical environment due to removal of 

three bridges and 6,135 linear feet of rip-rap. This alternative would include extensive restoration within 

150-foot buffer adjacent to Valley campgrounds, removal of Yosemite Lodge units in the 100-year 

floodplain, removal and/or re-aligning roads through meadows, and major restoration of the Curry Orchard 

Parking Lot. As Alternative 2, this alternative would also remove the three historic bridges and Wawona golf 

course, and 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 result in a 

moderate reduction in diversity of individual choice due to a reduction in overnight accommodations, dayuse permit system, and minor paddling restrictions. 

Alternative 4 would have moderate benefit to the biological and physical environment due to the removal of 

two bridges and 6,135 linear feet of rip-rap. This alternative would restore fewer acres than Alternatives 2 

and 3, include partial restoration of Yosemite Valley meadows, and ecological restoration within a 150-foot 

buffer in Valley campgrounds. Alternative 4 would be slightly more protective of historic and cultural 

resources than Alternatives 2 and 3 because Stoneman Bridge would be retained, as well as all units at 

Yosemite Lodge. Alternative 4 would attain a wider range in beneficial uses over Alternatives 2 and 3 

through the replacement of the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp with a temporary pack camp, a major 

increase in camping opportunities, a minor reduction in lodging from current levels, and fewer agency 

restrictions regarding paddling and day-use access. 

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 only minor benefit to the 

biological and physical environment due to having the fewest number of acres restored and the fewest linear 

feet of rip-rap removed. 
Actions Considered but Dismissed from Further Analysis 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 8-319 

In comparison, Alternative 5 would strike a balance between maintaining the historic setting of the river 

corridor, maintaining a diversity of recreational opportunities, and allowing for extensive natural resource 

management throughout the river corridor to restore natural ecosystem function to the extent possible. 

ACTIONS CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS 

Federal agencies are required to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable actions and to 

briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 

1502.14). As described in “Purpose and Need” (Chapter 2), public and internal scoping and planning sought 

to understand and consider 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 

planning process for the Merced River Plan/DEIS. 

As a reminder, Chapter 2 describes actions brought forth during the planning process that the NPS 

considered but dismissed. The NPS removed actions from consideration if they were: 

 Outside the scope of the plan. 

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

 Not relevant to the decision to be made. 

 Missing a valid cause and effect relationship. 

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

 Conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. 

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

contribute to other resource concerns or hazards. 

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

Additionally, the following actions were considered but dismissed from the range of alternatives in the 

Merced River Plan/DEIS: 

The NPS should reintroduce historical fire regimes as part of an ecological restoration and fuels 

management approach while balancing fire management with public safety, air quality, and visual 

experience values. 

Rationale for Dismissal: Fire management issues are addressed under the 2009 Yosemite Fire Management 

Plan and under annual workplans. 

The NPS should restore the Merced River corridor to conditions as existed prior to Euro-American 

settlement by removing nearly all commercial services and lodging, visitor facilities, limiting private 

vehicles, and conducting extensive restoration projects. 

Rationale for Dismissal: This action is inconsistent with the NPS’ Organic Act to provide for visitors’ 

experiences of the natural and cultural resources. 

 
ALTERNATIVES

8-320 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 

When using a quarter-mile boundary throughout the river corridor, the NPS should keep a “scenic” 

classification in Wawona and East Yosemite Valley. 

Rationale for Dismissal: The boundaries and classifications of the Merced Wild and Scenic River have been 

presented and refined throughout the legal and planning history for the Wild and Scenic River. 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). To provide for visitors’ 

experiences as guided by the 1916 NPS’ Organic Act, a recreational classification in Wawona and East 

Yosemite Valley is appropriate and justified. 

The NPS should include the entire Yosemite Valley within the MRP boundaries. 

Rationale for Dismissal: The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act allows up to a maximum average of 320 acres per 

linear mile of river (equivalent to one-quarter mile on each side of the river) to be included within the 

boundaries of a Wild and Scenic River corridor. The project study area, however, of this plan includes all of 

Yosemite Valley within 1.5 miles of the Merced River’s ordinary high-water mark. This project study area 

ensures that NEPA and NHPA analysis will examine the impacts and effects to natural, cultural and 

socioeconomic resources throughout Yosemite Valley. 

The NPS should increase development in Wilderness areas. 

Rationale for Dismissal: The Merced River Plan is not considering an expansion of services and facilities in 

the entire river corridor. Furthermore, addition of permanent structures and development would violate the 

Wilderness Act of 1964 (with very limited exceptions where essential for administering an area as 

Wilderness). 

The NPS should re-align the river and allow a smaller channel of the river to continue to flow under 

Sugar Pine and Ahwahnee bridges. 

Rationale for Dismissal: Re-aligning a river is counter to restoring the free flow of a river. Also, the 

engineering of a river is a fundamental violation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (with very limited 

exceptions where essential for administering an area as Wilderness). 

The NPS should restore all Yosemite Valley campsites that existed prior to the 1997 flood and/or are 

determined consistent with the General Management Plan (GMP). 

Rationale for Dismissal: The level of camping contemplated in the GMP proposed camping in locations that 

are ecologically sensitive, and the GMP was approved prior to designation of the Merced River as Wild and 

Scenic in 1987, therefore, it did not contemplate river values. Some campsites that existed prior to the 1997 

flood, such as at Upper and Lower River Campgrounds, were sited on or adjacent to sensitive resources 

now considered river values. In response to public comment, the range of alternatives commit to providing 

a maximum number of campsites while protecting and enhancing river values. As required by WSRA, the 

Merced River Plan must provide for the ecological restoration of the river corridor. The NPS has 

determined that this protection requires the removal of existing campsites within a 100-foot riparian buffer 

between the ordinary high-water mark and the nearest campsite. In addition, due to the hydrologic 

processes ORV, new campsite development must incorporate a 150-foot riparian between the ordinary 

high-water mark and campsites located near the river. 
Actions Considered but Dismissed from Further Analysis 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 8-321 

The NPS should have the Wilderness Stewardship Plan address the High Sierra camps. 

Rationale for Dismissal: The NPS must address how the High Sierra camps and all other major public use 

facilities in the river corridor affect river values. 

The NPS should eliminate private vehicles and tour buses from Yosemite Valley (as stated as a goal in 

the General Management Plan). 

Rationale for Dismissal: Although the removal of private vehicles in Yosemite Valley was a goal of the 1980 

General Management Plan, the Merced River Plan/ DEIS will amend the GMP. This action would not meet 

the purpose and need of this plan. Existing transportation networks will not support this option, and 

construction of new transportation networks would be infeasible from a cost perspective to only allow 

access by public transit. In addition, the range of alternatives includes actions that reduce crowding and do 

not require the elimination of private vehicles. Finally, existing modes of travel provide for a diversity of 

visitor experiences that are integral to developing direct connections with the river. 

The NPS should widen Northside Drive and Southside Drive to improve traffic flow. 

Rationale for Dismissal: This action contradicts the purpose and need of a Wild and Scenic River 

Comprehensive Management Plan because it is not possible to widen road corridors in Yosemite Valley 

without impacting ORVs including meadow and riparian communities, and sensitive cultural resources. 

The NPS should limit tour bus access in Yosemite Valley because tour buses contribute to congestion, 

parking shortages, and road safety. 

Rationale for Dismissal: The NPS will continue supporting increased use of alternative forms of 

transportation. In addition, the NPS will only consider an East Yosemite Valley day-use parking permit 

system for private vehicles and tour buses when conditions become “unacceptable.” Thresholds for 

acceptable conditions are defined and monitored using scientific standards. 

The NPS should use pedestrian overpasses to alleviate pedestrian-vehicle conflicts at major 

crosswalks. 

Rationale for Dismissal: The NPS recognizes the need to separate pedestrians from vehicles in these 

congested areas. Construction of pedestrian overpasses that provide adequate accessibility for all visitors 

would require infrastructure that would be disproportionate to the landscape, and, therefore, would 

infringe on the scenic landscapes in these areas. The NPS has chosen pedestrian underpasses to remediate 

this pedestrian-vehicle conflict without affecting the scenic nature of Yosemite Valley. 

The NPS should re-introduce native fish to areas where they naturally occurred. 

Rationale for Dismissal: Although some Wild and Scenic River fisheries are considered outstandingly 

remarkable, this has not been the case of the Merced River fisheries within Yosemite. Native fish are found 

only in the lower elevations of the Merced River up to the vicinity of El Portal. Historically, the majority of 

waterbodies in Yosemite have been naturally fishless prior to fish stocking, which occurred in the area from 

1877 to 1990. The native strain of rainbow trout in the Merced River corridor was lost long ago through 

hybridization with other introduced trout strains. The existing strain of rainbow trout acts as an ecological 

surrogate for the native strain. Restoration of the native strain would require detection of a relict population 

of native fish and eradication of the existing rainbow strain and introduced brown trout. The NPS considers 

native trout restoration infeasible on the Merced River due to the difficulty of eradication of the brown 

trout and existing rainbow trout. In addition, some fish have the ability to swim from El Portal to Yosemite 
ALTERNATIVES

8-322 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 

Valley, the non-native fish present in El Portal would likely recolonize upstream, causing additional stress 

and hybridization with a re-introduced population of native rainbow trout. Because native fish are not an 

ORV of the Merced River, this action was dismissed. 

The NPS should relocate all visitor services and employee housing from Yosemite Valley to El Portal. 

Rationale for Dismissal: Services are needed to support the level of visitation where that visitation occurs, 

primarily Yosemite Valley. Supporting the needs of millions of visitors requires a large workforce. Shuttling 

the entire employee population in and out of Yosemite Valley over multiple shifts throughout the course of 

the day would further compound traffic congestion currently experienced by visitors and significantly 

increase the carbon footprint associated with visitors and employees. Currently, Yosemite’s park 

management has moved a substantial number of employees out of Yosemite Valley and out of El Portal. 

Further adjustments are infeasible and impractical at this point from a park operation’s standpoint. 

The NPS should provide a visitation level higher than what Alternative 6 offers.

Rationale for Dismissed: The National Park Service has considered a range of alternatives that provide lower 

and higher user capacities and related visitor use levels than exist today. Alternative 6 represents the highest 

use levels considered in this range. Capacities and use levels higher than those proposed in this alternative 

were considered but dismissed for the following reasons: 

 Higher use levels would require significant expansion of infrastructure and development, which is 

not feasible while protecting river values and working within the constraints of Yosemite Valley’s 

natural environment. Yosemite Valley, where the majority of use occurs in the Merced River 

corridor, is a long, narrow canyon. Significant physical sites constraints exist limiting the expansion 

of infrastructure and developments that would be needed to accommodate higher use levels. 

Between rockfall and related hazard zones and floodplains and the locations of river values, no land 

area remains to expand developments beyond those proposed in Alternative 6. 

 Infrastructure that would be required to accommodate higher use levels include widening 

roadways and intersections, retaining roadside parking in areas adjacent to meadows, expanding 

existing parking areas into sensitive resource areas or closer to the river, developing new parking 

areas and or camping areas in location that have not been previously disturbed. However, other 

alternatives to expanded parking include a multi-level parking garage that would not be congruent 

with retaining the natural scenic qualities of Yosemite Valley and would be cost prohibitive. 

 Visitor use levels beyond those considered in alternative six would create additional crowding and 

congestion such as long queues at entrance stations, increased travel times through the park, and 

difficulties locating open parking, all of which would negatively affect the visitor experience. 

COST COMPARISONS FOR THE MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER 

COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

The costs of implementing the MRP are defined for each alternative by the management actions that are 

included within the plan. Table 8-52 summarizes those costs that do not vary across the action alternatives 

and thus are considered common to all. Table 8-53 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 8-54. 

 
Cost Comparisons for the Merced Wild and Scenic River 

Comprehensive Management Plan 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 8-323 

TABLE 8-52: PROJECT COSTS COMMON TO ALTERNATIVES 2-6 

Project Component Common to All 

Yosemite Valley 

Yosemite Valley Maintenance Area $9,833,708 

Concessioner General Office Relocation $5,043,300 

Bridalveil Fall $755,152 

El Portal 

El Portal housing additions $5,973,381 

Wawona 

Swinging Bridge Picnic Area $668,359 

Wawona Maintenance Area $13,001,235 

Wawona Town Center $1,811,354 

Miscellaneous Site-Specific Actions* 

Costs Common to Alternatives 2-6 $6,606,193 

TABLE 8-53: 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 $46,294,562 $48,327,763 

Bridge Removals $0 $3,950,898 $3,950,898 $2,637,067 $1,520,682 $0 

Housekeeping Camp $0 $1,767,149 $1,767,149 $622,807 $419,802 $245,445 

Upper & Lower River 

Campgrounds $0 $0 $0 $5,995,990 $2,518,316 $5,995,990 

Yosemite Village Day-use 

Parking Area $0 $8,311,720 $7,763,719 $7,918,376 $10,019,466 $11,844,989 

Lost Arrow Employee Housing $0 $811,650 $811,650 $7,711,355 $7,711,355 $7,711,355 

Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4 $0 $17,460,290 $24,156,475 $28,617,726 $27,641,055 $100,779,542 

West Valley Overflow Parking 

Area $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,216,099 $2,040,209 

El Capitan Meadow $0 $0 $0 $926,478 $926,478 $926,478 

Eagle Creek Campground (New) $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,401,403 $6,668,792 

El Portal

Rancheria housing area $0 $8,381,837 $9,396,417 $15,264,905 $13,540,040 $14,763,465 

Abbieville-Trailer Court $0 $52,794,663 $2,249,936 $2,249,936 $2,249,936 $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 the alternative $0 $8,165,000 $7,830,000 $2,580,000 $2,150,000 $1,575,000 

*These costs include removal of rip-rap (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 8-54: TOTAL PROJECT COSTS

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 

Total** $0 $262,752,657 $186,971,954 $222,514,383 $235,125,897 $418,457,354 

**Total includes net construction costs +35% to account for costs associated with follow on compliance, site monitoring and contracting.

 
ALTERNATIVES

8-324 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 

In total, the range of alternatives is priced from $186 Million to $418 Million when measured in current-year 

values. The mean (or average) cost of the range of alternatives is $265 Million, while the median (or middle) 

value is $235 Million. The preferred alternative would cost $235 Million, approximately 90 percent of the 

mean cost of the entire range of alternatives. 

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 action alternatives include 

management actions that would remove rip-rap (or riverbank lining); remove abandoned infrastructure, 

such as bridge footings, plumbing or drainage structures; remove informal trails; loosen compacted soils; realign trails to less-sensitive areas, 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 

flood plain; and remove obsolete buildings. 

Specific resource restoration projects are also proposed across the range of alternatives, and 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 flood plain; and install of varying numbers of engineered log jams. 

Site redevelopment or improvement of existing facilities and 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 by rows in Table 8-52 and Table 8-53 and are described in more 

detail by project alternatives. Alternatives generally propose such actions as adding walk-in camp sites in 

several locations (Upper Pines, Upper and Lower River and Camp 4 campgrounds); replacing tents 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; improving 

parking areas at Yosemite Village Day Use Parking Area, Yosemite Lodge, and in Wawona and El Portal; 

and proposing one new parking facility known as the West Valley Day Use Area. 

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, proposed 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 development proposed. 
Cost Comparisons for the Merced Wild and Scenic River 

Comprehensive Management Plan 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 8-325 

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 to be 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 

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, et cetera. 

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, to help decision makers 

choose a preferred alternative and to establish long-term budget goals. Following the anticipated approval 

of the Merced River plan, as project descriptions are refined and design and construction documents 

prepared, Class B and Class A estimates will be completed in greater detail, with more accuracy and 

precision. 

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 more 

or less operational maintenance, traffic and parking management, law enforcement and other ongoing 

duties of NPS and concessioner personnel. Park staff will be responsible for monitoring specific indicators 

and standards that are linked river values and related natural and cultural resources. 

Approximate costs associated with operational costs are summarized in Table 8-55. Although specific 

operational costs are identified, each activity relates to existing monitoring programs or regular park 

management activities that are already conducted with 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 but are noteworthy for the 

purpose of comparing alternatives. 

 
ALTERNATIVES

8-326 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 

TABLE 8-55: 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, but 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, identification of detailed resource protection needs, and 

changing visitor use expectations and constraints on user capacity. Actual costs to the NPS will vary 

depending on if and when the actions are implemented, and on contributions by 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 8-56: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE CAPACITIES

TABLE 8-57: VISITOR DAY USE CAPACITIES (PEOPLE) 

TABLE 8-58: MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER PLAN ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY COMPARISON TABLE
Comparison of User Capacities and Alternatives Actions 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 8-327 TABLE 8-56: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE CAPACITIES

Unit Type Units People Units People Units People Units People Units People Units People 

Vistitor Overnight Use Zone Capacities & Beds 380 380 195 195 260 260 270 270 362 362 380 380 Visitor Day Use Day Hikers 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 

Employee Housing Employee Beds 15 15 5 5 10 10 10 10 15 15 15 15 

Administrative Day Use People on Day Patrols 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Vistitor Overnight Use Rooms & Campsites 1,500 6,564 1,006 4,758 1,098 5,027 1,524 7,224 1,693 7,729 1,987 9,006Visitor Day Use* Parking Spaces & Buses - 8,272 - 6,819 - 6,289 - 7,554 - 8,954 - 9,449 Employee Housing Employee Beds 1,315 1,315 658 658 1,086 1,086 1,087 1,087 1,136 1,136 1,136 1,136 Administrative Day Use Parking Spaces 166 332 166 332 166 332 166 332 166 332 166 332 Vistitor Overnight Use Rooms & Campsites - - - - - - - - - - - - Visitor Day Use Parking Spaces 180 869 180 869 180 869 180 869 180 869 180 869 Employee Housing Employee Beds 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 

Administrative Day Use Parking Spaces 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 

Vistitor Overnight Use Rooms & Campsites - - - - - - - - - - - - Visitor Day Use Parking Spaces 214 740 214 740 214 740 214 740 214 740 214 740 Employee Housing Employee Beds 192 192 618 618 223 223 300 300 288 288 506 506 Administrative Day Use Parking Spaces 610 1,220 610 1,220 610 1,220 610 1,220 610 1,220 610 1,220 Vistitor Overnight Use Zone Capacities 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20Visitor Day Use Day Hikers 6 66 66 66 66 66 6Employee Housing Employee Beds - - - - - - - - - - - - Administrative Day Use Day Patrols 1 11 11 11 11 11 1Vistitor Overnight Use Rooms & Campsites 203 865 171 673 176 703 176 703 190 787 190 787 Visitor Day Use* Parking Spaces & Buses - 1,295 - 1,321 - 1,321 - 1,399 - 1,606 - 1,606 Employee Housing Employee Beds 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121Administrative Day Use Parking Spaces 30 60 30 60 30 60 30 60 30 60 30 60 Vistitor Overnight Use Overnight Hikers 3 33 33 33 33 33 3Visitor Day Use Day Hikers 3 33 33 33 33 33 3Employee Housing Employee Beds - - - - - - - - - - - - Administrative Day Use Day Patrols 1 11 11 11 11 11 1ADEIS MRP USER CAPACITY SUMMARY User Capacities by Use Type and LocationWawonaSouth Fork Below Wawona

Alt 1 (No Action) Alt 2Alt 3Alt 4Alt 5Alt 6

Wilderness Above Nevada FallYosemite ValleyGorgeEl PortalSouth Fork Above Wawona

*Day use capacities in these segments factors in visitors arriving by private vehicles, regional transit and commercial tour buses. See breakdown by transportation mode in Table 8-57
ALTERNATIVES

8-328 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 

TABLE 8-57: VISITOR DAY USE CAPACITIES (PEOPLE) 

Visitor Day Use Capacities (People) ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3 ALT 4 ALT 5 ALT 6

MAX hikers thru corridor to Half Dome 300 300 300 300 300 300

MAX hikers per day to corridor 50 50 50 50 50 50

ABOVE NEVADA FALL TOTAL 350 350 350 350 350 350

PAOT from parking areas 7,260 5,858 5,328 6,497 7,549 7,941

PAOT from regional transit 293 241 241 337 684 788

PAOT from tour buses 720 720 720 720 720 720

VALLEY TOTAL 8,272 6,819 6,289 7,554 8,954 9,449

PAOT from parking areas 869 869 869 869 869 869

PAOT from parking areas 740 740 740 740 740 740

MAX hikers per day to corridor 6 6 6 6 6 6PAOT from parking areas 911 911 911 911 911 911

PAOT from regional transit 0 26 26 104 311 311

PAOT from tour buses 384 384 384 384 384 384

WAWONA TOTAL 1,295 1,321 1,321 1,399 1,606 1,606MAX hikers per day to corridor 3 3 3 3 3 3Wilderness above Nevada FallYosemite ValleyGorgeEl PortalSouth Fork above WawonaWawonaSouth Fork below Wawona
Comparison of User Capacities and Alternative Actions

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6

Total restoration acreage 0 acres 347 acres 302 acres 223 acres 203 acres 170 acresRiprap 15,589 linear feet (existing) 6,664 linear feet removed 6,135 linear feet removed 6,135 linear feet removed 6,135 linear feet removed 6,048 linear feet removedFree-flowing Condition (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 Remove 1 bridge: Sugar Pine 0 bridges removed. Use design and engineering solutions.

Meadow Connectivity (Roads) No re-routing of roads

• Remove Southside Drive along Stoneman Meadow• Remove Northside Drive along Ahwahnee Meadow 

• Remove Southside Drive along Stoneman Meadow• Remove Northside Drive along Ahwahnee Meadow 

• Remove Southside Drive along Stoneman Meadow

Roads remain. Design and engineering solutions applied.

Roads remain. Design and engineering solutions applied. 

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 sitesWawona Campgroundand 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 sitesUpper 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) 30 walk-in sites 32 sites (30 walk-in sites and 2 group sites)

Former Lower River Walk-In 0 sites 0 sites (ecologically restored) 0 (ecologically restored) 40 walk-in sites 0 sites 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 sitesBoys 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 42 sites (40 drive-in car and 2 group 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 Court 0 sites 4 group administrative sites 0 sites 0 sites 0 sites 0 sites

Total New Camping Sites Total 0 sites 159 sites 87 sites 311 sites 210 sites 309 sites

Total Camping Sites Corridorwide 565 sites 521 sites 549 sites 773 sites 726 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. 

Ecological RestorationCamping (Existing)Campground Development (New)Wilderness Camping

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Mangement Plan / DEIS 8-329
ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6

Curry Village Lodging Units

Lodging

Action)units can not be included in No Agreement, 103 guest lodging 400 units (per Settlement 

and 290 tents.consisting of 143 hard-sided units 433 lodging units at Curry Village, 

restored.Boys Town would be ecologically 65 hard-sided units and 290 tents. 355 lodging units at Curry Village, 

campground.Convert Boys Town to a 40-site of 65 hard-sided units and 290 tents. 355 units at Curry Village, consisting 

and 290 tents. consisting of 163 hard-sided units 453 units at Curry Village, 

290 tents. consisting of 163 hard-sided units and 453 lodging units at Curry Village, 

Yosemite Lodge 245 rooms

camping)purposed as day lodge and 0 rooms (-245 rooms with area refloodplain) 4 buildings removed from 100-year 143 rooms (-102 rooms comprised in 245 rooms 245 rooms floodplain). lodging structures outside the 100-year 440 rooms (construct multiple 3-story 

Housekeeping Camp 266 units

floodplain)ecologically restore 100-year access and picnicking, and 0 units (-266 units: Convert to river 

floodplain)ecologically restore 100-year access and picnicking, and 0 units (-266 units: Convert to river 

ordinary high-water mark) 100 units (-166 units: Removed from 

bed and banks)232 units (-34 units: Removed from 

and banks)232 units (-34 units: Removed from bed 

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 roomsMerced Lake High Sierra Camp 22 units (60 beds) re-purposed as camping) 0 units (lodging facility closed and temporary pack camp) 15 people (lodging converted to ecologically restored) 0 units (lodging facility removed and 11 units (-18 beds) 22 units (60 beds)

Lodging Totals (units) 1,160 units 660 units 725 units 927 units 1,168 units 1,374 units

Curry Orchard Parking Area 424 spaces 420 spaces 300 spaces 300 spaces 430 spaces 430 spacesYosemite Village Day-use Parking Area 754 spaces 550 spaces (parking moved north) 550 spaces (parking moved north) 750 spaces (parking moved north) 850 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 100 spaces 250 spacesTotal Yosemite Valley Day-Use Parking 2,337 spaces (0% change) 1,800 spaces (-23% change) 1,597 spaces (-31% change) 2,045 spaces (-13% change) 2,448 spaces (+5% change) 2,598 spaces (+11% change)

El Portal Remote Visitor Parking No No No 200 spaces 200 spaces 200 spaces Roundabouts / Traffic Circles No No No No

• Traffic Circle: Northside Drive and Village Drive (at Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area)

Village Drive (at Yo• Roundabout: Northside Drive and 

semite Village DaySentinel Drive (at Bank 3-Way) • Roundabout: Northside Drive and use Parking Area)

Pedestrian Underpasses No No No • Yosemite Falls Underpass • Yosemite Falls Underpass

• Yosemite Falls UnderpassUnderpass• Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area 

(in Yosemite Valley)Concession Employee Beds 1,151 employees 494 employees 922 employees 923 employees 972 employees 972 employees

(all occurring within Yosemite Valley)Temporary Housing Units Removed - 0 beds - 519 beds - 489 beds - 469 beds - 439 beds - 439 beds(in Yosemite Valley)Permanent Replacement Housing + 0 beds + 164 beds + 268 beds + 318 beds + 318 beds + 318 beds 

(in El Portal)Permanent Replacement Housing + 0 beds + 426 beds + 31 beds + 108 beds + 96 beds + 314 beds

 (Day and Overnight) Daily Visitation to East Yosemite Valley 20,900 visitors 13,900 visitors 13,200 visitors 17,000 visitors 19,900 visitors 21,800 visitors

administrative use) in East Yosemite ValleyTotal Parking (day, overnight, and 5,200 spaces 4,000 spaces 4,300 spaces 4,800 spaces 5,300 spaces 5,900 spaces

Total Project Costs $0 (if no actions taken) $262,752,657 $186,971,954 $222,514,383 $235,125,897 $418,457,354 

Cost EstimatesEast Valley Visitation and ParkingConcession HousingTransportation

 8-330 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Managment Plan / DEIS
























































































































































