Yosemite Valley Plan SEIS, Volume IB, Chapter 4: Alternative 2

Visitor experience is also directly affected by actions influencing natural resources such as, air quality, scenic resources, and cultural resources. Though impacts to these resources are not repeated in the analysis of visitor experience, enhancement or degradation of these resources also enhances or degrades the quality of the visitor experience.

Private automobile access to Yosemite Valley, with parking at Yosemite Village, would be available only to 29% of day visitors on a typically busy day (using 1998 visitation levels), a decrease of 57%. Day-visitor parking in the Valley would be limited to 550 spaces, and when this parking was full, day visitors would be directed to other areas, including out-of-Valley parking, with shuttle service provided to the Valley. This would represent a major reduction in the availability of driving into the Valley for day visitors. Overnight visitors would continue to have the option of driving into the Valley or traveling on tour buses or other modes of travel; therefore, they would not experience any change in personal convenience of access. Day visitors who could not park in the Valley would have to ride shuttle buses to the Valley from parking areas at Badger Pass, El Portal, or Hazel Green or Foresta, or they would ride tour buses or regional transit. These changes would likely have major, adverse impacts on the experiences of the majority of day visitors, who could no longer make spontaneous stops en route to the Valley, resulting in reduced opportunities for spontaneity, extended travel time, and inconvenience in having to move personal items to and from bus stops. The large number of day visitors parking in out-of-Valley lots and desiring to visit other areas of the park or traveling in through one entrance and out through another entrance would spend substantially more time traveling.

Alternative 2 would provide transportation facilities and services designed to accommodate Valley visitation levels on most days in the summer. Assuming that future visitation is unchanged from 1998, day visitor demand would be expected to exceed the capacity of the parking areas on approximately 7 days during the peak season. On these days, some visitors would not be able to find parking in the Valley or at the out-of-Valley parking areas. These visitors would have the option of visiting another part of the park; traveling on regional transit or other alternative transportation modes; or visiting the Valley at another time or on another day. Adequate infrastructure would be in place to accommodate visitor parking in the Valley, as well as out-of-Valley shuttles, regional transit, and commercial tour buses. Visitors would not need to park in overflow areas or in poorly managed roadside pullouts. Visitors would be informed in advance where to park, and could be assured of finding spaces in the designated area. Shuttle buses would be provided at the frequency required to meet demand, and bus riders would be served in facilities with adequate waiting areas and visitor comfort facilities. Improved facilities would have a major, beneficial impact to most visitors in the form of reduced crowding, less confusion, and more convenient access to the Valley shuttle system compared to the existing scattered private vehicle parking areas and inadequate bus parking areas.

Access to the Valley by private vehicles would be managed through a traveler information and traffic management system. The traveler information and traffic management system would moderately benefit most day visitors because it would allow them to find out beforehand whether or not they could visit Yosemite Valley on any particular day or at a specific time. Visitors could be directed to out-of-Valley parking areas and would then take shuttle buses into the Valley and on to specific destinations. Overall, the average visitor would experience a moderate increase in the time required to travel to the Valley.

The traveler information and traffic management system would inform visitors so they could visit other areas of the park, and shift visitation from peak seasons to other seasons, potentially increasing the demand for visitation at other locations and times of the year. The traveler information and traffic management system would be designed to manage visitor use throughout the park to avoid overcrowding in any area. However, potential resulting shifts in visitor use may increase crowding at destinations outside Yosemite Valley or during off-peak times. The overall impact would be moderately adverse for visitors to areas outside Yosemite Valley. Visitors using the traveler information and traffic management system would have a better understanding of what visitor facilities, activities, and services were available, with resulting minor to moderate, beneficial impacts on their experiences.

Reconstructing the segment of El Portal Road between Pohono Bridge and the intersection with Big Oak Flat Road (the major access to the Valley) would cause short-term, minor, adverse impacts such as traffic delays for many visitors during construction. Short-term, adverse impacts associated with constructing Valley access routes and implementing the traveler information and traffic management system would include detours, having to learn new routes, and having to learn new procedures as they were phased in. These impacts would be of negligible intensity.

Access by private vehicle to many Valley destinations would be eliminated. Once their vehicles were parked in a day-visitor lot or lodging area, visitors would be encouraged to leave them parked until they left the Valley. Parking would not be provided except at campgrounds, lodging sites, and at the day-visitor parking facility at Yosemite Village. Turnouts along Valley roads would be available for short stops only. Currently, only small parking areas are provided at visitor destinations away from Yosemite Village. A large number of visitors must ride shuttle buses, walk, or ride a bicycle to reach these destinations today. The loss of private vehicle access to these destinations is considered a moderate, adverse impact, since a large number of visitors currently use alternative forms of transportation to reach Valley destinations.

Visitors during peak use periods would spend little time looking for parking, a moderate, beneficial impact. However, the majority of visitors, especially those parking in out-of-Valley lots, would spend additional time loading and unloading their gear and boarding shuttles, eliminating the time saved in being directed to a specific parking place. Without immediate access to private vehicles, visitors would experience a moderate, adverse impact because they would need to carry their personal possessions or store them in lockers. The location of the transit center next to the 550-space day-visitor parking area in Yosemite Village would allow day visitors to walk to destinations in the Village; a major and beneficial impact for orientation, trip planning, and access to many services and interpretive resources in the Village.

Changes in access could affect some visitors’ ability or willingness to undertake some recreational activities. Without their vehicles, visitors would need to carry recreation gear, load and unload it on shuttle buses, and possibly store it in designated areas during the day. Some visitors might need to make long trips with their recreation equipment back to their vehicles or to their overnight accommodations. The extra effort involved in traveling with personal gear could reduce the number of activities pursued by parties or could change the location of activities. More visitors could choose to rent gear in the park, which would increase their expenses. Moderate to major adverse impacts would be experienced by visitors undertaking equipment-intensive activities; impacts would vary depending on the equipment needed, the availability of storage space or rental equipment, and many other variables.

This alternative would provide facilities and services designed to accommodate visitation levels on most days in the summer. A comprehensive, integrated system for circulation by private motor vehicle, transit, walking, stock use, and bicycling around the Valley would reduce some existing conflicts between users, resulting in a major, beneficial impact. Access opportunities to the west Valley would be increased for visitors arriving by modes of transit other than private vehicles due to extended shuttle bus service, resulting in a major, beneficial impact. Shuttle bus service would be increased, resulting in reduced overcrowding and fewer occasions when full shuttles bypass waiting passengers. By reducing vehicle traffic, this alternative would improve the operating speed and the reliability of shuttle service, resulting in a major, beneficial impact to the shuttle users.

Traffic throughout the Valley would be reduced below existing levels at all times of the year (unless seasonal displacement appreciably increased traffic during current off-peak seasons). The reduction in private vehicle traffic would result in an overall reduction in daily vehicle miles traveled in the Valley of 50%. The reduction in vehicle miles traveled would have a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on the experience for all visitors because there would be greater opportunities for quiet and contemplative recreational experiences. The overall reduction in traffic would result in improved traffic flow and reduced congestion throughout the Valley, including the mid-Valley, where Northside Drive would be closed and Southside Drive would be converted to two-way operation.

This alternative would provide a 550-space parking area in Yosemite Village and a total of about 1,465 to 1,485 spaces in out-of-Valley parking areas (Badger Pass, Hazel Green or Foresta, and El Portal). Overnight visitors would continue to have the option to drive their vehicles into the Valley and park them at their accommodations. Day visitors would drive to the Yosemite Village parking area or to an out-of-Valley lot and ride a shuttle to the Valley. This alternative would include a traveler information and traffic management system that would inform visitors of parking status prior to their arrival.

There would be potential for increased traffic congestion west of El Capitan crossover due to the possible removal of some turnouts; illegal long-term parking at the remaining turnouts; and the potential for increased pass-through traffic by visitors who could not gain access to the east Valley, but still wanted to view Valley features. All of these would have a moderate, adverse impact on perceptions of congestion. Roadside parking for purposes other than short-term viewing would be eliminated.

Some existing automobile traffic would be replaced by bus traffic. The movement of visitors in buses could cause some visitors to feel crowded. Most visitors would travel with larger groups because of the emphasis on bus travel. Some visitors could have a heightened perception of crowding because they were forced to be in close contact with more people. The overall impact of bus traffic and grouping passengers in buses is expected to have a moderate, adverse impact on the visitor experience.

The appearance of crowding in the Valley would be reduced with the reduction in roadside parking. A major reduction in traffic volumes, improved traffic flow, and reductions in the visual impact of parked vehicles would have a major, beneficial impact on the perceived level of crowding and congestion during peak visitation times for all visitors.

Visitor use levels would be managed as part of implementation of the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection program discussed in Actions Common to All Action Alternatives (see Vol. Ia, Chapter 2).

Implementation of management zoning and the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection program would protect the diversity of recreational experiences along the length of the Valley (e.g., managing crowding, maintaining opportunities for solitude and for more social experiences, and for both challenging and easily accessible activities). While some activities or uses may be redirected from one area to another, the diversity of opportunities would remain available and crowding would be managed within each zone to better meet visitor desires, overall, a major and beneficial impact for the majority of Valley visitors. (Management zoning was prescribed in the Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement and is described in Chapter 2, Actions Common to All Action Alternatives.)

New parking facilities in the Valley and along the driving routes to the Valley and additional shuttle service, along with the implementation of a traveler information and traffic management system, would help relieve visitor anxiety and time wasted searching for available parking within the Valley under this alternative, as compared to Alternative 1. Visitors would be informed of the status of parking areas at entrance stations and possibly at other sites en route to the park. When parking areas in the Valley and remote staging areas were filled, visitors could visit another part of the park, visit the Valley at a later time, or ride existing regional transit buses to reach the Valley.

Shuttle bus services in the Valley would be greatly expanded and waiting time for shuttle buses would be reduced. Visitors would find adequate space to board most shuttle buses. Shuttle buses could be delayed by visitor traffic in the west Valley and at Yosemite Village, but the delays would be less frequent and severe than those occurring today. Most visitors would experience decreases in the overall time required to travel within the Valley. Impacts associated with reliability of the Valley transportation system under this alternative would be major and beneficial to visitors.

Access for visitors with disabilities would initially be similar to Alternative 1, with personal vehicle access and parking available in specially marked spaces. The existing number of accessible parking spaces is insufficient for the growing demand, creating a temporary inconvenience for visitors with mobility impairments. As fully accessible shuttle buses were placed in operation, visitors with disabilities would use the shuttles rather than private vehicles. Some visitors with disabilities would experience a moderate, beneficial impact from the improved accessibility of shuttle services. However, without their private vehicles, other visitors with disabilities would have greater difficulty in moving about the Valley, creating a moderate, adverse impact. Visitors with mobility impairments would not have easy access to locations not directly served by the shuttle bus system. For example, motorized access to the sections of Northside Drive closed to vehicle traffic would not be possible, resulting in minor, adverse impacts.

The prescribed universal programmatic accessibility study plan and its implementation would ultimately result in a major, beneficial impact through the integrated development of more programs, facilities, recreation areas, and services available to visitors with various disabilities.

New accessible trails at popular destination areas (e.g., Sentinel Beach, picnic sites at North American Wall, and Lower Yosemite Fall) would provide access to areas that are not now easily accessible, resulting in moderate, beneficial impacts.

Visitor centers and orientation facilities near each principal park gate would provide many visitors with an improved sense of arrival at the park. For day visitors or bus passengers arriving at Yosemite Village, the sense of arrival into the Valley would be improved from the current experience, with only a short walk to the visitor center. Visitors parking at out-of-Valley parking areas would find the arrival experience somewhat delayed, since they would have to board a bus to get to the Valley. However, for all visitors, seeing the Valley features also contributes substantially to a sense of arrival. The sense of arrival under this alternative would continue to be similar to what is offered today — visitors could see significant views en route to the parking facility. Impacts of the proposed arrival sequence would thus be beneficial for most visitors, but negligible in intensity.

With new entrance station visitor centers, visitors to Yosemite Valley would have already had opportunities to plan their stays in the park and would thus be more prepared for an enjoyable visit to the Valley. Improved and consistent signing at shuttle bus stops would also help orient many visitors. Day visitors would not need to navigate the Valley’s existing confusing network of roads, and overnight visitors would be directed to their accommodations by improved signs and printed orientation materials. Moderate, beneficial impacts would result for most Yosemite Valley visitors.

Visitors would have opportunities to find out about park programs, the availability of services and facilities, directions, permits, reservations, trip-planning services, interpretive themes, a stewardship ethic, and regulations at park entrances as they arrive. These new full-service visitor centers would offer an orientation film, exhibits, and publications. The visitor centers would have a major, beneficial effect for the majority of park visitors who like to take advantage of such services. Day visitors parking or arriving by bus at Yosemite Village would have immediate access to the Valley Visitor Center. Overnight visitors in the Valley would find orientation exhibits at their lodging or campground. Impacts would be beneficial and moderate in intensity for Valley visitors.

Parkwide themes would be introduced at the entrance station visitor centers, rather than only at the Yosemite Valley Visitor Center. The new Valley Visitor Center would provide enhanced interpretation, more comprehensive exhibits on Valley themes, a more comfortable environment for viewing exhibits, and large-screen film capabilities. Due to increased numbers of programs, and diverse program types and locations, visitors would have greater opportunities to attend interpretive programs, to understand park history and natural resources, and to develop or enhance a resource stewardship ethic. All these actions would have major, beneficial impacts for most park visitors, 85% of whom are interested in interpretive programs (Gramann 1992). Visitors with disabilities would also have opportunities to participate more fully in a wider variety of Valley programs, a major and beneficial impact.

Museum collections would be more accessible to the public. The cultural history museum in the existing Museum Building would be expanded and include natural history themes. These improvements would have a moderate, beneficial impact on the large group of museum-goers. The Nature Center at Happy Isles would be available for year-round use. With the consolidation of museum research and storage facilities in Yosemite Valley, access to the research library would be more convenient for visitors and a major benefit to researchers.

Interpretive exhibits and kiosks along multi-use trails, along with new trail guides, would enhance experiences for trail users. Visitors on the Lower Yosemite Fall trails would have greatly increased opportunities to view Yosemite Falls in the context of Yosemite’s natural and cultural history, as well as in the context of American Indian culture. Outdoor exhibits could interfere with a sense of naturalness, but they would be provided mainly along paved multi-use trails, leaving the pedestrian/stock trails in a more natural state. All these actions would have major, beneficial impacts for a large group of visitors.

Currently, 88% of visitors arriving by private vehicle sightsee in the park (Gramann 1992). While still possible to tour much of the Valley, including brief stops at turnouts, by private vehicle, visitors would have fewer opportunities to make lengthy stops. Some turnouts could be removed and some sections of Northside Drive would be closed to motor vehicles. Visitors would no longer be able to park at most features and facilities for extended periods while exploring. These actions would result in moderate, adverse impacts to a large number of visitors, and major, adverse impacts would occur to the large number of visitors unable to drive their car into the east Valley. However, it should be noted that about 80% of private vehicle users have indicated support for adopting such measures as means of bringing about benefits discussed elsewhere (for example, reduced traffic and noise; see Gramann 1992). Reductions in opportunities for auto touring would be somewhat mitigated by the expansion of shuttle bus routes and expanded interpretive services, and alternative methods of touring Valley features.

Potential reduced traffic east of the El Capitan crossover could contribute to a sense of more relaxed touring; this could be offset somewhat by an increase in the number of buses, resulting in a negligible, beneficial impact for most visitors. Signs would need to be placed at turnouts throughout the Valley identifying appropriate use (e.g., shuttle bus, Valley Floor Tour, short-term parking); introducing these urban-type elements into the touring experience would have an adverse impact that is negligible in intensity, but widespread.

Sightseeing by shuttle bus would increase, as would using shuttle buses for transportation to major destinations. Visitors would contend less with vehicle traffic, a major benefit for most visitors. However, groups with children and special needs might face some logistical difficulties in dealing with supplies, a moderate and adverse effect on a large group (30%) of visitors (Nelson\Nygaard 1998d); these effects would be mitigated with the placement of lockers at key locations, including the Yosemite Village parking area, reducing the effect from moderate to minor.

Valley Floor Tours offered by the concessioner would lose the use of two segments of Northside Drive including mid-Valley, and thus access to certain views. To mitigate this effect, turnouts would be planned where possible to provide views similar to key Northside Drive views, resulting in a negligible, adverse impact to these users. The ability for commercial buses to tour the Valley would be reduced due to the potential removal of some turnouts and restrictions on access in the east Valley, a major and adverse impact to a moderately large group of visitors. Valley Floor Tours offered by the concessioner would no longer have access to a two-lane, one-way traffic loop, making it unsafe for tour buses to drive slowly and make spontaneous stops. This would be a minor, adverse impact to a moderately large group of visitors.

More Valley trails away from roads would be available, particularly through the former Upper and Lower River Campgrounds and between Yosemite Lodge and El Capitan crossover on the north side of the river; the experience of trail users would be improved as a result of reduced noise, odors, and glare from passing vehicles. Reduced opportunities for auto touring would result in increased use of pedestrian trails, but the potential for greater visitor dispersal throughout the Valley would mean that more visitors could be accommodated without an increased feeling of crowding. The dispersal of visitors throughout the Valley would eventually be managed through the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection program, potentially requiring an increased effort to reach some Valley locations. Overall, these effects would be of major benefit to a large group of visitors who reported taking hikes and nature walks (42% of summer visitors, and 52% of off-season visitors) (Gramann 1992).

New multi-use trails would provide greater opportunities for hiking and walking without conflicts with stock use. Eliminating concession trail rides would also greatly reduce conflicts with horses on other east Valley trails, and removing horse use between Mirror Lake and Yosemite Falls would also remove conflicts with horses on those trails. Relocating the National Park Service stable operation and the staging of horse-related trail maintenance operations to a new corral or trailheads would reduce effects of horses on trails leading from the stables areas. Many Valley floor trails would still be shared with multiple users. Although Swinging Bridge could be widened or replaced, new pedestrian/bicycle/horse conflicts could occur there. Overall, the impacts of these actions on pedestrian use would be beneficial, and moderate for the large group of hikers and walkers.

An indirect neutral impact of this alternative would be the potential displacement of day hikers out of the Valley or onto wilderness trails. There would also be increased opportunities for combining in- and out-of-Valley hiking opportunities due to shuttle bus service to out-of-Valley parking areas. This would be an overall moderate, beneficial impact for a possibly large group of park visitors.

The following trail segments, among others, would be realigned, potentially affecting a large group of park visitors, with negligible to minor adverse impacts:

Closing Northside Drive between Yosemite Lodge and El Capitan crossover to motor vehicles would add 3 miles of bicycle trail. Vehicle noise would be substantially reduced, as well as the sight and smell of vehicles, resulting in a major beneficial impact to bicyclists (currently 11% of park visitors) (Gramann 1992). Increased bus traffic on Southside Drive could offset the noise reduction impact to some degree in areas where Northside Drive is close to Southside Drive.

A new multi-use trail parallel to Southside Drive from Swinging Bridge to El Capitan crossover would connect to the multi-use trail from Yosemite Lodge to El Capitan crossover on the previous Northside Drive, thus creating a new trail loop and providing greater, safer recreational opportunities for cyclists, a major and beneficial impact. Removing Northside Drive through the former Upper and Lower River Campgrounds area would remove the impacts of vehicles along the multi-use trail, a moderate and beneficial impact.

Reduced automobile traffic, but increased bus traffic, would substantially reduce noise and traffic views. Advanced technology buses would be used for shuttle services, when available and cost-effective. The use of such buses could further reduce the noise and emission impacts of motorized transportation to visitors.

The potential increased use of bicycles (due to reduced auto touring opportunities) could cause multi-use trails to become more crowded, creating a moderate negative impact, although this could be mitigated by zone management when necessary. Increased bicycle use would increase the risk of bicycle accidents, although risks due to bicyclists sharing the road with motor vehicles would be reduced, for an overall negligible, adverse impact.

The traditional spontaneous access associated with this activity would be reduced under this alternative as a result of instituting the traveler information and traffic management system and reducing roadside parking. Development in the Valley and portions of El Portal would be in view and earshot of various climbing routes, diminishing the wilderness experience for some climbers. Parking would be unavailable at the start of climbing routes, requiring climbers to use shuttle buses or to walk extended distances to the base of climbing routes; shuttle bus routes would be extended to the west Valley, allowing access alternatives. Climbers on overnight climbs would have to obtain a wilderness permit or be registered into a campground or lodging for overnight parking. Impacts to climbers would be adverse and moderate in intensity. There is some uncertainty about the size of this group, but it is estimated to be less than 1% of park visitors. Though this is a small visitor group, because Yosemite Valley is a principal worldwide destination for this activity that cannot easily be replaced at other locations, the analysis considers this group as if moderate in size.

Restoring portions of the Valley floor to natural conditions and reducing traffic (somewhat offset in the short term by increased bus noise) would enhance the climbing experience, a beneficial but negligible impact.

Climbing observation would be redirected from El Capitan Meadow to the picnic area along the old road at the base of El Capitan. It might also increase in the vicinity of Swan Slab near Yosemite Lodge due to the relocation of overnight lodging and the conversion of Northside Drive to a multi-use trail. Due to more restricted access, some climbers could move to other locations, such as Lower Merced, Tioga Road, and other Sierra Nevada sites, or more distant locations such as Joshua Tree or the Pinnacles; a minor, adverse, indirect impact.

The Valley Loop Trail would be segmented by closing the trail to horse traffic from the Mirror Lake trail to west of Yosemite Falls. This closure would result in the loss of a Valley-wide loop trip opportunity, a moderate, adverse impact for private stock users. (There is uncertainty about the size of this group, but it is estimated to be less than 1% of park visitors.) Stopping concession trail rides would remove a traditional Valley experience and a method of viewing areas of the Valley that is distinct from other modes of access, a major adverse impact to this moderately large user group (as many as 9% of park visitors parkwide during past years) (Gramann 1992). Discontinuing trail rides would also reduce conflicts with other stock users, resulting in an overall negligible, beneficial impact. However, greater use of stock trails by pedestrians could increase conflicts.

The availability of an unstaffed corral east of Curry Village would provide private stock users with a temporary staging area while preparing for rides, feeding, and watering. However, the lack of a staffed stable means that stock users would be unlikely to stay overnight in the Valley. The lack of secure overnight facilities could lead to displacement of stock users to other park or out-of-park areas. Overall, these would result in moderate, adverse impacts to this small user group.

No picnic areas except those near Valley day-visitor parking would be accessible by private vehicle, so picnickers who prefer to picnic with large amounts of equipment and supplies would have to transport them by other transport modes. The style of picnicking for those users is thus likely to change from car-based (grills, coolers, etc.) to daypack or box lunch picnics, with major and adverse impacts. Some visitors might find it more convenient (and costly) to purchase food at food service facilities, losing the picnic experience. This would result in an adverse, moderate impact to some of the 20% of summer visitors who use picnic areas (Gramann 1992). Visitors who prefer less formal picnicking would find more areas of the Valley without the noise, odors, and glare of automobiles, and existing and new picnic facilities without private vehicles, a minor and beneficial impact.

Full picnic facilities near Yosemite Village would replace the unimproved picnic area at Church Bowl, filling the demand for picnicking near Yosemite Village and somewhat mitigating the loss of Church Bowl. Removing facilities at Swinging Bridge, as well as Church Bowl, would be offset by providing a new picnic area at the North American Wall at the base of El Capitan, creating new opportunities for hikers and bicyclists in the mid-Valley. New group picnic sites would provide opportunities for a social experience for large groups of visitors. Together, these would result in a minor and neutral impact to picnickers. Southside Drive picnic areas would be accessible by shuttle bus, making them more accessible to visitors using this transport mode, a moderate beneficial impact.

Private vehicle access to raft removal/launch areas would not be available, requiring visitors to carry gear by other modes, including shuttle buses or concession vehicles (with fee). Carrying inflated rafts on shuttles is potentially not possible; one potential mitigation would be to provide air pumps at the concessioner rental facility. Temporary raft storage (for deflated rafts) presents special challenges; lockers could be provided, if necessary, at removal/launch sites. The need for special shuttle routes between launch and removal sites, as well as Valley day use and lodge parking areas, would be evaluated. Improved vegetation along riverbanks would provide a more natural experience for rafters. Overall impacts on this moderately large group (10% of summer visitors arriving by automobile) are adverse and moderate (Gramann 1992).

Since kayaks cannot be easily transported on shuttle buses, their use would be substantially limited in the Valley, creating a moderate, adverse impact to a small user group.

Difficult access for raft and kayak users could lead to their displacement to other park areas, such as Tenaya Lake or out-of-park locations, a moderate, adverse impact.

Locations for swimming would be reduced with the revegetation of many riverbanks, and swimmers would be redirected to areas more able to withstand heavy use, creating a minor adverse impact to this large visitor group (25% of summer visitors) (Gramann 1992). Two areas popular with swimmers — Cathedral Beach and Sentinel Beach — are retained as picnic areas and would be serviced by shuttle buses; a moderate beneficial impact. Shuttle bus access would tend to redistribute swimming activity around the Valley, a negligible, neutral impact.

Implementing the River Protection Overlay, as established by the Merced River Plan, would likely improve fishing in the Valley; a moderate beneficial impact for this moderately large group of visitors (9.5% of parkwide visitors who arrive by private auto during summer months) (Gramann 1992). Access to favored sites might be reduced due to zone restrictions, and competition for fewer river access points could increase, creating a moderate adverse impact. Carrying and storing gear and fish would be inconvenient without close access to a private vehicle, but shuttle buses would likely operate from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., sufficient to support most fishing activities. During the off-season, reduced hours of service, from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., could restrict fishing activities. These actions would have negligible, adverse impacts.

The possible temporal displacement of general users as a result of the traveler information and traffic management system could lead to increased winter visitation and greater use of the ice rink and ski trails, a negligible, adverse impact for current users. Relocating the ice rink at Curry Village would improve skaters’ experiences by being near other Curry Village facilities, a negligible beneficial impact. The group’s size is unknown, but it is a portion of the approximately 300,000 visitors per year (14%) who come to Yosemite Valley during the winter months.

Reduced traffic east of the El Capitan crossover, along with reduced roadside parking, would result in greater opportunities for visitors to take photographs without vehicles. The more natural appearance of the Valley due to the net gain in restored natural areas would also improve opportunities for nature photography. Increased and dispersed pedestrian/bicycle use could result in more intrusions of people in scenes. However, these actions would result in overall moderate, beneficial impacts to this user group, which is made up of a majority of visitors (60%) to the park (Gramann 1992).

This section discusses the impacts that Alternative 2 would have on the overall recreational environment for visitors, including night sky and wilderness experience. Impacts of vehicle-related noise, an important element of the recreational environment, are discussed under the Transportation section, and impacts to scenic resources (as viewed by the visitor) are discussed in the Scenic Resources section and in the Wilderness Experience sections in this chapter. In general, improvements to natural resources under this alternative would provide a more natural appearance to the Valley, a major, beneficial impact for visitors.

Concentrated parking at Camp 6 would cause an increased demand for light in the Yosemite Village area and would add light to the currently unlit Camp 6 area. (The potential for light pollution to affect the night environment would be less than under Alternatives 3 and 4, since the Camp 6 parking facility would be adjacent to other visitor service facilities requiring light.) These actions would generally have adverse impacts that are moderate in intensity for the large group of visitors who would encounter these facilities during evening and nighttime hours.

Adding out-of-Valley parking areas would increase lighting needs at these locations resulting in moderate to major, adverse impacts. Relocating employee housing from Yosemite Valley to Wawona and El Portal would reduce the need for light in the Valley, but increase the need in Wawona and El Portal. These actions would have minor, beneficial impacts in Yosemite Valley and moderate, adverse impacts in El Portal and Wawona.

Removing 164 visitor-lodging units from Housekeeping Camp would have minor, beneficial impacts on the night environment, although visitor parking and service facilities would remain and cause a need for light. Removing 141 units from Curry Village would substantially reduce the need for light. Adding lodging units at Yosemite Lodge and campsites at Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) could negligibly increase light levels in this area. Together, these actions would have a minor, beneficial impact. However, using the park’s lighting guideline (which includes technology and calls for directing lighting downward) as a design requirement for the Yosemite Lodge complex should further reduce night sky impacts, compared to Alternative 1. This would be a minor and beneficial effect. Rehabilitating obsolete architectural lighting at new and existing food, retail, and other service facilities would decrease ambient light in Yosemite Village, Curry Village, and the Yosemite Lodge area, a minor and beneficial impact. Relocating the public garage from Yosemite Valley to El Portal would decrease the need for lighting in the Valley and would increase light demand in El Portal, a neutral and negligible impact. Shifts in camping and changes to the concession stable area would result in moderate but neutral impacts. Potentially adding a check station in mid-Valley could have a major impact there, though this would be much less than the impact caused by a full parking and transit facility at Taft Toe, as called for in other alternatives. The application of new architectural lighting technology at new or rehabilitated orientation and interpretive facilities and operation facilities would not cause any more light pollution than existing facilities; impacts would be neutral and negligible.

Changes to Yosemite Valley would primarily affect wilderness users in three ways: access, sight, and sound. Impacts to natural resources are addressed elsewhere.

Access to wilderness areas would be facilitated under this alternative. Wilderness permit holders would be able to plan their trips and get permits at entrance station visitor centers and proceed (if applicable) directly to dedicated Yosemite Valley parking facilities. Shuttle service or pedestrian trails could then be used to reach the trailheads, saving time, travel, and inconvenience, a moderate, beneficial impact for what is a moderately large group of visitors. This process could also introduce wilderness users to non-Valley trailheads that were previously less well-known.

Multipurpose visitor center staff might not be as familiar as Wilderness Center staff with the wilderness, resulting in less information and greater hazards to some users. Greater use of wilderness trailheads outside the Valley could reduce the experience of solitude for current users. The effects of these actions would be adverse but negligible in intensity. Wilderness quotas (already in place) would limit the impacts of increased non-Valley trail use. With more visitors touring the park by foot rather than by car, increased day use of wilderness trails would likely increase, a moderate, adverse impact on current users.

Shuttle buses would provide access to most Valley trailheads, increasing access to some of these sites. Many overnight wilderness users now park in the Valley in a designated parking lot (some park closer to a specific trailhead), then hike from there or use the shuttle bus to access their trailhead. Nearly the same lot would be used under this alternative, the only difference would be the loss of parking at some specific trailheads; these overnight wilderness users would need to extend their hike from this parking lot or voluntarily take a shuttle bus to their trailhead. Wilderness users are often more self-contained than other visitors in terms of gear, so the use of shuttle buses to access trailheads is considered a negligible, beneficial impact.

Because wilderness use is above the Valley floor, these visitors have a much different perspective on development (or the lack thereof) in the Valley. Screening that might be effective from the ground is rarely effective at higher elevations. Concentrated developed areas could reduce the amount of screening from above with the thinning of hazard trees. Changes to the Village area would be of particular concern to those wilderness users on two of the three most popular trails–Upper Yosemite Fall Trail and the Four Mile Trail–and to climbers using routes in the east Valley. Quantifying the impact on the wilderness visitor experience is difficult, since visual obtrusiveness of various types of development would have to be assessed based on more detailed development plans, and the amount of landscaping or other screening used.

Natural quiet, or the lack of human-made sound, is considered an important component of the wilderness experience and factors into the mandate of opportunities for solitude. Changes in amounts and location of traffic, housing, and use centers would affect the experience of those desiring a wilderness experience in wilderness areas of the Valley.

Sound impacts would be similar to sight impacts in terms of location and affected users, but they are perhaps more intrusive to wilderness users. Vehicle noise is perceivable for hikers between the Valley floor and the rim of the Valley. Reductions in private automobile traffic, combined with increases in potentially noisier bus traffic (longer daily duration of bus noise is also likely) would result in some increases in noise as perceived by wilderness users, a minor and adverse impact on the moderately large group of wilderness users. Clustering facilities could increase noise impacts to some users, but decrease them for others.

Campsite quantity would be somewhat above the current level (500 sites compared to 475 sites), meaning that more visitors could camp. Camping provides the lowest-priced overnight accommodations in the park. This increase would result in minor, beneficial impacts upon a large user group; 27% of park visitors have reported staying in campgrounds (Gramann 1992).

First-come, first-served spaces (walk-in only) at Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) would continue to be available, for selection at visitor entrance stations and at the campground itself. Expanding Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) would have a minor, beneficial impact. Campground conditions would improve under this alternative due to greater segregation of user types. This would reduce conflicts between user groups, mainly the impacts of noise from some recreational vehicle campers. Noise from generators would be reduced by addition of recreational vehicle hookups. Redesigning campsites would provide better separation by using natural vegetation and architectural elements. Most campers would have close access to showers, eliminating the need to travel to other lodging locations. These actions would have moderate, beneficial impacts on this large user group.

Relocating campsites away from riverbanks would reduce the aesthetic value of the experience for campers who would choose those sites, a moderate and adverse impact. However, restored riverbanks would increase the aesthetic value of the experience for campers throughout the campground, and it would increase wildlife viewing opportunities, for a moderate beneficial impact. River access from campsites would be reduced and redirected toward sites better able to withstand heavy use within each campground, a minor and adverse impact affecting this group.

Relocating the Lower Pines amphitheater would remove noise and privacy impacts on campers at Lower Pines Campground, a minor and beneficial impact. Conversely, the sole major campground amphitheater would be a long distance from many campsites, resulting in visitors having to make a long walk or not attending programs, a negligible and adverse impact.

As many new campground sites as possible would be designed for access by visitors with disabilities, a major and beneficial impact. Providing a group camp would offer opportunities for family/social group camping and reduce demand for multiple single campsites; a major, beneficial impact on what is likely a moderately sized segment of the camping group.

Campsite density would also be less in the new campsites near Tenaya Creek than at existing campgrounds, enhancing the experience by reducing noise, increasing privacy, and creating a more natural environment. This would have a negligible, beneficial impact for those campers wanting a walk-in camping experience, probably a moderately large group.

Visitors would find a more convenient campground orientation situation, with a single check-in station and office for all but Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground), a moderate and beneficial impact. The camp store and camper services would also be more convenient to the campgrounds, a beneficial impact, but carrying camp supplies from the store would be less convenient due to private vehicle limitations, an adverse impact. These impacts would be negligible in intensity.

This alternative would offer fewer opportunities for overnight lodging in Yosemite Valley. This alternative would provide 961 lodging units, compared to 1,260 units under Alternative 1 (a 24% reduction); this would be a moderate, adverse impact on a large visitor group (25% of summer visitors stay in Valley lodging).

Substantial increases in economy units with private baths would address the high demand for this type of room. Replacing rustic units with economy units would also provide more comfortable and numerous off-season accommodations. Both actions would result in moderate, beneficial impacts for this large visitor group.

In Yosemite Valley, the ratio of accessible rooms would be greatly improved, giving visitors with disabilities greater access to the kinds of facilities they need, a moderate and beneficial effect on this small to moderately sized user group. New development would include lodging units, parking, and pathways that would incorporate universal design features to improve and provide accessibility to facilities.

Redesign of the Yosemite Lodge (increasing units from 245 to 251) could place lodging somewhat closer to Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground). This would be a minor, adverse impact to Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) campers, a moderate number of visitors. Replacement of motel units with cabins and cottage units would make the Lodge less of a motel experience and more of a national park experience with greater connection to the outdoors, a moderate and beneficial impact.

A substantial reduction in the number of units at Housekeeping Camp (from 264 to 100, or 62%) would lead to a more natural environment, with less overall density. This would have a moderate, beneficial impact to the moderately large group of visitors who choose to use this type of accommodation.

The rehabilitation of the historic character at Curry Village would lead to a more natural and historic environment. Rehabilitation of existing cabins without bath would make these units more comfortable and attractive to guests. These actions would have moderate, beneficial impacts for visitors staying in the remaining cabins, a moderately large group of visitors.

Overall, visitor use and experience at Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) would be improved by providing a more pedestrian-friendly environment. The new walkway through the lodge core would allow more opportunities to view and appreciate Yosemite Falls from a vehicle-free setting. Access to the Swan Slab area from Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) would be along the existing Valley Loop Trail or a new bicycle path that would be built roughly along the current access corridor. Converting the current Northside Drive into a multi-use trail and rerouting the roadway along the southern perimeter of Yosemite Lodge would remove traffic congestion and noise from Swan Slab and Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground). But the new multi-use trail would be closer to Swan Slab than current trails, resulting in additional visual and noise impacts (however, the activities of most lodge guests would be directed by paths leading toward the lodge, and by lodge-oriented guest use patterns, to the interior of the lodge complex). This would be a minor, adverse impact for a small group of park visitors. Visitor access routes to the Merced River would be improved, but noise and congestion along the southern edge of the Lodge near the Merced River and Leidig Meadow would likely increase.

At Yosemite Village, an increase in food facilities and seating would increase visitor convenience in finding lunchtime seating. More sheltered seating would also increase visitor comfort in the off-season. These changes would result in a moderate, beneficial impact on a large group of park visitors.

The reduced size of the Village grocery, in conjunction with potentially more demand for picnic supplies and groceries, could result in less convenience, creating an adverse but negligible impact. This would most likely affect the majority of visitors. However, overnight visitors have a greater range of needs, which would be provided for at the Curry Village grocery (discussed below).

Developing an employee cafeteria at Curry Village would eliminate conflicts or competition between visitors and employees in dining facilities, a minor and beneficial impact on a potentially large group of park visitors. A larger grocery would better serve campers, lodgers, and hikers, a beneficial but negligible impact upon a large group of park visitors.

Reducing the store size could lead to less shopping convenience for souvenirs and recreational supplies, creating a negligible, adverse impact upon the visitors at the Yosemite Lodge complex.

The restored lounge at Yosemite Lodge would provide more space for family relaxation. There would be less crowding at indoor interpretive programs due to a permanent increase in the size of the Cliff Room, a benefit to the majority of park visitors who would like to participate in park interpretive programs. There would also be fewer aesthetic intrusions from housekeeping facilities and equipment, as these would be relocated and consolidated. All actions would have beneficial impacts, ranging from negligible to minor in intensity.

At Happy Isles, no food service would be available in a heavily used, informal, popular, and traditional picnic area; hikers would need to stop at Yosemite Village or Curry Village to purchase food. This would be an adverse but negligible impact on what is likely a moderate to moderately large group of visitors.

Alternative 2 would reduce opportunities for visitors to spontaneously travel to and through Yosemite Valley. Access into Yosemite Valley would be more cumbersome than today. Day visitor demand would exceed the parking available in the Valley and at out-of-Valley parking sites on about seven typically busy days. With the establishment of a traveler information and traffic management system, visitors would be informed of the status of parking areas at entrance stations and possibly at other sites en route to the park, resulting in highly reliable notification of parking availability. Visitors who have overnight reservations and day users parking in the Valley would be directed to assigned parking spaces, so they would not have to search for parking. Overall, the average visitors would experience a moderate increase in the time required to travel to the Valley.

With the Yosemite Village parking and transit facility, all visitors would arrive in the Valley close to principal features and services. Some visitors would arrive by car, others by park shuttle bus from out-of-Valley parking areas, and still others by commercial tour and transit buses. Shuttle services in the valley would be greatly expanded. Most visitors would experience decreases in the overall time required to travel within the Valley, and there would be a high degree of reliability in the Valley transportation system. On most days, visitors would find a more tranquil environment, with transit services distributing visitors to more destinations than under Alternative 1, resulting in potentially fewer visitors in the east Valley, and more opportunities for visitors in the mid-Valley. Automobile-based experiences in the Valley would be substantially reduced, while opportunities to experience the Valley without the presence of automobiles would be expanded. Visitors on foot, bicycle, or horseback would find more places that would be virtually free of motor vehicle traffic, and non-vehicle use of these areas could increase. Opportunities for orientation would be closer to where many visitors seek them, at park entrances and the principal day-visitor parking area. Greater opportunities would be available to participate in interpretive programs in the Valley. Recreation, including touring, would be oriented more toward the shuttle bus system, which would be extended to the west Valley and to out-of-Valley parking areas, and pedestrian and bicycling activities. Opportunities for staying overnight in Yosemite Valley would increase moderately for camping (to 500 sites) and decrease substantially for lodging (to 961 units).

Wilderness access would be enhanced through improved trip planning and permitting procedures at entrance stations. The actual wilderness experience could potentially be changed, and could be diminished, by potential increases in numbers of visitors on some trails, and by changes in development and bus traffic in the west Valley.

Visitors to Yosemite Valley are varied in their expectations and the individual experiences they seek. Also, the quality of the visitor experience is also dependent on the quality of natural resources, cultural resources, air quality, scenic resources, and other elements of the recreational environment (considered separately in this analysis). Therefore, no determination of a net impact on the visitor experience is attempted here.

As described for Alternative 1, since California residents represent more than half of all park visitors, the potential for greatly increased visitation demand from regional population growth alone is high. The California Department of Finance projects the population of the San Joaquin Valley alone to double (to more than 6.2 million) by 2020. Projected population growth includes 63,000 new residents at full build-out of the University of California, Merced campus (Merced Co.); doubling of Merced’s population to 133,000 by 2015; and additional growth north of Fresno along Highway 41. Although the demand for Yosemite Valley day use could increase considerably from this greatly expanded local population growth, as discussed in Appendix J, Socioeconomic Methods for Determining Impacts to Visitor Spending, numerous other factors will likely also affect future demand for park visitation. Many of these other factors could have a strong, offsetting effect on future park visitation demand. Due to the uncertainty of the numerous factors potentially influencing future park visitation demand, changes in future park traffic, congestion and access have been determined on the basis of the infrastructure differences between the alternatives using 1998 visitation as a baseline. Increases in demand from other regional and nonregional sources would be managed as part of the traveler information and traffic management system. This could create greater seasonal displacement, increasing visitation in shoulder seasons and on certain days in the peak season, a major adverse impact.

The short-term plan for the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (inter-agency) calls for service to be provided to visitors staying overnight in gateway communities along the Highway 140 corridor and from Wawona and some locations on the Highway 120 corridor, and potentially reducing the need for visitors to travel in private vehicles. If implemented, YARTS service could provide access to the Valley for visitors during times when the in-Valley and out-of-Valley parking areas were full. Over the long term, the implementation of the YARTS goal to provide expanded service from multiple gateway communities could continue to offer this access, and potentially greater access to park destinations outside Yosemite Valley, a major and beneficial impact. Groups of visitors arriving in the Valley on YARTS buses could increase crowding for periods of time in Yosemite Valley and at other park locations.

The traveler information and traffic management system could be used to provide up-to-date information to visitors on the availability of parking, the potential need for reservations, and the availability of alternative travel modes. Potential improvements to the Crane Flat campus of the Yosemite Institute could provide enhanced opportunities for overnight, experiential learning opportunities, a minor and beneficial impact for school and other educational groups.

The shift from comprehensive sightseeing by private vehicle in Yosemite Valley to sightseeing by alternative means would change the visitor experience, with both beneficial and potentially major, adverse effects. Within the region, sightseeing tours for most people would continue to be by way of auto tours. However, increased regional transit activity would likely result in more relaxed touring for those who chose to use these services. Combined, these effects would likely remain major and adverse to some users, although a majority (80%) of private vehicle users have indicated their support for these measures (Gramann 1992).

New walking and bicycle trails in the region, including within the town of Mariposa and through the Merced River canyon (running intermittently from El Portal to Lake McClure) would increase opportunities and make the region more conducive to these activities. Considered in combination with the actions described in this alternative, which include more walking and bicycling trails, effects would be of major benefit to hikers and bicyclists.

The addition of a picnic facility at the Tuolumne Grove trailhead would provide an opportunity outside of Yosemite Valley for car-based picnicking, slightly reducing the major adverse impact (on those who prefer this type of picnicking) of the loss of much car-based picnicking in Yosemite Valley.

As described for Alternative 1, the Merced River Plan will guide the management of the river. A management plan will also be completed for the Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River. Both plans have the potential to affect recreation on these rivers. The Merced River Plan provides guidance with respect to zoning and the range of activities that would typically be found within the various zones in Yosemite Valley. This guidance lays the foundations for eventual development of user capacities (recreation types and levels). The plan would mostly preserve levels of use that approximate current levels, but would potentially restrict more use in many areas of the west Valley. This would result in a moderate, beneficial impact on visitor experience in the project area. Downstream of El Portal, the Merced River is managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management under the provisions of their river management plans. In total, these planning actions have the potential to yield benefits within the region, with respect to preserving and enhancing visitor experience through the preservation of the Outstandingly Remarkable Values along these river segments. The actions under this alternative, in combination and consistent with the zoning described in the Merced River Plan, would yield moderate to major benefits to visitors and the recreational environment through the preservation and restoration of these Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

The use of new lighting technology on facilities constructed under this alternative would yield moderate benefits in Yosemite Valley. The development of new resorts and housing within the region (at El Portal and Fish Camp, for example) would result in additional regional effects on the character of the night sky. Because measures to limit these effects have not been widely adopted in the region, the night sky would likely become an even more important attribute of Yosemite National Park in the future. This means that all actions, including rehabilitating obsolete architectural lighting at Yosemite Village, Yosemite Lodge, and Curry Village, would have moderate benefits to the visitor.

The January 1997 flood and subsequent cleanup actions resulted in the loss of 265 lodging units and 284 campsites within Yosemite Valley, reducing opportunities for camping in the Valley and possibly displacing visitors to campgrounds or lodging elsewhere in the park or in neighboring communities. This alternative would intensify this major, adverse impact by reducing lodging units by 299, and moderately increasing campsites by 25. Proposed new accommodations in the vicinity of the park and campsites outside Yosemite Valley could partially alleviate the impact of the reductions. In addition to recent expansion of lodges in El Portal, new units proposed in Mariposa County include new hotel and bed-and-breakfast rooms in Yosemite West and approximately 568 units in the gateway communities of Fish Camp and El Portal and at Hazel Green. In Mono County, 184 units are proposed from Lee Vining to Bodie. In Tuolumne County, 632 units are proposed between the Highway 120 west entrance and Big Oak Flat along the Highway 120 corridor. Although the reductions in lodging would continue to adversely affect the many visitors who would want to stay in Yosemite Valley, the increases in out-of-park lodging would reduce impacts, in that many visitors would seek and obtain substitute accommodations but they would remain adverse and moderate.

Camping areas proposed near Bodie in Mono County and Big Oak Flat in Tuolumne County would add 246 tent and recreational vehicle sites in the region. Within the park, the number of campsites at the Yosemite Creek and Tamarack Campgrounds is expected to increase during anticipated campground rehabilitation. While these projects would increase the number of campsites within the region, their use by Yosemite day visitors would not likely be great, thus the impacts of this alternative on campground users would likely remain beneficial and minor.

Alternative 2 would provide a 550-space parking area in Yosemite Village and 1,465 to 1,485 spaces in out-of-Valley parking areas at Badger Pass, Hazel Green (or Foresta if parking cannot be implemented at Hazel Green), and El Portal. This alternative would include a traveler information and traffic management system that would manage vehicle access into the Valley. Overnight visitors would continue to have the option of driving their vehicles into the Valley. Day visitors would drive to the Yosemite Village parking area. When that area was full, day visitors would have the option of parking in an out-of-Valley lot and riding a shuttle bus to the Valley. Incentives would be used to encourage visitors to park in out-of-Valley lots.

Under Alternative 2 overnight accommodations in the Valley and day-visitor parking would be provided to support total daily visitation of 18,241 people, which would be consistent with the 1980 General Management Plan. This level of visitation is about 5% higher than the average daily visitation during July and August under the No Action Alternative. The level of visitation provided for in this alternative is about 10% lower than the visitation on typically busy days under the No Action Alternative. Visitation in excess of 18,241 per day to Yosemite Valley would be served by regional transit or other alternative forms of transportation under this alternative. This alternative would not appreciably change the share of visitors who travel by private vehicle on state highways to and from Yosemite National Park.

The combined effect of the potential visitation changes in this alternative on daily vehicle traffic to and from the park on state highways would be a decrease of 10% on typically busy days and an increase of up to 5% on the average day (if visitation shifted from busy days to other days). Because traffic to and from Yosemite Valley represents only a portion of all traffic on state highways outside the park, the long-term impact of changes associated with this alternative would be negligible on state highways outside the park. Alternative 2 would have no impact on the ability of visitors to travel through the park from one entrance to another on state highways.

Because Alternative 2 would reduce overnight accommodations in Yosemite Valley, visitation could shift from overnight to day use. This shift could change the times that visitors travel to and from the Valley. However, the daily visitor use accommodated under this alternative would be less than on typically busy days under the No Action Alternative. As a result, traffic volumes in peak hours would be equal to or less than the volume that would occur under the No Action Alternative. There would be negligible long-term impacts to traffic level of service on state highways outside the park as a result of visitation shifts from overnight to day use.

Reconstructing the segment of El Portal Road between Pohono Bridge and the intersection with Big Oak Flat Road (the major access to the Valley) would cause minor, short-term adverse impacts such as traffic delays for many visitors during construction. Short-term adverse impacts associated with the construction of Valley access routes and implementation of the traveler information and traffic management system would include detours, having to learn new routes, and having to learn new procedures as they were phased in. These impacts would be of negligible intensity because of their short duration.

The average time that visitors would spend traveling from entrance stations to the Valley Visitor Center in the peak season under Alternative 2 would be approximately 61 to 62 minutes, an increase of 20 to 21 minutes compared to Alternative 1. The resulting long-term impact to travel time would be moderate and adverse to peak-season visitors. Table 4-43 presents average travel time to the Valley Visitor Center by corridor. These average travel times are weighted by access mode. Travel times include waiting at the transit terminal and shuttle bus stops.

Under Alternative 2, approximately 52% of all Valley visitors (71% of day visitors) on average peak season days would access the Valley by buses. This would be a major increase in transit access share (+41%) constituting a major long-term change in mode share.

Alternative 2 would substantially reduce the number of vehicle trips into the east Valley by limiting Valley day-visitor parking to 550 spaces at Yosemite Village. In addition to reduced parking for day visitors, vehicles traveling east of El Capitan crossover would be managed to assure that the number of vehicles would not exceed the capacity of parking areas and roads. Expanded shuttle bus service would encourage travel by alternative modes within the Valley. Overnight guests would be discouraged from driving private vehicles after arriving in the Valley because parking would not be available at most attractions. Designated parking, improved signage, expanded shuttle bus service, and vehicle management would minimize private vehicle circulation in the Valley. The traveler information and traffic management system would be implemented to assure that vehicles in the east Valley not exceed the parking supply. As a result, visitors would not need to circulate in search of parking spaces. Managing private vehicle trips into the Valley and transferring passenger vehicle trips within the Valley to park shuttle buses would result in an overall reduction in Valley total vehicle miles traveled of 50% on typically busy days, compared to Alternative 1 (see table 4-44). Bus trips entering the east Valley at Yosemite Chapel would increase by 285 per day. The transportation system changes associated with Alternative 2 would result in long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts.

The share of trips within the Valley by transit under Alternative 2 would be expected to increase substantially compared to Alternative 1. Under Alternative 2, practically all visitor trips to Valley destinations would be made by transit. The only visitor trips made by private vehicles within the Valley would be by overnight visitors either entering or departing the Valley and by day visitors parking at Yosemite Village. This shift from private vehicle to transit would result in a major long-term impact to the travel mode share in the Valley.

Under Alternative 2, bus trips in the peak season would increase on the Valley roadway system. The required bus service would result in 4,949 daily bus vehicle miles traveled in the Valley in the peak season, a major long-term increase over Alternative 1 (see table 4-45).

Under Alternative 2 the road network in the Valley would be modified from existing conditions. The one-way operation of both Northside and Southside Drive would be retained west of El Capitan crossover. Northside Drive would be closed to vehicular traffic between Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) and El Capitan crossover. Southside Drive would be converted to carry two-way traffic east of El Capitan crossover, and Stoneman Bridge could be removed. As a result, Sentinel Road would receive a greater share of Valley traffic. The existing intersection of Northside Drive and Camp 6 would be eliminated, and road access would be reconfigured to separate inbound and outbound traffic routes to the day-visitor parking area and to create efficient routes for regional transit buses, tour buses, and shuttle buses using the transit center. The only visitor traffic using the roads in the Yosemite Village area would be destined for The Ahwahnee. Improved transit routes and shuttle systems would reduce the volume of recirculating visitor traffic within the Valley.

Under Alternative 2, the level of service at the intersections of Northside Drive and Southside Drive with Sentinel Road would improve by one Level of Service increment or more compared to Alternative 1 during both inbound and outbound peak hours (see table 4-46). Existing severe traffic congestion at Sentinel Drive and Northside Drive would be eliminated. Despite the greater share of traffic using Sentinel Drive, the overall reduction in traffic associated with this alternative would lead to less congestion at key intersections.

Traffic level of service would improve on Pohono Bridge from E (severe congestion) to D (moderate congestion). Traffic conditions on El Capitan Bridge would degrade slightly due to higher volumes of traffic, but traffic flow would remain acceptable at level of service C. Road improvements on the segment of El Portal Road between Big Oak Flat Road and Pohono Bridge and reduced traffic volumes due to out-of-Valley parking would substantially improve traffic flow from level of service E to level of service C in both inbound and outbound peak hours. Traffic flow on Southside Drive at Yosemite Chapel would improve slightly in the inbound peak hours and remain similar to current conditions in the outbound peak hours. Traffic conditions on Northside Drive from Yosemite Village to Yosemite Lodge would improve from moderate to severe congestion (level of service D in the inbound peak hours and level of service E in the outbound peak hour) under Alternative 1, to no congestion (level of service A). This improvement would directly affect the large share of visitors who travel to and spend time in this area.

Table 4-46 Level of Service Summary (Inbound/Outbound)
Intersections
	Southside Drive/Sentinel Road		Northside Drive/Sentinel Road		Northside Drive/Camp 6-Village Access		Southside Drive/ Northside Drive
Alternative 1	C/B		C/E		A/B		B/A
Alternative 2	A/A		B/A		not an intersection		not an intersection
Road Segments
	Pohono Bridge	El Capitan Bridge		El Portal Road (between Pohono Bridge and Big Oak Flat Road intersection)		Southside Drive (at Chapel)		Northside Drive (Yosemite Park HQ)
Alternative 1	E/E	B/B		E/E		D/C		D/E
Alternative 2	D/D	C/C		C/C		C/C		A/A

By reducing traffic volumes, Alternative 2 would result in levels of service equal to or better than existing on all roads except El Capitan crossover. This alternative also would result in substantially improved traffic flow on Northside Drive. Overall, the transportation improvements in Alternative 2 would result in major, long-term beneficial impacts by improving traffic flow.

Under Alternative 2, the average travel time to access Yosemite Valley would increase by 20 to 21 minutes over Alternative 1, representing a moderate adverse impact to visitors. Many visitor trips to and within the Valley would be shifted to transit from private vehicles. There would be a major decrease in traffic volumes and a major improvement in traffic flow within the Valley compared to Alternative 1. Traffic volumes on roads would be reduced by 50%, resulting in a major, long-term beneficial impact. Bus trips entering the Valley at the Yosemite Chapel would increase by 285 per day. All bus trips into the Valley would travel as far as Yosemite Village, and the shuttle service in the Valley would be greatly expanded, with the resulting bus miles traveled increasing to 4,949 miles per day. Traffic congestion would be reduced at the intersections of Sentinel Road with Northside Drive and Southside Drive. There would be major, long-term beneficial impacts from improved traffic flow, particularly on El Portal Road between its intersection with Big Oak Flat Road and Pohono Bridge, and on Northside Drive, between Yosemite Lodge and Yosemite Village.

Cumulative impacts would be generally the same as those described under Alternative 1 except as noted below.

The installation of concrete pads at bus stops in the Valley and the purchase of new buses for the existing shuttle bus fleet would reinforce the reductions in vehicle miles traveled in Alternative 2. The effects of Alternative 2 on vehicle miles traveled would be changed by a negligible, but positive, amount by these projects.

Under this alternative, restoring giant sequoia habitat in Mariposa Grove and addressing existing traffic safety conflicts at the South Entrance (action described under Alternative 1) would enable Yosemite National Park staff to communicate more effectively with visitors as they enter the park. Improved communication with visitors is needed to implement the traveler information and traffic management system. The cumulative impacts of this project when considered with Alternative 2 would be beneficial, but negligible with respect to the amount of time required to travel to the Valley.

As described under Alternative 1, the completion of the land exchange involving parcels along Highway 140 in Yosemite View parcel land exchange would allow for expanded entrance facilities, thus reducing delays and providing visitors with better information about access to the Valley. Improved information for visitors would facilitate the implementation of the traveler information and traffic management system proposed under Alternative 2, resulting in beneficial but negligible cumulative impacts with respect to the amount of time required to travel to the Valley.

The reconstruction of El Portal Road Segments A, B, and C would facilitate out-of-Valley transit service from the remote parking area in El Portal that is proposed in Alternative 2. The cumulative impact of this action when considered with Alternative 2 would be beneficial, but negligible with respect to the amount of time required to travel to the Valley.

The cumulative impact of regional transportation improvements implemented through YARTS, when considered with the impacts of Alternative 2, would be beneficial with respect to vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled in Yosemite Valley. Alternative 2 would support potential future regional transit by providing queuing and boarding areas for regional transit buses in the Valley. The magnitude of the impact is uncertain in the long-term because the number of visitors who would travel to the Valley on YARTS is unknown.

The proposed Amtrak San Joaquin railroad corridor station improvements, in combination with the changes in access proposed under Alternative 2, could increase travel to the Valley by alternative modes of transportation. The resulting cumulative impact would be beneficial. The magnitude of the impact is uncertain because the number of visitors who would travel to the Valley using the San Joaquin Amtrak service is uncertain.

High-speed rail access to gateway communities along Highway 99 from Bakersfield to Modesto, in combination with access changes proposed under Alternative 2, could increase the demand for travel to Yosemite Valley by alternative modes of transportation. The cumulative impacts would be beneficial with unknown magnitude.

New private development projects near Yosemite National Park, as described under Alternative 1, include new or expanded lodging, housing, and recreation facilities on the Highway 140 corridor, on the Highway 120 corridor, and on private lands bordering the park at Yosemite West. To the extent that the more convenient lodging would result in additional visitor demand, the impacts would depend on the share of visitors from these projects who would use expanded regional transportation services. Because visitors staying in these areas would need to travel shorter distances to the Valley or to out-of-Valley parking areas, and because the lodge locations could encourage travel by alternative modes, the projects could increase the demand for travel on regional transportation. The overall effect of the projects, in combination with the actions proposed under Alternative 2, would likely be negligible.

Major development projects in the Yosemite Region, as described for Alternative 1, could increase visitation at Yosemite National Park. Because the development projects represent only a small portion of expected growth in the area, the cumulative transportation impacts, when considered with the impacts of Alternative 2, would be minor and detrimental.

Under this alternative, the major transportation actions affecting sound levels and events are:

As a result of the changes in Southside Drive, transit service and private vehicle traffic would be concentrated along Southside Drive east of Sentinel Bridge, across Sentinel Bridge and in the Yosemite Village area. This alternative also would introduce out-of-Valley shuttle buses to the Valley road network as far east as Yosemite Village and at the out-of-Valley parking areas. It was assumed that the out-of-Valley shuttle vehicles would produce sound levels similar to tour buses now operated in the Valley. Changes in sound events would occur along Southside Drive and Northside Drive west of El Capitan crossover, Southside Drive west of Sentinel Drive, Sentinel Drive and Yosemite Village, between Yosemite Village and Yosemite Lodge, west of Yosemite Lodge on Northside Drive, between Sentinel Drive and Curry Village on Southside Drive, and along Northside Drive between Stoneman Bridge and Yosemite Village.

Ambient sound levels associated with vehicle traffic would be reduced along most roadways in Yosemite Valley except El Capitan crossover all day and on Southside Drive west of Sentinel Bridge in the outbound peak period. Traffic volumes would be reduced by about 75% or more along Northside Drive between Yosemite Village and Yosemite Lodge. The resulting reduction in noise levels would result in long-term, minor, beneficial impacts. Traffic volumes on Southside Drive from El Capitan crossover to Sentinel Bridge would be reduced by about 16% in the inbound peak hour, but traffic volume would be about 75% higher than under the No Action Alternative in the outbound peak hour. On balance, the impact to noise along the portion of Southside Drive between El Capitan crossover and Sentinel Bridge would be expected to be long-term, minor, and adverse with a negligible, adverse impact during the inbound peak hour and a minor, adverse impact during the outbound peak hour. Sound level impacts along the portion of Northside Drive between the Lodge and Yosemite Village would be long-term, negligible during the inbound peak hour and long-term, minor, and beneficial during the outbound peak hour. Sound levels along Northside Drive between Sentinel Bridge and Yosemite Lodge and on Southside Drive near the Chapel are shown in table 4-47 and table 4-48. Traffic volumes on Southside Drive from Sentinel Bridge to Curry Village would be reduced, although to a lesser degree than on Northside Drive. Noise impacts would be long-term, minor, beneficial. Traffic would be removed from the portions of Northside Drive between Stoneman Bridge and the Village and between Yosemite Lodge and El Capitan crossover. In areas where Southside Drive is 400 feet or further from these closed portions of Northside Drive, traffic noise levels would be reduced to less than ambient sound levels and, in many cases, traffic noise would be inaudible. The resulting reduction in sound levels associated with traffic would have long-term, major, beneficial impacts.

The introduction of out-of-Valley shuttles on Valley roads would increase the maximum number of noticeable sound events west of El Capitan crossover from 15 per hour to 35 per hour on Southside Drive and Northside Drive. The sound impact in this area would be long-term, major, and adverse.

The introduction of out-of-Valley shuttles and the conversion of Southside Drive to two-way operation would result in an increase in the number of sound events between El Capitan crossover and Sentinel Bridge on Southside Drive. The number of very noticeable sound events would increase from 15 per hour to 70 per hour. In addition, 16 events which have quieter sound levels (noticeable within 100 feet of the roadway) would occur along this road segment. The impact of quieter, transit-related sound events would be long-term, major, and adverse along this portion of Southside Drive.

A greater concentration of transit vehicles would be found along Sentinel Drive and in the vicinity of Yosemite Village, including the Valley Transit Center. The number of noticeable sound events would increase from 15 per hour to 70 per hour. An additional 36 events which have quieter sound levels also would occur per hour. The impact of transit sound events would be long-term, major, and adverse in this portion of the Valley.

Between Yosemite Village and Yosemite Lodge, the number of very noticeable sound events would increase from 11 to 12 per hour. Additionally, 10 more events which have quieter sound levels would occur along this portion of Northside Drive. The impacts in this area from transit sound events would be long-term, negligible, and adverse.

West of Yosemite Lodge, Northside Drive would be closed to vehicle traffic and used as a multi-use paved trail. Sound events would be reduced from 13 per hour to none. The impact would be long-term, major, and beneficial. From Sentinel Bridge to Curry Village, the number of very noticeable sound events on Southside Drive would increase from 4 to 8 per hour, with 20 additional events having lesser sound levels per hour. The impact in this area would be long-term, minor, and adverse. The portion of Northside Drive from Stoneman Bridge to the Village would experience a reduction in noticeable sound events from four to none and a reduction of lesser sound events from 10 to none. The sound impacts of these changes would be long-term, minor, and beneficial.

Very noticeable sound events would increase at the out-of-Valley parking areas as a result of shuttle bus service to and from Yosemite Valley. The number of added sound events during the peak travel hours on typically busy days would be 10 at El Portal, 10 at Badger Pass, and 20 at Hazel Green or Foresta. The impacts from the changes in sound events would be long-term, adverse, and moderate at El Portal and Badger Pass. The impacts would be long-term, adverse, and major at Hazel Green or Foresta.

Alternative 2 would reduce the general sound levels associated with traffic along most roadways in the Valley. The remaining traffic and the associated sound would be concentrated on Southside Drive, west of Sentinel Bridge, where sound levels from traffic and buses would increase perceptibly in the outbound peak hour. Northside Drive would experience long-term, major, beneficial impacts from the removal of the sound of all vehicles between Yosemite Lodge and El Capitan crossover and between Stoneman Bridge and Yosemite Village. Minor, beneficial impacts would occur along Northside Drive from Yosemite Village to Yosemite Lodge from a reduction in traffic volume. The general reduction in sound levels would be accompanied by an increase in the number of shuttle bus trips into the Valley. The areas west of El Capitan crossover, Southside Drive from El Capitan crossover to Sentinel Bridge, and the Camp 6 area would experience long-term, major, adverse impacts with the increases in the number of sound events associated with buses. These increases in bus-related sound events would be accompanied by long-term, major benefits through decreases in sound events along Northside Drive from Yosemite Lodge to El Capitan crossover, and minor reductions in such events between Stoneman Bridge and Yosemite Village on Northside Drive. Increases in bus-related sound events would result in moderate to long-term, major, adverse impacts at the out-of-Valley parking areas. Major impacts would occur at Hazel Green or Foresta.

Replacing the existing shuttle bus fleet with advanced technology buses (which could reduce the intensity of sound events along the shuttle routes) in combination with the actions in Alternative 2 would decrease noticeable sound events along roadways in the Valley. The impact analysis assumed that advanced technology buses would be used. As a result, the consequences of Alternative 2 on sound events would remain unchanged. Increases in regional transit service by the YARTS (which could lead to a larger number of sound events along routes served by regional transit buses) when combined with the actions in Alternative 2 would have cumulative impacts on sound levels in the Valley that would result in the impacts of sound events remaining long-term, major, and adverse, with increased intensity.

As in Alternative 1, noises associated with housing would include normal social activities (e.g., conversation) among residents, the sounds of household appliances (e.g., air conditioners) and household tasks. The reduction of housing proposed in Alternative 2 would result in an overall reduction in housing-related noise due to the removal of 594 housing beds. Although peak noise levels would be similar, the number of peak noise level events, as well as ambient noise levels, would be less because of this reduction in housing and changes in the types of structures used. Housing-related noise at Curry Village would change in character due to the transition from canvas-sided cabins to hard-sided cabins and improved dining facilities, and would decrease overall due to reduction in total beds. Housing-related noise would be eliminated at the concessioner stable near North Pines Campground with the removal of housing. Housing-related noise at Yosemite Lodge would be eliminated due to the removal of the modular housing units. Housing-related noise would remain the same at the Yosemite Village Historic District. Housing numbers and related noise at Yosemite Village and at The Ahwahnee would be slightly reduced. Although the types of noises would be the same as in Alternative 1, a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact would be experienced primarily by residents and visitors, because of the reductions in ambient noise and the amounts of some noises.

The relocation of some operational functions (e.g., parkwide maintenance functions, wildland fire, headquarters, concession headquarters, etc.) would result in an overall reduction in operations-related noise. The National Park Service maintenance area would be substantially changed, but it is expected that the ambient noise level would change little because of new activities in the area. Mechanical equipment and their associated noises would be reduced, although light maintenance for transit would be located in the Valley. A long-term, moderate, beneficial impact would be experienced by residents and visitors.

Nonvehicle noise associated with the Yosemite Village Visitor/Transit Center would increase due to maintenance of the facility and visitor activity at the facility. These sounds would likely be about half as loud as vehicle noise at the facility (which would be approximately 75 dB; FICN 1992). The increase would be partially offset by removal of some existing visitor services in the area (e.g., garage, grocery store, etc.), which would reduce the sounds of mechanical equipment and some visitor activities. A long-term, minor, adverse impact would be experienced primarily by visitors, but also by residents.

Types of noise at lodging would be the same as described in Alternative 1. The amount of lodging-related noise at Housekeeping Camp would decrease, due to the reduction of 164 units, a potentially moderate benefit. Lodging-related noise at Curry Village would be reduced due to the reduction in the number of tent cabins, a potentially moderate effect. Lodging-related noise at The Ahwahnee would not change. Overall a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact would be experienced by visitors.

Sources of campground-related noise would be the same as under the No Action Alternative, but the amount of local, ambient noise would be reduced overall as a result of the reduction in campsite numbers. Campground-related noise would be reduced at Lower Pines Campground with the reduction in campsites. Campground-related noise would be eliminated at North Pines, Yellow Pine, and Backpackers Campgrounds. Campground-related noise would increase at Upper Pines with the addition of campsites. Campground-related noise would be introduced at the Tenaya Creek Campground walk-to sites and at the South Camp backpacker and group camps, although electrical generators and vehicle noise would not originate from these campgrounds, a benefit to these users. Noise would increase at Camp 4 (Sunnyside Campground) with the addition of 28 campsites. In most locations, a long-term, minor benefit would be experienced primarily by visitors, but also by residents.

Noises related to picnic areas would be eliminated in the locations of the Church Bowl and Swinging Bridge Picnic Areas, due to their removal. Picnic area noise, including sounds associated with social interaction (conversation, laughing, and play), would be introduced at the new picnic areas at North American Wall and Yosemite Village. In these areas, visitor conversation would represent the most typical nonvehicle noise (60 dB; FICN 1992) introduced into the area, and would typically be half as loud as nearby vehicle noise. A long-term, negligible, beneficial impact would be experienced by visitors.

Trail-related noise would be introduced into areas that are traversed by the new multi-use paved trail in the Valley. Noises along new trails would be similar to those found along existing trails under Alternative 1. These noises are not typically very loud, unless large numbers of visitors are on the trail. The removal of vehicle traffic along Northside Drive between Yosemite Lodge and El Capitan crossover would open this area up to multi-use trail activities; nonvehicle noise would then have the greatest effect on the area. However, compared to the No Action Alternative, Northside Drive would have both reduced levels of noise and reductions in peak noise levels, causing a long-term, moderate, beneficial effect upon visitors. Considered in total, trail-related impacts experienced by visitors, would be long-term, minor, and adverse because of the introduction of new trails.

During construction and deconstruction phases of projects throughout Yosemite Valley and along the El Portal Road, additional nonvehicle-related noises would occur. Typical noises during construction activity would include the mechanical noises and peak noise levels associated with equipment use (including bulldozers, hammers, rock drills, and other machines). The noises associated with operating a D8 Caterpillar Bulldozer (85 dB, at 50 feet), for example, and various construction equipment, can be roughly twice as loud as an average car. Some construction equipment and activities can produce sounds in excess of 100 dB, typically in short bursts, but spread over the duration of the project. These effects would be 16 or more times as loud as a typical vehicle. Overall, peak nonvehicle-related noises during construction and deconstruction would have short-term, major, adverse impacts, affecting both visitors and residents.

South Landing would have no change in nonvehicle noise; therefore, no impact would occur.

Henness Ridge would continue to have no major source of nonvehicle noise; therefore, no impact would occur.

Construction noises in El Portal and other out-of-Valley locations would include the same types of noises, and with similar effects as described above for Yosemite Valley. During construction, short-term, major, adverse impacts would be experienced by residents.

Alternative 2 would be similar to Alternative 1, in that the effects of nonvehicle noise on the human environment are concentrated primarily around development areas. Reductions in housing units in Yosemite Valley would result in reductions in ambient noise levels, a long-term, moderate benefit. Likewise, increases in housing numbers in El Portal and other parts of the park would result in long-term, minor, adverse effects. New trails would introduce typical trail-related noises into new areas, but these long-term, adverse effects would be minor. Reductions in the number of lodging units would result in long-term, minor, beneficial effects. There would be reductions in National Park Service and concessioner stables operations in Yosemite Valley, but with light maintenance for transit being in the Valley, long-term benefits would be moderate. New noises would be introduced in out-of-Valley staging areas for transit activities, resulting in long-term, moderate, adverse effects.

Overall, nonvehicle noises would be reduced in Yosemite Valley, resulting in long-term, moderate, benefits. The greatest increases in noise would be in El Portal and Foresta or Hazel Green, and seasonally at Badger Pass, where adverse effects would also be long-term and moderate.

The projects listed in Appendix H, Potential Cumulative Actions, would result in the production of nonvehicle noise. However, most of these projects would have local impacts that would not create a cumulative effect in Yosemite National Park.

The following are examples of projects that would have nonvehicle-related noise impacts during their construction phases, thus affecting noise levels at specific sites:

Typical sounds during construction activity for these projects would include the mechanical noises and peak noise levels associated with equipment use (including bulldozers, hammers, rock drills, and other machines) and grinding, breaking, moving, and constructing materials. The noises of operating a D8 Caterpiller Bulldozer (85 dB, at 50 feet) and milling machines (85 dB; FICN 1992) are roughly twice as loud as an average car. Some construction equipment and activities can produce sounds in excess of 100 dB, in typically short bursts, spread over the duration of the project. These effects would be 16 or more times as loud as a typical vehicle. These major, adverse effects would be short-term in duration.

Noises of aircraft activity (typically, jetliners flying over the park en route to and from airports in the region) are audible in Yosemite. However, their noise levels in Yosemite Valley are generally less than nonvehicle noises and become part of the matrix of ambient noise, particularly during summer, but not necessarily in all park locations. The effects of nonvehicle noise in Yosemite Valley would not be considered greater when evaluated in combination with the effects of existing patterns of aircraft activity.

Other than the sounds of waterfalls and the Merced River, the most important influence upon peak and ambient noise levels is vehicle noise. As described under the Vehicle Noise section, these impacts have adverse effects upon visitors who can be considered to be visiting Yosemite to experience its natural wonders, including sounds. The impacts of nonvehicle noise would continue to be generally less than the impacts of vehicles.

The greatest reductions in nonvehicle noises would be in Yosemite Valley while the greatest increases would occur in El Portal and the other out-of-Valley staging areas at Badger Pass and Foresta or Hazel Green. When considering these overall moderate, beneficial effects, in combination with the more dominant noises associated with other projects and sources, including vehicles, cumulative effects of nonvehicle noise in Alternative 2 would remain long-term, moderate, and beneficial.

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.

Potential effects of Alternative 2 on the communities of Yosemite Valley, El Portal, Foresta, Wawona, and Yosemite West are discussed in this section. Factors with the potential to affect the social and economic environments of each of these communities include population, housing location, types and condition of housing, distance of employee commutes from outlying areas, community amenities, and the community infrastructure.

Effects specific to the Yosemite Valley community that may result from implementation of this alternative include:

A portion of the employee housing in Yosemite Valley would be relocated, reducing the number of beds available for employees from 1,277 to 723. This would require approximately 554 persons to relocate from Yosemite Valley to El Portal and Wawona. The effects of this proposed relocation of employees include:

The proposed relocation of employees from Yosemite Valley to El Portal and Wawona, including National Park Service and Yosemite Concession Services headquarters and associated employees, would reduce the resident population by almost half and alter the character of the remaining residential population. About 50% of upper-level concession management and professional staff currently living in managerial housing in the Valley would be relocated. Even though the plan does not designate housing award criteria, it is projected that most of the non-management employees moved to El Portal and/or Wawona would be year-round employees. As a result, a greater proportion of the employees remaining in Yosemite Valley would be seasonal employees.

A minor reduction in the number of houses and apartments in the Valley would mean fewer facilities suitable for married couples and families. These factors may reduce the social diversity and alter the character of the community. Reduction in community leadership and involvement of the professional and management staff in community activities could affect community character and stability. Recruitment and retention of quality employees would improve initially; however, sustaining those increases would depend on long-term demographic and social trends in community character. The change in resident population and the reduction in the number of married couples and families would have a long-term, moderate, adverse impact.

Under this alternative, 554 beds would be removed from Yosemite Valley (see Chapter 2, Alternative 2, Housing). Relocation of Valley residents to El Portal would require an alteration of the employees’ lifestyles based on the need to commute. The commute would reduce employees’ discretionary time by approximately an hour each work day. The added commute would also make it more difficult for managers to access employees quickly to fill short-notice requirements. The changes in employees’ lifestyle to address the need to commute would cause a long-term, moderate, adverse impact.

Housing and design improvements within the Valley would provide increased privacy, more space and greater security for employees. Less sharing, competition, and congestion in facilities such as kitchens, bathrooms, and laundry facilities, would reduce stress and irritation. This alternative would result in housing being more integrated among employer groups, which would increase the likelihood of stronger social ties among individuals working for different employers. This improvement to housing quality would be a long-term, major, beneficial impact.

Under this alternative, 380 park employees (see Chapter 2, Alternative 2, Housing), mostly primary concessioner employees, would be relocated from Yosemite Valley into new housing in El Portal. An additional 355 bed spaces would be constructed to meet future and currently unmet demand for employee housing. An additional 80 El Portal residents currently living at the Trailer Village, Arch Rock, or Cascades, would be relocated into additional newly built housing facilities in El Portal. The total net increase in El Portal’s residential employee population is projected to be 735 (380 plus 355).

The park’s current primary concessioner, Yosemite Concession Services, provided the primary source of employee demographic information for El Portal. No similar information was available from other park concessioners or the National Park Service. Approximately 90% of the new housing in El Portal would be occupied by primary concessioner employees. Therefore, Yosemite Concession Services employee demographic information has been used to project the demographics for all future park employees who would be housed in El Portal under this alternative.

Based on current demographics of the park employee population, it is estimated that approximately 20% of the permanent employee population would be married. In addition, Yosemite Concession Services staff estimates that approximately 15% of employee spouses are not employed within the park. Therefore, under this alternative an additional 22 spouses are expected to relocate to El Portal (735 ´ 20% ´ 15%). Of these 22 spouses, approximately 11 would be relocated from the Valley and 11 would be married to new employees.

According to Yosemite Concession Services, under this alternative 56 managerial personnel, currently living in managerial housing, would be relocated from the Valley to El Portal, while 34 would remain in the Valley. Yosemite Concession Services’ current managerial population is approximately 210 employees parkwide. Many managerial staff currently live in non-managerial housing accommodations within the Valley (although a significant portion of the managerial staff lives outside the park). Yosemite Concession Services estimates that its managerial staff has approximately 80 children; a conservative estimate of 50 children are expected to be relocated. Of the 355 future new employees, 43 are projected to be managerial staff. Based on current employee demographics, these staff would bring an additional 15 children to El Portal.

Including relocated employees, new employees, spouses, and children, therefore, the total increase in El Portal’s residential population under this alternative is projected to be 822 (735 + 22 + 50 + 15). Yosemite Concession Services expects that 10% of the employees housed in El Portal would be seasonal employees. Therefore, when compared to the No Action Alternative, the winter residential population in El Portal would increase by approximately 740 (822 ´ 90%).

The National Park Service estimates that the current population of El Portal (from the park boundary to the confluence of the South Fork of the Merced River) is approximately 3,000 in summer and approximately 760 in winter. Under this alternative, changes in employee housing would result in an approximately 27% increase in El Portal’s summer population and a 97% increase in its winter population. Both could cause long-term, major, adverse impacts on El Portal’s existing population, although it is expected that this projected future growth would occur gradually.

The community also would be affected by an increase in the number of commuters and transit buses accessing the out-of-Valley parking area and traveling on Highway 140. These transit activities and commuting employees would have a long-term, major, adverse impact on the El Portal social environment by traveling from El Portal to the Valley.

Under this alternative approximately 174 primary concessioner employees would be relocated from Yosemite Valley to new housing at Wawona. In addition, 24 additional employee bed spaces would be constructed at Wawona to meet future and currently unmet demand for employee housing. The total net increase in the resident employee population at Wawona is projected to be 198 (174 plus 24).

Based on current park employee population demographics, approximately 20% of the permanent employee population would be married. Within this married population, 15% of all spouses are not employed within the park. Therefore, an additional six (198 ´ 20% ´ 15%) people (i.e., employee spouses who are not park employees) would be expected to relocate to new housing in Wawona. All of the new housing at Wawona would be apartments, studio, or dormitory-style housing. Apartments, studio, and dormitory-style housing are not typically used for managerial personnel, married couples, or employees with children. Therefore, no children are expected to be relocated to Wawona.

The total increase in residential population of Wawona is estimated to be 204 (174 + 24 + 6). Yosemite Concession Services estimates that 10% of these employees would be seasonal. Because seasonal employees would not be in residence during the winter, the winter residential population in Wawona would increase by approximately 184 (204 ´ 90%).

The National Park Service estimates that the population in summer and winter in Wawona is approximately 1,130 and 420, respectively (including hotel guests). Under this alternative, therefore, proposed employee housing would result in approximately an 18% increase in Wawona’s summer population, and a 44% increase in the winter population. Both would cause long-term, major, adverse impacts on Wawona’s population, although this growth would occur gradually. Resulting impacts on the Wawona community would depend on the associated impacts on community services and infrastructure.

Most of the 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. This alternative proposes reconstruction of the 14 National Park Service houses lost in the A-Rock fire. For the few homeowners in Foresta, rebuilding the burned National Park Service dwellings would have little effect on the social environment. For those residents able to rebuild, Foresta would retain its privacy and solitude. This would result in a long-term, minor, adverse impact to the social environment of Foresta due to the slightly detectable impact to community attractions and services. Also, this alternative includes placement of 700 potential visitor parking spaces and potentially (depending on the outcome of future Wilderness eligibility determination) the National Park Service and concessioner stable at McCauley Ranch. Residents would experience increases in transit related traffic, including shuttle buses (transportation related impacts are evaluated in the Transportation section of this chapter). This would have a long-term, major, adverse impact due to increased visitor and stock trailer traffic in this area.

The housing at Cascades and Arch Rock would be removed. Therefore, the opportunity to experience living at these two locations would also be removed. This would be long-term, minor, adverse impact because relocation of these employees would be slightly perceptible when considering the total employee population.

This alternative proposes to construct up to 405 visitor parking spaces at Badger Pass, approximately 5 miles from the Yosemite West community. Near the Chinquapin intersection, residents of Yosemite West would experience increases in transit-related traffic, including shuttle buses. (Transportation-related impacts are evaluated in the Transportation section of this chapter.) Congestion may occur during commuting hours. However, the length of commutes from the Yosemite West area is not expected to increase. Housing, community amenities, and community infrastructure would not be affected. Based upon this evaluation, impacts would be long-term, minor (slightly perceptible), and adverse.

Approximately 50 children of concession employees would be relocated from Yosemite Valley to El Portal. In addition, 15 children are expected to be added to the local population from future growth in managerial staff at the park. Although their ages cannot be precisely projected, it is likely that these children would include some pre-school and high school-aged children who would not use the school facilities in El Portal. Based on the current demographics of park employee children, it expected that approximately four new elementary school-aged children would be added and 19 would be relocated from Yosemite Valley to El Portal, for a total of 23 new students at El Portal Elementary School. Current enrollment at El Portal Elementary School is approximately 40 students. The school was recently expanded and the Mariposa School District indicates that its current facilities could serve another 50 or 60 children adequately. However, a primary concern for the School District is the potential loss of additional state funding it currently receives as a "necessary small school" if future enrollment exceeds 100 students. Under this alternative, total enrollment at El Portal Elementary School would remain below 100 students. Therefore, long-term, minor, adverse operational impacts to the school district are expected.

While future enrollment at the schools cannot be projected, the potential flexibility to manage enrollment would enable the school district to minimize any impacts from proposed changes.

After the primary concessioner relocates its headquarters out of the Valley, the majority of the children of Yosemite Valley employees would likely be educated in El Portal. In this case, enrollment at the Yosemite Elementary School would decrease to less than 30 students. This would have a long-term, major, adverse impact on the Yosemite Elementary School and could threaten the school’s long-term viability. Closure of Yosemite Elementary School would require all elementary school students to enroll at the El Portal facility, causing El Portal’s enrollment to increase to more than 90 students. This enrollment would be close to the facility’s current capacity and near the maximum for supplementary state funding. If future enrollment subsequently rose above 100, this would represent a long-term, major, adverse impact to the Mariposa County Unified School District.

Relocation of park employees from Yosemite Valley to El Portal is not expected to change the number of students attending Mariposa County High School because many students already commute daily from Yosemite Valley. Under this alternative, approximately four new high school-aged students would be added to the local population. These students could be educated at the Yosemite Park High School program in El Portal or at Mariposa County High School. Although Mariposa County High School is currently operating at full enrollment, the potential addition of approximately three new students would represent a long-term, negligible, adverse impact on the school system.

In the near term, it is expected that relocation of park employees to El Portal would not change the enrollment at the Yosemite Child Care Center (until the concessioner headquarters are relocated) unless major program improvements are made to the El Portal facility. The two child care centers have combined their operations to provide greater service options. However, funding and staff limitations restrict the potential development of the child care operations. Child care staff expect most parents would continue to use the Yosemite Valley Child Care facilities as long as they work in the Valley, although parents would need to use the employee shuttle system to commute with their children.

Under this alternative, future growth in concessioner managerial staff is projected to add approximately five new pre-school-aged children. This would cause a long-term, major, adverse impact on child care operations because demand could not be met using current facilities in the Valley. However, if the unused capacity at the El Portal facility is used, then the additional child care demand could be accommodated (although the child care program would have to be expanded to provide comparable service and it would also be operating at near capacity). These effects on the park’s child care facilities would represent long-term, major, adverse impacts on their operations. The impact could be even greater when the concessioner headquarters are relocated out of the Valley. At that point, most park managerial employees would be more inclined to have their children use child care facilities outside the Valley. However, the existing El Portal facility would be inadequate to meet any major increase in service demand. In this case, there would be a short-term, major, adverse impact on the child care programs until a new child care facility could be constructed.

No children are expected to be relocated to Wawona because proposed housing at Wawona is apartment, studio and dormitory-style residences. These housing types typically are not used to accommodate managerial personnel, married couples, or employees with children. Therefore, additional housing at Wawona would have no impact on school enrollment, school facilities, or child care facilities.

Relocation of concession employees is expected to increase the law enforcement requirements in El Portal and Wawona. Based on the population shift from Yosemite Valley and future employee growth, it is estimated that approximately 40 arrests would occur in El Portal and 18 in Wawona, which would otherwise have been expected to occur within the Valley. Also, the addition of 355 new employees in El Portal, and 24 in Wawona, would be expected to add approximately 38 and three additional arrests a year in El Portal and Wawona, respectively. This would have a long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impact on law enforcement services. However, these projections do not consider the beneficial impacts that improvements to employee living conditions and the quality of concession employees (attracted by the improved housing) may have in reducing future law enforcement incidents and arrests necessary in El Portal and Wawona and throughout the park.

In addition, the proposed out-of-Valley parking areas at El Portal and Foresta would provide day-visitor parking for up to 360 and 700 vehicles, respectively. Although the magnitude of the increase in law enforcement service demand from the parking facilities cannot be projected, park staff expects the additional demand to be small given the relatively low need for law enforcement at existing parking locations within the Valley. Providing park housing for some of the ranger staff would ensure that park rangers would be available to respond quickly to any law enforcement needs in the El Portal, Wawona, or Foresta areas during off-duty hours.

National Park Service rangers currently provide the first response to any law enforcement incidents in the El Portal area, under a memorandum of understanding with the Mariposa County Sheriff (see Chapter 3, Affected Environment). It is expected, however, that Mariposa County would perform a greater proportion of the law enforcement services once new employee housing is constructed at El Portal. This potential increase in the county law enforcement presence would require that the National Park Service and Mariposa County address law enforcement service limitations that exist under the current Memorandum of Understanding. National Park Service officials estimate that operating a law enforcement substation in El Portal with three law enforcement officers and/or rangers and an additional vehicle would provide an adequate increase in the law enforcement presence to meet existing and future service needs. In this case, the cost of providing the additional law enforcement services would be expected to have a long-term, moderate, adverse impact on the county.

In the Wawona area, the National Park Service has exclusive jurisdiction, and would continue to provide all law enforcement services for any new employees housed at Wawona.

Offenders arrested in Yosemite Valley or Wawona would be transferred to the El Portal jail facility and would be prosecuted under the federal court system. Arrests made in El Portal would be prosecuted by the Mariposa County court. Overall, the magnitude of the impact on the county court system is expected to be comparable to that on county law enforcement. Therefore, the county court system is also expected to experience a long-term, moderate, adverse impact from this alternative.

Mariposa County has responsibility for providing fire protection services for private lands within the county. Currently, through a memorandum of understanding, the county pays the National Park Service to provide the initial and primary fire protection services throughout El Portal, Wawona, Foresta, and Yosemite West. Under this alternative it is expected that the National Park Service would continue to provide the initial and primary fire protection services for the area and for all new housing facilities constructed in El Portal, Wawona, and Foresta. Additional assistance from the volunteer fire service in El Portal and the county fire protection services in Mariposa would only be required if a major fire event occurred in these areas. As a result, this alternative would have a long-term, negligible, adverse impact on the county’s fire protection services.

Also, new employee housing at El Portal and Wawona would be built with sprinkler systems, smoke detectors, fire retardant materials, or other fire safety features. As a result, the fire risks associated with the existing employee housing in El Portal would be reduced. However, construction of the additional employee housing would cause a long-term, moderate, adverse impact because it would increase the total fire incidence rate at El Portal. The addition of the day-visitor parking area is expected to have a minimal effect on the area’s fire incidence rate, and thus would have a long-term, negligible, adverse impact.

The National Park Service would continue to provide fire protection services for the new employee housing facilities proposed for construction in Wawona and Foresta. Additional assistance from the Mariposa County fire protection services would only be required for a major fire event in Wawona or Foresta. As a result, changes to housing in Wawona or Foresta under this alternative would have a long-term, negligible, adverse impact on the county’s fire protection services.

Under this alternative, the Yosemite Valley Medical Clinic would be retained and the National Park Service and clinic Emergency Management Services staff would continue to handle all emergency medical service functions. The dental clinic would be removed. All other medical needs and dental would be provided outside the park in the surrounding communities. The National Park Service and clinic Emergency Medical Service would be expected to provide ambulance services for visitors and park residents requiring urgent medical care within the park. Mariposa County would continue to have primary responsibility for providing ambulance services for El Portal residents. County ambulance service demand in El Portal would be expected to increase as a result of the proposed residential growth. In addition, the county ambulance services may be expected to handle additional, less serious medical cases that would otherwise have been treated by the Yosemite Valley Medical Clinic. However, because nearly all park employees have medical insurance, any additional service costs would be compensated by the employee’s insurance provider. Mariposa County would be reimbursed for the cost of providing ambulance and medical treatment services, and the financial impact on the county would be minor. Therefore, the increase in the demand for county ambulance service would have a long-term, minor, adverse impact. There would also be a long-term, minor adverse impact on the Yosemite Valley social environment associated with the effect of closing the dental clinic, thereby requiring residents to travel into the region for dental services. National Park Service staff estimate that eight additional Emergency Medical Service staff would be necessary to provide an adequate replacement emergency medical service.

Mariposa County would continue to provide domestic animal control services for El Portal and Wawona. Currently, few concession employees living in Yosemite Valley own pets. Based on current employee demographics and conditions, it is therefore expected that only a minor increase in the population of domestic pets in El Portal and Wawona would occur. As a result, a long-term, minor, adverse impact on the Mariposa County’s animal control services is projected under this alternative.

A small section of county road within El Portal would need to be widened and resurfaced to serve the increased residential population. This section of road is currently in poor condition and would need improvement in any case. The additional road improvement and maintenance costs associated with any increase in road usage from additional residents is expected to have a short-term, negligible, adverse impact on Mariposa County.

Short sections of county roads serve the private property in the Wawona area. It may be necessary to improve one of these roads with turnouts or other features to ensure adequate roadway level of service to the new employee housing. However, all of the employees relocated to Wawona would have jobs in the area or would use the employee shuttle system to Yosemite Valley. As a result, transportation impacts on the Wawona community would stem primarily from increased travel in the immediate area. Any additional road improvements and maintenance costs associated with an increased resident population are expected to have a long-term, minor, adverse impact on Mariposa County.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company provides electrical service within El Portal, Foresta, and Wawona. The National Park Service would be responsible for providing sewage treatment for the proposed El Portal and Wawona employee housing and out-of-Valley parking areas. The El Portal Wastewater Treatment Plant provides adequate sewage treatment for Yosemite Valley and El Portal residents and would also be adequate for the population growth anticipated under this alternative. Housing development in Foresta would comply with county code for sewage treatment. Impacts to the social environment from increased demands on electric and wastewater utilities are expected to be long-term, negligible, and adverse.

The National Park Service would be responsible for providing additional water supply for the proposed El Portal and Wawona employee housing. Existing water systems are sufficient for expected population increases in El Portal and Wawona. Water supply in Foresta would meet county and state code requirements. The reduction in Yosemite Valley’s resident population is also expected to reduce water supply needs within the Valley. As a result, expected impacts to Yosemite National Park utility operations and Mariposa County would be long-term, negligible, and adverse.

Solid waste collection services for Yosemite Concession Services in Yosemite Valley, El Portal, Foresta, and Wawona are provided by a private contractor, who would continue to provide waste collection service for the proposed employee housing at El Portal, Foresta, and Wawona. Waste would be transferred to the county dump by the private contractor. Because the total park employee population would have a minor increase under this alternative, the increase in the waste stream would be expected to have a long-term, minor, adverse impact.

Mariposa County currently maintains a public swimming pool when open during summer months. Presently, the National Park Service and Mariposa County share in the upkeep of two tennis courts and open space in El Portal for recreational use by residents. Mariposa County also operates a public library within the El Portal school buildings. While growth in El Portal’s residential population likely would increase public usage of these services and facilities, the library, park, and recreation services currently provided by the county are adequate to serve a larger residential population. The National Park Service would also provide additional recreational facilities with the proposed employee housing development under this alternative. Nonetheless, increased use of the facilities would increase wear and tear and competition between new and current users. As a result, impacts on the county’s existing library, park, and recreational services would be expected to be long-term, minor, and adverse.

Under this alternative, many of the conditions that adversely impact the Yosemite Valley social environment would be alleviated. This includes crowded and unsecured housing conditions, segregation of housing based on employers, a lack of privacy in many units, a lack of sufficient housing types for employees with families, and the deteriorated condition of many units.

The adverse impacts of this alternative on the social environment in Yosemite Valley would include increases in commuting time, a change of locale for housing, a decrease in social amenities near housing sites, and a potential change in school locations.

As a result, this alternative would have both beneficial and adverse impacts for Yosemite Valley employees. For some, the adverse impacts may be so severe that they would no longer be willing to work in Yosemite Valley and would leave the area. For others the impacts would be beneficial, and they would remain and stabilize the workforce.

Population increases would result in about a 27% increase in El Portal’s summer population and a 97% increase in the winter population. Both would cause long-term, major, adverse impacts on the El Portal social environment, although this projected population growth is expected to be gradual.

Impacts on the local school system would vary. Impacts on the high school would be long-term, negligible, and adverse. Impacts to the elementary schools would be long-term, minor, and adverse until the primary concessioner headquarters are relocated. Relocation of the concession headquarters would likely have long-term, major, adverse impacts on the elementary school system by threatening the viability of the Yosemite Valley School. The child care operations in Yosemite Valley and El Portal would experience long-term, major, adverse impacts under this alternative until new facilities are expanded.

The National Park Service or utility companies would provide the infrastructure and utilities needed by the new residential population. As a result, this alternative would have a long-term, negligible, adverse impact on most of Mariposa County’s infrastructure.

The county would provide increased law enforcement and court services for the new housing and the area. These are expected to have long-term, moderate, adverse impacts on the county. The National Park Service would continue to provide fire protection services for the new employee housing at El Portal; therefore, the impacts to the county for these services are expected to be long-term, negligible, and adverse.

The county ambulance service would experience long-term, moderate, adverse impacts due to the increase in service demand. However, the county would be compensated for providing additional ambulance and medical services by employee’s medical coverage and therefore impacts would be reduced to long-term, minor, and adverse.

Mariposa’s animal control and waste collection services may experience long-term, minor, adverse impacts due to an increase in service demand associated with the proposed employee housing changes and future growth in the park employee population.

This alternative would have a long-term, major, adverse impact on the Foresta social environment because the potential placement of visitor parking, the potential National Park Service and concessioner stables at McCauley Ranch, and the replacement of the 14 lost National Park Service houses would increase traffic in the Foresta area.

In Wawona, all building construction proposed would occur on federal property, and the National Park Service would provide the majority of community services for new residents (such as law enforcement, medical services, and fire protection). No impacts on the local school system or child care system would occur. In addition, the National Park Service or other non-county agencies would provide most of the infrastructure and utilities needed by the new residential population. As a result, this alternative would have a long-term, major, adverse impact on the social environment of Wawona due to the increase of housing numbers. It would have a long-term, minor, adverse impact on most of Mariposa County’s services and infrastructure in Wawona.

Potential impacts associated with actions occurring in the Yosemite region have been evaluated with respect to their potential for combining with and increasing impacts to the local social setting when added to direct impacts of this alternative. Under Alternative 2, actions occurring in the region are as described in Alternative 1.

The joint U.S.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 or 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, social conditions in El Portal under Alternative 2 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 Alternative 2, these day-to-day and emergency-related road closures 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.

When considered in combination with the short-term, moderate, adverse effects of closing the Trailer Village, Alternative 2 could remain could 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.

When considered with the preferred 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 north side of the Merced River, west of Foresta Bridge.

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, Alternative 2 would have a short-term, minor, adverse impact on the social environment in the region.

The Yosemite View Parcel Land Exchange between the National Park Service and Yosemite Motels would exchange up to eight 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 actions of this 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. Combined 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 potentially construct housing for concessioner and National Park Service employees and develop 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 could occur. However, without further information under Alternative 2, it is expected that social impacts could be considered long-term, moderate, and adverse to Yosemite West and long-term, moderate, and beneficial to El Portal and Wawona.

The Yosemite West Wastewater Improvements Project could cause long-term, moderate, adverse cumulative impacts 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 the alternative there would be long-term, minor adverse change in the demand for services and infrastructure expected from the Yosemite Motels project.

Combined with the effects of ongoing road improvement projects and changes in the regional transit system, development of the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System would reduce traffic in Yosemite Valley and give residents more commuting options and, when considered with Alternative 2, would create a long-term, moderate, beneficial effect.

Transportation conditions and resulting impacts on the El Portal social environment would change as a result of reduced travel by overnight visitors. There would be fewer lodging and camping facilities in the Valley, a shift in day visitor travel from private vehicles to transit, and a potential shift of commute trips by employees from private vehicles to transit. The impacts generally would be long-term, minor, and beneficial, reducing travel volumes and congestion, further reducing the potential intensity of impact of Alternative 2. Intermittent noise associated with bus traffic could increase as a result of proposed out-of-valley shuttle service and employee transportation.

There could be a long-term, moderate, adverse impact on the El Portal social environment caused by an increase in bus traffic on Highway 140 as a result of day-visitor parking in El Portal, as well as increased commuting as a result of relocation of 380 employees from Yosemite Valley, and the additional 355 employees that would be housed under this alternative.

When considered with the construction of the Resources Management Building in El Portal, Alternative 2 would cause a long-term, negligible, adverse impact to the social environmental of El Portal. This impact would potentially result from relocating additional jobs to El Portal from Yosemite Valley, thereby causing increased congestion and demand on amenities and services.

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 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 cumulatively increase the effect under Alternative 2.

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 effects, the impact of Alternative 2 would remain short-term, minor, and adverse.

The University of California and the National Park Service have considered Wawona and Hazel Green Ranch 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 the alternative would have both adverse and beneficial impacts to the social environments of El Portal, Wawona, and Foresta. When combined with the actions of these projects, the effects of Alternative 2 would range from moderately beneficial to moderately adverse. However, they would represent a relatively small proportion of the total impact.

Under this alternative, it is projected that on the busiest days in the summer, up to 12,852 day visitors could be accommodated by the proposed parking and transit facilities. This level of visitation exceeds the 1998 summer season average daily visitation, which averaged 10,950 day visitors. As discussed in Appendix J, 1998 average visitation has been used as the baseline condition for the impact analysis. In addition, for purposes of the analysis it has also been assumed that future Yosemite visitor demand would not change. This is a conservative assumption that recognizes the uncertainties of future visitation. As a result, under this alternative, no change in future day visitation is projected. Considerable additional day-visitor capacity would exist and future day-visitation growth could be accommodated if future visitor demand increased.

Currently, park visitation peaks on weekends during the summer. As a result, it may be possible that during the busiest peak days, the proposed parking and transit facilities may be unable to accommodate all the visitors that otherwise may have entered the park under Alternative 1. In this case, some visitors may be displaced from accessing the park during peak hours on typically busy days. However, this adverse effect could be mitigated by the planned traveler information and traffic management system. These systems could forewarn potential visitors when day-visitor parking is approaching full capacity and encourage and direct visitors to visit during nonpeak periods. In this case, no net reduction in total annual visitation would occur because peak-period visitation would likely be shifted to less busy days (i.e., weekdays).

Under this alternative, several changes to the park’s lodging facilities are proposed, and it is expected that these changes could affect overnight visitors. The total number of lodging units would be reduced from 1,260 to 961, a decrease of 299 lodging units or a 23.7% decrease in lodging capacity. While a variety of types of lodging would remain, the number of rustic lodging units would decrease by nearly 60% while the number of economy units would increase by more than 120%. In addition, 25 campsites are proposed to be added in the Valley.

Under Executive Order 12898 and the Environmental Protection Agency’s federal guidelines for addressing environmental justice concerns, the central factor in identifying environmental justice issues is whether the proposed actions would have a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income communities. In accordance with these guidelines, it is not expected that any environmental justice issues would be associated with the proposed actions. Analysis of similar recreational projects has not identified any significant environmental justice issues. Also, in this case, the majority of the low income and minority park visitor population most likely lives outside the Yosemite region and reside in the Central Valley, Los Angeles, or San Francisco Bay Areas. As a result, these visitors will also have many other recreational alternatives to overnight visitation. Therefore, the National Park Service believes that future impacts to minority and low income visitors would not represent environmental justice impacts.

It is generally believed that low-income and minority visitors to the park are under-represented in the total visitor population (see Chapter 3, Affected Environment, Social and Economic Environments). However, the overnight accommodation and recreation patterns of low-income and minority park visitors have not been studied in detail. As a result, the impacts on low-income and minority overnight and day visitors cannot be analyzed quantitatively. It may be assumed that visitation patterns of low-income visitors tend toward the more inexpensive methods: day visits, camping, housekeeping, tent cabin rentals, and economy lodging units. Changes to the future service capacity of these facilities may be expected to impact all visitors who would be likely to use them.

Since the number of less expensive lodging and camping units would be reduced under this alternative, the number of low-income visitors able to stay overnight in the Valley may be reduced during the peak season. Actions in this alternative that reduce rustic lodging and camping opportunities could represent a long-term, minor, adverse impact to low income and minority visitor populations. However, the new economy accommodations proposed at Curry Village and Yosemite Lodge could offset this impact by providing additional capacity of less expensive overnight accommodations within the Valley during non-peak periods. If minority and low income visitors consider economy units to be acceptable replacements for the lost rustic units, there would be increased capacity for visiting the Valley during non-peak times. In that case, some of the adverse effects of this alternative would be offset and the overall impact to low income and minority populations would be long-term, negligible and adverse.

Under this alternative, Yosemite Valley’s lodging and camping capacity is proposed to decrease by 274 lodging units. Due to the increase in the Valley’s nonpeak lodging capacity, an annual net decrease of 17,500 overnight visitor stays is projected. This is equivalent to a 1.5% decrease from 1998 overnight visitation, which represents a long-term, minor, adverse impact. Day-visitor capacity would remain unchanged. Due to the limitations of available data and the potential influence of other factors, impacts to low-income and minority visitors are qualitatively determined to be long-term, minor, and adverse.