Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 8-1 

8. ALTERNATIVES 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter presents the six alternatives proposed in the Merced River Plan/Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS). These alternatives represent a range of reasonable alternatives as required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) including a “No Action” Alternative (Alternative 1), in accordance with 

Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1502.14). The No Action Alternative represents a 

continuation of current management practices and provides a basis to compare differences among the 

alternatives. This chapter addresses the following topics: 

 The process used to develop the alternatives and identify the preferred alternative for the Merced 

River Plan/DEIS (Figure 8-1) 

 A description of each alternative (page 8-10) 

 Identification of the Environmentally Preferred Alternative (page 8-317) 

 Alternatives and actions considered and eliminated from further study (page 8-319) 

 A Summary of Capacities (Table 8-56) 

 A Summary of Alternatives and Actions (Table 8-58) 

 River Value Analysis 

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 planning for 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 

presented in the project’s draft environmental impact statement (Draft EIS). 

Using a full complement of park personnel, including experts in park operations, facilities, and cultural and 

natural resources, the Merced River planning team devoted several years of effort, from 2009 to 2012, to 

develop five action alternatives for managing the river corridor (See Figure 8-1). In building the alternatives, 

the team worked within a planning framework that included eight 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 affected the process, occasioning still more revisions 

to it. In the case of the Merced, some of these steps were revisited almost yearly. Although time-consuming, 

this process of review and revision ultimately lead to a stronger end product, both in form and content. 

The NPS has identified its preferred alternative, but all alternatives protect and enhance river values while 

providing for kinds and amounts of visitor use that are protective of river values. Collectively, the 

alternatives represent a wide range of choices for the future management of the Merced River corridor. The 

following sections provide greater detail with regard to each step in the planning process. 
ALTERNATIVES

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

Figure 8-1: Creating Alternatives for 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 

those values that are “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 National Park Service (NPS) began the process of identifying the ORVs for the Merced River in 1996. 

After completing other steps in the alternative development process (below), park planners re-visited the 

ORVs several times (in 2000, 2005, and 2009). Each time, park planners 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 professionals. 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 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 8-3 

Step 2. Assess Baseline Condition of River Values 

After the release of the 2010 report, 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 could best be protected. A revised ORV 

report was posted to the Yosemite National Park’s 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 Merced 

River 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 experienced 

subject-matter specialists. External peer reviews of specific research findings and the implications for 

overall river conditions were solicited. 

The park planning team consolidated all of this information into the Merced Wild and Scenic River Values 

Draft Baseline Conditions Report. The assessment was also incorporated into “River Values and Their 

Management” (Chapter 5) of the Merced River Plan/Draft EIS. 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 important step in the planning process provides a basis for comparison with the expected 

outcome of the actions described in the alternatives. It was also essential for identifying areas where actions 

must be taken to improve conditions in the river corridor. 

The first draft of the baseline conditions assessment report, completed in 2011, informed park planners’ 

understanding of river value conditions early in the planning process, guiding the structure and content of 

the alternatives in response to the identified management considerations. 

In an effort to educate the public, the NPS facilitated a series of spring 2011 workshops and associated 

webinars. The workshops provided an opportunity to learn more about the conditions of the Merced River 

and the management considerations that needed to be addressed in the Merced River Plan. The Merced Wild 

and Scenic River Values Draft Baseline Conditions Report was subsequently posted on the park’s 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 Effect, and Degradation for River Values 

In concert with assessing river values, NPS park managers determined the desired condition for those 

values, based on guiding legislation, available research and monitoring information, best professional 

judgment of subject-matter experts, and current trends in the relevant academic and public land 

management fields. Further, a comprehensive river management plan must contain provisions designed to 

prevent any adverse effect or degradation from occurring to the river values. Specific thresholds must be 

stated for mandatory management action that will occur ahead of any such impacts or degradation, to keep 

the state of river values at or above the desired condition (see “River Values and Their Management” 

Chapter 5). 

Park managers developed indicators of river-value condition that are sensitive to change, along with the 

monitoring protocols needed to standardize data collection over time. 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, 
ALTERNATIVES

8-4 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 

such as stairstep river morphology, which is affected only by massive geologic forces that are well beyond 

human control. Consequently, park managers did not define these terms for that river value. Indicators 

were developed for all other river values. 

Step 4: Identify Management Concerns and Potential Corrective Actions 

This step involves applying the definitions of river condition (Step 3’s management standard, adverse effect, 

and degradation) to the existing river value conditions ( identified in Step 2). By comparing the actual river 

condition to the management standard, park managers obtained a clear picture of which values needed 

remedial action to bring them up to the management standard or forestall a downward trend in conditions. 

In addition, due to the comprehensive and systematic nature of this review, a host of localized areas of 

concern were identified as places where action could be taken to enhance river values. 

The planning team separated this step of the process into two stages, primary and secondary scope. The first 

stage or primary scope, involved a systematic review of the river corridor to identify management 

considerations related to the free-flowing condition of the river, water quality, hydrologic/geologic, 

recreational, cultural, biological, and scenic ORVs. The team used scientific and geospatial data, such as 

floodplain maps, remote sensing imagery, rock-fall hazard zone models and maps, and channel migration 

history to support this review. All public comments received during scoping were screened to ensure that 

location-specific concerns were identified and paired with corrective measures. Finally, subject-matter 

specialists used their knowledge of the river system to supplement and clarify the findings of the baseline 

conditions report. 

The team ranked the primary scope issues using the following factors: 

 Degree of impact from existing infrastructure or current uses on the free-flowing condition of the 

river (primarily impacts to river flows below the ordinary high-water mark, approximated by the 

2- to 10-year floodplain) 

 Degree of impact from existing infrastructure or current uses on specific ORVs (biological, scenic, 

cultural, geological/hydrological) 

 Specific locations where potential threats to water quality need to be addressed (point source 

pollutants, such as nutrients, or petro-chemicals, for example) 

 Degree of impact from existing infrastructure or current uses on the Recreation ORV (conflicts 

between types and locations of activities, density and crowding at key use areas) 

The primary scope evaluation was completed first to ensure all alternatives would include protective 

measures to remedy problems identified with natural and cultural ORVs. The ecological restoration 

program (detailed in Appendix E) forms the centerpiece of restoration actions in the Merced River 

Plan/DEIS, though there are others (such as removing some structures from riparian areas). Actions must 

also correct past impacts to the extent possible (earlier impacts can be irreversible—some effects of historic 

manipulation of the river corridor, such as blasting of the El Capitan Moraine, may never be reversed, for 

example). By identifying all known areas of concern and options for corrective actions, managers ensured 

all alternatives would protect and enhance river values. These actions form the core of all action 

alternatives. 

The next stage, or secondary scope evaluation, pertained to issues related to visitor use, including 

congestion, transportation and visitor experience. Transportation modeling identified the limitations 

associated with the existing road system design and options for improving traffic flow. Various mixes of 
Introduction 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 8-5 

parking, overnight accommodations, camping, and services were packaged to provide for 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 

packaged as 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 

Yosemite’s website. 

Step 5: Determine Location and Size of Necessary Facilities 

WSRA and the 1982 National Wild and Scenic River System; Final Revised Guidelines for Eligibility, 

Classification and Management of River Areas provide direction on the types of facilities that are allowed in 

designated river corridors. In addition, the 2008 opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

on the 2005 Revised MRP questioned whether the level of development in some parts of the river corridor 

was protective of ORVs. The planning team, therefore, evaluated existing facilities and services within the 

river corridor to determine whether they should be retained, removed or relocated in order to protect and 

enhance river values. 

“River Values and Their Management” (Chapter 5) identifies locations where the development footprint, 

visitor uses and /or administrative uses were found to be causing local effects to components of river values. 

“Facilities and Services Analysis” (Chapter 7) presents the results of the planning team’s analysis of all 

existing public-use facilities and services to determine whether they are currently impacting any river values 

and, if so, how those impacts could be eliminated. In particular, the plan calls for removal, redesign, and/or 

relocation of those facilities. New development (and re-development) proposed across the range of 

alternatives was also screened using the above criteria. 

It is important to note that, 

across the range of 

alternatives, changes to 

facilities and services are 

made for reasons other 

than impacts to river values 

(as shown in Figure 8-2). 

Some facilities and services 

are modified to further the 

thematic goals of the 

individual alternatives. 

“Alternatives” (Chapter 8) 

includes a determination 

of the location, size and 

type of facilities and 

services necessary for 

public use, as directly 

correlated to the visitor 

experience and land-use planning goals for each alternative. 

Figure 8-2: Facilities in the Merced River Corridor: A Decision Tree
ALTERNATIVES

8-6 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 

Step 6: Solicit Public Input on Organizing Themes for Alternatives 

Even 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 as a separate step because 

it is foundational to the alternatives development process. Public input was solicited on a regular basis 

throughout the project, from the earliest public scoping period in 1999 through the review and revision of 

this Merced River Plan/DEIS over the next several months. Major topics discussed included the ORVs, their 

conditions, and indicators to assess those conditions; user capacity; other planning issues the alternatives 

needed to address; organizing concepts or themes for the alternatives, site plan concepts, and the 

preliminary alternatives themselves. 

The Merced River Plan/DEIS has been developed through consultation with culturally associated American 

Indian tribes, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and other federal and state agencies. Gateway 

communities, organizations, and interested members of the public have provided nearly1,500 public 

correspondences (including letters, faxes, emails, comment forms, and public meeting flip-chart notes). The 

NPS has conducted more than 40 public meetings, presentations, workshops, field visits, and open houses 

in support of the EIS process. Two planning workbooks were prepared and distributed for public review 

and comment (fall 2011 and spring 2012) prior to completion of the Merced River Plan/DEIS.

Step 7: Evaluate Operational and Implementation Feasibility of Draft Alternatives 

Once draft action alternatives were completed, park planners put them through several rounds of review 

and critique 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, subjecting those 

estimates to scrutiny as well. 

Step 8: Establish User Capacities Consistent with Protection of River Values 

WSRA and Secretaries’ Guidelines direct managing agencies to address user capacity in river management 

plans and to establish “the kinds and amounts of public use which the river area can sustain without impact 

to the values for which it was designated.” As with the other steps above, public input was a fundamental 

part of this step. During the scoping period for the Merced River Plan, the NPS asked the public to describe 

what activities they enjoy in the Merced River corridor, to help define the Recreational ORV and begin to 

address the issue of kinds and amounts of use the river can sustain. User-capacity experts developed a ninestep process to address user-capacity mandates (see “Visitor Use and User Capacity” Chapter 6). These 

steps were integrated into the overall planning process. User capacities were adjusted to reflect the 

experiences envisioned within each alternative. Planners produced a range of user capacities and recreation 

types, all within the existing constraints and all protective of river values. 

As a part of the supporting research, the planning team compiled visitor-use data (Littlejohn et al. 2005; Le et 

al. 2008) that provided insight into the types of activities and experiences visitors preferred. The team also 

compiled information on the historic, current, and projected levels of visitor use along the Merced River (DEA 

2007; NPS 2008d; NPS 2008e; NPS 2009c; and NPS 2009e) and conducted scientific studies to determine the 

extent to which visitor use affects river values. Additionally, comprehensive mapping and spatial data related 

to river values were gathered and compiled to represent planning constraints. Collectively, research studies, 
Introduction 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 8-7 

constraint maps, and best professional judgment informed decisions on the kinds and amounts of visitor and 

other public use that may be accommodated without adverse effects to river values. 

Implementation Plan 

Not all of the actions in the alternatives will be described with enough detail to be considered 

implementable upon signing of the Record of Decision (ROD). Some actions will require follow-on NEPA 

compliance and further environmental analysis, in the form of Categorical Exclusions (CE), Environmental 

Assessments (EA) or Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). The details of the implementation plan and 

phasing will be outlined in the ROD. 

Actions fell under three different categories in this plan; actions that are required to protect and enhance 

river values and actions that are required to address user capacity elements. The three categories are 

described below. 

1. Management Concerns: A Management Concern describes a river value that is not presently in a 

protected state (Chapter 5); requiring immediate corrective actions. Corrective actions are a high 

priority for the NPS, as the managing agency of the Merced River Wild and Scenic River. These 

corrective actions will be implemented upon signing of the ROD or follow-on NEPA will be 

initiated immediately upon signing the ROD. 

2. Management Considerations: A Management Consideration describes a river value that is 

currently in a protected state; however, corrective actions may be applied to specific localized areas 

to further enhance the river value. Most of the actions identified as enhancing river values will be 

implemented upon signing of the ROD, with a few exceptions, particularly those that fall into a CE 

category. 

3. Issues/Opportunities: The terms Issue/Opportunity are applied to those areas in the river corridor 

that must be addressed as part of the user capacity mandate required under the Ninth Circuit 

Ruling on the 2005 Merced River Plan. These actions do not directly protect or enhance river 

values, but they are integral to generating the user capacity numbers, which are based on parking, 

overnight accommodations, transportation and circulation and must not through their 

implementation impact river values leading towards adverse or degraded conditions. Many of these 

actions were brought-up during scoping and are issues that the public is most interested in. Most of 

these actions will require follow-on NEPA upon signing of the ROD. Those issues/opportunities 

that are most integral to user capacity will be a higher priority for implementation. 
ALTERNATIVES

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

How the Alternatives are Organized 

Many of the actions described in the 

alternatives are considered “Common to All” 

and are detailed in the section “Actions 

Common to Alternatives 2-6” (see page 8-53). 

These “Common to All” actions are those 

actions that would be implemented regardless 

of individual alternative actions to protect 

river values as they are considered appropriate 

management responses to issues or concerns 

in the river corridor. 

The individual alternatives do not repeat 

these actions; rather, readers should be aware 

that each alternative is made up of both the 

Actions Common to Alternatives 2-6 as well as 

the actions that vary across the alternatives 

(See Figure 8-5). The actions unique to each 

alternative (not Common to All) are outlined 

in each alternative description (See Figure 

8-3). The actions that vary across alternatives 

are reflective of varying degrees of ecological 

restoration, levels of user capacities, and of 

varying types of visitor experiences. (See 

Figure 8-4) 

Overview 

Each alternative description follows the same 

structure. At the beginning of each alternative 

there is an overview of the alternative. This 

overview contains information on the goals 

of the alternative, the general guiding 

principles of the alternative as well as actions 

in the alternative that are corridorwide. 

Maps 

Maps of key locations in the Merced River 

Plan corridor are provided to orient readers 

to the planning areas and the context in 

which the actions and facilities are situated. 

Figure 8-3: How to Read the MRP Alternatives
Introduction 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 8-9 

Figure 8-4: What Adds Up to An Alternative 

Figure 8-5: Components that Equate to an Individual Alternative 

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Segment 

Then what follows is a more detailed description of the actions that form the basis of each alternative. These 

actions are grouped under two main topic areas; summary actions to protect and enhance river values (i.e., 

Biological Values and Cultural Values) and a summary of User Capacities, Land Use and Facilities 

Management (i.e., camping, lodging, transportation). These topic areas are organized by segment. 
ALTERNATIVES

8-10 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 

Necessity of Facilities and Services 

In each alternative the land use and visitor experience goals, coupled with specific measureable limits on use 

necessitate a set of facilities and services in accordance with the WSRA mandated discussed in Chapter 7. 

This section provides a list of facilities by segment, the action to be taken under the corresponding 

alternative, and presenting a justification for whether it is feasible to relocate the facility or service outside 

the river corridor. 

The NPS used the following definitions as a basis for evaluating whether it would be feasible to relocate 

facilities outside the river corridor:

 Feasible: For the purpose of this analysis, “feasible” is defined as capable of being done, effected, 

or accomplished. 

 Infeasible: For the purpose of this analysis, “infeasible” is defined as impracticable, incapable of 

being put into practice with the available means, or unsuitable for practical use or purposes. 

Feasibility Factors – To determine whether NPS could accomplish the relocation of a facility, the NPS 

considered the factors including public safety, economic, engineering- and/or building-code requirements, 

as well as resource conditions. Additional factors include the availability of land suitable for such uses and 

the location of the existing road system within and outside the river corridor. Some proposed relocations 

require a sequencing of actions, such as the relocation of the shuttle maintenance function to the 

Government Utility Building followed by the removal of the Yosemite Village Garage facility. NPS staff also 

considered what actions were most important to protect river values and to provide for quality visitor 

experiences. 

With this in mind, park staff has deliberated very fundamental questions about the relocation of facilities: 

1. Could this action be implemented in the near term? 

2. If not, what impacts are likely to occur prior to implementation? 

3. Are there any intermediate steps short of relocation that could mitigate impacts? 

4. What actions will be required to continue to operate in the existing location? 

5. Would the gain be worth the cost, in terms of real dollars, and direct and indirect impacts to park 

resources or visitor experiences? 

6. If a facility is relocated, is a suitable relocation area located within a reasonable time and travel 

distance? If a service is discontinued, what options are available outside the park and what would 

be the effect or requiring park visitors or employees to obtain the service outside the park? Travel 

time from Yosemite Valley to the gateway communities of Mariposa, Oakhurst, Groveland or 

Sonora—where commercial services are readily available—ranges from 50-75 miles and takes 1 to 

1-1/2 hours to drive to. Much of the land bordering the park is owned by the federal government 

(U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management) and is unlikely to be developed by the 

private sector to meet visitor needs. 

Conceptual Site Drawings 

Site Plan drawings are included for a few key locations in the discussion of the Alternative. These locations 

include Curry Village, Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area, Valley Maintenance Yard, and Yosemite 

Lodge Day-use Parking Area. These drawings are provided to demonstrate where facilities would be 

removed, relocated or constructed according to actions more fully described by project alternatives. These 
Introduction 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 8-11 

drawings do not represent a final proposal. More detailed design and construction documents would be 

developed consistent with the general concept presented here. 

River Value Analysis 

At the conclusion of each alternative description, there is an analysis of how each alternative is protective of 

River Values. Consistent with 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,” all actions included in 

each alternative must be protective of river values. This section demonstrates how the actions to address 

management concerns and considerations (i.e., river value restoration) in combination with the actions 

addressing issues/opportunities (i.e., user capacity elements) would be protective of river values. 
ALTERNATIVES

8-12 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 

This page intentionally left blank 
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 8-13 

ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Overview 

Alternative 1, also known as the “No Action Alternative,” is required by NEPA implementing regulations 

and serves as a baseline from which to compare the action alternatives. Alternative 1 represents existing 

conditions in 2011, when the NPS completed research studies intended to assess conditions of the Merced 

River, and the continuation of current park management into the future. This alternative assumes that 

current trends in the conditions of natural and cultural resources and visitor experiences would continue, 

consistent with the management activities that are ongoing under currently approved plans. Future actions 

that would require additional planning and environmental compliance could still occur, independent of the 

Merced River Plan/DEIS, but they are not considered part of the No Action Alternative for the purposes of 

conducting environmental compliance for the Merced River Plan. 

The overall management direction of Alternative 1 is based on current guiding management documents. 

The 1980 General Management Plan is the primary guiding document for park management, along with 

subsequent park-wide management documents such as the Wilderness Management Plan (1989), Concessions 

Services Plan (1992), Fire Management Plan (2004, with operational updates in 2009), and the Invasive Plant 

Management Plan (updated in 2010). In addition to following park-specific management policy, the NPS 

would also continue to comply with federal laws, including the NPS Organic Act, the Endangered Species 

Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Clean Water Act, and all other federal laws, directives, 

policies, and executive orders pertaining to park management. 

Under Alternative 1, 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 the courts determined that prior versions of the plan were invalid. Ecological 

restoration actions would be limited to those that would only require a Categorical Exclusion in compliance 

with NEPA, and those identified in the 2009 Settlement Agreement. The river corridor would be 1⁄4 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 no Section 7 

Determination Process. The ORVs, as articulated in Yosemite’s 1996 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan, 

would continue to be protected and enhanced. There would be no established limit to the number of 

visitors or vehicles that would be allowed within the corridor. There would be no changes to existing 

facilities, transportation systems or services. 

Summary of Current Actions and Issues Affecting River Values 

This section is intended to summarize (1) those actions that would protect and enhance river values that are 

already underway, and (2) issues that affect river values corridorwide. This section is not intended to 

summarize all the current management of resources in the river corridor; rather, it focuses on the actions 

that are directly related to issues identified in Chapter 5. This provides a baseline for comparing the actions 

that might be taken under the action alternatives (Alternatives 2-6) to protect and enhance river values. 

The following conditions would continue throughout all segments of the Merced River corridor under 

Alternative 1. 
ALTERNATIVES

8-14 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 

Free-Flowing Condition 

Impediments to free flow and their associated impacts would continue in all segments. 

 Riprap and revetment – All riprap would remain in place. 

 Abandoned infrastructure in river channel – Abandoned underground infrastructure in the river 

channel and meadow floodplains can alter the free-flowing condition of the river. This 

infrastructure, including remnants of former sewer treatment facilities, sewer and water lines, manholes, and former bridge abutments, would remain in place. 

 Large Wood Management – Large woody debris would continue to be removed from the river due 

to safety concerns and infrastructure protection, as it has for decades, particularly in the areas 

around the campgrounds and areas where rafting occurs. 

Water Quality 

As reported in 2010, water quality throughout the corridor would be expected to remain high, with isolated 

instances of minor contamination especially after storm events, but would not be expected to exceed water 

quality standards. 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 projects that 

would only require a Categorical Exclusion in compliance with NEPA, and those identified in the 2009 

Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement outlines that the NPS could proceed with restoration 

projects at the El Portal Greenemeyer sand pit, drainage improvements at Bridalveil, Cook’s, and El Capitan 

Meadows, comprehensive restoration at El Capitan Meadow, and riverbank restoration at North Pines 

Campground. 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 gives representative examples of 

ecological restoration actions in the Merced Wild and Scenic River corridor that can take place under 

Alternative 1. 

TABLE 8-1: SUMMARY 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. 
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 8-15 

Despite some ongoing impacts that would occur under the No Action Alternative, the NPS would continue 

to mitigate some impacts to biological values. As noted above, the NPS would continue restoration projects 

in several Yosemite Valley meadows and on the riverbank in certain places (per the Settlement Agreement). 

Specifically, the NPS would proceed with restoration projects at Bridalveil, Cook’s, and El Capitan 

Meadows, as well as riverbank restoration at North Pines Campground. Ecological 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. Other riverbank restoration projects that would require a 

categorical exclusion for NEPA compliance could also occur. The NPS would also continue invasive species 

control where such plants are present, as well as conifer removal from some meadows. 

The following issues identified in Chapter 5 would remain under this alternative: 

 Meadow trails – Informal trails in meadows would remain. 

 Encroaching conifers in meadows – Conifers would continue to encroach in meadows. The Fire 

Management Plan would continue to be implemented, thus addressing some of these encroachment 

areas through fire reintroduction.

 Riparian habitat – The current level of protection for the riparian zone along the beds and banks of 

the Merced River in all segments would remain in place. 

 Riparian restoration and river access – Localized riverbank erosion and scouring effect associated 

with bridges would remain. Visitor use continues on sensitive banks of the Merced River. Locations 

include those adjacent to Lower and North Pines Campgrounds, Yosemite Lodge beach access, 

Swinging Bridge Picnic Area, Sentinel Beach Picnic areas, 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. 

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 through monitoring for changing site conditions, developing and implementing treatment 

measures, implementing visitor and employee education, and conducting research. 

However, many resource impacts deriving from 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 through compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act 

and required consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, and the traditionally associated American Indian tribes and groups. 

 Archeological sites (general) – Informal trails, and non-essential roads and infrastructure on 

archeological sites would remain. Bike paths, campsites, roads, bridle paths, parking, staging areas, 

and trails remain on sensitive areas. Graffiti and climbing would continue on rock art and other 

sensitive features. 

Scenic Values 

 Scenic vista points – Traffic congestion would continue to affect scenic views, as would vegetation 

growth that blocks views, social trails, and trampled vegetation and riverbanks. Under the No Action 

Alternative, no scenic vista management actions would be taken in the Merced River corridor. 
ALTERNATIVES

8-16 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 

Summary of User Capacities, Land Use and Facilities Management 

Alternative 1 (No Action) would perpetuate the kinds and amounts of use that exist today (See Table 8-2). 

Under the No Action Alternative, existing user capacity management actions would continue. These include 

the use of the wilderness permit system for overnight use of the backcountry and the reservations systems 

for camping and lodging accommodations. Day use capacity would be managed through the active 

management of day-use parking. Traffic staff would be needed to direct parking in Yosemite Valley, in 

particular, and during peak use days inbound traffic may be diverted. 

Pilot transit programs would continue to provide limited additional service to destinations within the river 

corridor and Yosemite Valley in particular. 

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 350 350 

Employee Housing Employee Beds 15 15 

Administrative Day Use Day Patrols 5 5 

Yosemite Valley 

Visitor Overnight Use Rooms & Campsites 1,500 6,564 

Visitor Day Use Parking Spaces - 8,272 

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 192 192 

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 3 3 

Visitor Day Use Day Hikers 3 3 

Employee Housing Employee Beds - - 

Administrative Day Use Day Patrols 1 1 
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 8-17 

Visitor Overnight Capacity 

Camping 

Under Alternative 1, campgrounds in the Merced Wild and Scenic River corridor, including Yosemite 

Valley, would remain in their present locations and configuration, and at their existing capacities. The total 

camping capacity in the corridor under Alternative 1 would be 565 campsites accommodating up to 3,510 

people per night. Table 8-3 outlines existing campground locations in the Merced Wild and Scenic River 

corridor and the capacities of those campgrounds. 

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 (one group site and two stock use sites) 

Total Camping in Corridor 565 sites 

Lodging 

Under Alternative 1, lodging facilities in the Merced Wild and Scenic River corridor, including Yosemite 

Valley, would remain in their present locations and configuration, and at their existing capacities. The total 

lodging capacity in the corridor under Alternative 1 would be 1,160 units accommodating up to 3,979 

people per night. Table 8-4: Lodging – Alternative 1 (No Action) 

outlines the existing lodging locations in the Merced Wild and Scenic River corridor and their capacities. 

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 1,160 units

*Curry Village’s number accounts for the removal of temporary guest lodging units at 

Boys Town, per the 2009 Settlement Agreement. 
ALTERNATIVES

8-18 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 

Visitor Day Use Capacity and Transportation Options 

Under Alternative 1, parking and transportation infrastructure remain the same as existing conditions. 

Parking areas would remain at their current locations and the supply of spaces would be the same. During 

peak use periods parking demand would generally exceed the formally designated parking supply, and the 

number of vehicles searching for parking remains in the transportation circulation system and cause 

considerable traffic congestion and crowding. 

In 2011, for example, 68 out of the 100 days of the peak summer season had more vehicles in Yosemite 

Valley than there were parking spaces. On the highest visitation day in 2011, as many as 6,300 vehicles were 

in East Yosemite Valley at one time with only 5,200 available spaces (200 of which producing vegetation or 

related impacts), and an estimated 1,200 vehicles were on East Valley roadways that can handle only 400 

circulating vehicles without unacceptable congestion impacts (long travel times or growing queues at 

intersections and searching/waiting for parking spaces). On many high use days in recent years, vehicle 

queues form in mid-to-late afternoon along Northside Drive from Yosemite Lodge to Camp 6. On some 

days, the queue may reach past Curry Village as far as Stoneman Bridge (1.5 miles). This increases average 

travel times from Curry Village to Camp 4 to 30 minutes or more; under “free flow” conditions the trip takes 

about 8 minutes. It also increases the likelihood of traffic jams that may last for hours. 

Under these conditions, traffic management staff try to react to specific traffic circulation, flow, and parking 

problems, sometimes implementing temporary access restrictions to East Yosemite Valley or maintaining 

emergency lanes (which further congests traffic). 

Under Alternative 1, transportation models indicate that during the peak 100 days of summer use, there 

would be 81 days where inbound traffic exceeds the supply of parking spaces in East Yosemite Valley and 

creates congestion on roads as described above. Under this no-action alternative, use would also be allowed 

to increase in future years because there are no formal user capacities prescribed for day use. Taken 

together, the ad hoc traffic management actions (the shunt, emergency lane closures, directed parking at 

lots, traffic management at pedestrian crossings) are stop-gap measures to control impact and avoid 

gridlock, but traffic and parking conditions on these days will be poor. 

The total day-use parking spaces available in Yosemite Valley under Alternative 1 would be 2,337 and 

corridorwide the total day-use parking spaces available under would be 3,021. Table 8-5 summarizes the 

number of parking spaces for day use for each relevant segment of the river corridor. 

Under Alternative 1, transit would be provided to and around Yosemite Valley using a combination of invalley free shuttle bus service, regional transit, and private tour buses. Under Alternative 1, public transit 

options would include all existing routes and continuation of the 2012 summer pilot program for expansion 

of transit on the Highway 120 corridor. 

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 
Housekeeping Camp Footbridge Stoneman

Bridge

Northside Drive

Clark'sBridge

Tenaya

Bridge

Stoneman

Bridge

Happy Isles Bridge

Housekeeping Camp Footbridge Stoneman

Bridge

Northside Drive

Curry 

Village

Lower Pines

Campground

North Pines

Campground

Upper Pines

Campground

Clark'sBridge

Tenaya

Bridge

River C

orr di or B

oundary

Boys

Town

Sout

The Ahwahnee

hside Drive

Backpackers

Campground

Stoneman

Bridge

Happy Isles Bridge

Merced River

Stoneman

Meadow

Ahwahnee

Bridge

Sugar Pine

Bridge

Royal Arches

Meadow

Ahwahnee

Meadow

Yosemite Valley Archeo ol gical District

Huff

House

Concessioner

Stables

Tenaya Creek

Ahwahnee

Tennis Court

Former Upper and Lower

River Campground Area

Parking

Wilderness

Parking

Curry Village

Orchard Parking Area

0 0.25 Miles

YOSEMITE WILDERNESS

NO ACTIONCURRY VILLAGE AND CAMPGROUNDS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

EAST YOSEMITE VALLEY: CURRY VILLAGE AND CAMPGROUNDS1. 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, which accounts for the removal of temporary guest  lodging units at Boys Town, per the 2009 Settlement Agreement. • 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, ice rink, 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
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
River Corridor Boundary

Merced River

Nor ht s di e Dr vi e

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

Sent ni el Dr vi e

Indian Creek

Concessioner

General

Office

Residence 1

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 ACTIONYOSEMITE VILLAGE AND HOUSEKEEPING CAMP

Yosemite Village

Yosemite Val el y Archeo ol gical District

1

2

3

4

5

EAST YOSEMITE VALLEY: YOSEMITE VILLAGE AND HOUSEKEEPING CAMP1. 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 a six-acre 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
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
oS u

ht s di e

Dr vi e

Camp 4 

Campground

Yosemite

Creek Bridge

West of Yosemite

Lodge

Highland Court

Residence 1

Merced River

Cook's

Meadow

Sentinel

Meadow

Leidig Meadow

Yosemite

Lodge

Nor

ht s di e

Dr vi e

0 500 Feet

NO ACTIONYOSEMITE LODGE AND CAMP 4

3

1

2

4

5

7

6

EAST YOSEMITE VALLEY: YOSEMITE LODGE AND CAMP 41. Yosemite Lodge Annex • 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. • Temporary 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. 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
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
El Capitan

Meadow

Sentinel

Beach

El Capitan 

Bridge

Cathedral

Beach

Swinging

Bridge

Camp 4 Campground

Southside Dr vi e

Northsi d

e

Dr vi e

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 ACTIONWEST YOSEMITE VALLEY

1

2

3

River Corrid

or 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

El Portal Archeological District

Merce

d

River

0 0.4 Miles

NO ACTIONEL PORTAL

1

2

3

R

vi er Corrid

or B

oundary

4

5

WEST YOSEMITE VALLEY1. 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 through  out 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 

EL PORTAL1. 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 

 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.

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. Also, 36 private residences currently exist here. • 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 exists in a generally protected state, but oak seedling recruitment is limited by competition from invasive species, parking under the drip lines of trees and associated soil compaction, herbivory, and existing development. Valley oaks are also sensitive to overwatering, pruning, grade changes, and asphalt covering the root system. • Odger’s Fuel Storage Facility: Presence of this facility in the floodplain is not in compliance with NPS Floodplains Guidelines that require fuel  storage facilities to be located outside of the 500-year floodplain. • Residential Area: Nine vacant lots 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
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Merced R vi er

Merced Lake

Ranger Station

Merced

Lake Merced Lake High Sierra Camp

Merced Lake

Backpackers

Camping Area

Merced Lake

East Meadow

YOSEMITE

WILDERNESS

0 0.2 Miles NO ACTION

MERCED LAKE HIGH SIERRA CAMP

1

2

River Corridor Boundary 3

4

River Corridor Boundary

Wawona Hotel

So ut h Fork Merced River

gi B

r C ee k

YOSEMITE WILDERNESS

Wawona 

Stables

Wawona

Golf Course

Wawona

Campground

Wawona

Maintenance

Area

South Fork Picnic Area

Wawona Store Picnic Area

0 0.1 0.2 Miles

NO ACTIONWAWONA

1

2

3

Wa w ona Road

4

5

6

MERCED LAKE HIGH SIERRA CAMP1. 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. • 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 • 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.

WAWONA1. 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 maintenance facility would continue to exist in its current location, condition and configuration. • Wawona Stock Camp: The stock camp has two sites and 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
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 8-29 

Detailed Description of Alternative 1 (No Action) 

The following section describes the existing issues affecting river values in the Merced River corridor that 

would continue under Alternative 1 for the purposes of providing a baseline for comparison with the action 

alternatives (Alternatives 2-6). The intent is to identify where additional management is needed to address 

these issues, as described in Chapter 5. This section also describes the existing condition 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) 

Current Conditions: Issues Affecting River Values 

Biological Values 

 Administrative pack stock grazing – Merced Lake Ranger Station Meadow would continue to 

reflect high levels of bare ground and trampling associated with high levels of administrative pack 

stock grazing. 

 Meadow trails – There would be few or no mitigations for informal trails, trails in wet and/or 

sensitive vegetation, and trails that fragment meadow habitat, including meadow trails in the Triple 

Peak Fork, wetlands near Echo Valley and Merced Lake shore, and the mineral springs between 

Merced Lake and Washburn Lake. 

Scenic Values 

The Merced Lake High Sierra Camp would remain, affecting scenic views in the Merced Lake area. 

Recreational Values 

The wilderness experience would continue to be affected by high levels of visitor use along trails, at the 

Merced Lake High Sierra Camp, and at designated camping areas. 

Current Condition: User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management 

This alternative would accommodate the same kinds and amounts of use that exist today in this segment. 

The kinds of use would continue to focus on wilderness-oriented experiences characterized by self-reliance 

and opportunities for solitude. 

Visitor Activities and Services 

Primary activities in this segment would continue to include hiking and overnight 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 

services, 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 be allowed in this segment. Generally, use in this segment would consist of 

short floats using pack raft or other craft that can easily be carried into this remote area. 
ALTERNATIVES

8-30 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 

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, the wilderness 

zone capacities would remain unchanged as follows in Table 8-6: 

TABLE 8-6: WILDERNESS ZONE CAPACITIES – ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION) 

Wilderness Zones Alt 1 No Action 

Zonewide Capacity 

Alt 1 No Action Zone Capacity in 

River Corridor 

Little Yosemite Valley Zone 150 people 150 people 

Merced Lake Zone 50 50

Washburn Lake Zone 150 100

Mount Lyell Zone 50 10

Clark Range Zone 50 10

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 going to Half Dome, outside of the river corridor. This specific activity is 

managed through a permit system. As this is a wilderness area, the only access to this segment is by way of 

hiking trails. Day-use parking for the trailheads that access this segment is included in the calculations for 

Yosemite Valley (see Segment 2 below). 

Administrative Activities 

Administrative uses in Segment 1 consist primarily of regular ranger patrols and backcountry utility work as 

well as occasional trail/restoration crews. These activities are seasonal and minimal in comparison to visitor 

use and would not 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 stationed in Segment 1 for 4-8 days at a 

time. At any one point in time, between 6-10 NPS employees are stationed at Little Yosemite Valley ranger 

camp and 0-4 Merced Lake ranger station. On occasion trail crews of 5-15 people will pass through these 

areas may stay for 1-4 weeks at a time. There is no permanent housing in this segment. 

Employee and Administrative Parking Capacity 

Employee and administrative parking for this segment is located in Yosemite Valley and therefore is 

accounted for in the Segment 2 employee and administrative parking capacities. 

Transit Options 

Similar to parking, the only access to this wild segment is via hiking trails and the trailheads that provide 

access to this segment are located in Yosemite Valley (Segment 2). Thus, visitors who wish to recreate in this 

segment would use the transportation options to the Valley to access these trailheads. (Specific 

transportation options for reaching Segment 1 trailheads are listed below under Segment 2). 
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 8-31 

Segment 2- Yosemite Valley (Recreational and Scenic Segments) 

Current Condition: Issues Affecting River Values 

Free-Flowing Condition 

 Riverbank riprap – The approximately 15,589 feet of riprap along the bed and banks of the 

Merced River within the park would remain. 

 Bridges – All bridges and elevated roadways would remain in place without mitigations to address 

bridge-related impacts on free-flowing condition; this includes footings within the bed and banks 

of the Merced River, which serve as an impediment to hydrologic flows. 

 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 

inside the bed and banks of the river. 

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 in close 

proximity to the river. 

 Yosemite Valley Day-use Parking Area (Camp 6) – This unimproved parking area would remain 

without appropriate mitigations for water quality protection. It would continue to be located 

within the 5-10-yr floodplain, on former meadow, in the potential channel migration zone. Fill 

would remain in sensitive areas of this parking area. 

Biological Values 

As described above under “Overview”, some ecological restoration could occur under Alternative 1 (No 

Action); however most of the management concerns identified in Chapter 5 regarding meadow 

fragmentation in several Yosemite Valley meadows and localized impacts on riparian habitat along the river 

would not be addressed in this alternative. Specifically: 

 All existing development adjacent to the bed and banks of the river would remain, including 

camping, lodging facilities, and parking. 

 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. 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. Curry Village 

orchard parking area would remain in what was formerly part of Stoneman Meadow. 

 Former Pine and Oak Yosemite Lodge units – There is no development in the site of the former 

Pine and Oak cabins at Yosemite Lodge. However, fill and impacts from soil compaction from 
ALTERNATIVES

8-32 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 

removal of the former Yosemite Lodge units and cabins after the 1997 flood would remain. A 

network of roads remains that once facilitated access to these lodging units would remain. 

 Abandoned Infrastructure– Abandoned infrastructure would remain in Eagle Creek Meadow, 

Royal Arches Meadow, Cook’s Meadow, the western (closed) portion of former Lower Pines 

Campground and 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 – The Ahwahnee Meadow topography would continue to by 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. 

 Bridalveil Meadow – A head-cut from former ditch would remain adjacent to Bridalveil Meadow. 

 Former Upper and Lower River Campgrounds - Graded landscape, filled drainages, compacted 

soils, existing (amphitheater), abandoned infrastructure, and invasive plant infestations would 

remain. 

 El Capitan Meadow- Soil compaction and trampled vegetation resulting from informal trails and 

easy 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. 

 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 would remain 

near the river at Valley Campgrounds, El Capitan Bridge, Swinging Bridge, and Sentinel Beach 

Picnic Areas. 

 Housekeeping Camp – Several Housekeeping Camp units would remain located in the 2-10 year 

floodplain. 

 Yosemite Lodge – Several buildings would remain in the 100-year floodplain. 

 Pohono Bridge to Diversion Dam – There would continue to be no designated river access points 

in this reach; as a result, soil erosion and loss of vegetation would continue as well as unsafe parking 

practices resulting from improper roadside parking. 

Geologic/Hydrologic Values 

 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. 

 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 

 Traditionally used plant populations – Traditionally used plant populations would continue to be 

managed by 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. 
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 8-33 

 Residence 1 (Superintendent’s House) – This historic structure would remain subject to recurring 

flooding and subsequent water damage. The historic interior finishes, especially the distinctive 

plaster work, would remain in poor condition. Structural issues related to settling of the foundation 

have resulted in displacement of walls and floors would not be addressed. In addition, informal 

trailing that impact Cook's Meadow would not be addressed. 

 Historic resources – Alternative 1 would maintain all the collective sites representing the 

prominent historic patterns of development in Yosemite Valley in their current locations and in 

their current status. Those resources that are in conflict with other ORVs (e.g., Sugar Pine Bridge) 

and in poor or fair condition (e.g., Residence 1 and LeConte Memorial Lodge) would remain as 

such. 

Scenic Values 

The following visual intrusions into the natural scenery in Yosemite Valley would remain: 

 Human-made structures in Yosemite Valley (including roads and traffic through meadows and the 

presence of certain visitor and administrative facilities in the river corridor), 

 Vegetation growth that has intruded on scenic viewpoints historically available to park visitors, and 

 Riverbank erosion, 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. 

Recreational Values 

The following recreational values would continue: 

 Recreational Activity Participation- All current recreational activities would continue in the No 

Action Alternative, including site seeing, scenic driving, day hiking, wildlife viewing, picnicking, 

floating, creative arts, camping, bicycling, nature study, rock climbing and engaging in ranger lead 

programs. 

 Recreational Setting Attributes- The Merced River would continue to serve as a focal point for 

recreation in Yosemite Valley. Existing conditions of natural and cultural conditions will also 

negatively impact the recreational values by diminishing the quality of settings for visitors to enjoy. 

 Recreational Experience Quality- Visitors in both park surveys and other studies report feeling 

crowded by other visitors in Yosemite Valley during peak periods, especially in parking areas that 

provide access to the river and other major visitor destinations. However, visitors still report a 

relatively high level of visitor satisfaction. 

Current Condition: 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 

Under the No Action Alternative, recreational activities would remain as they are today. Yosemite Valley 

would provide for a diversity of river-related and other recreational opportunities. 

Activities:

 Interpretation – There would continue to be limited interpretive nature walks that educate the 

public on natural river processes and stewardship of river-related resources. 
ALTERNATIVES

8-34 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 

 Way finding – Inadequate way finding and unclear pedestrian circulation would remain at Happy 

Isles. 

 Boating- Commercial and private boating is currently allowed on a 2.4 mile reach of the Merced 

River between Stoneman Bridge and Sentinel Picnic Area. Peak use levels of the open boating reach 

in Yosemite Valley is most commonly between 150-250 boats per day, but can be as high as 300 

boats per day. About two-thirds of this use is from commercial rafts. 

Services: 

 Curry Village Services: The configuration and level of services and facilities in Curry Village would 

remain unchanged. The Concessioner Stables would continue to be used by the concessioner to 

house the stock animals used for and day rides and to operate the High Sierra Camp. The herd has 

decreased in size since this facility was constructed, but the facility footprint remains the same. A 

kennel service would also continue to be operated out of the stables. 

 Housekeeping Camp: Visitor use facilities at Housekeeping Camp would continue to include shower 

houses and restrooms, laundry and a grocery store. 

 The configuration and level of services and facilities in Yosemite Village would remain unchanged, 

including facilities such as the Concessioner General Office, Concessioner Garage, and the Bank 

Building. Inadequate visitor way-finding at Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area (Camp 6) would 

persist.

 Bridalveil Fall: The existing design of the pedestrian circulation system at this popular attraction 

site does not accommodate the level of visitor use it receives. A network of social trails exists. 

Neither the pedestrian walkways nor the restrooms meet current accessibility standards. 

 El Capitan Meadow: The shuttle stop at El Capitan is not a formal, appropriately designed stop. 

Visitor Overnight Capacity 

Overnight capacities would remain the same. Reservation systems for both lodging and camping would 

continue. 

Campgrounds would maintain a total of 466 sites accommodating up to 2,892 people per night. 

 Backpackers Campground – 25 campsites including 2 administrative sites would remain in close 

proximity to the river. 

 Former Upper River Campground – The former campground area would continue to passively 

ecologically restore to natural conditions. Material such as asphalt and fill material would remain. 

 Former Lower River Campground: The former campground area would continue to passively 

ecologically restore to natural conditions. Material such as asphalt and fill material would remain. 

 Lower Pines – 76 campsites would be retained (16 sites are for administrative use; 18 sites are RVonly). 

 North Pines – 86 campsites would be retained (5 sites are for administrative use; 23 sites are RVonly). 

 Upper Pines – 240 campsites would be retained (2 are for administrative use; 44 sites are RV only 

sites) 

 Camp 4 – The current configuration and number of campsites would remain at Camp 4. 

Lodging would remain at a total capacity of 1,034 units, accommodating up to 3,672 people per night. 
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 8-35 

 The Ahwahnee: Services and facilities that include bar and food service, dining room, gift shop, 

sweet shop, pool, and tennis courts would be retained. 

 There are 400 lodging units at Curry Village that can be included Alternative 1 (No Action) per the 

2009 Settlement Agreement; 103 additional temporary guest lodging units currently in the Boys 

Town area are not considered part of this alternative. 

 The Curry Orchard Parking area would continue to have approximately 424 parking spaces that are 

not formalized with best management practices. 

 All 266 units at Housekeeping Camp lodging units would be retained, and would remain within the 

100-year floodplain. 

 Yosemite Lodge services and facilities would be retained in current configuration and at current 

level of service, and would continue to be used for overnight lodging, parking and food service. 

Visitor Day Use Capacity 

In this alternative, no changes would be made to available parking capacity in Yosemite Valley (2,337 spaces 

accommodating up to 7,260 people at one time). 

Parking and traffic circulation at The Ahwahnee would continue to be inadequate to meet overnight and 

day-use demand. 

The Wilderness Parking Area was not designed as a formal parking area and would continue to be 

undelineated and undersized for demand. Soils in this location, which once served as a landfill for Curry 

Village, would not be remediated. 

Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area (Camp 6/Village Store): There is currently a four-way 

intersection at the exit of the parking area near Northside and Sentinel Drives. People cross at this 

intersection to get to and from visitor services from the parking area. Informal shoulder parking overflow 

from the day-use parking area is encroaching on sensitive habitat in this location. This parking area is an 

approximately 6 acre dirt lot, currently being used to park approximately 517 vehicles on peak days using 

directed parking. There are 237 Yosemite Village parking spaces. 

Yosemite Lodge: Demand for day-use parking would continue to exceed supply during summer peak-use 

periods. There would continue to be no parking at Highland Court, due to the placement of temporary 

housing in the parking lot after the 1997 flood. The west portion of the Yosemite Lodge parking area would 

continue to be used for overflow parking for tour buses and transit buses, day use and overnight use. 

Camp 4: The Camp 4 Parking Lot would continue to be inadequately sized for current levels of overnight 

and trailhead parking. There would continue to be a total of 89 parking spaces in the main Camp 4 Parking 

Lot, 29 overnight vehicles and 33 day use vehicles in the overflow parking across Northside Drive. 

Administrative Activities 

Administrative uses are well-established in this segment. Both NPS administrative offices and concessioner 

offices are located in the Valley along with NPS and concession employee housing. 

Employee Housing Capacity 

All employee housing would remain in this segment under this alternative. This would include 1,151 beds 

for concessioner employees and 71 units (164 beds) for NPS employees. There would continue to be 

temporary housing at Huff House. Temporary housing would continue to occupy the Lost Arrow parking 
ALTERNATIVES

8-36 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 

lot. The Tecoya Dorms, Ahwahnee Row Housing, and associated parking would remain within the 100-year 

floodplain, with no development setback form Indian Creek. There would continue to be employee housing 

in the Yosemite Lodge area at Highland Court and the Thousands Cabins. Yellow Pine Administrative 

Campground would continue to only be available for administrative use (4 group sites for up to 120 people.) 

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. 

Transit Options 

Regional bus service into Yosemite Valley is shown in Table 8-7. A maximum of 270 people at one time 

could arrive to the Valley on regional transit. 

Commercial tour buses are allowed to park in 15 parking spaces allocated for that use near the Yosemite 

Lodge. With all seats filled on these buses, a maximum of about 720 people could arrive to Yosemite Valley 

on commercial tour buses. All regional transit runs are done with 48 passenger buses. 

TABLE 8-7: TRANSIT OPTIONS- ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION) 

9. Regional Transit Options 

HWY 140 

Merced/Mariposa to Yosemite 

Valley 

8 runs / day (4 from Merced; 4 from Mariposa) 

(year round) 

HWY 41 

Fresno/Oakhurst to Yosemite 

Valley 

No Service 

HWY 120 West 

Groveland/Sonora to 

Yosemite Valley 

1 weekday run- Sonora to Valley 

2 weekend runs- Groveland to Valley 

(summer only) 

HWY 120 East 

Inyo/Mono County (Mammoth 

Lakes) to Yosemite Valley 

1 run per day 

(summer only) 

10. 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 min. interval between buses 

(summer only) 

El Capitan Crossover 30 min. interval between buses 

(summer only) 

West Yosemite Valley No service 
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 8-37 

Segment 3 – Merced Gorge (Scenic Segment) 

Current Conditions: Issues Affecting River Values 

Scenic Values 

Views from the river and roads in Segment 3 continue to have high aesthetic value. Pullouts and roadside 

interpretive displays would be maintained. 

Current Conditions: User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management 

Visitor Activities and Services 

The kinds of use that are currently provided in this segment would continue. The primary activity would 

remain scenic driving along Highway 140 for travelers to other park destinations. However, several pullouts 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. 

 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. This section of river is steep and rocky, and boatable only by the most advanced paddlers. 

Visitor Overnight Capacity 

There are no overnight accommodations in this segment. 

Visitor Day-use Parking Capacity 

The day-use parking capacity in this segment would remain at 180 spaces. 

Administrative Activities 

Administrative use in this segment would continue to be focused on the Arch Rock Entrance Station and the 

thru-traffic accessing Yosemite Valley and other park destinations. 

Employee Housing Capacity 

The residential unit at the Arch Rock Area would continue to house up to 9 NPS employees. 

Employee and Administrative Parking Capacity 

Minimal designated parking would be available for administrative use at the Arch Rock Entrance station. 

This parking is signed for employees only; employees do not compete with visitors for parking and access. 

Transit Options 

Public transit options along this segment would be expanded as described in the Yosemite Valley segment 

(see Segment 2 above). 
ALTERNATIVES

8-38 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 

Segment 4- El Portal (Scenic Segment) 

Current Conditions: Issues Affecting River Values 

Free-Flowing Condition 

 Abandoned infrastructure– Abandoned infrastructure and imported fill at Cascades Picnic Area, 

Abbieville, and Trailer Village would remain. 

 River channel – The Merced River in El Portal would continue to be confined by riprap and 

Highway 140. Standards for revetment repair would not be developed in partnership with 

CalTrans. 

 Greenemeyer sand pit – Greenemeyer sandpit would continue to contain fill material that 

precludes natural flooding and regeneration of riparian plant communities. 

Water Quality 

 NPS Maintenance and Administrative Complex– The off-street and roadside parking areas 

would be 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. 

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. 

Current Conditions: User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management 

Visitor Activities and Services 

Most recreational activities that take place in this segment are oriented toward the local community, while 

the vast majority of park visitors 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, and not continue into Yosemite. Primary river recreation activities including swimming, 

fishing and boating would continue. 

Visitor Overnight Capacity 

There are no NPS overnight accommodations for the public in El Portal. An expansive lodging complex is 

located on private land near the park boundary, outside of NPS jurisdiction. 

Visitor Day-use Parking Capacity 

The current amount of visitor day-use parking (214 spaces) would be retained, consisting primarily of 

parking at the Store and Gas Station and along the roadsides. 
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 8-39 

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 under 

Alternative 1. 

Employee Housing Capacity 

Employee housing is currently made up of 126 units that house 192 employees in this segment. 

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. NPS would maintain the 610 parking spaces for administrative uses and 

the 106 residential spaces. 

Transit Options 

As in the Yosemite Valley and Merced Gorge segments along Highway 140, public transit along this travel 

corridor would be maintained. For a complete summary of the transit option along this corridor, see the 

Segment 2 summary of Transit Options above. 

Segment 5- South Fork Merced River above Wawona (Wild Segment) 

Current Conditions: Issues Affecting River Values 

Cultural Values 

Informal trails and visitor use would continue to impact rock ring features and related archeological 

resources in this segment. 

User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management 

Use in Segment 5 would remain very low and river values would remain protected under Alternative 1. 

Visitor Activities and Services 

Recreational activities in this segment remain limited to occasional overnight backpacking and day hiking. 

The kinds of recreational activities would remain the same in Alternative 1. 

Private boating would be allowed in this segment. Generally, use in this segment would consist of short 

floats using pack raft or other craft that can easily be carried into this remote area. This use would not be 

regulated under Alternative 1. 

Visitor Overnight Capacity 

Very little overnight use occurs in Segment 5. No changes to wilderness zone capacities are proposed in 

Alternative 1. 
ALTERNATIVES

8-40 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 

Visitor Day-use Parking Capacity 

As this is in Wilderness, the only immediate access to this segment is via hiking trails. Day-use parking for 

the trailheads that lead to this segment is included in the Wawona area (see Segment 7 below) or by way of 

USFS trails that via Quartz Mountain and Chiquito Pass. Otherwise, very little day use occurs along this 

segment. 

Administrative Activities 

Administrative uses are inconsequential in this segment and no changes are proposed. 

Employee Housing Capacity 

There is no employee housing in this segment. 

Employee and Administrative Parking Capacity 

There is no employee parking in this segment. 

Transit Options 

Similar to parking, the only access to this wild segment is via hiking trails and the trailheads that provide 

access to this area are located in Wawona (Segment 7) or by way of U.S. Forest Service trails. Visitors who 

wish to recreate in this segment would use the transportation options to Wawona to access these trailheads. 

(Specific transportation options for reaching Segment 5 trailheads are listed below under Segment 7). 

Segment 6 and 7- Wawona and Wawona Impoundment (Recreational Segments) 

Current Conditions: Issues Affecting River Values 

Free-Flowing Condition 

 Wawona impoundment – The current water collection and distribution system would be retained. 

The water conservation plan relating to the minimum flow analysis for the South Fork would 

continue to be implemented. 

 Abandoned infrastructure – Abandoned metal pipes in side channels on the South Fork Merced 

River would remain, dewatering the terrace. 

Water Quality 

 Water withdrawals – Surface water withdrawals from the South Fork of the Merced River in 

Wawona would continue and when drought reduces river flows to less than 6 cubic feet per 

second. The NPS would continue to limit withdrawals to 10% or less of the river’s actual flow, 

implementing water conservation measures as needed to provide adequate water service to the 

community. 

 Waste water collection system for the Wawona Campground – Wawona Campground would be 

served by septic tanks and leach fields. When the capacity is exceeded, there would continue to be a 

potential for effluent to migrate into ground water and the river. 

 Wawona recreational vehicle (RV) dump station – The Wawona RV dump station would remain 

very close to the banks of the river. 
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 8-41 

 Wawona Store Picnic Area– The Wawona Store Picnic Area near Pioneer History Center would 

continue to receive visitor use levels during peak periods that exceed the design of the existing 

infrastructure. There would be no formal river access point here on this steep riverbank. 

 South Fork Wawona Picnic Area - The South Fork Wawona Picnic Area is not delineated and has 

no formal river access point. Visitors would continue to access the river by creating informal trails. 

Cultural Values 

 Archeological Sites - Informal trails and visitor use would continue to cause ground disturbing 

impacts to surface and sub-surface archeological resources. 

Current Conditions: User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management 

Overall, Alternative 1 would provide for the same kinds and amounts of use that presently exist in the 

Wawona area. Segment 6 includes the Wawona impoundment and no use is allowed in this area due to 

water quality and safety concerns. Therefore, the summary of user capacity 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. 

 Swimming opportunities would continue to be popular at the Swinging Bridge area. 

 Fishing regulations would continue. 

 Private boating would continue to be allowed, 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 overnight capacity of the Wawona Hotel would remain the same at 104 rooms accommodating a 

maximum of 247 people per night. 

The Wawona Campground capacity would remain the same at 96 individual sites and 1 group site. The 2 

stock-use campsites would also remain, bringing the total capacity of camping to a maximum of 618 people 

per night. 

Visitor Day-use Parking Capacity 

Day-use parking capacity would remain at 290 spaces, as in the other action alternatives. 

Administrative Activities 

NPS Administrative uses are well-established in this segment would continue. Both NPS administrative 

offices and visitor services offices remain located in their current locations. 
ALTERNATIVES

8-42 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 

Employee Housing Capacity 

There are 79 employee housing units in this river segment. No changes are proposed to employee housing in 

this segment. 

There would continue to be a total of 118 concessioner employees in Wawona under Alternative 1. The 

majority of these employees would live in the Wawona community or elsewhere outside the river corridor. 

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. 

Transit Options 

Transit options would remain unchanged in Alternative 1. The Wawona area shuttle would continue, 

serving the key destinations within this segment along with the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias. The 

daily concession operated shuttle between Wawona and Yosemite Valley would also continue. 

Segment 8- South Fork Merced below Wawona (Wild Segment) 

Current Conditions: Issues Affecting River Values 

There are no issues or actions related to river values in this segment. 

Current Conditions: User Capacity, Land Use and Facilities Management 

Visitor Activities and Services 

Most recreational use in this segment consists of day visitors swimming or hiking. Additionally, some rafters 

may 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 Merced. However, this section 

of river is very short within the National Park, and very few people attempt this trip given the high skill level 

required. These activities would continue under this alternative. 

Visitor Overnight Capacity 

No overnight use is proposed for this segment. 

Visitor Day-use Parking Capacity 

The only immediate access to this segment is via hiking trails. Day-use parking is included in the Wawona 

area (see Segment 7 below). Otherwise, very little day use occurs along this segment. 

Administrative Activities 

Little or no administrative use occurs along this segment and no changes are proposed. 

Employee Housing Capacity 

There is no employee housing in this segment. 
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 

Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 8-43 

Employee and Administrative Parking Capacity 

There is no employee or administrative parking in this segment. 

Transit Options 

Transit services for access to this segment are described above under Segment 7. 

Necessity of Major Public-use Facilities and Services 

Under this alternative all of the facilities and services evaluated in Chapter 7 would remain. A determination 

as to their necessity in accordance with the WSRA mandate is not required. 
ALTERNATIVES

8-44 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / DEIS 

This page intentionally left blank 
Southside Drive Northside Drive

1

Curry Village Residential Area

Huff House Temporary Employee Housing

Historic cabins (guest lodging)

Curry Village Ice Rink

Bicycle rental and raft rental stands

Stoneman Cottage

Curry Pavilion (food services)

2

2

1

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

Stoneman Meadow 8

8

8

6

7

Curry Orchard Parking Area 9

Campground Reservation Center

Boys Town guest lodging

10

11 Tents (guest lodging)

12

7
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Food service

Village Mall

Village Store

Art Activity Center

(former bank building)

Concessioner General Office

Parking area

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

7

7

Sentinel Drive

9

9

Village Drive

11

11

10

10

13

13

12

12

12

Northside Drive
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Yosemite Lodge driveway 

and parking areas

Guest lodging

Thousands Cabins 

employee housing

Swimming pool, snack and

bicycle rental stands, 

and post office

Food service and retail stores

Lodge registration

Highland Court temporary

employee housing

2

2

2

2

1

3

4

5

5

6

Linen storage and laundry

8

8

7

7

NPS volunteer office

9

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
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Open storage areas

NPS stables and corral

Covered storage structures

Search and Rescue operations

Fueling station

Government Utility Building

Service bay access

2

2

1

1

3

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

Utility buildings 8

8

8

7

7

Former construction

management office (removed)

9

9

Concessioner Maintenance

and Warehouse Building

10

10
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK