| Table of Contents | Environmental Consequences | Alternative 1 | Alternative 2 |
| Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | < Part 6 |

REGIONAL ECONOMIES

Visitor Spending

No changes in visitor spending behavior are projected, because this alternative proposes no major changes that would alter the type of goods and services available to visitors. Furthermore, no major change in the character of the park visitor population is expected. Visitor spending patterns and estimates based primarily on the 1998 YARTS survey (Nelson\Nygaard 1998d) have been used to estimate future visitor spending.

The primary effects on visitor spending within the region would be related to changes in park visitor population projected under each alternative. As discussed, the decrease in overnight visitation within the park is the only quantifiable impact on visitor population associated with this alternative. It is projected that approximately 17,500 overnight visitor stays would be displaced under this alternative. In the short-term, these visitors and, consequently, their spending are assumed to be lost from the region. Any changes in visitor spending in the affected counties would affect output and employment in those counties, particularly within their lodging, food and beverage, retail, and transit sectors.

It is possible that these displaced overnight visitors could be absorbed by lodging in the region outside the park. In this case there would be no net economic effect on the region’s economy, because no visitor spending would be lost. However, given the high demand for lodging in the region (especially during the peak season) and as a conservative assumption for assessing potential economic impacts, it is projected that in the short-term some of the displaced overnight visitors would be unable to access the park. As a result, the net economic impact on the regional economy would be the decrease in the daily overnight visitor spending of $61.30 per capita multiplied by the decreased overnight visitation (17,500) which would equate to an annual loss of approximately $1.1 million in visitor spending. This would represent a long-term, negligible, adverse impact on Yosemite visitor spending.

However, it is possible that this impact may only occur in the short-term, because future growth in overnight lodging capacity in the region could recapture this displaced visitor spending. As a result, the analysis above represents a conservative, worst-case scenario approach for estimating the impact to the regional economy.

Under this alternative, unused day visitor capacity would remain for future growth in day visitation. An estimate, based on 1998 visitation levels, is that an additional 59,000 day visitors per month could be accommodated in July and August assuming that visitors would come to the Valley on weekdays and less busy weekends. Therefore, it is possible that at least some of the displaced overnight visitors could visit the park as day visitors. In this case, some of their lost overnight visitor spending would be recaptured from their spending as day visitors.

In addition to an increase in visitor spending based on potential for increased park visitation, the region also could increase visitor spending by encouraging more park visitors to stay longer or to stay overnight in the region. Increased length of stay would increase visitor spending, for a beneficial impact on the region’s economy.

Although the impacts could be offset to some extent, reducing the overnight lodging capacity would decrease the future overnight visitation within the Valley. Therefore, this would have a long-term, negligible, adverse impact on Yosemite visitor spending by limiting the number of visitors (and hence visitor spending) that can be accommodated overnight in the Valley.

Table 4-50 presents the estimated visitor spending impacts of lodging changes proposed under this alternative. Estimated impacts of this alternative on Yosemite visitor spending would be less than 1% in all five counties within the Yosemite region which would, represent a long-term, negligible, adverse impact. Overall Yosemite visitor spending within the five-county region is expected to decline by approximately 0.4% from current level, representing a long-term, negligible, adverse impact.

Note: ( ) = decrease in spendingNote: All monetary figures are in 1998 constant dollars. Totals may not add up exactly due to rounding.

Table 4-51 shows the total direct and secondary visitor spending impacts expected under this alternative. The expected change in lodging and associated visitor spending would cause total regional output to decrease by $1.6 million annually. Most of this change would be driven by an approximately $1.3 million decrease in the annual output of Mariposa County. The portion of this spending decrease expected to occur in the county’s lodging sector would result in a decline of approximately $50,000, or 1.0%, in the county’s recent average annual hotel occupancy tax revenues, a long-term, minor, adverse impact. Furthermore, impacts to employment in Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Mono, and Tuolumne Counties would be long-term, negligible, and adverse.

Note:( ) = decrease in spendingNote: All monetary figures are in 1998 constant dollars. Totals may not add up exactly due to rounding.FTE = Full Time Equivalents

Construction Spending and Employment

Construction costs proposed under this alternative would total approximately $442 million in 2000 dollars. In 1998 dollars, this cost corresponds to $416 million. The capital cost estimates would include approximately $25.3 million for a bus fleet (in 1998 dollars); this spending would be expected to occur outside of the affected region. In addition, a considerable portion of the other construction spending would occur outside of the affected region. As a result, it is estimated that total expected construction spending within the five-county affected region would be approximately $253 million, regardless, of whether the Hazel Green or Foresta option is included.

The expected average annual construction spending within the affected region by five-year phase is presented in five-year increments in table 4-52. Total regional output and employment impacts expected to result from these expenditures are also shown.

During the first five-year phase of project implementation for this alternative, project construction spending would generate an estimated $31.8 million of additional output per year in the five-county region’s construction sector. This is equivalent to a 4.4% increase over recent regional construction sector output and represents a short-term, moderate, beneficial impact. During the same period, project construction spending would increase total annual industrial output in the region (directly and secondarily) by approximately $45.5 million in 1998 dollars (including construction and nonconstruction sector output). This is equivalent to a 0.36% increase over recent regional industrial output and represents a short-term, negligible, beneficial impact.

Table 4-52 also shows that, during the first five-year phase of project implementation, project construction spending would generate an estimated 369 full-time jobs in the construction sector. This is equivalent to an increase of almost 4.1% over recent regional construction sector employment, and represents a short-term, moderate, beneficial impact. During the same period, project construction spending would increase the region’s total employment (directly and secondarily) by an estimated 567 jobs (including construction and nonconstruction sector jobs). This translates to a 0.35% increase in total employment in the region and represents a short-term, negligible, beneficial impact.

Note: All monetary figures are in 1998 constant dollars. Totals may not add up exactly due to rounding.¹Impacts include both direct and indirect spending-related impacts. Cost estimates exclude estimated engineering/planning costs.²Total impacts include both direct and indirect spending-related impacts. Employment impacts are expressed in terms of Full Time Equivalents (FTE).

Estimated average annual construction spending for this alternative and associated output and employment impacts within Mariposa County are shown in table 4-53. During the first 5-year phase of project implementation for this alternative, project construction spending would generate an estimated $6.9 million of output per year in Mariposa County’s construction sector. This is equivalent to a 19% increase over recent output in that sector and represents a short-term, major, beneficial impact. During the same period, project construction spending would cause total annual industrial output (direct and secondary) in the county to increase by approximately $10.0 million in 1998 dollars. This is equivalent to a 2.0% increase in the county’s total industrial output and represents a short-term, minor, beneficial impact.

Notes: All monetary figures are in 1998 constant dollars. Totals may not add up exactly due to rounding.1. Impacts include both direct and indirect spending related impacts. Cost estimates exclude estimated engineering/planning costs.2. Total impacts include both direct and indirect spending related impacts. Employment impacts expressed in terms of Full-Time-Equivalents (FTE).

During the first five-year phase of project implementation for this alternative, project construction spending would generate an estimated 84 full-time jobs in Mariposa County’s construction sector. This is an approximately 18% increase in recent employment in that sector and represents a short-term, major, beneficial impact. During the same period, project construction spending in the county would increase the county’s total employment (directly and secondarily) by an estimated 127 jobs. This translates to a 1.6% increase in total employment in the county and represents a short-term, minor, beneficial impact.

Output and employment generated by this alternative would decrease by more than 50% during the second five-year construction phase and 90% during the final five-year construction phase, compared to the first five-year construction phase. All regional output and employment impacts would end after 15 years.

Following implementation of actions proposed under Alternative 2, it is expected that approximately $19.4 million (1998 dollars) a year would be permanently spent within the affected region to operate and maintain the park’s new visitor in-park shuttle/transit system, to meet the staffing requirements of expanded park visitor facilities and employee housing, and pay for additional operations and maintenance expenses incurred by the concessioner associated with new employee housing and visitor facilities. Table 4-54 indicates that this spending would generate about $29.3 million of output per year and 464 jobs within the affected region. This represents a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact to the region’s economy. Under the Foresta out-of-Valley parking option permanent new spending is estimated at $17.2 million and the associated regional output impact would be $26.1 million annually. This would have a similar though smaller permanent effect on the regional economy.

Table 4-54 also indicates that new park operations-related spending is expected to generate $12.4 million in additional output per year within Mariposa County. This represents a 2.4% increase over recent county output, a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact to the county’s economy. Furthermore, park operations-related employment is expected to increase employment in Mariposa County by 242 jobs (including 127 the National Park Service positions), a 3.0% increase above recent county employment levels. This represents a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact to the county’s economy. These impacts would be unchanged if the Foresta option for Alternative 2 were implemented.

1. Spending in Mariposa County calculated as the sum of estimated increased project-associated National Park Service operating costs and estimated spending on in-Valley component of transite operations. 2. Includes direct and secondary output (includes new National Park Service employee spending)3. Includes direct and secondary employment (includes new National Park Service employees)FTE = Full Time Equivalents

The overall economic impacts to the regional economy caused by the changes in visitor spending and operational spending would be long-term, negligible, and beneficial. This impact would result primarily from the long-term, negligible, beneficial impact associated with the spending and employment impacts from the increased park operations.

For Mariposa County, the overall economic impacts of the changes from visitor spending and operational spending change would be long-term, minor, and beneficial. This overall impact would result from the combined effect of the long-term, moderate, beneficial impact to the county from the increased park operations and the long-term, minor, adverse impact from the expected visitor spending decreases.

Other Revenues

Detailed analysis on the retail spending habits of the National Park Service and Yosemite Concession Services employees is unavailable; therefore, the quantitative extent of retail trade resulting from employees living in Yosemite Valley, Wawona, or at the El Portal Administrative Site is not known. However, it is known that many employees do rely on local stores for groceries and other items. It is not known where other trade occurs. Experience indicates that it is likely that employees living in the Valley or El Portal travel either south or west along Highways 140 or 41 to the communities of Mariposa, Oakhurst, Merced, or Fresno to purchase supplies they cannot obtain in the park. Although it is not possible to quantitatively assess how this alternative would affect retail and sales revenues in Mariposa County, some qualitative assessments can be made.

No changes to employees’ income are expected to be associated with relocations (except for the additional income from the housing incentives), and no changes in employee spending behavior are expected. However, Mariposa County’s economy may experience long-term, minor benefits if: (1) relocated employees shift some of their spending to Mariposa and Merced from Oakhurst and Fresno, (2) there is net growth in the park employee population, and (3) employee spending increases as a result of increased housing incentives.

Mariposa County’s economy may experience long-term, negligible, adverse impacts if employees who relocate to Wawona shift some of their spending from Mariposa to Oakhurst. These changes to Mariposa County’s economy may be offset if: (1) there is net growth in the park employee population, and (2) employee spending increases as a result of increased income from housing incentives.

Under this alternative, approximately 487 park employees and family members (420 employees, 12 spouses, and 55 children) would be relocated from the Valley to El Portal. Although retail facilities in El Portal are limited, most of the relocated employees would continue to work within the Valley and would likely purchase goods there. Employees relocated to El Portal would also be approximately 30 minutes closer to Mariposa and Merced and approximately the same distance from Oakhurst and Fresno. As a result, relocated employees would have comparable access to spending opportunities and may be expected to shift some of their spending to Mariposa. While the magnitude of any such changes in employee spending cannot be estimated, the impacts to Mariposa and Madera Counties are expected to be long-term, negligible, and beneficial.

Under this alternative, additional housing for 254 new park employees would likely increase spending incrementally. In addition, housing for 24 new employees not currently living in the Valley would be developed at Wawona. Spending by these additional park employees, for the most part, would represent new spending income for Mariposa County (although because many would be seasonal employees, the spending benefits to the county would be limited). The primary direct benefit to the county’s economy would be from additional sales tax revenues from this employee spending.

The potential financial impacts on Mariposa’s economy from the proposed housing changes at Wawona would be negligible. The local spending and tax impacts (such as local sales and real estate taxes) would have a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on Mariposa’s economy and the tax impacts associated with the relocated housing are expected to be long-term, negligible, and beneficial.

Mariposa currently assesses a 1.25% tax on all retail and restaurant sales within the county (including the majority of concessioner sales within Yosemite National Park). The average concessioner employee’s wages are low, and annual earnings of the additional employees would be approximately $3.3 million. Of these wages, only a small proportion would be available for purchasing taxable goods and services. For example, if 10% of total gross income was spent on purchasing goods within Mariposa County, sales tax revenues would be $4,125. This would have a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on the county’s economy.

The primary concessioner would be expected to pay a total of $390,000 annually in additional housing incentives for employees relocating out of the Valley to El Portal, and $110,000 annually in housing incentives to employees relocating from the Valley to Wawona. No change in employees’ income and local spending would be expected, except for additional income from housing incentives. The change in local sales tax revenues from relocating park employees would have a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on the county’s economy, because even if 10% of the employees use this additional housing incentive income to purchase taxable goods and services in the county, only $500 in county sales tax revenues would be generated. Overall, the future change in local sales tax revenues is projected to be long-term, negligible, and beneficial because no substantive change in local spending by park employees is expected as a result of this alternative.

Mariposa County does not individually tax employees of the park’s primary concessioner for possessory interest. Instead, the county assesses Yosemite Concession Services (YCS) operations annually to determine its possessory tax payment owed to the county. If the financial situation of Yosemite Concession Services is impacted adversely by this alternative, then its possessory tax payments to the county are expected to decrease. However, the magnitude of Yosemite Concession Services’ current possessory tax payments to the county is proprietary information, and the county would not project the magnitude of the likely change to its revenues under this alternative. It is possible, though, that long-term, major, adverse impacts to the county’s tax revenues could occur if Yosemite Concession Services’ operations are significantly affected.

However, the county’s possessory interest tax revenues would be affected by net changes to permanent the National Park Service and non-YCS employees’ housing facilities. The county assesses possessory interest taxes to these park employees based on the value of their housing. Under this alternative, the the National Park Service would add approximately 30 bed spaces for permanent the National Park Service and non-YCS employees in El Portal. Currently, the Mariposa County Assessor’s Office estimates that the annual possessory tax revenues associated with properties to be removed are approximately $7,000. The assessed value of the replacement employee housing is estimated to be $2.5 million, which would result in approximately $25,000 in possessory tax revenues to Mariposa annually. Therefore, it is projected that the County would obtain net possessory tax revenues of $18,000 once all replacement housing for the National Park Service and other concessioner employees is completed. This additional revenue would have a long-term, negligible, beneficial impact on the county’s tax revenues. Because the employees relocated to new housing at Wawona would be Yosemite Concession Services employees, no impact on possessory interest tax revenues would be generated by the new housing.

No change in housing demand from park employees currently living in privately owned housing is expected as a result of this alternative. The new employee housing in El Portal and Wawona is planned to primarily accommodate permanent, hourly workers who otherwise would be housed in the tent cabins within the Valley. These employees are not likely to be able to afford unsubsidized housing. Any increase in private housing demand would be associated with the small population of middle and upper management Yosemite Concession Services employees. It is expected that only the 90 managerial concessioner employees currently living in the Valley would be able to consider purchasing a home locally. Relocation of Yosemite Concession Services headquarters would reduce the commute time for any concession office staff living in privately owned housing in Mariposa.

Even if a number of concession employees purchase private homes as a result of the proposed employee housing changes, there would only be a net increase in the county’s real estate tax revenues if house prices had risen since the property was purchased previously. According to local real estate agents, after a period of appreciation in local home values during the early and mid-1980s, local house prices have not changed much over the last 10 years. As a result, the net tax revenue impact to the county from any house sales would be long-term, negligible, and beneficial.

Regional Housing

Of the 369 additional employees anticipated as part of this alternative, a minimum of 115 employees could be required to seek housing outside the park. The adjacent areas of Mariposa, Madera, and Tuolumne counties have been assessed for their ability to accommodate these private housing needs. Although Mono County is included in some analysis in this chapter, it is not included here because it is unlikely that the employees associated with this alternative would seek housing in Mono County due to its distance from the Valley and the seasonal closing of Highway 120 (Tioga Pass Road). The addition of a minimum of 115 employees seeking private housing would bring the total number of employees privately housed from its current level of 563 to 678.

As indicated on table 3-31, population growth in Mariposa, Madera and Tuolumne counties is projected to increase between the years 2000 and 2020 by approximately 9,500 (or 47%), 80,100 (or 60%) and 31,300 (or 47%), respectively. The need for additional employees associated with this alternative will occur gradually over a 15-20 year period as various elements of the plan are implemented. Therefore, the addition of 115 employees in the region as a result of this alternative represents approximately 0.09% of this projected regional growth over this timeframe.

Based upon economic and demographic information for these three counties provided by the State of California Department of Finance (California Department of Finance, 2000), Mariposa, Madera, and Tuolumne counties have an existing single family and multi-family housing stock of 9,146, 39,018, and 28,852 units, respectively, and existing housing vacancy rates of approximately 27.2% (2,487 units), 8% (2,466 units) and 28.8% (8,136 units), respectively based on 1999 data. These vacancy rates have remained at these levels since 1990. In addition, new single family and multi-family housing authorizations in 1998 for each of these three counties were 71, 633 and 413, respectively. Assuming these trends in housing data presented above continue into the future for these three counties, accommodating a minimum of 115 employees in private housing in the three-county region would be feasible. Therefore, the addition of a minimum of 115 employees privately housed in the region would have a negligible long-term adverse affect on regional housing demands.

Again, the National Park Service does not have jurisdictional authority over the potential use of private lands in the region outside Yosemite National Park. Therefore, additional housing requirements to accommodate the 369 new employees associated with this alternative could be met within areas under its jurisdictional authority in Yosemite Valley, Wawona, and Foresta.

Regional Economies Conclusion

Economic impacts of this alternative on the affected environment would result primarily from project construction spending. During the first five years of development, approximately $32 million in annual spending would expand the regional economy by about $45.5 million of output. This would represent a short-term, negligible, beneficial impact. In Mariposa County, however, the estimated $10 million project-related increase in annual output during the project’s first five years of implementation would have a short-term, minor, beneficial impact on the county’s overall economy. In addition, during the first five years of development, approximately 567 total jobs would be generated in the region. This represents a short-term, negligible, beneficial impact on regional employment. In Mariposa County, however, the estimated 127 jobs generated directly and secondarily by project spending would have a short-term, minor, beneficial impact on that county’s employment.

Redevelopment of lodging and campsite facilities also would impact the regional economy by changing visitor spending in the region. Completion of these changes in visitor facility is expected to occur 10 years after the start of project construction. During this 10-year period, park overnight capacity would not be allowed to fall below current levels. Once full build-out is completed, it is estimated that annual visitor spending would decrease by about $1.1 million (in 1998 dollars). The economic impacts on the surrounding region’s economy would be long-term, negligible, and adverse. Any adverse impacts may be offset if surrounding counties can attract additional park visitors to replace those day visitors who converted to overnight visitors as a result of increased in-park overnight capacity. These visitor spending impacts would be long-term impacts since they are associated with a permanent change in the Valley’s lodging capacity.

The overnight visitation decrease (and its associated visitor spending) are expected to have a long-term, negligible, adverse impact on the regional economy if they represent a long-term decrease in the Valley’s visitor capacity. In any case, under this alternative significant additional growth in visitor spending also would be possible. If there is future growth in demand, day visitation can increase, up to a level that may be determined by a future study of visitor experience and resource protection. Additional visitor spending could be generated in the region from these extra day visitors. In addition, since the local communities would be forewarned of changes in visitor facilities, there may be potential opportunities for offsetting adverse impacts by developing substitute facilities outside the park to recapture any lost visitor spending.

Regardless of regional efforts to attract Yosemite visitors following implementation of Alternative 2, it is expected that adverse impacts to the regional economy associated with Yosemite visitor spending would be more than offset by increased regional output and employment from expanded the National Park Service in-park operations (see Park Operations for more detail) and the new park visitor transit system.

The overall economic impacts to the regional economy caused by the changes in visitor spending and operational spending would be long-term, negligible, and beneficial. This impact would result primarily from the long-term, negligible, beneficial impact associated with the spending and employment impacts from the increased park operations.

For Mariposa County, the overall economic impacts of the changes in visitor spending and operational spending would be long-term, minor, and beneficial. This overall impact would result from the combined effect of the moderate, beneficial impact to the county from the increased park operations and the minor, adverse impact from the expected visitor spending decreases.

Assuming that housing trends in Mariposa, Madera and Tuolumne counties continue in the future as they have in the recent past, accommodating a minimum of 115 employees in private housing in the three-county region would be feasible and have a negligible long-term adverse affect on regional housing demands.

Cumulative Impacts

Although none of the projects identified in Appendix H would be expected to attract additional visitors to the park, these projects would be expected to change the lodging patterns of the visitor population. As described under Alternative 1, the new lodging units identified in Appendix H would be expected to accommodate approximately 525,500 overnight stays per year, and these stays would be filled by park visitors who would otherwise have been day visitors. Under Alternative 2, therefore, the decrease in lodging capacity in the Valley would be offset by the new lodging units in the region. Combined with the net decrease of 17,500 stays described above, the cumulative impact would be an increase of approximately 508,000 overnight stays per year.

Visitor Spending

As described under Alternative 1, new lodging units identified in Appendix H would generate approximately $18.8 million in direct annual visitor spending in the region. Under this alternative, an additional 250 to 300 rooms would be constructed in association with the Hazel Green project, generating an additional estimated $6.5 million in overnight visitor spending. Thus, the total annual change in visitor spending would be approximately $24.2 million under this alternative. This represents a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on the regional economy.

Secondary impacts generated by $24.2 million in additional direct visitor spending would be estimated to be $13.3 million. At full build-out, therefore, the total estimated impact on annual output under this alternative would be $37.5 million, a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on the regional economy. If new visitors are attracted to the region by the increase in lodging capacity, visitor spending would be higher and the beneficial impact would be greater.

Construction Spending

Local construction spending from other projects in the region, such as housing in the City of Merced, the new University of California campus in Merced, and other housing, transportation, and lodging projects identified in Appendix H, is estimated to average $255.0 million annually. In addition, the estimated total construction cost for the Hazel Green project is $25 to $30 million, or approximately $1.8 million per year over a 15 year period. Under this alternative, an additional $16.9 million per year in local construction spending would occur on average from the proposed renovation of campsites, and the development and relocation of housing, parking, and other structures. Total construction spending on the projects under this alternative and those outlined in Appendix H, therefore, would be approximately $270.3 million per year.

Additional construction spending would generate secondary output impacts as a result of local spending on material inputs and wage spending by project labor. For annual construction spending of $270.3 million, secondary impacts would be estimated at approximately $115.9 million. The total change in annual output (direct and secondary) would therefore be $396.2 million, a long-term, major, beneficial impact on overall industrial output in the region. Of this increase, approximately 88% is associated with housing construction in Merced County. New park operations—related spending is expected to generate an additional $29.3 million in output per year in the Yosemite region.

Employment

The equivalent of up to 804 jobs would be supported by the increase in visitor spending in the region. In addition, the equivalent of approximately 2,900 to 9,000 full-time jobs would be supported each year from construction spending under this alternative, and those projects described in Appendix H. An additional 464 jobs would be generated by new park operations—related spending. Much of the general labor and raw materials would probably come from local sources. Unemployed labor (i.e., the available workforce) in the surrounding region (22,180) would outnumber the projected number of new jobs created from construction and visitor spending. A labor shortage is not expected because of the large number of unemployed workers in the region. However, employment needs could also be met by residents of neighboring counties outside the affected region, such as Fresno, particularly for the large construction projects in Merced County (e.g., the proposed housing development and University of California campus development). In this case, the economic benefits identified would instead be gained outside the region.

As discussed under Alternative 1, several other projects would create temporary and full-time employment opportunities within the region in the reasonably foreseeable future. Because the local workforce is expected to fill the majority of new employment opportunities, no significant in-migration of workers is expected. Therefore, no new housing is projected to be needed to accommodate employment impacts from this alternative or projects in Appendix H.

Overall, impacts on employment would occur as new jobs are created from visitor spending, construction spending, and operations spending. Assuming the unemployed labor force in the Yosemite region would fill the majority of these new jobs, unemployment rates would drop under this alternative. This would represent a long-term, major, beneficial impact on the region’s economy. Under the assumption that new jobs would be filled by existing residents of the Yosemite region, there would be no impacts on housing in the region.

CONCESSIONERS AND COOPERATORS

Yosemite Concession Services

The changes to park facilities and operations proposed under this alternative would affect both Yosemite Concession Services operations and its finances. The National Park Service planning staff used detailed information provided by the current concessioner to analyze existing concession operations and the proposed alternatives to estimate future operational and financial impacts on concession operations within the park. The impact analysis assumes that there would be no change in park visitation and visitor spending behavior, to make conservative projections of the concessioner’s future operational and financial conditions.

• It is expected that the majority of in-Valley housing would be for seasonal employees. The reduced number of housing units that would remain in Yosemite Valley would have an adverse impact on future concession operations because there would be insufficient housing for a full shift of employees to be based in the Valley. In-Valley employee housing should be sufficient to provide housing for approximately 76% of employees necessary to staff concession operations for one shift. As a result, the concessioner’s ability to meet visitor service needs under circumstances such as road closures or other commuting difficulties (such as fire or flood conditions preventing employees commuting in and out of the Valley) would be reduced. This would represent a long-term, minor, and adverse impact on the concessioner’s future operations.

• It is expected that future out-of-Valley employee housing would be occupied predominantly by year-round employees. These employees also would be required to commute into the Valley using an employee transit system. However, from a visitor service perspective, year-round employees should ideally remain close to the work site for maximum guest service benefit and operational needs. As a result, the concessioner’s ability to meet visitor service demand would be reduced, because its best and most reliable employees would be housed in El Portal.

• It is expected that several adverse impacts could remain after proposed employee housing changes were implemented under this alternative. The concessioner’s ability to recruit qualified and experienced management may continue to be constrained by the limited availability of housing for management personnel. Because a major proportion of the employee housing would be relocated to El Portal, one of the concessioner’s greatest recruiting attractions would be reduced: namely, enabling employees to live, work, and recreate in Yosemite Valley. However, future housing designs would attempt to accommodate future employee housing needs. Furthermore, the quality of all new replacement housing would be improved compared to the current housing facilities. The combined impact of these factors would be expected to have a long-term, minor, adverse impact on the concessioner operations.

• Relocation of the National Park Service and concessioner stables to McCauley Ranch would eliminate the commercial horseback riding service to visitors beginning trips in the Valley. Under this alternative, packhorses would be moved by trailer in and out of the Valley daily to continue support service for the high country camps. This would represent a long-term, minor, adverse impact on the concessioner’s future operations.

• Relocation of the Village Garage to El Portal would adversely affect the concessioner’s towing service. Disabled vehicles would need to be towed to El Portal and, as a result, would increase the response time for its towing service. Additional heavy-duty tow trucks would have to be purchased, operated, and maintained to provide roadside assistance to buses and other large vehicles (e.g., shuttle bus and recreational vehicles) over longer distances. This would represent a long-term, minor, adverse impact on the concessioner’s future operations.

Three types of financial impacts are expected under this alternative: (1) changes to the concessioner’s gross revenue (sales receipts) and profitability, (2) employee housing and relocation-related cost increases including furniture, fixtures, and equipment (FF&E) expenses, and (3) annual repair and maintenance cost on new facilities. The magnitude of these impacts would depend on whether the impacts occur during the remainder of the current concessioner’s contract (i.e., until 2008) or under a subsequent contract. The estimated financial impacts discussed below are expressed in terms of stabilized annual revenues and costs. These impacts are also generally represented as net impacts compared to the concessioner’s 1998 financial conditions.

Gross revenue impacts reflect changes to the concessioner’s sales resulting from the proposed change to visitor services. The furniture, fixtures, and equipment impact represents the initial cost of outfitting the proposed new facilities to make them operational and the subsequent replacements of the new fixtures and facilities as they wear out (typically after seven years of use). Maintenance and employee housing cost impacts represent the additional expenditures necessary to operate under the new configuration of facilities. The profit impact clearly shows the financial impacts on the concessioner’s business because it includes changes in both annual revenues and costs.

The concession impact analysis includes an evaluation of whether concession profits will be adequate to allow the concessioner to earn a reasonable return relative to its investment and operating risk. To evaluate the impacts of the Yosemite Valley Plan’s alternatives on the concessioner, the analysis began by evaluating the concessioner’s current capacity to earn a profit and then considered how each aspect of the Yosemite Valley Plan alternatives would impact that capacity.

The concessioner’s profit capacity may be understood as consisting of two components–its present profit plus the amount of its federal contribution. In other words, the concessioner’s financial contribution to the federal government represents the amount of money it is able to pay after earning a reasonable return. It is important to note that this judgment is based on the fact that the current Yosemite concessioner obtained the concession contract in a fair market competition in which it presumably is retaining reasonable profits that are neither insufficient or excessive.

If the changes in concession operations induced by the Yosemite Valley Plan do not erode all of the concessioner’s ability to make financial payments to the government, a reasonable profit will remain available to the concessioner. On the other hand, if the Yosemite Valley Plan eliminates the concessioner’s ability to make any federal contribution, the concessioner may still earn a reasonable return as long as its profits are not also eroded. However, if the concessioner was unable to make any payments to the federal government and was also unable to earn a reasonable profit, that situation could not be sustained. The concessioner would choose to discontinue operations.

The total profit impact on the next concessioner’s operations associated with the proposed alternative is projected to be an annual decrease in its profits of $11.2 million. This projection is based on the combined profit impacts associated with: (1) changes to the concessioner’s gross revenue (sales receipts) and profitability, (2) employee housing and relocation-related cost increases including furniture, fixtures, and equipment, and (3) annual repair and maintenance costs on new facilities. As will be discussed below, the magnitude of this profit decrease would make the concession operations financially infeasible if these impacts are not mitigated.

The changes to visitor services proposed under this alternative are projected to decrease the concessioner’s annual profits from visitor services by $0.6 million. Future employee housing and relocation cost increases are projected to be approximately $4.9 million per year. These consist primarily of increases in the annual costs for furniture, fixtures, and equipment replacement ($1.3 million, including the cost of capital for this expenditure), heat and utilities ($0.8 million), employee transportation ($0.6 million), insurance ($0.5 million), and wage increases to encourage employees to relocate out of the Valley ($0.5 million). Additional housing-related staff needs are estimated to cost less than $0.3 million. Other associated costs total approximately $0.9 million.

Under the future concession contract (and in accordance with the National Park Service regulations 36 CFR-51), it is expected that the future primary concessioner would be required to assume full responsibility for conducting adequate annual repair and maintenance on new buildings developed under this alternative and used by its operations. Consistent with common industry practices and based on the location and likely uses of new buildings, it is estimated that average annual repair and maintenance expenditures of 3% of the buildings’ replacement cost would be adequate to fulfill this responsibility. Under this alternative, it is estimated that annual repair and maintenance would cost approximately $5.7 million annually for the new concession facilities.

The impact on the next concessioner’s resulting total profit under this alternative is projected to be an annual loss of $11.2 million (— $0.6 million (revenue decrease) — $4.9 million (housing operations) — $5.7 million (repair and maintenance) = —$11.2 million).

From its current annual revenue of approximately $88 million, Yosemite Concession Services makes an annual financial contribution to the federal government of approximately $9.9 million. This annual federal contribution consists primarily of: (1) interest and principal payments to retire the previous concession’s possessory interest in park facilities by 2008 ($7.7 million), (2) Capital Improvement Fund payments of $1.25 million, (3) Government Improvement Account payments of $0.2 million, and (4) environmental remediation and other financial contributions totaling $0.75 million.

Future concessioners would be expected to continue to make similar federal contributions, unless modifications to visitor services or the concession operations change the concessioner’s profitability. After the current Yosemite Concession Services contract ends in 2008, the subsequent concessioner would not be obligated to continue payments of the previous possessory interest. However, the current or any future concessioner would be expected instead to make a comparable total fee contribution to the federal government of $9.9 million. If development under this alternative and associated new fees begin before 2008 (and the current concessioner is still required to make its annual principal and interest payments on the former concessioner’s possessory interest), a decrease in its net annual operating profits would have a short-term, major, adverse impact on the concessioner (i.e., for the remainder of its contract). However, adverse financial impacts on the concessioner and adverse service impacts to park visitors would be minimized by continuing the operation of existing visitor services, whenever possible, until any replacement facilities are operational.

In summary, based on analysis of the actions proposed under this alternative, the future concession operations would be expected to experience a $11.2 million decrease in its annual profits. Reducing the current or any future concessioner’s annual federal contribution from its existing level of $9.9 million to cover the concessioner’s projected profit reduction would only partly offset this loss. In this case, it is estimated that the current or any future concessioner would still operate at an annual loss of approximately $1.3 million. This would represent a long-term, major, adverse impact on concession operations that, if unmitigated, would make the concession operations financially unfeasible.

Table 4-55 shows the projected financial impacts to Yosemite Concession Services under Alternative 2.

Notes: Figures in 1998 constant dollars. Numbers in parentheses represent decreases or losses.

In 1998, Yosemite Concession Services gross revenues were $87.8 million. The projected revenue impact would represent a 3.3% decrease in the concessioner’s 1998 revenues, which would be a long-term, moderate, adverse impact. Even if the concessioner’s governmental contribution is used to offset projected profit losses from operations, then this alternative would still have a long-term, major, adverse impact on concession operations since the concessioner would be operating at a loss of $1.3 million per year. However, under this alternative, the annual financial return to the federal government from concession operations would be reduced from $9.9 million to $0 million, a reduction of 100%, which would represent a long-term, major, adverse financial impact to the federal government. In addition, mitigation would be necessary to offset the projected annual $1.3 million loss to make the future concession operations financially feasible.

It should be recognized that the projected decrease in the concessioner’s profitability represents a conservative projection of the future concession’s operations. Because visitor responses to the numerous actions proposed under this alternative are uncertain, the impact analysis has assumed that future visitation levels and spending behavior would remain constant. However, if either visitation or average visitor spending increase, the concessioner’s operating profits would increase and its profitability would be improved.

The future source of funding for construction of housing and other facilities proposed under this alternative is uncertain at this time. However, it is clear from the above analysis, that due to the magnitude of the profit impacts identified, existing and subsequent concessioners would be unable to fund construction of the housing and visitor services proposed under this alternative without major mitigation assistance. The additional cost of the amortized construction would be too high for the concessioner to earn sufficient profit from its concession operations under current contractual arrangements.

Mitigation Approaches for Adverse Impacts to Concessioner Profits

If the concessioner is unable to make a reasonable profit, concessioner operations could not be sustained and the concessioner would choose to discontinue operations. To avoid this situation, mitigation would be necessary to ensure that the concessioner makes a fair and reasonable profit from its operations. Mitigation measures could include supplementing concessioner revenues, reducing concessioner operating costs, or otherwise modifying concessioner operations and/or operating requirements so that profitability is sufficiently improved.

Mitigation measures, and associated effectiveness of each alternative that could be applied to future concessioner operations at Yosemite under the action alternatives are briefly discussed below.

Potential Mitigation Scenario

Since all of the potential mitigation approaches have disadvantages and constraints as mitigation solutions, it is expected that a combination of approaches would likely be adopted to mitigate the concessioner’s future profit shortfall. By using a combination of approaches, it is also likely that mitigation on others besides the concessioner (e.g. the federal government, overnight park visitors, concession services users) would be lessened and more broadly dispersed than if only one of the mitigation approaches is implemented.

The following mitigation scenario has been used as a representative example of a possible combination of mitigation approaches that could be used to offset the concessioner’s profit shortfall. This mitigation scenario and corresponding impact analysis are provided for illustrative purposes. It does not represent any future commitment by the National Park Service to use this set of measures to mitigate the concessioner impacts.

Three mitigation approaches could be used to offset the concessioner’s project profit loss: (1) additional prices/rates for concession services, (2) user fees charged to all park visitors, and (3) modification of the concessioner’s operating requirements and responsibilities. For the purposes of the mitigation impact analysis, each mitigation approach would be used to mitigate a third of the projected profit shortfall.

The mitigation impacts have been estimated and evaluated below for both the direct financial impact of the proposed alternative (i.e., the $1.3 million projected profit shortfall) and the cumulative impact discussed later in this section. The cumulative impact to the concessioner consists of an additional $1.7 million cost to the concessioner for repair and maintenance of the existing National Park Service facilities that would be used by the future concession operations. Therefore, a total of $3.0 million in concessioner profit losses would need to be mitigated annually. Under the proposed mitigation scenario, approximately $1.0 million would be mitigated by each of the three mitigation approaches.

Mitigation of $1.0 million of the concessioner’s profit shortfall by concession service price/rate increases would result in approximately a 1.1% increase in prices of concession services. This would represent a long-term, minor, adverse impact on visitors using concessioner services at Yosemite. Alternatively, if the price increase is imposed on only overnight visitors staying at concession lodging within the park, this mitigation approach would result is approximately a 3.5% increase in lodging rates. This would represent a long-term, moderate, adverse impact on park visitors staying overnight in the park at concession lodging facilities.

Of the funding needed to offset the concessioner’s total profit shortfall, $1.0 million of mitigation funding could be obtained through the existing fee demonstration program without increasing the park entry fees. In this case, there would be a long-term, negligible, adverse impact on park visitors. However, there would be a related adverse impact from the decrease in annual funding for those park projects that would otherwise have been funded by the entry fee revenues.

Reduction of the concessioner’s annual repair and maintenance requirements to offset $1.0 million its projected shortfall would correspondingly result in additional operating costs of $1.0 million to the National Park Service. Under this alternative, it is projected that the National Park Service’s future annual operating costs would be approximately $23.65 million in 1998 dollars (based on the projected National Park Service operating cost increase of $4.48 [$4.76 million in year 2000 dollars] million and the National Park Service’s 1998 operating budget of $19.17 million). In which case, the operating cost increase to the National Park Service necessary to mitigate the concessioner profit shortfall would represent nearly a 4.2% increase in the National Park Service’s future operating costs. This would represent a long-term, moderate, adverse impact to the National Park Service.

Successful implementation of the proposed mitigation approaches would reduce the concessioner’s profit loss so that the impact would be long-term, negligible, and adverse. In which case, the concession would obtain an adequate financial return from its operations, thereby ensuring that the concession would be financially feasible.

Yosemite Medical Clinic

Under this alternative, the medical clinic would remain in its current location as long as it’s financially viable. Most of the proposed changes to the park’s operations and facilities are not expected to have any direct impacts to the clinic’s operations. While most of the proposed park improvements are expected to improve park safety, the reduction in the need for medical services from most of these changes (e.g., reduced vehicle traffic or elimination of public horseback riding) cannot be quantified.

Under this alternative, changes to the park’s annual visitation and population may be expected to have a corresponding effect on the clinic by altering its customer base. As a result, future medical service provision by the medical clinic is expected to be affected by: (1) the proposed future reductions in park overnight visitation, and (2) relocation of park employee housing in El Portal.

Under this alternative, it is projected that approximately 1,800 room-nights would be lost and 17,500 overnight stays within the Valley would be displaced annually. While this represents an approximately 1.5% decrease in park overnight stays, it corresponds to only a 0.6% decrease in park visitation (compared to 1998 visitation levels). This would represent a long-term, negligible, adverse impact on the clinic.

Although relocation to El Portal might encourage some employees to seek medical attention at other clinics outside the park, the majority of these employees would continue to work in the Valley, and may continue to seek medical attention at the Valley Medical Clinic. However, the net effect and future magnitude of these impacts on the concession’s future sales cannot be quantified.

Under this alternative, the dental clinic would be removed from the Valley. Discontinuing the dental clinic would represent a long-term, major, adverse impact on its operation.

The Ansel Adams Gallery

The Ansel Adams Gallery would remain at its current location under this alternative. Numerous modifications are proposed for the Yosemite Village Area: development of a new Visitor/Transit Center in Yosemite Village at the current site of the Yosemite Village Store, development of new fast food facilities, expansion of the Village Grill and Degnan’s Deli, and the removal of public parking in the Yosemite Village area. In addition, the majority of day visitors would be required to use the Valley transit system to enter the east Valley. However, 550 day-visitor parking spaces are proposed to be developed at Camp 6 adjoining Yosemite Village.

The transit center would be a central component of the future Valley shuttle bus system, and the Yosemite Village area would be an interpretive hub. It is expected that more park visitors would pass through the area, making Yosemite Village an increasingly important part of most park visitors’ travel itineraries. Therefore, this alternative would have a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on The Ansel Adams Gallery by attracting more potential customers.

While the proposed natural resources restoration actions may improve the Valley’s visual appearance and enhance the overall visitor experience, these changes are not expected to affect the Gallery’s business. Removal of nearby parking, however, could reduce its annual sales. Currently, most visitors take their gallery purchases with them. Many visitors may be more reluctant to make purchases if they must use the shuttle system to return to their cars or overnight accommodations. Under this alternative, day-visitor parking would be located within walking distance of the Gallery. Sales to day visitors parking at Camp 6 may be expected to offset some of the expected reductions in retail sales associated with the day-visitor transit system. In addition, any changes in the park’s annual visitation may be expected to have a corresponding effect on sales by altering the Gallery’s customer base. However, the net effect and future magnitude of these impacts cannot be quantified.

Yosemite Association

Employee housing is the primary issue affecting the Yosemite Association’s future operations. The Association currently experiences a shortage of employee housing, and any increase in future employees would increase the problem. This alternative proposes that some housing would be available for Yosemite Association employees; if this occurred it would have a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on the Association’s ability to recruit and retain staff.

The proposed changes to the Valley Visitor/Transit Center are expected to produce mainly long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts to the Yosemite Association. Under this alternative, the Visitor/Transit Center would be relocated to the site of the Yosemite Village Store. The existing Yosemite Village Store building would either be rehabilitated or replaced.

As a result, visitor use at the new Visitor/Transit Center may be expected to increase compared to use of the existing visitor center, which is inconveniently located and has limited and poor display space. Relocation of the visitor center to a larger and more readily accessible site could improve the Association’s ability to provide effective information and orientation service as well as retail sales. It is expected that annual sales at the new Visitor/Transit Center could increase from its current revenues of $0.75 million. While the magnitude of the sales growth cannot be specifically projected, it is expected that the overall changes would represent a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact to the Association. It is also expected that these revenue increases would exceed any decreases in sales that may be associated with any reduction in park visitation (e.g., from lodging reductions).

Under this alternative, the Yosemite Association’s Valley office would be converted for use as a natural history museum. This would allow improvement of the existing cultural history museum within the existing museum building. The Yosemite Association expects these changes to have a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on its finances because it would be able to enlarge and improve the existing Museum Store.

Increases in Yosemite Association retail sales may require hiring additional retail employees. While the Yosemite Association cannot project the necessary staff increase, it does expect costs to be covered by the increased sales. However, the staff increases would exacerbate the housing problems noted above, potentially causing a long-term, minor, adverse impact.

Yosemite Institute

Numerous impacts to the Yosemite Institute are expected due to proposed changes to overnight accommodations, administrative park operations, transportation, research library, archives, and museum.

Overnight Accommodations

The reduction in the number of Curry Village tent cabins may affect the Yosemite Institute. Yosemite institute currently occupies approximately 80 units between September and June and generally uses the without-bath-cabins for its program participants. Under this alternative, the new economy accommodations proposed at Curry Village would add 112 units suitable for Yosemite Institute use throughout the winter. As a result, lodging capacity for Yosemite Institute participants is expected to be adequate.

Transportation

Proposed transportation plans would have a long-term, negligible, adverse impact on Yosemite Institute’s program, because most participants rely on commercial buses for their transportation needs, and all student visitors are overnight visitors. Yosemite Institute employees would welcome the opportunity to use public transportation to and from locations outside the Valley.

Administrative Park Operations

Under this alternative, Yosemite Institute’s administrative offices would be relocated outside the Valley into government-provided facilities in El Portal. The National Park Service would work with the Yosemite Institute and the primary concessioner to provide adequate facilities for the Institute’s field operations that operate in the Valley during the off-peak season. The purpose of these facilities would be to provide an adequate staging area and base of operations for the Yosemite Institute to perform the essential support activities necessary for its field operations. Relocation of their administrative park operations would represent a long-term, minor, adverse impact on Yosemite Institute’s education programs.

El Portal Chevron Station

Under this alternative, the overall number of visitors entering along Highway 140 is not expected to change. The majority of day visitors would continue to drive into the park or use the park transit system from the out-of-Valley parking sites. It is expected that there would be a moderate increase in visitors using transit or tour buses to access the Valley. Growth in bus traffic would increase the demand for diesel fuel, which would be expected to have a long-term, minor, beneficial impact on the station’s revenues. Correspondingly, the use of transit buses by day visitors parking at the El Portal satellite parking facilities would reduce the number of visitor vehicles using the station. Visitor fuel sales may therefore be expected to decrease; this would have a long-term, minor, adverse impact on the station’s annual revenues.

In addition, while the proposed increase in employees living in El Portal would generate a moderate increase in demand for automotive fuel, these gains would likely be offset by the reduction in the number of employees commuting daily into the Valley. Instead, these employees would be required to use the employee transit system. Overall, it is expected that this alternative would have a long-term, minor, adverse impact on the El Portal Chevron concession.

El Portal Market

Under this alternative, the El Portal Market would remain at its current location, and its facilities and operations would be unchanged through the term of the existing contract. The store’s primary source of customers is from park visitor traffic along Highway 140. It is expected that the use of transit or tour buses by day visitors would reduce private vehicle traffic and thus potential customers.

Although past population increases have not resulted in increased sales at the market, it is possible that the increase in employee housing at El Portal would result in a minor increase in revenues. Therefore, overall this alternative is expected to have a long-term, negligible, adverse impact on El Portal Market’s sales.

Concessioners and Cooperators Conclusion

Under this alternative, the proposed changes to park facilities are expected to have long-term, minor, adverse operational impacts on the primary concessioner operations (currently Yosemite Concession Services), mainly associated with locating new employee housing outside of the Valley. This action would (1) require many employees to commute into the Valley using the employee transit system, (2) reduce the number of staff available for work during road closures or other commuting difficulties, and (3) possibly reduce the concessioner’s ability to recruit future employees. In addition, relocation of the concessioner stable and primary garage services out of the Valley would require additional staff and equipment for these services.

The future primary concession operations would be expected to experience an $11.2 million decrease in annual profits. This loss could be partly offset by reducing the current or any future concessioner’s federal contribution from its current level of $9.9 million annually. However, even if the concessioner’s governmental contribution is eliminated to offset the concessioner’s profit loss, the concession would still be operating at a loss of $1.3 million per year. This would represent a long-term, major, adverse impact on concession operations, because this reduction in its net profit would make the concession operations financially infeasible.

Mitigation by the National Park Service would be expected to be provided to offset any such net profit loss to the concessioner. While the specific mitigation approaches that would be used are not currently known, it is expected that a combination of approaches would be used to offset the concessioner’s profit shortfall–thereby resulting in a negligible, adverse impact on the concessioner and ensuring the financial feasibility of the concessioner. Since the specific mitigation approaches cannot be determined at this point, the other impacts associated with mitigation cannot be identified and evaluated.

The reduction in Yosemite Medical Clinic operation due to decreased visitation and relocation of park employee housing would result in a long-term, minor, adverse impact.

The net impacts from proposed changes in visitor parking and visitation on the Ansel Adams Gallery are indeterminate.

The proposed changes to visitor interpretation facilities are expected to have a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact on the Yosemite Association by providing improved and increased retail sales opportunities. However, associated increases in employees and the limited employee housing for the Yosemite Association staff may have a long-term, moderate, adverse impact on the organization.

The proposed changes to overnight accommodations and park facilities would have a long-term, negligible, adverse impact on Yosemite Institute. Relocation of the program’s administrative office out of the Valley is expected to have a long-term, minor, adverse impact.

The proposed changes to visitor access and relocation of employee housing would have a long-term, minor, adverse impact on the El Portal Chevron Station, and a long-term, negligible, adverse impact on the El Portal Market.

Cumulative Impacts

Yosemite Concession Services

The cumulative impacts would be as described under Alternative 1. The primary concessioner would be expected to assume costs of additional future "repair and maintenance" on existing park facilities used for its operations, an estimated annual cost of $1.7 million. As a result, under this alternative, a total cumulative impact of a $3.0 million reduction to the current or any future concessioner’s operating profits is projected. This reduction is the combined effect of the $1.3 million projected profit loss by the concession and the $1.7 million additional repair and maintenance cost on existing park facilities used by the concessioner. This would represent a long-term, major, adverse impact on the concessioner; if the concessioner were unable to earn sufficient profit, it would not provide visitor services. As a result, to ensure the provision of visitor services and a concessioner’s future financial viability, the $3.0 million shortfall would need to be offset. If the $3.0 million shortfall is mitigated, the impact on the primary concessioner would be long-term, negligible, and adverse.

Potential mitigation approaches and their expected impacts for the $3.0 million profit shortfall that may be applied were discussed in the impact analysis for Yosemite Concession Services earlier in this section.

Other Concessioners and Cooperators

The cumulative impacts are as described under Alternative 1.

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE OPERATIONS

Superintendent’s Office

This alternative would have no impact on the Superintendent’s office staff or its annual funding requirements.

Maintenance and Operations

Under this alternative, the profit level of the primary concessioner would be reduced to the point that an additional $3 million annually would need to be mitigated (see Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, Social and Economic Environments, Alternative 2, Yosemite Concession Services discussion). If the concessioner is unable to make a fair and reasonable profit from its operations, the concessioner would presumably choose to discontinue operations in the absence of measures to mitigate this economic impact. Several possible mitigation methods have been identified. Some of these measures, if selected, could adversely impact park operations. Two such mitigation measures are changing the distribution of park entrance fee revenues and providing relief from building repair and maintenance costs. If either or both of these measures is used to offset impacts to the primary concessioner, National Park Service operating costs would increase. For example, the National Park Service would be responsible fro funding the building repair and maintenance costs no longer allocated to the primary concessioner. If entrance fees were allocated to the concessioner and diverted from other projects, either those projects would not go forward or the National Park Service would have to secure additional park operating funds. In combination with actions of this alternative, effects upon the Maintenance Operations Division would be long-term, moderate, and adverse.

Buildings and Grounds

To provide the levels of service considered necessary, it is estimated that approximately 22 additional buildings and grounds personnel would be needed under this alternative. This would represent approximately $825,000 in additional annual salary and operating costs. (Construction of new shuttle bus stops, more buildings, housing units, out of valley parking lots, picnic areas, and changes in building functions from administrative to public use would require additional custodial service and facility maintenance.)

Roads and Trails

To provide the levels of service considered necessary, it is estimated that approximately 29 additional roads and trails personnel would be needed. This would represent an additional cost of approximately $1,087,510 in annual salary and operating costs.

A new parking lot and transit center in the east Valley would require additional maintenance (equipment and staffing) for snow removal. Three new parking lots in out-of-Valley locations (two of which are located above the traditional snowline in the spring and fall seasons), would require maintenance equipment and staffing, primarily for snow removal. This would be a long-term commitment of fiscal resources.

An increase in trails in the Valley and El Portal would create workload that would impact the trails and forestry operation. Snow removal in the winter and hazard tree removal and trail repairs throughout the year would continue for the life of the new trail system.

If the stable were to move to McCauley Ranch, it would increase the travel time for packers to get to Valley trailheads but would decrease travel times to destinations in the Tioga Road corridor. Additional staffing and salary would be required to provide more pack trips or longer work shifts, as a result of adding travel time for pack trips leaving from Yosemite Valley trail heads.

The demand for trash pickup in the El Portal area and out-of-Valley parking areas would increase due to the relocation of administration functions, the increase in the number of housing units, and visitor-use areas.

Overall these actions would be a long-term, moderate, adverse impact on the roads and trails operations until operational needs are fully staffed and funded.

Utilities

It is estimated that approximately six additional utilities personnel would be needed to provide appropriate levels of service for new facilities. This would represent approximately $225,000 in additional annual salary and operations costs. Moving functions, constructing new buildings, and relocating utilities out of highly valued resource areas would necessitate the installation of longer service lines in many cases. New service connections and, in the case of the out-of-Valley parking areas, entirely new utility systems would require an increase in the annual maintenance and operational costs to provide these additional levels of service and to meet state and federal regulations for public utility systems.

Moving the stable to McCauley Ranch would increase the travel time for the backcountry utilities operation to Valley trailheads but would decrease travel times to destinations in the Tioga Road corridor.

The overall impact to maintenance operations would be long-term, moderate, and adverse until funding is provided to meet the need. Once funding and staffing are realized, then impacts to the Maintenance Division would be long-term, negligible, and neutral.

Visitor and Resource Operations

Visitor and Resource Protection

It is estimated that approximately 31 additional visitor protection personnel would be needed to provide appropriate levels of service. This would represent approximately $1,162,500 of additional salary and operating costs annually. Regular patrols would have to be expanded to serve out-of-Valley parking areas. Relocating the detention facility to El Portal would increase costs because of the time required for rangers to be away from their duty stations. During the summer months, as many as four rangers and two corrections officers would be in El Portal on a daily basis to transport prisoners from the detention facility in El Portal to the court system in Yosemite Valley. Additional structural fire protection would be required for the new buildings in El Portal and Yosemite Valley.

Relocating the base of operations for Search and Rescue from Yosemite Valley to El Portal would have the potential for minor, adverse impacts upon incident costs, in that activities in Yosemite Valley, where most complex rescues occur, would have more logistical costs than under Alternative 1. Coordination of Yosemite Valley operations would be more difficult, while coordination of activities in other parts of the park would potentially improve.

Overall, the impact to the Visitor and Resource Protection Division would be long-term, moderate, and adverse until full funding is received. Once funded, the impact would be long-term, negligible, and neutral.

Interpretation

Greatly expanded interpretive and educational facilities and programs would require a large increase in staffing for the Interpretation Division. The new museum and library with expanded public access would also require increased staffing. The Interpretation Division would have to operate additional visitor contact facilities and conduct additional interpretive programs. It is estimated that approximately 26 additional interpretive personnel would be needed to provide prescribed levels of service. This would represent approximately $975,000 in additional annual salary and operating costs. Overall, this alternative would have a long-term, major, adverse impact until fully funded. Once funded, the impact would be long-term, negligible, and neutral.

Resources Management

Restoration of impacted areas, continued monitoring of restoration efforts, mitigation measures to facilitate restoration resulting from changing visitor-use patterns, and expanded efforts working with the six culturally associated American Indian tribal groups would require an increase in staffing. Staffing and funding would be needed to implement the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) program. It is estimated that approximately seven additional resources management personnel would be needed to provide prescribed levels of services. This would represent approximately $262,500 in additional salary and operating costs annually, and would have a long-term, moderate, adverse impact on this operation until funded. Once funded, the impact would be long-term, negligible, and neutral.

Administration

Valley administrative operations would be shifted to El Portal. This would have a long-term, minor, adverse impact on administration operations as a result of increases in logistic maneuvering. Increased staffing in other program areas would require administrative operations to increase personnel by five for an approximate cost of $187,700.

Concessions Management

Management and monitoring of new concession operations and facilities would require one additional staff at approximately $37,500 annually. There would be an increase in costs for increasing the level of service required under this alternative during the period when concession services would be revised and refined.

Depending on the location chosen by the park’s principal concessioner for its headquarters, coordination and communication would potentially be more difficult than under Alternative 1. However, the adverse impact of communication and coordination difficulties would likely be moderate over the short term, becoming minor as both operations adjust to the new working environment.

CONCESSIONERS AND COOPERATORS

Impacts on park concessioners are evaluated under the Social and Economic Environments section of this chapter.

TRANSIT OPERATIONS

The annual recurring costs for operations and maintenance of the bus fleet for this alternative is estimated to be $10,131,000 if the out-of-Valley parking is located at Hazel Green. The annual recurring cost for operations and maintenance of the bus fleet for this alternative is estimated to be $7,755,000 if out-of-Valley parking is located at Foresta. These options would have long-term, moderate, and adverse impacts. Once funded, the impact would be long-term, negligible, and neutral.

CONCLUSION

This alternative would require that approximately 127 additional park personnel be added to current park staffing levels in the Maintenance Operations, Protection Operations, Interpretation, Resources Management, Administrative, and Concessions Divisions. This would require an additional $4,762,500 annually (or approximately $37,500 per person) in additional park funding for salary and operations costs above those discussed under Alternative 1. The cost for the additional park personnel would represent a long-term, moderate, adverse impact. Once funded, the impact would be long-term, negligible, and neutral.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative impacts would result from other park planning projects and regional activities. There could be a moderate increase in the workloads of the Maintenance Operations, Interpretation, and Resources Management divisions as a result of the transit system developed by the Yosemite Area Regional Transit System (YARTS), due to increased needs in facility maintenance, custodial services, visitor education, and resource monitoring. This would be a long-term, moderate, and adverse effect because of these workload increases. A long-term, minor, beneficial impact on Protection Operations would result from YARTS operation due to the alleviation of traffic congestion. These moderate effects, in combination with the moderate impacts of implementing park and Valley transit systems, would result in operational impacts that are long-term, major, and adverse in duration compared to Alternative 1.

The redesign of the South Entrance and Mariposa Grove areas would increase the workload of the Protection Operations, Maintenance Operations, and Resources Management Divisions in the short term during initial planning and implementation and cause short-term, minor, and adverse impacts. This project would require a long-term commitment and result in increased workloads for the Interpretation Division, a major adverse effect considering the costs. The Protection Operations and Maintenance Operations divisions would achieve long-term benefits when the project was completed due to decreased workloads for their operations. These effects, when considered in combination with the major impact of providing more interpretive services at improved visitor information centers, would result in long-term, moderate operational impacts.

Fire and wilderness management planning would increase the workloads of the Protection Operations and Resources Management Divisions. These efforts would have short-term, major, adverse impacts on both divisions. The workload of fire management staff would increase over the long term as a result of this planning effort. This alternative would create the need for planning, design, and program refinement, which would also have short-term, major, adverse impacts; cumulative impacts would remain major and adverse, but of short-term duration.

Numerous proposed residential and commercial developments along each entrance corridor would have no long-term, major, adverse impacts on operations, assuming that a traveler information and traffic management system would be developed and that the park would not provide emergency services to those areas. Should the park be required to provide emergency services to these areas, adverse impacts would be incurred unless cooperative agreements were adopted and financial support was available from the involved county governments. Moderate to major short-term adverse impacts would be expected during times of construction. Considered in combination with the actions in this alternative, adverse impacts upon Protection Operations would remain moderate to major and adverse in the long term.

A research station for the University of California Merced campus (UC Merced) would have a long-term, moderate to major benefit for the park as a whole resulting from educational and research support and the creation of a viable recruitment pool for new employees.

Many other in-park actions such as major campground rehabilitation, development concept planning, and water treatment plant rehabilitation (including water and wastewater improvements at Tuolumne Meadows and White Wolf), would have short-term, major, adverse impacts on staff availability during times of construction or development. When considered in combination with the actions in this alternative, the cumulative impact of these activities on park operations would remain major and adverse, in the short-term, but in the long term, the impact would be minor and beneficial.

Under Alternative 2, housing beds would be relocated from Yosemite Valley to El Portal, Wawona, and Foresta, and additional beds would be added to El Portal and Wawona to accommodate existing unmet needs and potential future growth as a result of operational changes associated with this alternative. Table 4-56 shows existing housing and estimated propane consumption for Alternative 1 and provides data for Alternative 2.

Under Alternative 2, there would be an increase of about 235% in propane consumption in El Portal, a 175% increase in Wawona, a 250% increase in Foresta, and a decrease of about 45% in the Valley. However, when combined, the overall propane consumption increase as a result of implementation of Alternative 2 would be 60,000 gallons per year, or 17%, which would represent a minor, long-term, adverse impact on propane consumption.

Table 4-57 lists estimated fuel consumption for visitor-related travel to and from the Valley due to the Alternative 2 transportation plans, and additional out-of-Valley employee commuting due to the relocation of residences from the Valley to El Portal, Wawona, and Foresta. By 2015, Alternative 2 would result in a 54% decrease in visitor-related gasoline consumption, and a 160% increase in diesel (or alternative) fuel consumption. This increase would be associated with the new shuttle buses operating from out-of-Valley day-visitor parking areas and the expanded Valley shuttle service.

A 54% decrease in gasoline consumption by the year 2015 would represent a savings of 1,341,800 gallons over Alternative 1, whereas the 160% increase in diesel (or alternative) fuel consumption represents an increase of 335,500 gallons over Alternative 1. Overall, Alternative 2 by the year 2015 would yield a combined savings of 1,006,300 gallons of fuel. This is a net decrease from Alternative 1 in motor fuel consumption of approximately 37% and would represent a moderate, long-term, beneficial impact. Similar energy savings would be achieved for years 2005 and 2010, as well.

CONCLUSION

Employee housing space-heating consumption would decrease in the Valley, but would increase at El Portal and Wawona during the 2000-2015 time frame. Overall, there would be a minor increase in total housing units in Alternative 2 and an associated long-term, minor, adverse impact on home energy consumption.

The reduction in gasoline consumption in 2015 relative to Alternative 1 reflects the shift by park visitors from private vehicles to shuttle buses, as well as a fleet turnover to vehicles with improved fuel economy over time. The increase in shuttle fuel consumption would be attributable to the deployment of diesel or alternatively fueled shuttle buses for visitors and employees. The combined fuel consumption savings for Alternative 2 in the years 2005, 2010, and 2015 would represent a moderate, long-term, beneficial impact.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

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

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

These Merced expansion plans represent an increase of approximately 30% in the estimated population of Merced County, and a corresponding increase in housing, vehicles, and related energy consumption. Analogous increases for Madera County would be approximately 25%. Alternative 2, however, would represent a minimal contribution to the overall cumulative impact because the net increase in employee housing for Alternative 2 would be only about 1% of new housing projected for the region.

| Table of Contents | Environmental Consequences | Alternative 1 | Alternative 2 |
| Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 |

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