The social and economic environments, for purposes of this discussion, include characteristics of the affected communities in the region, visitor populations and trends, revenues and expenditures affecting regional economies in connection with employment, visitor expenditures, construction spending, and concessioners and cooperators. Impacts of Alternative 2 on these social and economic environments are discussed below.

LOCAL COMMUNITIES

The No Action Alternative would result in impacts on communities expected to occur as a result of continuing with the status quo. A description of those impacts follows. No substantive changes to population, community character, employee commutes, or housing standards are expected to occur.

Yosemite Valley

Currently, the majority of National Park Service and concessioner employees reside in the Yosemite Valley community. The No Action Alternative would not relocate employees from Yosemite Valley, and the character of the Yosemite Valley community would not be expected to change. Employee housing conditions would remain crowded and not secured from break-ins. Segregation of employees based on employers, physical deterioration of housing units, and a lack of privacy within many units would continue. These elements, combined with a lack of sufficient housing types for employees with families, would continue to create high levels of stress and low morale among employees. These influences would continue to perpetuate high employee turnover and difficult recruitment. However, some facilities, functions, and jobs have already been moved out of the Valley, changing the character of the community.

El Portal

Under this alternative, no employees would be relocated from Yosemite Valley to El Portal, and no additional housing would be constructed in El Portal to meet the demand for increased employee housing. Therefore, there would be no change on El Portal’s residential population under this alternative, and no measurable change in the El Portal social environment, including housing characteristics, commuting distances, amenities, and infrastructure.

Wawona

This alternative would have no direct impact on the social environment in Wawona because it would not change the number of employees living in Wawona. It would not have any impacts on travel along the Wawona Road.

Foresta

Fourteen homes in Foresta were destroyed by the A-Rock Fire of 1990. The Foresta community currently has 12 homes, seven of which are occupied permanently. Under this alternative, none of the destroyed homes would be rebuilt. Therefore, there would be no effect on Foresta’s current population or social environment.

Cascades and Arch Rock

While not technically a local community, under this alternative, the housing at Cascades and Arch Rock would remain the same (Cascades — 4 beds, Arch Rock — 8 beds).

Yosemite West

This alternative would have no impacts on the social environment in Yosemite West because it would not change the existing population, housing characteristics, commuting distances, community amenities, or community structure.

Local Communities Conclusion

This alternative would not change the existing character of the communities of Yosemite Valley, El Portal, Wawona, Foresta, Cascades/Arch Rock, or Yosemite West. Employee transportation in the communities would also remain unchanged. Crowded and substandard housing conditions and a general lack of housing availability and privacy would continue to exist for employees living in Yosemite Valley.

Cumulative Impacts

Past Actions

The joint Forest Service/Bureau of Land Management South Fork and Merced Wild and Scenic River Implementation Plan (USFS/BLM 1991b) describes management actions for segments of the Merced River, main stem and South Fork, which are located west of Yosemite National Park and east of Lake McClure, on lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. Within the segments designated wild and recreational, the joint plan calls for protection of vegetation and cultural resources, and directs that adverse impacts be mitigated. Currently, commercial rafting is limited to approximately existing levels, and campsite improvements have enhanced recreational opportunities while protecting vegetation and riparian zones. Some trampling and soil compaction have occurred in high use areas. The project has generally shown long-term beneficial impacts to the social environment of the El Portal community, in that it has protected and enhanced recreational opportunities. The impacts have been confined to specific locations within the project area, generally down-river from El Portal. Therefore, when combined with these effects, the social conditions in El Portal under the No Action Alternative would generally experience a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact due to the community’s relative proximity to the Wild and Scenic River area.

The El Portal Road Improvement project between Yosemite Valley and El Portal required complete road closure for extended periods during the two-year construction schedule. Extended daily road closures caused the greatest impact to the community, commuting and transportation. Employees and community residents were required to adjust their personal activities and work schedules to accommodate the road closure schedule. In addition, during road closure periods, El Portal had only one access road into and out of the community, Highway 140 west through the Merced River Canyon. Slides and slope failures causing emergency road closures of Highway 140 west of El Portal occurred concurrently with construction-related road closures east of El Portal, essentially isolating the community for short periods of time. Combined with these day-to-day and emergency-related road closures, the No Action Alternative had a short-term, moderate, adverse impact on the community, commuting, and transportation. The road reconstruction schedule called for completion of the project within two years.

Present Actions

Two actions in the planning stage and one action currently under construction within the Yosemite region may have potential cumulative relationships to the actions of the alternative. The Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) and the Highway 41 Bridge Reconstruction projects are in the demonstration or planning stage and El Portal Road Reconstruction project is under construction.

YARTS has the potential to reduce the overall number of vehicles traveling on roadways through and adjacent to communities, while providing additional transportation options for park visitors, employees and community members. One of the goals of YARTS is to attract Yosemite employees as riders. The experimental demonstration YARTS service is underway on all access roadways into Yosemite Valley. Many employees who live along these transportation routes and work in the Valley would otherwise have limited alternative transportation options. Additional commuting options could create a more economical and less stressful commuting environment. YARTS could also reduce congestion on adjacent roadways. YARTS and the No Action Alternative combined would therefore have a potentially long-term minor beneficial cumulative impact to the region’s social environment.

The Highway 41 Bridge reconstruction project could cause some disruption to the Wawona social environment during construction when traffic is delayed temporarily. However, delays are expected to be short-term and would occur only when traffic is rerouted onto and from the temporary bridge. Combined with these effects, the No Action Alternative would have a short-term, minor, adverse impact on the social environment in the region.

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

The Yosemite View Parcel Land Exchange between the National Park Service and Yosemite Motels would exchange up to 8 acres of lands within the El Portal Administrative Site. The exchange would allow for relocation of the park entrance station and development of visitor facilities adjacent to the existing Yosemite Motels complex. Although the site is not frequently used by community residents, the project would somewhat reduce the amount of open space available to the community. The project would also eliminate future options for using the land for other community and visitor needs, such as housing, parking, or visitor or operational facilities. However, because a relatively small number of community residents use the site, when combined with the No Action Alternative, the impact would be long-term, minor and adverse.

The Bureau of Land Management’s Merced River Canyon Trail Acquisition would allow for development of a recreational trail within the Merced River canyon, west of the El Portal Administrative Site. This project would enhance recreational opportunities in the El Portal community by allowing for development of a multi-use path along the Merced River, from Incline Road to Briceburg. When combined with the No Action Alternative, this would result in a long-term, moderate beneficial impact to the local community.

The Yosemite West 55 and 31-acre Rezoning Applications are in the conceptual stages at this time. The projects would probably lead to construction of housing for concessioner and National Park Service employees, and separate development of a bed-and-breakfast resort complex and other commercial facilities. These privately developed projects would, if constructed, provide an additional location for employee housing, and thus could disperse and reduce the reliance on existing housing areas within the Yosemite region, including El Portal and Wawona. However, the community of Yosemite West would potentially see a substantial increase in the number of permanent full-time and seasonal residents, thereby increasing the demand for additional services, facilities and amenities. Social dimensions also would change in association with the increase in Yosemite West’s population. Sewage treatment facilities in Yosemite West are currently operating at maximum capacity and would need to be improved to accommodate the proposals. Also, additional commercial and housing development in this area could lead to additional visitor transportation issues inside Yosemite National Park, and could potentially cause an increase in employee commuting from the area. Based on the conceptual plans, both adverse and beneficial aspects would occur. However, without further information these social impacts could be considered long-term, moderate, and adverse.

The Yosemite West Wastewater Improvements Project could cause a long-term moderate adverse cumulative impact to the Social Environment of Yosemite West by allowing for an increase in the level of development in the community, and increasing demand on other community infrastructure, amenities and services.

A proposed development by Yosemite Motels, Inc., would construct 141 motel units and a 14,400-square-foot recreation building at the site of the existing Yosemite View Lodge near El Portal. (This project may be partially dependent upon the Yosemite View Parcel Land Exchange and approval of a development permit application by Mariposa County.) The addition of 141 new motel units would create new hotel tax revenues and potential spending impacts from increased visitation. An additional 141 new lodging units would allow for approximately 98,000 additional visitor overnight stays per year. These additional stays would generate a net gain of approximately $5.3 million per year in total (direct and secondary) visitor spending, a long-term minor beneficial impact on the local economy. If new visitors are attracted to the region by the increase in lodging capacity, visitor spending growth would be higher and the impact would be greater. When combined with this alternative there would be long-term, minor, adverse changes in the demand for services and infrastructure expected from the Yosemite Motels project.

When considered in combination with the No Action Alternative, the effects of closing the Trailer Village could cause a short-term, moderate, adverse impact to trailer owners. The impact would be short-term because all owners affected by the closure action would be potentially eligible for benefits under the Uniform Relocation Act of 1970.

The potential Seventh Day Adventist Land Exchange project would not involve a substantial increase in the level of visitation to the camp; nor is it expected to cause an increase in traffic congestion, or other camp related management activities; and it is not expected to substantively affect private land owners in the Wawona community. However, the eventual relocation of the camp to the exchanged lands may cause a negligible change in land use and related activities. Therefore, it is projected that the project may have a long-term, negligible, adverse impact on the Social Environment of the Wawona community, and would not increase the cumulative effects under the No Action Alternative.

The reconstruction of the Incline Road in El Portal caused a short-term, minor, adverse impact to the community of El Portal because it temporarily limited access to the river access points on the south side of the Merced River, west of Foresta Bridge.

The Wawona Campground Rehabilitation project could cause short-term, minor, adverse impacts to the Wawona social environment during the rehabilitation process. Specifically, these potential impacts could occur in association with temporary road closures that would accompany the installation of a sewer line to the campground. When considered in combination with these efforts, the impact of the No Action Alternative would remain short-term, minor, and adverse.

The University of California and the National Park Service have considered Wawona as a potential location for the UC Merced — Sierra Nevada Research Institute. If the Research Institute is located in Wawona it could cause a potential long-term, minor, adverse impact to the social environment of Wawona, because it could cause a slightly detectable increase in community congestion, and an increase in demand for community amenities and services.

The Hazel Green Ranch proposal is not expected to have cumulative impacts to the social environment of the local communities.

Overall, projects described under the cumulative impacts analysis of Alternative 1 would have both beneficial and adverse short- and long-term impacts when combined with the No Action Alternative. Local communities of El Portal, Wawona, and Foresta would each experience impacts ranging between negligible to major. When comprehensively considered in combination with the impacts of this No Action Alternative, these projects would represent a negligible to minor proportion of the total impact.

VISITOR POPULATION

Day Visitors

Under this alternative, and for the purposes of the impact analysis, it is projected that future day visitation would remain unchanged from its 1998 visitation level, which averaged 10,950 visitors per summer day. In addition, day visitation typically peaks on weekends during the summer above the 10,950 average visitation level.

Overnight Visitors

Under this alternative, no changes to the park’s lodging and camping facilities are proposed; existing lodging and camping would remain available. No impact on overnight visitation would occur under this alternative.

Minority and Low-Income Visitors/Environmental Justice

No impacts on minority and low-income visitor populations are expected because no change would result from this alternative. As discussed in Vol. Ia, Chapter 3, Affected Environment, there is currently an under-representation of minority and low-income visitors to the park. Under this alternative, the composition of Yosemite’s visitor population would remain unchanged. Furthermore, no significant changes to the park’s facilities and operations are proposed that would appreciably affect the visitor population. Therefore, the future impacts on the visitor population as a whole, as well as on minority and low-income populations, would be negligible.

Visitor Population Conclusion

Under this alternative, no changes to the park’s visitor facilities or operations are proposed, and therefore no impacts on visitors are expected.

REGIONAL ECONOMIES

Visitor Spending

No changes in Yosemite visitor spending behavior are projected under this alternative, because no changes to the types of goods and services available to visitors would occur. Visitor spending patterns and estimates based primarily on the 1998 Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) survey have been used to estimate future visitor spending behavior.

Construction Spending

Under this alternative, no new construction is proposed to occur within Yosemite Valley. Therefore, no construction spending impact on the regional economy is projected under this alternative.

Employment

Under this alternative, no changes in visitor spending or construction spending with the park are projected. As a result, no change in park employment is projected; therefore, no employment impact on the regional economy is projected under this alternative.

Regional Economies Conclusion

Because no changes in visitor spending or construction spending in the park are projected under this alternative, no changes in park employment are projected. Therefore, no employment impact on the regional economy is projected.

Cumulative Impacts

Visitor Spending

The additional 757 new out-of-park lodging units identified in Appendix H (such as new motel development at Yosemite View Lodge and Tioga Inn) would allow for approximately 525,500 additional visitor overnight stays per year. These stays would generate approximately $18.8 million in annual visitor spending, a beneficial impact on the regional economy. No impact to overall park visitation is expected since it is assumed that these additional overnight stays would be filled by visitors who would otherwise be day use visitors to the park. If new visitors are attracted to the region by the increase in lodging capacity, visitor spending growth would be higher and the impact would be greater.

An additional $18.8 million in annual visitor spending would also generate approximately $10.3 million in secondary impacts, for a total estimated spending-associated annual impact on output of $29.1 million after construction is completed at full build-out. Existing lodging and camping units in the park generate approximately $238.8 million per year in overnight visitor spending, and the region’s visitor services sector generates at least $770 million per year. Thus, new visitor spending generated by the projects in Appendix H would represent a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on the region’s economy.

Construction Spending

Local construction spending would be generated by housing, transportation, lodging, and other commercial projects, as identified in Appendix H.

Housing

Average annual construction spending on housing would be approximately $235.0 million under this alternative. Nearly all of this spending would be associated with housing construction in Merced County. This estimate does not include major housing development planned under the Rio Mesa Area Plan (29,000 units in Madera County over 100 years), because the project is still in the conceptual stage and no information is available about construction scheduling.

Transportation

Several transportation projects are identified in Appendix H. Based on the most recent estimates available, annual construction spending on these transportation projects would average approximately $2.7 million.

Lodging

Future construction spending for lodging would average approximately $1.3 million annually under this alternative.

Other Commercial

Total construction spending on other commercial projects identified in Appendix H would average approximately $16.0 million annually under this alternative.

As summarized in table 4-24 below, average annual construction spending on the projects outlined in Appendix H would be approximately $255.0 million under this alternative. Additional construction spending would generate secondary output impacts as a result of local spending on material inputs and wage spending by project labor. For annual construction spending of $255 million, secondary impacts are estimated to be approximately $109.4 million. The total change in annual output (combining both direct and secondary) would therefore be $364.4 million.

Overall, construction output in 1998 was $749.2 million in the five-county region surrounding Yosemite. Under this alternative, the total change in annual output (involving both direct and secondary outputs) from construction spending related to projects identified in Appendix H would be approximately $364.7 million, a long-term, major, beneficial impact on overall industrial output in the region.

Employment

Under this alternative, it is estimated that the equivalent of up to 614 jobs would be supported by the increase in visitor spending in the region. In addition, the equivalent of 2,900 to 8,600 full-time jobs would be supported each year from construction spending, depending on the phase of construction. It is expected that a large proportion of the general labor and raw materials would come from local sources. Unemployed labor (i.e., the available workforce) in the surrounding region (22,180) would considerably outnumber the projected number of new jobs created from construction and visitor spending. A labor shortage is not expected because of the large number of unemployed workers in the region. However, employment needs for large construction projects (especially the Merced County projects such as the proposed housing and university campus development) could also be met by residents of neighboring counties outside the affected region, such as Fresno. In such a case, the economic benefits identified would instead be gained outside the region.

In addition, several specific projects would create temporary and full-time employment opportunities within the region in the reasonably foreseeable future. For example, the new University of California Merced campus (UC Merced) is projected to create 6,600 permanent positions for faculty and staff at full build-out. Highly skilled and specialized positions such as professorships are likely to be filled by people from outside the region. However, the new campus would also create a large number of permanent job opportunities for the local workforce, such as maintenance and clerical positions.

According to the transportation consultants for the YARTS project, In the short term, YARTS is expected to generate the equivalent of approximately eight full-time jobs. Depending on the results of the demonstration program and on its eventual configuration, YARTS may also create 10 to 50 additional jobs in Yosemite Valley and surrounding communities (Nelson\Nygaard 1999).

Qualitative impacts to employment would also occur as a result of the projects identified in Appendix H. For example, improvements to El Portal Road would provide a safer commute for park employees and would reduce the likelihood of emergency road closures that prevent access to or egress from the park. These improvements may decrease commuting time for some park employees and help some employees avoid missing work shifts.

Because the local workforce is expected to fill the majority of new employment opportunities, no significant influx of workers is expected. Therefore, no new housing is projected to be needed to accommodate employment impacts from the projects identified in Appendix H.

Overall, impacts on employment would occur as new jobs are created from construction spending and visitor spending. Assuming the unemployed labor force in the Yosemite region would fill the majority of these new jobs, unemployment rates would drop significantly under this alternative. This would represent a short-term, major, beneficial impact on the region’s economy. Housing impacts would be negligible under the assumption that new jobs would be filled by existing residents of the Yosemite region.

CONCESSIONERS AND COOPERATORS

Yosemite Concession Services

Under this alternative, no changes to the park facilities and operations are proposed that would affect either Yosemite Concession Services operations or its finances. Therefore, this alternative would have no impact on the current or any future concessioner.

From its current annual revenues of approximately $88 million, Yosemite Concession Services makes an annual financial contribution to the federal government of approximately $9.9 million. This annual federal contribution consists primarily of: (1) interest and principal payments to retire the previous concession’s possessory interest in park facilities by 2008 ($7.7 million), (2) Capital Improvement Fund payments of $1.25 million, (3) Government Improvement Account payments of $0.2 million, and (4) environmental remediation and other financial contributions totaling $0.75 million. After the current Yosemite Concession Services contract ends in 2008, the subsequent concessioner would not be obligated to continue these payments. Nonetheless, assuming the enterprise continues to be as profitable as it is at present, any future concessioner would be expected to make a comparable total financial contribution of approximately $9.9 million to the federal government.

Yosemite Medical Clinic

Under this alternative, the medical clinic’s operations and facilities would be unchanged. Furthermore, no significant changes to the park’s facilities and operations are proposed that would affect the clinic’s operations. Therefore, no impacts would occur from this alternative. The dental clinic would also be unaffected.

The Ansel Adams Gallery

Under this alternative, The Ansel Adams Gallery would remain at its current location and its facilities and operations would be unchanged, and no changes to the park’s facilities and operations are proposed that would affect the Gallery’s operations. Therefore, no impacts would occur from this alternative.

Yosemite Association

Under this alternative, the Yosemite Association’s facilities and operations would be unchanged, and no significant changes to the park’s facilities and operations are proposed that would appreciably affect the Yosemite Association’s operations. Therefore, no impacts to the Yosemite Association are projected under this alternative.

Yosemite Institute

Under this alternative, the Yosemite Institute’s facilities and operations would be unchanged. Furthermore, no significant changes to the park’s facilities and operations are proposed that would appreciably affect the Yosemite Institute’s operations. Therefore, no impacts to the Yosemite Institute are projected under this alternative.

El Portal Chevron Station

Under this alternative, no changes to the El Portal Chevron station’s operations and facilities are proposed. The proprietor of the station would upgrade the facilities under existing conditions and this upgrade would occur irrespective of this alternative. Therefore, no impacts to the El Portal Chevron station are projected under this alternative.

El Portal Market

Under this alternative, the El Portal Market would remain at its current location and its facilities and operations would be unchanged. Furthermore, no significant changes to the park’s facilities and operations are proposed that would appreciably affect the market’s operations. Therefore, no impacts to the El Portal Market are projected under this alternative.

Concessioners and Cooperators Conclusion

Under this alternative no changes to the park’s facilities or operations are proposed that would affect any of the concessioners’ and cooperators’ operations and finances. As a result, no impacts are projected under this alternative.

Cumulative Impacts

Yosemite Concession Services

Under any foreseeable future concession contract (and in accordance with National Park Service regulations 36 CFR-51 [NPS 1999c]), the primary concessioner would, in addition to the level of maintenance it currently provides, be required to assume full responsibility for conducting future cyclical maintenance on existing park facilities used for its operations. Consistent with common industry practices and based on the location and likely building uses, it is estimated that average annual cyclical maintenance expenditures equal to 3% of the buildings’ construction cost would be adequate to fulfill this additional responsibility. Based on the current condition of the existing facilities used by the concessioner, it is estimated that a future concessioner would be required to incur a cyclical maintenance cost of approximately $1.7 million per year. As a result, a cumulative annual impact of a $1.7 million reduction to the future concessioner’s operating profit is projected.

After the current Yosemite Concession Services contract ends in 2008, the subsequent concessioner would have no obligation to retire the previous concessioner’s possessory interest. Therefore, the future concessioner would be expected instead to make a comparable total federal contribution of approximately $9.9 million.

Any obligation by the concessioner to contribute to the cyclical maintenance of the facilities would be expected to reduce its future fee contribution to the National Park Service. Therefore, if the concessioner’s future cyclical maintenance responsibility for existing park facilities cost $1.7 million per year, the projected future federal contribution would be $9.9 million, less $1.7 million, resulting in a net fee contribution of $8.2. Thus, there would be no cumulative impact on the concessioner’s future profit.

While the lack of detailed visitor demand and marketing information makes it difficult to quantitatively analyze and project future visitor lodging patterns, some qualitative judgments can be made based on available information. Although additional lodging units within the surrounding region are proposed (such as the Yosemite View Lodge, Silvertip Resort, and Hazel Green developments), none of these projects are expected to offer competing or comparable lodging alternatives that would lessen the demand for in-Valley lodging and camping. The primary market for these lodging developments is expected to be comprised of overnight visitors who are unable to lodge in the park or day visitors who choose to stay overnight near the park. Moreover, these additional lodging units would be located a considerable distance from the Valley, so that the visitor experience offered would be different from that of lodging in the park. Furthermore, current and projected concessioner lodging rates are competitive compared to other lodging alternatives outside the park. As a result, park accommodations have experienced comparably high occupancy rates, and these are expected to continue. Before the 1997 flood, in-Valley lodging and camping capacity was greater than that proposed under this alternative. Therefore, it is expected that the level of visitor demand for in-Valley lodging would remain at least at its current level in the long run, despite the expected lodging capacity growth in the region. As a result, the cumulative impacts on concessioners and cooperators would not extend beyond what is described above for this alternative.

Other Concessioners and Cooperators

For the nonlodging concessioners and cooperators, no competing or comparable services are proposed in the projects identified in Appendix H. The lack of detailed visitor demand and marketing information makes it difficult to quantitatively analyze and project future visitor demand patterns for the services offered by these concessions and cooperators. However, the proposed lodging capacity increase is not expected to change park visitation or visitor spending behavior sufficiently to have any discernible effect on these concessions and cooperators. As a result, the cumulative impacts on concessioners and cooperators would not extend beyond what is described above for this alternative.

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE OPERATIONS

Park operations would continue at existing levels of staffing, housing, management, and logistical facilitation. Traffic congestion identified in the 1980 General Management Plan would not be addressed, and operational functions identified in that plan as being moved to El Portal would remain within the Valley.

Under this alternative, Yosemite Valley would continue to serve as a base of parkwide operations for some functions, including the superintendent’s office, the management team, concessions management, some visitor protection, interpretation operations, and the National Park Service stable operation. However, resources management offices, which were damaged during the 1997 flood, would be relocated to El Portal. The existing National Park Service Administration Building (headquarters) in Yosemite Village would continue to serve an organizational function in the midst of an interpretive complex.

The primary concessioner would maintain its headquarters and major administrative operations in Yosemite Valley. The headquarters would remain in proximity to the concessioner’s greatest concentration of facilities, but the building would remain in the midst of a major visitor-use area, resulting in continuing use conflicts.

For those functions that have a base of parkwide operations in Yosemite Valley, vehicle traffic would continue to disperse from and return through the Valley.

Superintendent’s Office

Approximately 16 personnel are currently assigned to the superintendent’s office. The superintendent’s office would continue to provide parkwide management and direction.

Maintenance Operations

Buildings and Grounds

Approximately 81 park personnel are currently assigned to buildings and grounds, with approximate annual salary and operations costs of $3,037,500. This operation would continue to provide facility maintenance and custodial service to the visitor center and other visitor-use facilities, including campgrounds, parking areas, and restrooms (except those associated with concession operations) and to all National Park Service operational buildings and housing units throughout the park and El Portal. Maintenance and rehabilitation of historic structures would also continue, consistent with existing uses.

Roads and Trails

Approximately 106 park personnel are currently assigned to Roads and Trails, with approximate annual salary and operations costs of $3,975,000. This operation would continue to provide maintenance of roads and trails, removal of hazard trees, trash pickup and disposal to the county landfill, and snow removal in Yosemite Valley parking areas and along all major road corridors. Yosemite Valley would remain a major focus of maintenance activities, because of the amount of public visitation to the area. The National Park Service stable operation would remain in Yosemite Valley, and would provide pack services for National Park Service operations throughout the park.

Utilities

Approximately 64 park personnel are currently assigned to Utilities with approximate annual salary and operations costs of approximately $2,400,000. In the project area, this operation would continue to operate and maintain the waste water treatment plant in El Portal, and the water, sewer, and electric infrastructure needed to support visitor service, National Park Service operations, and concession service facilities in Yosemite Valley and El Portal.

Visitor and Resource Operations

Visitor and Resource Protection

Approximately 159 visitor protection personnel currently work in Yosemite, meeting parkwide needs. This represents approximately $5,962,500 million in annual personnel and operating costs. This operation would continue to provide all protection services, including law enforcement, most emergency medical treatment, search and rescue, and wildland and structural fire suppression. The Fresno District Court would continue to staff a magistrate court and detention facility in Yosemite Valley. Staffing for protection activities has declined in recent years, but personnel would continue to be assigned to cover all division responsibilities.

Interpretation

Approximately 47 interpretation personnel currently work mainly in Yosemite Valley, representing approximately $1,762,500 million in annual personnel and operating costs. This operation would continue to staff educational and interpretive facilities, including the visitor center, museum, and library in Yosemite Valley. Requests for visitor information would also continue to be answered through staff based in Yosemite Valley. Staffing for interpretive activities has declined in recent years, but personnel would continue to be assigned to cover division responsibilities.

Resources Management

Approximately 31 permanent resource management personnel work in Yosemite, meeting parkwide needs. This represents approximately $1,162,500 in annual salary and operating costs. This operation would continue its efforts to manage natural and cultural resources, restore impacted sites, monitor resource conditions, and maintain relationships with six culturally associated American Indian groups. Because of the size of the staff, this operation would continue to focus only on projects of highest priority. Because of the impact of the January 1997 flood on offices of this division, most of the operation that remains in the Valley would be relocated to El Portal, where half of the division is currently located.

Administration

Management staff of this division, which provides services related to human resources, budget, contracting and procurement, computer information services, and other administrative services, would remain in Yosemite Valley, while most of its operational staff would remain in El Portal. This division has approximately 54 personnel representing approximately $2,025,000 in annual personnel and operating costs.

Concessions Management

The Concessions Management Division currently consists of a staff of 7, representing approximately $262,500 in annual salary and operating costs. The personnel in this division manage and monitor the operations and activities of the park’s concessioners, and would continue to be based in Yosemite Valley, where the park’s primary concessioner is also headquartered.

CONCESSIONERS AND COOPERATORS

A discussion of existing activities associated with concessioners and cooperators is presented under Social and Economic Environments in this section.

TRANSIT OPERATIONS

Existing transit system operations are described as part of the alternative (see Vol. Ia, Chapter 2, Alternatives). On an annual basis, these operating and maintenance costs are approximately $1,770,000.

CONCLUSION

Existing park operations are supported by approximately 565 personnel assigned to the maintenance operations, protection operations, interpretation, resources management, and administration divisions. Staff and operations costs to support this current work force are $21,205,000 annually, or approximately $37,531 per person annually. Staffing levels throughout the park have declined in recent years and in many cases, existing staff levels are below those believed necessary by knowledgeable staff. However, personnel will continue to be assigned to cover essential park operational responsibilities to the extent possible. If current staffing levels remain the same in future years, this would represent a long-term, adverse impact to future park operations.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative impacts would result from other park planning projects and regional activities. A moderate increase in the workloads of the Maintenance Operations, Interpretation, and Resources Management divisions could occur as a result of the Yosemite Area Regional Transit System (YARTS), due to increased needs in facility maintenance, custodial services, visitor education, and resource monitoring. A long-term benefit for Protection Operations could result from YARTS due to the alleviation of traffic congestion. In Yosemite Valley, the workloads from managing existing traffic, visitor service needs, the in-Valley transit systems, and their associated impacts would continue.

The redesign of the South Entrance and Mariposa Grove areas would increase the workload of the Protection Operations, Maintenance Operations, and Resources Management divisions in the short term during initial planning and implementation. This project would require a long-term time commitment and increased workload for the Interpretation Division. The Protection Operations and Maintenance Operations Divisions would receive long-term benefits when the project is completed due to decreased workloads. Within Yosemite Valley, the existing Visitor Center and the information and interpretation programs it supports, would remain in use, as at present.

Fire Management planning and Wilderness Management planning would be an increase in the workload of the Protection Operations and Resources Management Divisions. The workload of fire management staff could increase over the long term as a result of this planning effort. These actions would remain the Primary Workload for the staff dealing with them, because this alternative would not require additional planning in support of its implementation.

Numerous proposed residential and commercial developments along each entrance corridor would have no major long-term impacts on operations, assuming a vehicle management system is in place and that the park would not provide emergency services to those areas. Should the park be required to provide emergency services to these areas, cooperative agreements and financial support from the involved county governments would be needed. Park operations would be potentially affected during times of construction. These potential actions would constitute the principal changes in routine for the staff dealing with them, because this alternative would not require changes in implementation operations.

A research station for the University of California at Merced (UC Merced) campus could have a long-term, moderate, adverse impact upon the Maintenance Division if structures are built in the park; it would have less of an impact if existing structures were used. This project would have moderate to major cost benefits over the long term as a result of educational and research support and the creation of a viable recruitment pool for new employees. Because this alternative does not prescribe changes that would affect the normal operations of the Resources Management and Interpretive Divisions, the activities under the UC Merced partnership would constitute the principal changes in and benefits to operations.

Many other in-park actions, such as major campground rehabilitation, development concept planning, and water treatment plant rehabilitation (including water and wastewater improvements at Tuolumne Meadows and White Wolf), would have short-term, major, and adverse impacts on staff availability during times of construction or development. These actions would constitute the principal changes in operations for the staff dealing with them, because this alternative would not bring about other important changes in operations or facilities in Yosemite Valley.

Energy records indicate that a total of 260,000 gallons of propane was consumed in 1998 by households in Yosemite Valley. Under Alternative 1, space- and water-heating energy consumption in the Valley and outside the Valley would not change during the 2000-2015 time frame, because housing locations would not be changed.

Even though vehicle use patterns and miles traveled would not change, total visitor, employee, and National Park Service/concessioner vehicle gasoline consumption would decline from an estimated 2,905,800 gallons in 2000 to 2,480,800 gallons in 2015, or approximately 15% (table 4-25). A decline of approximately 7% is estimated for consumption of diesel fuel (or alternative fuel, if implemented) over the same time period. These declines are due to the vehicle fleet turnover to vehicles with improved fuel economy, which would represent a beneficial, long-term impact to motor fuel consumption.

CONCLUSION

Alternative 1 would have no discernible impacts on home energy consumption because the housing stock would remain the same. However, over time, total vehicle fuel consumption would decrease relative to existing levels due to the vehicle fleet turnover to vehicles with improved fuel economy. This decrease would provide an overall savings of 441,400 gallons per year by 2015 over existing conditions, or a reduction of approximately 14% in energy consumption. This reduction in energy consumption represents an overall long-term, minor, beneficial impact.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Other actions in the immediate area and greater San Joaquin Valley may have cumulative impacts. These include the implementation of a regional transit system, such as the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS), which would provide some visitors and commuting employees with an alternative to driving into the Valley and would result in reduced energy consumption by private automobiles. A two-year demonstration of YARTS began in the summer of 2000. According to Madera County Transportation Commission officials, planned improvements for Highway 41, in both the short term (1999-2000) and long term (2014), are not likely to increase traffic to the Valley because the improvements are directed at relieving congestion and not increasing traffic volume.

Other expansion projects in the region would affect energy consumption. These include construction of new housing developments, such as the City of Merced General Plan to accommodate a population expansion from 62,000 to 133,000 by the year 2015. The Rio Mesa Area Plan calls for new housing on the east side of Highway 41 in Madera County, with 29,000 housing beds planned over 100 years, and a University of California campus just outside Merced that would accommodate 31,500 residents and 31,600 students. New lodging projects are also planned for the area, with an approximate total of 725 new guest rooms. Collectively, these developments would result in additional housing, vehicles, and an associated increase in energy consumption in the region, causing a long-term, adverse impact.

These Merced expansion plans represent an approximate 30% increase in the estimated population of Merced County and a corresponding increase in housing, vehicles, and related energy consumption. Analogous increases for Madera County would be approximately 25%. Alternative 1, however, would represent a minimal contribution to the overall cumulative impact.

| Environmental Consequences | Alternative 1 | Alternative 2 |
| Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 |

Yosemite National Park Home Page http://www.nps.gov File created/updated Yosemite National Park Web Manager